COIB Case No
IN THE MATTER OF HOWARD SAFIR
COIB Case No. 99-115
August 16, 2000
SUMMARY: In 2000, the Board announced that it had rebuked former NYC Police Commissioner Howard Safir for accepting a free trip to the 1999 Academy Awards festivities in Los Angeles. Revlon was the donor of the trip, valued at over $7,000. The Board defined for the first time the duties of high-level public servants to inquire about the business dealings of the donor. Because this was the first public announcement of this duty in the context of gifts, and the business dealings of Revlon were small and difficult to discover, the Board declined to charge Safir with violating the Board's Valuable Gift Rule, which prohibits public servants from accepting gifts valued at $50 or more from persons they know or should know engage or intend to engage in business dealings with the City. Safir repaid the cost of the trip.
STIPULATION AND DISPOSITION
Re: Acceptance of Valuable Gift
Dear Commissioner Safir:
We are writing to you in connection with complaints received by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board (the "Board") concerning the circumstances surrounding your trip to Los Angeles, California, and your attendance at the Academy Awards Ceremony (the "Oscars") from March 20, 1999 to March 22, 1999. Revlon, Inc. ("Revlon") paid, at least initially, for the trip, which has been valued in excess of $7,000, including travel, entertainment, and hotel accommodations (hereafter the "Oscar Trip").
Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter (the "Charter"), § 2604(b)(5) (the "Gift Rule") regulates public servants' receipt of valuable gifts. Among other things, the rule forbids a public servant's receipt of a gift which has a value of $50 or more from any person or firm that the public servant knows is or intends to become engaged in business dealings with the City. For purposes of the Gift Rule, the same restriction applies to gifts from affiliates or constituents of a corporation that the public servant knew or should have known was doing business with the City. See the Rules of the Board, Vol. 12, Title 53, Rules of the City of New York (the "Rules of the Board"), § 1-01(a). Further, for purposes of this rule, we now decide that a public servant who did not actually "know," but "should have known," of the donor's business dealings with the City is subject to civil penalty (but not criminal sanction). Charter § 2604(a)(6).
The Board has not previously had occasion to address the application of the Gift Rule to a public servant who, because of an erroneous but good faith belief that accepting a gift was permissible under the rule because it was conveyed by a personal friend, failed to make any inquiry about whether the corporate donor, directly or through an affiliate, was doing business with the City. Were we presented with persuasive evidence that a public servant's failure to make inquiry was a willful attempt to avoid learning of a donor's business dealings with the City, we would readily conclude that the employee had actual knowledge of these business dealings and violated the Gift Rule. In the circumstances presented here, the employee's lack of knowledge about the corporate donor's business dealings with the City results from the employee's failure to obtain information necessary to comply with Chapter 68 and the Rules of the Board. Nonetheless, because the Gift Rule applies to a public servant who did not actually "know," but "should have known" of the donor's business dealings with the City, this case presents the Board with its first opportunity to consider the following: (1) whether the failure to make any inquiry about a donor's business dealings with the City is excusable because of a misunderstanding of the Gift Rule; (2) the proper interpretation of the "should have known" language of the Gift Rule in the context of non-willful failure to make a diligent inquiry; and (3) what constitutes a reasonable inquiry under the Gift Rule.
At the time Revlon provided you the Oscar Trip, Revlon was engaged in business dealings with the City through its affiliate, One East Management Co. ("One East"), which you had personally approved to participate in the Police Department's Paid Detail Program (the "Program"). As described below, under standards announced by the Board in this letter, whether or not you "should have known" about Revlon's business dealings depends on whether you made a reasonable inquiry about those business dealings. Because Revlon was a large corporation located in New York City, you were alerted to the possibility that Revlon was doing business with the City, and therefore, before accepting the gift, you should have taken steps to determine whether or not Revlon, directly or through an affiliate, was indeed doing business with the City. Even if you did not have actual knowledge of Revlon's business dealings with the Police Department, you should have known of Revlon's business dealings with the City through its affiliate, One East, because you failed to make any inquiry and some reasonable inquiry may have disclosed them. In light of the Board's new pronouncement of the duties of inquiry necessary for compliance with the Gift Rule, the Board declines to charge you with violating the Gift Rule.
