Jamestown Municipal Building
By Eric Tichy and Julia Ciesla-Hanley
etichy@post-journal.com wrfanews@reglenna.com
Editor’s note: The following story is a collaboration between The Jamestown Post-Journal and 107.9 FM WRFA-LP.
Several Jamestown employees were among more than 200 local residents to receive grant funding administered by the city for various housing projects.
The grant awards to at least nine city workers, including two from the department that collected the applications, appear to go against past policy that largely limited employees from benefiting from a locally-administered program.
More than $500,000 in Housing Repair Mini Grant assistance was made available this summer through the American Rescue Plan Act — the economic stimulus bill meant to help the country rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Only city residents were eligible to apply for the repair grant funds, intended to “bring the home up to proper housing standards as defined by the current New York State and City of Jamestown Building Code,” the 10-page application notes.
In all, 207 area residents were each approved for the maximum $2,500 award from the initial pool of $500,000. One of the awardees was Kasie Foulk, the city’s deputy director of Housing Policy and Development whose name appears on the application. Another was Ellen Shadle, the city’s principal planner.
Both Foulk and Shadle work within the Department of Development where the applications were collected. A city firefighter and police officer also were awarded a slice of the ARPA funds.
Crystal Surdyk, city director of development, said Foulk did not review or approve her own application. She contends there is nothing in the city’s Code of Ethics or general municipal law that prohibits city employees from being eligible to receive state or federal grants due to the nature of their employer.
“As such,” she said, “we feel that considering city employee’s applications, and granting them the same funds, that all other taxpaying property owners are eligible for, is not only not unethical, but proper and fair as they are members of our community, our neighbors, our family members, our friends, and our stakeholders.”
Surdyk said funding recipients also “invested their own money into improvements into their properties as well, all of which benefits all of the property owners in the city.”
She added, “By improving their properties, they are ensuring that property values are maintained or increased which is beneficial to everyone.”
To be eligible for the grant, homeowners could not have any existing code violations; must have owned and occupied the property for at least one year; must have been current on mortgage payments; and must have homeowner’s insurance.
Funds can be used for repairs to porches, sidewalks and driveways, as well as painting and siding, and junk and debris removal, among other activities.
‘FIRM POLICY’
Former Mayor Sam Teresi, who served as city development director for 12 years prior to being elected mayor in 1999, said the city had a “firm policy” backed up by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that “prohibits all city employees and their immediate family members, including parents, grandparents, siblings, and children from participating in and receiving money from any publicly funded and city administered initiative.”
He continued, “Whether it’s rooted in State General Municipal Law or in Federal Code of Regulations, this was our policy for the 36 years I was involved in these programs, whether it was above and beyond state and federal policies, because it was the ethical and right thing to do.
“Municipal employees and their family members should not be getting funding from programs they’re directly operating or their employer is operating at the expense of the 99% other residents of the City of Jamestown who may want to participate in these programs. We were applauded by state and federal agencies for this policy.”
Teresi alluded to Section 21-3-C of the city’s Code of Ethics, which states city employees, “Shall not receive or enter into any agreement, express or implied, for compensation for services to be rendered in relation to any matter before any municipal agency of which they are an officer, member or employee or of any municipal agency over which they have jurisdiction or to which they have the power to appoint any member, officer or employee.”
Section 801 of state General Municipal Law echoes this language and further states in Section 804 that “any contract willfully entered into by or with a municipality in which there is an interest prohibited by this article shall be null, void and wholly unenforceable.”
ENTITLED TO SAME BENEFITS
Surdyk said it would be “detrimental” to exclude city employees from applying for such programs. Many workers, she said, live in the city and dedicate their lives to the betterment of the community.
She said, “It would be irrational to disincentivize them from living in the city and force them to choose between being eligible for the same assistance all other property owners are eligible for, and being employed to provide services to a city and community that has shown them by disqualifying them that they are undervalued, and that their tax dollars are not worth the same that everyone else’s are.”
Mark Davies, a professor at Fordham University, seems to agree, telling The Post-Journal and WRFA-FM there’s nothing unethical about employees receiving funds from a program administered by the same municipality — as long as the workers themselves aren’t involved in the decision-making process and aren’t receiving special treatment.
He said general ethics principles state employees can’t use their position to obtain a benefit from their employer, such as “jumping the queue.”
“Just because you’re a government employee doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to benefits from the government,” said Davies who, for more than two decades, served as executive director and counsel of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.
“Again, you can’t be involved in granting the benefits,” he said. “You can’t get some kind of special deal or something like that. You can’t disadvantage people just because they work for the government.”
It’s also not the first time the city’s use of ARPA funds has come into question. In the last year, the Jamestown Local Development Corp. board approved allocating ARPA money to a board member, a board member’s spouse, and the place of employment for another board member.
In all three instances, the board members in question either recused themselves or did not attend the voting session. However, the JLDC by-laws are clear in stating that no funding will be awarded to any business where a board member owns a material interest.
Mayor Eddie Sundquist said his administration received confirmation from Congressman Nick Langworthy‘s office that use of the funds by JLDC was appropriate, given that the funds were “separate federal funds being given for a recovery purpose.”
However, Langworthy’s office said it “never communicated with the Mayor or his office on this issue.”
Leave a Reply