Rawlings' Reps Respond to Mamaroneck Accusations
In response to a recent Hamlethub article https://www.hamlethub.com/yonkers-new-york/village-of-mamaroneck-board-trustee-under-fire, representatives for Emmanuel Rawlings have submitted the following:
LEVY DAVIS & MAHER, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
39 Broadway, Suite 1920
New York, New York 10006
TELEPHONE: (212) 371-0033
SHELDON I. LEVY (1927-1999)
MALCOLM H. DAVIS FACSIMILE: (212) 371-0463
Sender's Email Address:
DAMON R. MAHER
Hon. Sharon Torres, Mayor March 17, 2024
Mamaroneck Village Hall
123 Mamaroneck Avenue
Mamaroneck, NY 10643
Daniel E. Karson, Esq.
Chair, Mamaroneck Ethics Board
123 Mamaroneck Avenue
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Re: Mamaroneck Village Ethics Board
Advisory Opinion 2024-1
Mayor Torres and Mr. Karson:
on behalf of Mamaroneck Village Trustee Emmanuel Rawlings, with regard to the
which was requested by the Mayor of the
ed and dated version, please provide me
the advisory opinion notes that two out of
” Please indicate by return email:
I write to you,
above-captioned, undated, and unsigned advisory opinion,
Village of Mamaroneck. If there is a contemporaneously sign
with a copy of the same by return email. At the top of page 7,
five Ethics Board members “...took no part in the vote on the opinion.
(1) whether either or both of them were present at, or took part in (remotely or otherwise), any
discussion(s) with anyone regarding this matter; and (2) their respective reasons for not voting or, if
applicable, for not participating in the matter at all. The stenographic record and all emails, texts, and
other correspondence, as well as handwritten notes relating to your inquiry, investigation, and opinion,
should be preserved indefinitely as they may be required in future proceedings.
Based on the available information, it appears that the Mayor exceeded her authority in requesting
an advisory opinion of the Ethics Board, which in turn exceeded its authority in rendering one. Section
21-16 of the Village Code of Ethics, specifically states that the request for, and a rendering of, an
advisory opinion applies to a request by a Trustee (or officer or employee or department head) for
advice relating to his/her own interests or actions as a governmental official. The Mayor is nota
Trustee’s supervisor and cannot request an advisory opinion regarding a Trustee. The proper method
for referring someone else’s conduct to the Ethics Board is a sworn complaint and formal hearing
with appropriate due process mechanisms, including but not limited to representation by counsel (often
paid by the municipality --- see more about that below). See Sections 21-13 and 21-14 of the Village
Code.
Mamaroneck Village Ethics Board
Page Two
The Ethics Board, thus, lacked the authorization to issue this advisory opinion, which is dispositive
in this case.
Furthermore, Section 21-17 of the Village Code of Ethics also provides that the publicly available
version of any advisory opinion would have to "contain such deletions as may be necessary to prevent
disclosure of [Trustee Rawlings'] identity", or otherwise be revised accordingly. In this case it would
likely have been impossible to release anything publicly in view of the prior publicity surrounding the
allegations. In light of Village Code Section 21-17's prohibition against the disclosure of Trustee
Rawlings’ identity, please substantiate the rationale for the Ethics Board's decision to publish the
advisory opinion, without redactions or deletions, by return email and identify all individuals that
authorized the publication and/or distribution of the advisory opinion in violation of the Village Code.
The very publication without deletions suggests a lack of good faith and may by itself nullify the opinion
and its findings.
Assuming you overcome the jurisdictional and procedural failings indicated above, a very high bar is
set for anyone trying to exclude a municipal legislator from a vote. Attached hereto is an outline drafted
by a recognized dean of the Governmental Ethics Bar in the State of New York, Attorney Steven G.
Leventhal, who presented CLE-accredited lectures to Westchester County employees and elected
officials during my time as a County Legislator. At page 4, he says:
“When a prohibited appearance of impropriety is found, the finding should have a rational
basis, and the board’s reasoning should be clear and convincing. Such a finding should be
reserved for the rare cases involving conduct that is contrary to public policy, and that raises the
specter of self-interest or partiality. It should not be found in cases where the improper
appearances are speculative or trivial.... In particular, boards should be restrained from
Jinding that a legislator was required to abstain from participating in a legislative matter because
the recusal of a legislator disenfranchises voters...[emphasis added]”
You would need to make several leaps of speculation and conjecture to find a real conflict here that
would bar one-fifth of the representatives duly elected by the people of the Village of Mamaroneck from
deliberating and voting on a matter of great importance to the voters. This is especially true for
residents who elected Trustee Rawlings, who grew up in low-income housing, and who wanted the first
Black man elected to this Village Board in two decades to represent them.