FACTS
A. Your Relationship With George Fellows
We understand that you met George Fellows, then President and Chief Executive Officer of Revlon, in December 1998 at the home of a mutual friend. You next met with Mr. Fellows in February 1999, when you and Mr. Fellows, along with your spouses, dined together at a restaurant in Manhattan. At some point during your two meetings, Mr. Fellows invited you and your wife to join him at the Oscars.
B. Your Trip To The Oscars
In March 1999, we are informed, you and your wife were Fellows' guests aboard a private jet leased by Revlon. You flew from Teterboro Airport in New Jersey to Los Angeles on Saturday, March 20, 1999. We are further informed that you and your wife stayed in the Peninsula Beverly Hills Hotel as guests of Revlon. In addition, you and your wife obtained tickets to the Oscars from Revlon, and attended the Oscars show, which was telecast on Sunday, March 21, 1999. Neither you nor your wife paid for the cost of the transportation, lodgings, or tickets to the Oscars. You returned to New York City by commercial airline at your own expense on Monday, March 22, 1999, sometime in the early morning, and your wife returned by the Revlon jet sometime after you returned to New York.
C. Relevant Business Contacts With The City
One East Management Co. ("One East") is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MacAndrews & Forbes ("MacAndrews"), and MacAndrews is also Revlon's parent. One East is the signatory on a written agreement with the Police Department to participate in the Paid Detail Program (the "Program"), and MacAndrews, One East, and Revlon were the actual participants in and beneficiaries of the security provided by the Program. Under the Program, NYPD police officers may serve as part-time security guards for private firms and must wear their NYPD uniforms during the course of their private employment. You signed the New York City Police Department Paid Detail Agreement in which One East is identified as the "Vendor" (the "One East Agreement" or the "Vendor Agreement"), in the spring of 1998. Our investigation has revealed that attached to the Vendor Agreement at the time you signed it was Mafco Holdings, Inc.'s "Certificate of Liability Insurance." Mafco Holdings, Inc. is identified as the "Insured," and the New York City Police Department is identified as the "Certificate Holder." Mafco Holdings, Inc. is, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the holding company for the MacAndrews group of companies. Ronald Perelman wholly owns and controls MacAndrews and also owns and controls Revlon and One East. Our investigation has revealed that Revlon and its affiliates used the services of police officers hired through the Program.
In the One East Vendor Agreement Sheet (the "Program Application") the vendor/company for the Program is identified as "MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.," the agent and contact person is identified as "Mr. Tosano J. Simonetti," [FN1] and the location of the detail is described as "E 63rd St bet[ween] Madison & Park Ave, S/A 36 E 63 St." [FN2] A Dun & Bradstreet Report on Mafco Holdings, Inc. shows the "MacAndrews & Forbes Group, Inc." and a MacAndrews affiliate, "First Nationwide Holdings," at that address. The NYPD Intelligence Division, which investigates firms that apply to the Program, conducted a Dun & Bradstreet check on MacAndrews, and performed Vendex searches of "MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.," "Simonetti," and "625 Madison Ave." One of the printouts obtained by the Intelligence Division revealed that "Revlon Government Sales I" had been a City vendor several years prior to the Intelligence Division's investigation. We are informed that the Program Application and the results of the Intelligence Division's investigation revealing the connections among One East, MacAndrews, and Revlon were not among the materials presented to you and, therefore, you did not know at the time you signed the Vendor Agreement that One East was affiliated with Revlon. Moreover, according to your representations to the Board, prior to accepting the Oscar trip, you had no personal knowledge that Revlon and MacAndrews, through One East, participated in the Program.
