Reporter’s notebook: Did the APA and Arthur Lussi game the system?
This morning, I’m reporting on accusations made by a local town official in North Elba that APA commissioner Arthur Lussi and Agency staff tried to manipulate local review of a cell tower project in which Lussi has a financial interest.
“[They were] trying to manipulate the public meeting and the local government board to make decisions that benefit one individual who happens to be a public official, which to me again is totally unethical,” said North Elba-Lake Placid Joint Review Board member Mike Orticelle.
Other town officials are divided on the case, with some echoing Orticelle’s concerns and others telling NCPR that no ethical lines were crossed.
This was a tough story to unravel, involving complicated bureaucratic wrangling between the APA, North Elba town officials, and Verizon, further muddled by some obvious missteps and miscommunications.
Agency spokesman Keith McKeever says the state made a good-faith effort to handle the project fairly, and independently, while also allowing Lussi to have legitimate input .
Lussi himself says he wasn’t using his role as an APA commissioner to influence local review and was only trying to help develop a good, well-designed project.
I came away from my reporting feeling that this wasn’t a case where I was sure that anyone had behaved improperly.
But credible sources in local government were raising serious questions about the behavior of powerful state officials.
And even many of my sources who rejected claims of unethical conduct described the APA’s handling of the case as “awkward” and “strange.” Because a sitting commissioner was involved, that raised red flags.
In cases like this, NCPR presents the best facts we can find, in hopes that the information will clarify your understanding of how government works.
The full text of the story can be seen here. Check it out and offer your view below.
Tags: adirondacks, apa, land use
I don’t see any impropriety there, just mis-communication. The fact that someone is a public official of some sort does not meant that they cease to be a citizen, landowner, etc. and have no input in those capacities. It should have been more clear that he was wearing his landowner hat at that meeting but I don’t see undue influence.
The Lussi’s have local influence? In Lake Placid?
I know most locals have some knowledge, but for outside audience, the context of the Lussi family in LP and beyond is missing.
Did anyone else catch Sandy Lewis’ comments about Art Lussi over on the Post Star website a few months back? At the time I found it strange that Sandy clearly had a strong negative opinion of someone who seems to come down on the same side of APA issues as he does… but otherwise didn’t think much of it.
However, now as I recall his comment, I believe it involved an accusation of Quid Pro Quo involving his case. I’ll try to find them again.
On a side note, I get blazing fast Verizon reception in Lake Placid right now… anyone know why this tower is needed?
“I was appearing as a landowner, I wasn’t appearing as a commissioner,” he said.”
Is that really how it works? If you are an APA commissioner you can just put on and take off your APA hat whenever it might benefit you?
It sounds like it was good that they had this “unethical” meeting. It gave the review board a chance to review the project and decide that they didn’t want to go ahead with the current design. I don’t see a problem here. If they never met and the APA went ahead with the vote it sounds like Lussi would have fared better (assuming that he wanted this to go ahead as planned). To try and frame a meeting that ended up torpedoing the project as one that was trying to unduly influence the board to approve it doesn’t make any sense to me. If you want local participation in zoning matters these type of things will happen. What is the big deal, it sounds like a better project may come from this.
I am glad to see local interests represented on the APA board–and this is what it means, whether a local hotelier, a hunter, an educator, an environmentalst–arguing their interests and priorities. The hope is that, collectively, they make the right decisions for the people and interests they are meant to represent. Lucci recused himself in this particular case, which seems proper, but then showed up with his property owner hat on, which was not proper. He might have shelled out for some representation at the meeting or made alliances.
I don’t get the complaints. Here are my questions:
How does an applicant pull a fast one over a review board by holding a videotaped public meeting?
If there was confusion, did the review board ask Lussi whether he was there as an applicant or an APA representative?
What was the result of the meeting in LP? Did the board ask the APA to hold off so they could review the project further? Or did the APA do that on its own?
Did the board talk to their code enforcement officer to see why he put it outside of their jurisdiction?
Was the APA review of the tower over the past year part of the public record? Was the town notified of the application and review process?
Public officials can never really step out of their public role, however public service is not a vow of poverty. Lussi has the right to develop his property and to speak for himself when such projects are being reviewed. I think the mixed comments from the planning board members and their attorney make it clear that the complainant likely has a private agenda. If anyone’s ethics should be questioned, it is the guy who complained and blew this entire matter out of proportion.
While Lussi can say that he appeared as a private citizen, the general public will not differentiate between the private citizen and APA commissioner.