The advisory opinion as a whole is legally insufficient in its conclusory assumption of a conflict in
this situation. Nonetheless, I will highlight several examples of the flawed reasoning the Board
employed.
e From a lengthy career in the general civil practice of law, I know that landlords are satisfied,
more often than not, just to evict non-paying tenants and get a new, paying tenant in a unit
as soon as possible. Entering a money judgment against an evicted tenant, especially a
Mamaroneck Village Ethics Board
Page Three
low-income one, is usually an exercise in futility. If they couldn’t pay rent, they are highly
unlikely to have traceable, attachable, non-exempt income or assets from which to collect a
judgment. The long-time and well-known legal maxim is: “You can’t draw blood from a
stone.” Unpaid amounts are often written off, as a business decision, to avoid wasting time
and expense. The landlord’s lack of pursuit of funds after the eviction would not be unusual.
Yet, the Board here speculates that the landlord "presumably could still" pursue a repayment
action against a low-income tenant and relies on this speculative guesswork, absent any
supporting analysis, to find a reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest.
e The Board of Ethics found no outstanding judgment against Trustee Rawlings from the
eviction petition, no money judgment entered against Trustee Rawlings, and no collection
case or open action against Trustee Rawlings. In fact, "[t]he Ethics Board found, based on its
review of the court file and public records, and representations made by counsel to the
WHA, that Trustee Rawlings does not owe money to the WHA." It also found that
Trustee Rawlings was not even served with any papers in the eviction proceeding and had
moved out before the case was started, calling into question whether there was even personal
jurisdiction over him in that proceeding. The only basis given by the Board for the
recommendation to recuse is that a legal action was brought against his mother that resulted
in her eviction. See page 6. While noting that a contrary decision could be made "honestly
and persuasively," the Board of Ethics advisory opinion included no analysis, cited no case
law, does not state how the law applies to the facts (as no law was cited), referred to no
persuasive authority (such as NYS Attorney General published opinions), and identified no
governing authority to support its conclusory recommendation. This leads to the
unavoidable conclusion that the advisory opinion had no rational basis and, given the
absence of any reasoning for the recommendation, its reasoning was not clear and
convincing.
e On page 1 of its advisory opinion, the Board of Ethics notes that Trustee Rawlings’
participation would give a "reasonable appearance of a conflict of interest", while on page 5,
it finds that his participation would "cause an appearance of impropriety," both under
Village Code section 21-4(c)(1). A "conflict of interest" and some other form of "impropriety"
are different things, and precision in an opinion that would ultimately reflect on the
character of the accused person is important. The advisory opinion provides no clarification
about this inconsistency.
Further, I note the irony of the situation and the cruel cynicism of those who would seek to prevent
a duly elected official --- whose original “sin” is being part of a poor, rent-burdened family --- from
voting on a proposal to create more affordable housing in his community.
In view of all the above, the Ethics Board would be well-advised to withdraw the opinion. Whether it
does so or not, however, I feel quite confident in counseling Trustee Rawlings that your advisory
Mamaroneck Village Ethics Board
Page Four
opinion has no binding effect on his authority to participate fully in all deliberations relating to, and
votes on, affordable housing proposals for the Hunter Tier property. I will leave it to another day to
determine whether this inquiry was also a knowing or inadvertent part of an effort to threaten him with
the shame of airing his family’s personal struggles and personally identifying his mother publicly. Of
course, the papers in the eviction records are public records, as are those of the thousands of families
facing eviction in our region every year, but few are spotlighted in public as a means of shame and
intimidation.
Regarding speculation already brewing about who is paying his legal expenses, my drafting this
letter and counseling Trustee Rawlings thus far has been on a strictly pro bono basis. In the event
additional legal representation is needed, such as in litigation, and/or of retainer of co-counsel, the
Village may be responsible for Trustee Rawlings’ legal fees (up to 120% of the hourly rate charged by the
Village’s regular legal counsel), costs and disbursements. See Village Code Section 36-3.
All of my client's rights in this matter, at law and in equity, whether specifically set forth
hereinabove or not, are hereby expressly reserved.
Very truly yours,
binge Me Made
Damon R. Maher
cc: Trustee Nora Lucas
Trustee Leilani Yizar-Reid
Trustee Lou Young