BY ANDY GARDNER
North Country This Week

CANTON -- County legislators had a tense discussion Monday over a new Board of Ethics opinion on a board member’s potential conflicts of interest, which was requested by the board chair.

Legislator Margaret Haggard, D-Potsdam, said legislative chair Joe Lightfoot, R-Ogdensburg, requested the opinion due to potential conflicts with her husband, David Haggard, working as Department of Social Services general counsel.

“Before I took office as a county legislator I sought an opinion from the county ethics board in regard to my husband, David Haggard, working in the Department of Social Services as general counsel. I received that opinion … prohibiting me from participation in discussion and voting on all matters regarding Social Services. I was further directed to announce such recusal publicly at my first meeting,” Haggard said.

“I have diligently complied with that opinion in its entirety. You can imagine my shock Mr. Lightfoot requested another ethics opinion with the intention of further restricting my ability to function as a legislator.”

County Attorney Steve Button said, “under our ethics local law, an advisory opinion may be requested by an individual … or a superior of an individual actually asking about the behavior of a subordinate or for whom they are responsible for the performance of their work.”

Button said that county law considers legislators subordinate to the board chair.

“The chair given complete oversight of all activities, the functions of the property, as well as the employees of the county. So that’s correct,” Button said in response to Legislator Nicole Terminelli, D-Massena, asking if Lightfoot is considered the legislators’ superior.

His characterization of legislators as subordinates to the board chair led Haggard to call that an “untrue and a gross misrepresentation of my role.”

“I am not, never have been and never will be a subordinate of Mr. Lightfoot,” she said. “I can’t help but wonder if it’s because I’m a female or my desire to speak out on issues of concern for our county, or perhaps both.”

“I can work with opposing views seeking to find common ground … This has the potential to create a hostile work environment. Respect should emulate from all county leadership,” Haggard said. “Mr. Lightfoot, those who deliberately disregard this core principle should be ashamed.”

Legislator Tony Arquiett, D-Helena, asked Lightfoot if his seeking the opinion was retaliatory, and the chairman didn’t offer a yes or no answer.

“Our county attorney, who I have a great level of respect for and belief in his findings, indicated there was no wrongdoing, yet you continued on with that,” Arquiett said. “I’d like to hope this was not retaliatory. Was it?”

“Are you serious, Tony?” Lightfoot responded. “What do you think, Tony? Do you think it was retaliatory? No matter what I say isn’t going to change your mind.”

Legislator John Burke, R-Norfolk, also came to Haggard’s defense. He feels an opinion from the Attorney General’s Office should override any opinion from the local ethics board.

He said the attorney general’s opinion requires Haggard to recuse herself from any matters “affecting the compensation, employment and other terms and conditions of employment of his or her spouse.”

“We have expressed the view that a member of the legislative body may participate in governmental matters relating to the operations of a municipal department in which his or her spouse serves, except for one where the legislator has a personal interest by means of affinity,” Burke said. “She would not have personal interest in these matters requiring recusal … There is no reason for her to recuse herself from discussion on Social Services.”

Burke also took issue with the idea of elected legislators being subordinate to the board chair.

“We all have the belief we are one vote, equal standing, and we answer to our constituents,” Burke said. “Joe Lightfoot has specific powers, the power to run the meetings, the power to make committee appointments, the power to declare emergencies. They are specific” I would like and I would challenge Steve to produce that law that shows we are his subordinates.”

Burke also questioned if there is a conflict of interest in the county attorney offering legal counsel to both the Board of Ethics and the Board of Legislators.

“How does the county attorney decide who his clients are? He’s the attorney for the ethics committee. He’s also our attorney,” Burke said. “I am asking as a colleague and as a legislator that this needs to be immediately remedied. The idea we would use an extension … of county government against one of our own legislators is unfathomable. I am asking, and I would hope we all ask, that there is immediate reversal of what Margaret has been asked to do, and that they, the ethics board, comply fully with the ruling and decision of the Attorney General’s Office used in attempt to place further restrictions.”