DISCUSSION
Charter § 2604(b)(5) provides that
“No public servant shall accept any valuable gift, as defined by rule of the board, from any person or firm which such public servant knows is or intends to become engaged in business dealings with the city, except that nothing contained herein shall prohibit a public servant from accepting a gift which is customary on family and social occasions.”
The Rules of the Board, § 1-01(a), define a "valuable gift" as "any gift to a public servant which has a value of $50.00 or more, whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise, or in any other form." [FN3] Thus, acceptance of a gift valued at $50 or more from a person or firm the public servant knows is or intends to become engaged in business dealings with the City is a violation of this provision, unless the gift is from a relative or close personal friend and is one that is customary on a family or social occasion. [FN4] You have advised the Board that the Oscar Trip was taken at the invitation of a friend and was offered in connection with the friendship between yourself and Mr. Fellows, and not because of your professional affiliation. However, the gift of a valuable trip under the circumstances presented here does not fall within the "customary on family or social occasions" exception to the Gift Rule. Specifically, given that Mr. Fellows offered you this trip on your first or second meeting, we find that he could not qualify as your close personal friend, nor do we find this trip to have been customary on a family or social occasion. [FN5] Because the application of the Gift Rule in other cases depends upon the meaning ascribed to these undefined terms, we take this opportunity to state that public servants who accept gifts because they erroneously believe the donors qualify as close personal friends will do so at their peril. It is always the better practice to seek the advice of the Board before accepting gifts.”
A. Valuable Gift
In this matter, the trip (for you and your wife), including travel aboard the Revlon jet, the hotel accommodations and meals, and the tickets to the Oscars, is valued well in excess of $50, and, therefore, the trip constitutes a "valuable gift" under the Board's Gift Rule.
B. Business Dealings With The City
Revlon and its affiliates were engaged in "business dealings with the city," as that term is defined in Charter § 2601(8), through participation in the Program. One East paid approximately $6,000 in administrative fees to the Police Department, that amount representing 10% of the amount if paid directly to police officers assigned under the Program in 1998 and 1999 ($27 per hour or about $60,000 in total).
C. For Purposes Of The Gift Rule, The Gift From Revlon Is Treated As A Gift From Revlon's Affiliate, One East, Which Had Business Dealings With The City
For purposes of the Gift Rule, you received, in effect, a gift from an entity doing business with the City, One East, because it is an affiliate of Revlon. Gifts from affiliates are aggregated and treated as single gifts in a twelve- month period from the same donor. For example, Rule of the Board § 1-01(a) provides that for purposes of determining whether a gift or gifts are valued at more than $50, two or more gifts to a public servant within a twelve-month period will be deemed a single gift if "they are given by persons who the public servant knows or should know are ... directors, trustees, or employees of the same firm or affiliated firms." Thus, the Rules of the Board contemplate that a public servant who accepts gifts from affiliated firms may be in violation of § 2604(b)(5).
An affiliate of Revlon [FN6] had business dealings directly with the Police Department as the signatory on the Vendor Agreement. [FN7] Officers reported to Revlon headquarters to receive their instructions and assignments within the MacAndrews family of companies. The Charter's Gift Rule must be interpreted to reach situations such as the one in this case, or firms doing business with the City will be permitted to use their affiliates to pass otherwise prohibited gifts to public servants. This would eviscerate the Charter's Gift Rule and subvert the very spirit of the conflicts of interests law. Cf. Holtzman v. Oliensis, 91 N.Y.2d 488, 673 N.Y.S.2d 23 (1998) (Fleet Bank and Fleet Securities treated as one for purposes of evaluating official's conduct).
