Removal of an officer of a political subdivision of the State for misconduct, maladministration, malfeasance or malversation in office
Matter of Hedman v Town Bd. of Town of Howard, 56 AD3d 1287
Matter of Hedman v Town Bd. of Town of Howard, 56 AD3d 1287
§36 of the Public Officers Law provides for the removal of an officer of a town, a village, an improvement district or a fire district, [other than a justice of the peace], found guilty of misconduct, maladministration [performing official duties corruptly or inefficiently], malfeasance [performing official duties inadequately or poorly], or malversation [misuse of public or other funds] while holding public office.
In this action it was alleged that a member of the Town Board attempted to conceal his relationship with an alternate energy company, and ignored an alleged conflict of interest that arose when he voted to approve a wind energy facility proposed by company that included installing a wind turbine on the Board member’s property.
The Appellate Division, citing Jones v Filkins, 238 AD2d 954, said that the removal of an official from office pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 "generally will not be granted absent allegations of self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust[,]” while allegations of “minor neglect of duties, administrative oversights, or violations of law do not, in general, warrant removal."
The court decided no an actual conflict of interest that would warrant the removal of the Board member had been shown, explaining that the submitted evidence in support of the alleged conflict of interest that consisted solely of company's proposal for a wind energy facility in which Board member was identified as a proposed participating landowner on whose property a wind turbine would be located.
In contrast, the Appellate Division said that the Board member had established that he had not entered into any agreement with company with respect to a wind turbine at the time he voted on the proposal in favor of the company's plan for a wind energy facility. Further, the court said that the allegation that Board member had intentionally concealed his relationship with company “was based on pure speculation and thus was not entitled to any evidentiary weight.”
The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at: