A union judicial panel has ruled that Lillian Roberts, the executive director of District Council 37, New York City's largest municipal union, did not violate the union's ethics code by helping to steer a contract to her nephew's law firm.þþIn a ruling earlier this month, the judicial panel rejected charges that the contract violated ethics provisions that bar union officials from making decisions concerning a business relationship with a firm in which a close relative has a significant financial interest.þþThe judicial panel in effect overruled District Council 37's former ethical practices officer, Barbara Deinhardt, who concluded in December 2002 that Ms. Roberts had crossed ethical lines in pushing to give her nephew's firm the contract to be counsel to the union's benefits fund. The judicial panel was appointed by District Council 37's parent, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, known as Afscme.þþThe code of ethics, which is part of the federation's constitution, prohibits officials from making a business decision concerning a firm in which a parent, spouse, spousal equivalent, child, brother, sister, stepchild, in-law, or first or second cousin has a significant financial interest. Violation could have led to a reprimand.þþSeveral of Ms. Roberts's political opponents asserted that awarding the $15,000-a-month contract to the firm where her nephew, Ivan D. Smith, was a partner had violated either the letter or spirit of the code. Ms. Roberts raised her nephew following the death of his mother, who was Ms. Roberts's sister. The judicial panel wrote that it ÿis bound by the constitution as it is written,ÿ and that ÿsince nephew is not includedÿ in the ethics language, ÿSister Roberts must be found not guilty.ÿþþArthur Z. Schwartz, the lawyer who represented the five district council members who filed the charges against Ms. Roberts, said: ÿI think it was totally political for Afscme to find that its ethics code required only the enforcement of the exact language and not the code's thrust and purpose. This is astounding.ÿþþIn an interview yesterday, Ms. Roberts said: ÿI'm very happy that I was found not guilty of any kind of ethical misconduct. I think that was very important.ÿþþShe asserted that those who brought the charges had acted unfairly, noting that the charges were brought after she narrowly won re-election to a four-year term as head of the 120,000-member union. þþIn April 2003, after the ethical practices officer concluded that there was a violation, Mr. Smith tendered the resignation of his law firm, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard. He wrote, ÿWe have taken this action because I love my aunt, and I will not allow my presence at my firm to be used by a small number of political enemies within D.C. 37 to hurt her.ÿþþIn finding a violation, Ms. Deinhardt, the ethical practices officer, wrote: ÿMr. Smith and Ms. Roberts have a very close family relationship. Mr. Smith lived with her for some time, she paid for Mr. Smith to go to college, and her mother was Mr. Smith's legal guardian. She has sometimes referred to Mr. Smith as her son.ÿþþ
Source: NY Times