D. Your Knowledge Of The Business Dealings With The City
The Board has not previously reached the question of what constitutes the requisite "knowledge" of business dealings with the City under the Gift Rule, Charter § 2604(b)(5). However, the Charter makes it clear that for purposes of the Gift Rule, actual knowledge of the business dealings is not required in circumstances where the public servant "should have known" of those business dealings. See Charter § 2604(a)(6) ("For the purposes of subdivisions a and b of section twenty-six hundred six [the contract voiding and civil fine provisions], a public servant shall be deemed to know of a business dealing with the city if such public servant should have known of such business dealing with the city"). [FN8]
You have represented to the Board that at the time you accepted the trip to the Oscars you knew that Revlon and MacAndrews were corporate affiliates but did not know that Revlon and MacAndrews, through One East, were engaged in business dealings with the Department. However, you made no inquiry to determine whether Revlon, a large New York-based corporation, or its affiliates had such business dealings with the City generally or with the Police Department in particular. [FN9] You made no such inquiry apparently because you believed the Gift Rule inapplicable because of your friendship with Mr. Fellows. As discussed above, the exception to the Gift Rule, permitting a public servant to accept a gift that is "customary on family or social occasions" from a close personal friend, was plainly inapplicable here, and, as is ordinarily true, one's ignorance or misunderstanding of the applicable conflicts rules is no defense. [FN10]
Public servants are at risk if they accept a gift without inquiring whether the donor or one of its affiliates has current or intended business dealings with the City. That is because, under the Charter, a public servant violates the Gift Rule not only if he "knows" of the donor's business dealings with the City [FN11] but also if the public servant "should have known" of those business dealings. This means that, when a gift is offered by a party who may have, or intend to have, business dealings with the City, the public servant may not ignore that possibility, but must make a reasonable inquiry before accepting the offered gift. This responsibility is not a particularly onerous one, however. All that the "should have known" standard implies in these circumstances is an inquiry that is reasonable under the circumstances, not an exhaustive inquiry into the would-be donor's business dealings.
Whether a public servant's inquiry is a reasonable one will depend on the nature of the donor, the nature of the resources at the command of the public servant, and the amount of time in which to decide whether to accept or decline the gift. [FN12] At the very least, the public servant can generally ask the would-be donor whether the donor (or, in the case of a company representative, the donor's employer or its affiliates) has a business relationship with the City and, if so, of what nature. Further, there will ordinarily be resources available to the public servant within his or her own agency or within other agencies (including the Conflicts of Interest Board) to assist in determining whether the donor has a business relationship with the City. What other measures are available to the public servant will, of course, vary. A high- ranking agency official may have greater resources than a clerical employee, and officials within certain agencies (e.g., the Police Department or the Department of Investigation) may have greater resources than those within other agencies. [FN13] It is not a misuse of City resources for a public servant to take advantage of them for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the conflicts of interest rules.
Under this standard, a public servant who conducts a reasonable, but incomplete, inquiry does not violate the Gift Rule simply because a more diligent inquiry would have uncovered that the donor or its affiliate was doing business with the City. However, a public servant who fails to conduct a reasonable inquiry (or any inquiry at all) before accepting a gift will be charged with knowledge of the donor's business dealings with the City if any reasonable inquiry would have revealed them. Of course, if the donor's business relationship or, as would more likely be the case, the donor's intention to do business with the City, is so well hidden or obscure that no reasonable inquiry could have discovered it, one cannot fairly say that the public servant "should have known" of it, and this will be true even if the public servant failed to conduct any inquiry whatsoever. However, where the public servant conducts no inquiry and some reasonable measures would have disclosed the donor's business dealings with the City, it is no defense that certain other reasonable measures would not have found the business dealings.
In this case, we conclude that had you conducted a reasonable inquiry of Revlon and its affiliates, such an inquiry may have disclosed such business dealings. That is not to say, however, that those business dealings inevitably would have been discovered. It is not at all clear here that you would have discovered Revlon's connection to the Program had you asked your subordinates to find out whether Revlon had City business. This is so because of: the limited extent of Revlon's own use of the Program (one event for the duration of One East Agreement, signed in May of 1998); the relatively small amount of the City business (the $6,000 in administrative fees paid by One East to the Police Department); the absence of a computerized database of Police Department files that would have identified Revlon as having business dealings with the City; the fact that the relevant files were kept as Paid Detail Program files under the One East name; and the absence of Revlon's name in the contract database showing current major City contracts (i.e., Vendex). Nevertheless, we have no reason to doubt that had you asked Revlon or its representatives whether Revlon or any of its affiliates had business dealings with the City, you could have discovered those dealings.
