IN THE MATTER OF SARA PECKER
COIB Case No. 2000-322
November 22, 2000
SUMMARY: In the case of In re Sara Pecker, COIB Case No. 2000-322 (2000), the Board issued a public warning letter to the Traffic Safety Director, Sara Pecker, of the Queens Borough President’s Office (“QBPO”). Ms. Pecker acted as one of three QBPO employees who voted to select the winning bidder (of two bidders responding) on a QBPO request for proposals (“RFP”) dated September 22, 1999. At the time of her vote, Ms. Pecker knew that one of the bidders (who later won the bid unanimously) had entered into a barter relationship in April of 1998 with Ms. Pecker’s husband, an attorney, to provide computer services in exchange for office space. Although it declined to bring an enforcement action, the Board wrote that the better practice under Charter § 2604(b)(2) would have been for Ms. Pecker to disclose her husband’s business relationship and to offer to recuse herself from the selection process. This was so because the failure to disclose the family business relationship could have given rise to an appearance of impropriety and could have compromised Ms. Pecker’s duty of undivided loyalty to the City. Ms. Pecker agreed to allow the Board to make the warning letter public.
STIPULATION AND DISPOSITION:
Dear Ms. Pecker:
We forward this warning letter to you in connection with your voting to select a bidder to City contract who had business dealings with your husband. You were aware of these business dealings at the time of the selection. In this circumstance, the better practice would have been to disclose your husband's financial relationship with this bidder to the other City officials involved in the selection process and to offer to recuse yourself from the selection process. You have agreed to make this letter public in order to provide guidance to others faced with similar situations.
The facts of this matter are stated briefly as follows. You are employed as the Traffic Safety Program Director at the Queens Borough President's Office ("QBPO"). This program has a website for which computer services were bid out through a Request for Proposal ("RFP") dated September 22, 1999. Two companies responded to this RFP. The QBPO selection committee for this RFP consisted of you and two other QBPO staff members. This committee unanimously selected a company designated hereafter as the "Winning Bidder."
The principal of the Winning Bidder is a computer specialist who in April of 1998 entered into a barter relationship with your husband, an attorney, to provide computer services in exchange for office space. This specialist has also provided for-fee services to your husband. [FNa1] At the time of your vote, you were aware of the commercial relationships between your husband and the principal of the Winning Bidder.
City Charter § 2604(b)(2) states,
"No public servant shall engage in any business, transaction, or private employment or have any financial or other private interest, direct or indirect, which is in conflict with the proper discharge of his or her official duties."
The Board has written that this section, "reaches all forms of private conduct by public servants that may reasonably cause the public to question the public servant's undivided loyalty to the City." COIB Case No. 93-121 (April 3, 1996); aff'd. sub nom., Holtzman v. Oliensis, 240 A.D. 2d 254, 659 N.Y.S.2d. 732 (1st Dep't. 1997), aff'd. 91 N.Y. 2d 488, 673 N.Y.S. 2d 23 (1998). In another case, the Board found that a Parking Violations Bureau Administrative Law Judge violated § 2604 (b)(2) by dismissing one case against her father-in-law and reducing the fine in another case against him. COIB v. Naomi Rubin, COIB Case No. 92-242. (April 24, 1995.)
In this matter, your failure to disclose your husband's financial relationship with one of the bidders on the RFP could have given rise to the appearance of impropriety and could have compromised your duty of undivided loyalty to the City.
While the Board has concluded that no further action is required under the circumstances presented here, this letter should be regarded as a formal reminder of the importance of strict compliance with Chapter 68 of the Charter, which contains the City's ethics law, and the Rules of the Board. Precise compliance with these regulations avoids even the appearance of impropriety and helps to strengthen public confidence in city officials.
In connection with this matter, you are represented by counsel. You consent to waive your statutory right to confidentiality under the City Charter and to permit the Board to make this letter public as indicated by your signature below.
If in the future you have any questions regarding post-employment or other issues relating to the conflicts of interest law, please contact the Conflicts of Interest Board staff at 442-1400
Very truly yours,
Benito Romano
Acting Chair
I hereby waive my statutory right to confidentiality and agree that the Board may make this document public.
Sara Pecker
Howard Stave, Esq.
Attorney for Sara Pecker
FNa1. At the time these business relationships commenced you were not yet married. However, these business relationships continued after you married in May of 1999, and they existed at the time of the RFP selection.