Ethics Ruling Could Force Knobel to Resign; Town board's motives questioned at meeting

Tempers flared and accusations flew last Thursday night as the East Hampton Town Board considered an ethics code change that could force the chairman of the Town Republican Committee to choose between his post with the party and his seat on the East Hampton Town Trustees.

The town ethics code prohibits members of elected or appointed boards from serving as members of political committees. The revision under discussion last week would also prohibit them from serving as party bosses, meaning that Thomas E. Knobel, a town trustee who is the Republican chairman but not a Republican committeeman, could not keep both jobs.

Local Republican bylaws allow for a chairperson who is not a voting committee member. East Hampton Democrats, in contrast, choose a leader from among their committee members.

"You cannot stop me from running, but your proposal could stop me from serving," Mr. Knobel said, speaking toward the end of the hearing. He vowed not to go down "without a fight."

The Republican Party faithful came out in force to protest the change, characterizing it as "vindictive," senseless, and "political payback." There were several instances of shouting, and when a Montauk man refused to leave the podium, Supervisor Bill McGintee called a five-minute recess, and the entire board stood up and left the room.

It was political theater with a live television audience, one member of which left his couch and walked to Town Hall to take part midway through the hearing.

The audience members' comments ranged from testimonials to Mr. Knobel's good character to questions about whether the town board has the power to pass laws governing another elected board.

Councilwoman Debra Foster, a Democrat, said she was not sure why the original law was passed.

"It makes no sense," said Reginald Cornelia, a former Republican committeeman who left his post several years ago when he was appointed to the town housing authority.

"It doesn't deny anyone the right to run for office. The purpose of this law is an attempt to assure that officials and appointees of the Town of East Hampton be free of conflicts of interest," Mr. McGintee said. Since 2000, the town ethics board has been asking the town board either to make the law consistent or to do away with it.

"I cannot see any possible way how [Mr. Knobel's chairmanship] would be a conflict of interest," said Tim Sullivan, a former Republican committeeman.

"Is there anyone from any party who, once elected, is nonpartisan?" asked Rhoda Bation of Springs, another Republican committeewoman.

"The only thing that is not political is extremely, extremely deep sleep, so let's not kid ourselves here," said Stuart Vorpahl. He said that opposes the law in principle, but also believes the town board cannot impose it on the town trustees. "You can apply it to anyone you hire or appoint, but not to other elected officials." If the town board wishes to do that, he said, it should be put to a public vote.

For more than a decade the ethics code has prohibited members of governing bodies such as the planning board or architectural review board from serving on political committees. In 1995, former Republican Councilwoman Nancy McCaffrey introduced an amendment to the code to keep elected officials from serving on political committees, as well. Mr. Knobel, a councilman at the time who was not yet on the Republican Committee, supported the measure.

He gave up his seat on the town board to run for supervisor in 1997, lost, became a Republican committeeman, and was elected chairman the following year. The following year, when he won his bid for town trustee, he gave up his role as a voting committee member, but remained chairman. He has since been elected to two more terms as a town trustee.

"This to me is almost a political lynching. What you could not accomplish at the ballot box you want to accomplish here," said Herbert McKay of Montauk.

"The public wants Tom Knobel to be a trustee," said Joseph Loffreno of Montauk. "This looks like political payback to me." Mr. Loffreno ranted against what he saw as the board's overt partisanship, his voice growing louder and louder, until Mr. McGintee told him he was out of order and asked him to sit down. He refused, and it was then that Mr. McGintee called the recess.

After the break, Mr. Knobel spoke. "I care about being on the trustees. I'm active. I want the chance to serve the public again as a town trustee."

With one Republican trustee in very poor health, another now living in North Carolina, and Mr. Knobel facing the proposed rule change, "it looks like the Democratic town board is trying to force Democrats onto the town trustees," said Bill Gardiner of East Hampton, who ran for town board on the Republican ticket in 2003.

Paul Fiondella, who walked to Town Hall from his house after seeing the hearing on television, was the only one in the audience to speak in favor of the change. "This is about protecting the public from undue concentrations of power," Mr. Fiondella said.

Some auidence members accused board members of calling Mr. Fiondella during the recess. They denied the charge, and Mr. Fiondella was unfazed. "If the board passes this law and you feel it constrains your political freedoms, you should take the town to court," he said.

"Congratulations on showing your power by walking away from me," Mr. Loffreno said, when he returned to the podium a second time. He said he was afraid that the Democrats might "send your cronies after me to attack my house. Don't attack my children."

"That's never, ever, ever going to happen," said Democratic Councilman Job Potter.

Hugh King, the chairman of the ethics board, sat in the back of the room throughout the hearing, but did not speak. The next day, he defended the ethics code and the proposed change. "The state has said it's constitutional," he said. "To say Mr. Knobel is not a member of a committee and doesn't vote, does that mean he doesn't have any influence? The code is supposed to protect against even the appearance of impropriety."

"I got myself elected and I stayed in office according to the current law," Mr. Knobel said on Friday. As for why he supported Ms. McCaffrey's ethics code change in 1995, but opposes this one, he said "Nancy wanted to do it. She felt it was a good thing to do and I went along with it." His bigger point is "not about being above ethics, it's about having a code unfairly applied to one person," he said. More generally, he asked, "To what extent does the town board have the authority to regulate people's associations?"

Christopher Kelley, a Democratic Committeeman and former Democratic chairman, agreed with Mr. Knobel and is also opposed to the original law. "It's the most ridiculous, unconstitutional law in the world. You can't punish people for expression of their political views. . . . The fact that it covers elected officials is particularly ridiculous because they have to appear on party lines on the ballot. It's silly to pretend they're not involved in a political committee."

Ironically, in 1995, when Ms. McCaffrey's ethics code change was under consideration, it was the Democrats who came out in force to oppose it, using much the same logic as Republicans used last Thursday.

"I personally think it's a good law," Mr. McGintee said Friday. "I disagree that everything is partisan. Elected officials should be free of the influence of any parties or any party bosses," he said. "Politics interferes with the business of governing."