CONCLUSION
The Board concludes that had you sought the Board's advice before accepting the trip, the Board would have advised you that you may not accept the gift. However, based on the facts before the Board, and because here we for the first time define the extent of the duties of inquiry necessary for compliance with the gifts provision in Chapter 68 of the Charter, we decline to charge you with violation of Charter § 2604(b)(5).
The Board now takes this opportunity to set forth the inquiry that should be undertaken by a public servant who is offered a gift when the public servant does not know whether the donor is doing business with the City. First, if there is any issue about whether the donor qualifies as a "close personal friend" within the exception to the Gift Rule, the public servant should contact the Board for advice. Second, the public servant must make inquiry reasonable under the circumstances to learn facts that will permit him or her to determine whether the donor of the gift is engaged in business dealings with the City. As to what inquiry is reasonable, this determination will depend on the particular facts of each case. Usually, inquiry of the donor should be combined with an independent check of available City resources to discover business dealings with the City. Some of the factors that will be considered by the Board in determining what constitutes reasonable inquiry in particular circumstances include, but are not limited to: (1) the identity of the donor (personal or corporate); (2) the public servant's office or rank (high-ranking public servants are subject to greater scrutiny and face a special obligation to avoid appearances of impropriety); (3) whether the public servant asked the donor if it has business dealings with the City and requested a list of its affiliates and identification of their City business dealings; (4) the resources available to the public servant (a Police Commissioner, for example, should be better able to determine whether a potential donor is engaged in business dealings with the City than a staff member of the Art Commission); (5) whether the public servant conducted rudimentary investigations by asking agency personnel to identify City business dealings of the donor and its affiliates and checking regular indices of City business dealings (for example, Vendex, FISA) of a donor, including corporate donors and their affiliates; (6) whether the public servant consulted with his or her agency general counsel or the Board's staff for advice prior to accepting the gift; (7) whether the donor of the gift is a company that the public servant can reasonably expect will have business dealings with the City; and (8) whether the public servant has access to information that will confirm whether the donor of the gift is engaged in business dealings with the City.
As Police Commissioner, you could have made reasonable use of the resources in place at the Department to determine whether the donor of your gift had any business dealings with the City. In addition, you could have requested from the donor of the gift a list of corporate affiliates of Revlon and determined whether those affiliates have any business dealings with the City. If these steps seem onerous, all gifts can be prohibited, as some agencies have done. [FN14] A public servant, particularly a high-ranking one such as yourself, should studiously avoid any conduct that undermines the public trust and confidence in government. [FN15] See Charter § 2600.
If, in the future, you have any questions regarding the propriety of accepting any gift, you should contact the Board's staff to inquire at (212) 442-1400. They are available to answer requests for advice, and if the situation is one in which the public servant requires a quick response to the request for advice, the staff and the Board will expedite such requests when appropriate and feasible. Pursuant to your waiver of confidentiality with respect to this letter, it is being made public.
Very truly yours,
Benito Romano
Acting Chair
Bruce A. Green
Board Member
Jane W. Parver
Board Member
FN1. Tosano Simonetti was your First Deputy Police Commissioner and is your appointee to the Civilian Complaint Review Board. As you know, in early 1997, Mr. Simonetti retired from the Police Department and began to work for MacAndrews as head of security. Contemporaneous newspaper articles identify Mr. Simonetti's new employer as "MacAndrews & Forbes, Perelman's holding company." Newsday, February 21, 1997, Queens Edition, p. A07. See also Daily News, February 20, 1997, p. 24.
FN2. We have determined that Revlon's offices are located at 625 Madison Avenue and One East's offices are located at 38 East 63rd Street.
FN3. The phrase "business dealings with the city" is defined in Charter § 2601(8) as "any transaction with the city involving the sale, purchase, rental, disposition or exchange of any goods, services, or property, any license, permit, grant or benefit, and any performance of or litigation with respect to any of the foregoing, but shall not include any transaction involving a public servant's residence or any ministerial matter."
FN4. The Rules of the Board, § 1-01(c), permit a public servant to accept gifts that are customary on family or social occasions from a family member or close personal friend who, the public servant knows, is or intends to become engaged in business dealings with the City when:
(1) it can be shown under all relevant circumstances that it is the family or personal relationship rather than the business dealings that is the controlling factor; and
(2) the public servant's receipt of the gift would not result in or create the appearance of:
“(i) using his or her office for private gain;
(ii) giving preferential treatment to any person or entity;
(iii) losing independence or impartiality; or
(iv) accepting gifts or favors for performing official duties.”
FN5. We note that the Gift Rule also contains numerous other exceptions, such as gifts of travel-related expenses that can be considered gifts to the City under specified circumstances, and awards and plaques valued at less than $150 if publicly presented in recognition of public service. See generally Gift Rule § 1-01 for the complete listing of the exceptions as to which the Board can advise public servants.
FN6. We consider Revlon to be the donor of the gift because, as we have been informed, Revlon initially paid for all expenses relating to your trip. That Fellows subsequently reimbursed Revlon for the cost of the accommodations and the meals only, not the cost of the air travel, does not affect this determination, as the initial donor was Revlon. Cf. Advisory Opinion No. 96-3 (public servant may not accept a gift worth more than $50 from any person or firm which such public servant knows is or intends to become engaged in business dealings with the City, even if the public servant offers to pay for the portion of the gift that exceeds $50.)
FN7. Revlon used the Program's officers for one event.
FN8. See the Charter Revision Report at 173 ("[u]nder paragraph six a public servant is deemed to have knowledge of the business dealing if the public servant should have known of such business dealing; actual knowledge is not required in order to find that a violation occurred").
FN9. Cf. Elizabeth Holtzman, COIB Case No. 93-121, Decision and Order (Apr. 3, 1996) (the "Holtzman Decision and Order"), aff'd, Holtzman v. Oliensis, 91 N.Y.2d 488, 673 N.Y.S.2d 23 (1998) (Holtzman, then City Comptroller, obtained a campaign loan from Fleet Bank and participated in selecting Fleet Securities, an affiliate of Fleet Bank, as a co-manager of a City bond issue). While the Holtzman case did not involve an interpretation of the Gift Rule, the case did reach the issue of what a public official knew or should have known about certain business dealings with the City. In Holtzman, the Board, relying on Charter § 2604(a)(6), held that a public servant should have known of the facts underlying the business dealings that constituted a violation of the Charter. As the Board explained, "[t]he Charter requires that public officials exercise reasonable care in ascertaining all the relevant facts necessary for compliance with its ethics provisions." Holtzman Decision and Order, at 30-31 (emphasis added). The Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's determination.
FN10. The Board has reviewed similar proposed actions by public servants who requested advice in advance and found that such actions, if undertaken by the public servants, would create an appearance of impropriety in violation of the Charter. See Charter § 2604(b)(3) (prohibiting use of official position for private gain). In those cases, the Board has prohibited the proposed conduct. See Advisory Opinion No. 92-23 (it would be improper for an elected City official to accept two airline tickets from a common carrier to a destination outside the State because the circumstances under which the tickets were given to the official could create the appearance that the official received the tickets solely because of his official position); Advisory Opinion No. 92-10 (elected official could not properly accept an invitation from a firm having no business dealings with the City to an event at a resort located outside the State because, in the absence of a governmental purpose, acceptance of the trip may create the appearance that the official received a valuable gift solely because of his City position); Advisory, Opinion No. 90-3 (an elected official's acceptance of a trip to a foreign country from a private philanthropic organization which had no business dealings with the City may give rise to an appearance that the gift was made to lobby or solicit the goodwill of the official). See also Advisory Opinion No. 94-12 (official must return ceremonial sword presented at ribbon cutting ceremony because it could appear gift was only given because of status as public servant).
