Public and staff debate changes to ethics code language; trustees asked to expand recruitment outreach

A public commenter and staff clashed gently over how the village should reconstitute its ethics board as trustees consider edits to Section 27‑21 of the village code. Marilyn Stevens told trustees she found no explicit edits to paragraphs b–e in the packet and asked whether the proposed changes included those subsections; she recommended more outreach for vacancies and that the village attorney or a short‑term resident panel review applicants rather than leaving initial screening to the mayor and one trustee.

An official presenting the draft (speaker 4) said the changes mainly add clarifying language and staggered terms for a five‑member board. The presenter confirmed that renumbering occurred because a new paragraph was added and described appointment timing: one member to finish the current year, others to terms ending in 2027–2029, followed by four‑year terms to establish staggering. Speaker 4 said the draft includes a provision that—if three or more vacancies occur—the mayor and one trustee would conduct the initial review and recommend candidates for a supermajority appointment, noting this was intended to make administration easier where a full board could not interview candidates.

Why it matters: Revisions to Section 27‑21 determine who screens and recommends ethics‑board candidates, how vacancies are filled and whether the village’s public‑appointment process is sufficiently transparent. A resident urged a more inclusive solicitation process and that vacancy notices be published for two meetings and included in meeting minutes.

Supporting details: Marilyn asked the board to place vacancy announcements on the trustees’ agenda for two meetings, produce a formal vacancy announcement, and include vacancies in meeting minutes; she also suggested the village attorney conduct initial reviews or convene a short‑term panel of residents if the attorney has a conflict. Speaker 4 said the current draft requires a supermajority for appointment and that the board itself conducts interviews when it exists; when not possible the mayor and one trustee were proposed to make an initial review to avoid procedural blockage.

Next steps: Speaker 4 said the board can set a public hearing at the next meeting and, if adopted after the hearing, forward the local law to Albany for filing. The transcript records discussion and a proposal to proceed to public hearing, but no final adoption of the local law at this meeting.