How a recusal letter exposed an ethics breach

It may come as a surprise to some that the Town of Greenport has a fairly robust Code of Ethics, Chapter 17 of the town code, which was adopted in December 1970 and thus predates even the Watergate scandal. What is remarkable about this chapter is that it survived nearly 56 years without a single revision or amendment.

On April 14th of 2025, Deputy Supervisor Clayton Clark received a recusal letter from Code Enforcement Officer Albert Eldridge, informing the town of Albert's employment with Hudson Valley Fisheries. This letter and the way it was handled was in clear and indisputable violation of Greenport's Code of Ethics.

There's some irony in the fact that Albert recognized there might be an "appearance of conflict" as this situation is precisely what § 17-3 (G) of the Code of Ethics explicitly forbids:

"Private Employment. He [every officer or employee of the Town of Greenport] shall not engage in, solicit, negotiate for or promise to accept private employment or render services for private interests when such employment or service creates a conflict with or impairs the proper discharge of his official duties."

Importantly, this paragraph does not allow for recusal when outside work "impairs the proper discharge of his official duties". In other words, Albert should have not been permitted to work for HVF as a consultant while serving as Greenport's Code Enforcement Officer.

What about Clayton Clark, the recipient of the above letter? Clayton decided the correct course of action was to place the letter into Albert's personnel file, where it was later discovered by accident when councilman Jim Dolan reviewed Albert's job application for Building Inspector.

When we reached out to Clayton to hear his side of the story, he explained that he had discussed the letter with Town Attorney Rob Fitzsimmons who recommended the placement in the personnel file. Asked about the potential incompatibility of Albert's employment with HVF and Greenport's Code of Ethics, Clayton again referred to Fitzsimmons who considered a recusal sufficient to resolve the conflict.

We reached out to Rob Fitzsimmons's office but were unable to reach him. We left a message but did not hear back from him.

No recusal exception in Greenport's Code of Ethics

Fitzsimmons's position is legally indefensible. Chapter 17 does not list recusal as a valid exception to get around § 17-3 (G). In fact, recusal cannot be a valid exception because a recusal from the job creates the very condition that the code prohibits: an impairment of "the proper discharge of his official duties".

By advising Clayton otherwise, Rob Fitzsimmons essentially invented an unwritten recusal exception that simply does not exist in the law.

Furthermore, Albert's recusal letter did not merely state an intent to work for the fish farm. It announced that he "[had] engaged with them in a consulting capacity" already. Consequently, Albert was already in violation of Chapter 17 before he even submitted the letter. The code prohibits taking the job in the first place and § 17-6 ("Penalties for offenses") spells out what should happen in that case:

"In addition to any penalty contained in any other provision of law, any person who shall knowingly and intentionally violate any of the provisions of this chapter may be fined, suspended or removed from office or employment, as the case may be, in the manner provided by law."

The handling of this entire incident is troubling. Even after receiving Rob's questionable legal advice, Deputy Supervisor Clayton Clark could have still brought this issue to the town board. It would have been the transparent thing to do.

Greenport's Chapter 17 survived 56 years on the books without a revision. But as this episode demonstrates, having a strong Code of Ethics on paper means very little if elected leaders choose to turn a blind eye to violations and file them away instead of addressing them head-on. Flawed legal advice is hardly an excuse for lack of judgement and accountability.