FN11. This includes situations where a public servant deliberately disregards facts establishing the donor's business relationship with the City. That is, a public servant "knows" of City business dealings if the facts known to the public servant would have put a reasonable person on notice of the business dealings, especially when the public servant turns a blind eye to such facts in conscious avoidance of their significance, even if the public servant does not acknowledge the significance of those facts.
FN12. That only a short time was available to a public servant to make the appropriate inquiry will rarely be dispositive because, in our view, public servants who are in doubt can always decline the gift.
FN13. The Board has cited the special duty of high-ranking public officials to make extra efforts to avoid conduct that would create an appearance of impropriety. Thus, the Board has found that "high-level officials, whose conduct is so much more visible than that of other public servants, have a special obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety." Advisory Opinion No. 90-5, at 6. Cf. Holtzman Decision and Order, at 28-29.
FN14. The Police Department's gift guidelines, while not binding on the Board, are instructive. City agencies may devise gift rules that are stricter than the Board's rules, see Board rules § 1-01(j), and the Police Department has issued such internal guidelines. These guidelines prohibit members of the service from accepting even a free cup of coffee under circumstances that could give rise to an appearance of impropriety. Patrol Guide Procedure No. 104-3, General Guidelines for Members of the Service Concerning the Acceptance of Gifts and Other Compensation (Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Legal Matters, September 1992) states in pertinent part that "[i]n most instances, any 'free' offer from a commercial establishment usually comes with the expectation that special consideration will be given by the police officer in return for the 'free' cup of coffee, etc. Even in those few instances where the officer is genuinely free of such expectation, the appearance of such expectation is negatively perceived by the public at large. In any instance where the appearance to a member of the public may be improper, such behavior is prohibited. Thus, a police officer may not accept any free or discounted item from any merchant where the same is not given to the public at large." Cf. Advisory Opinion No. 95-5 (City employees belonging to a fraternal organization could not approach various business owners in the metropolitan area for the purpose of soliciting discounts for the association's members, because such solicitation would constitute the improper use by the public servants of their official City positions for personal or private gain, in violation of Charter § 2604(b)(3)).
FN15. You have represented to the Board that, about a year after accepting the trip, you repaid to Mr. Fellows $7,100, to cover the cost of the Oscar Trip for you and your wife. The better practice here would have been to inform the Department of Investigation and the Board immediately of the offer of the gift and awaited a ruling by the Board before accepting it. This would also have complied with Executive Order No. 16 (1978), which requires City employees in mayoral agencies to report gifts and other conflicts of interest to the Department of Investigation. Cf. Rules of the Board § 1-01(i), which provides that "[a] public servant should not accept a 'valuable gift' as defined herein from a person or entity engaged in business dealings with the City. If the public servant receives a valuable gift he or she should return the gift to the donor. If that is not practical, the public servant should report the receipt of a valuable gift to the inspector general of the public servant's agency who shall determine the disposition of the gift." The Board has amended this Rule, effective July 9, 2000, to alert public servants more precisely to their various gift-reporting obligations as well as to criminal and other laws governing receipt of gifts.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- respondent has worked for the department as a paa for the
- 17 ocfs inf 09 changes to the ocfs 3922 law enforcement
- coib case no
- welcome to city of new york
- please check the following link for a welcome to
- the rights of government of new york
- an empirical assessment of nypd s operation impact a
- the new york city regional office of the office of mental
- 11 24 05 fema
Related searches
- no credit no down payment car dealers
- no points no closing cost refinance
- no point no fee refinance
- no teletrack direct lenders no turn downs
- no more no less meaning
- student loans no cosigner no credit check
- cars no down payment no credit check
- online jobs with no fees no scams
- all free games no downloading no registration
- case quoting another case blue book
- upper case and lower case abc s printables
- pacer case locator case search