The Noam Bramson Ethics Transcripts Part VIII: The Mayor Gets Himself a Lawyer

NEW ROCHELLE, NY (August 19, 2022) -- No one did more to damage the perception of Noam Bramson before the ethics board than Steven Leventhal, Bramson’s attorney.

The Mayor complained repeatedly that his deposition by the ethics board on April 4 was adversarial. If it was, it was so foremost because of the conduct of Leventhal.

Sara Kaye and Yadira Ramos-Herbert each testified that the Mayor called them after he testified to discuss his testimony, and they both recalled the Mayor began by saying how the Ethics Board was unexpectedly confrontational.

Yadira Ramos-Herbert testified the Mayor “thought it was a bit more adversarial than he anticipated.”

Sara Kaye testified the Mayor said, “it was more adversarial and formal than he had expected”.

His sworn testimony puts the lie to these claims.

Thank you for reading Words in Edgewise. This post is public so feel free to share it.

The only ones being confrontational during the Mayor’s deposition were Steven Leventhal and his client.

As the transcript shows, Leventhal was hostile and combative from the moment he entered the room. Even before his client sat down.

Leventhal routinely interrupted, told the Mayor not to answer questions, repeatedly threatened to walk out, claimed he was lied to about the nature of the hearing and used the word “ambush”.

Afterwards, in a letter, Leventhal similarly attacked the Ethics Board process and threatened to sue, on behalf of the Mayor, Peter Miesels, the Ethics Board lawyer, City Manager Chuck Strome, Corporation Counsel Kathleen Gill, Associate Corporation Counsel Dawn Warren, and members of Council for what he described as a conspiracy — literally a conspiracy theory about the Mayor by his lawyer.

As a result of Leventhal’s threat letter on behalf of Noam Bramson, the City Council approved a request from Chuck Strome, Kathleen Gill and Dawn Warren to obtain legal representation at taxpayer expense. The Mayor has never formally rescinded this threat.

The Mayor is adversarial as well — interrupting questions to deliver prepared remarks (mainly to attack me), or challenging the premise of a question or to reframe a question or otherwise disrupt the rhythm of Miesels questions.

To a large extent, the Mayor’s deposition is Peter Miesels v. The World.

Words in Edgewise is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Leventhal is on the attack throughout, the Mayor is bobbing and weaving, and the two ethics board members, Charles Phipps and David Blumenthal, alternate between groveling before the Mayor and stroking the Mayor’s outsized ego.

Leventhal said, “The mayor wouldn't want to be vindicated in a process that didn't have you going through your due diligence”.

The Mayor was not vindicated by the ethics board. Meanwhile, the District Attorney has been investigating for months and there is a Grand Jury convened.

Leventhal laughably described the hearing as an “interview”.

The Mayor sat for a deposition, a statement given under oath, as part of a formal investigation as called for under the City Charter and General Municipal Law 18. Had the Mayor refused to appear, he would certainly been compelled to appear under a subpoena.

Leventhal interrupted numerous times:

• The mayor is not going to give sworn testimony
• I want to register my objection
• This is testimony by ambush
• I would encourage the mayor to thank you very much for your time and call it a day
• I wouldn't answer (the question)
• Enough is enough
• This is not a good faith investigation
• I am getting ready to pull the plug on this

At one point, a clearly exasperated Miesels said to Bramson, “We have several choices. You can refuse to answer the question, you can take the Fifth Amendment if you want to.”

For his part, the Mayor spent a great deal of time dismissing the entire proceeding by attacking me and my ethics complaint.

• An illustration of the recklessness of this particular complainant with callous disregard for what can be sourced, what actually can be substantiated
• Significantly mischaracterized, in some cases fabricated
• Out of thin air
• Completely made up of whole cloth
• There has been an effort to sort of abuse process, and to validate and legitimize complaints by laundering it through the Board of Ethics
• The complaint mischaracterizes conversations that did actually occur, and it holy fabricates other conversations that never occurred
• The effect and its totality is to create an entirely misleading impression that is frankly typical of this particular complainant who you may be already familiar with and whose method of operation is to blend facts with conjecture and conspiracy theory and to weave from those things a false native
• I utterly reject that false narrative
• Firing a city manager is not something that crossed my mind or crossed my lips... a whole cloth invention of Mr. Cox or others who wants to generate rumors without firsthand knowledge of the conversations that occurred, so that was not in my mind in any way at all
• I hope that you will consider the source of all this

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Given Leventhal’s objections to the Mayor giving sworn testimony, and the knowledge that all of the transcripts could be (and were) FOIL-able, it is surprising that the Mayor did not consider that as much as he protested his innocence and attacked me, there would be a dozen other transcripts with which to fact-check him.

As a guide to the transcript excerpts below, it is useful to look back on the exact words in my ethics complaint, which the Mayor dismisses as mischaracterizations or fabrications out of whole cloth.

In the course of my reporting on the City of New Rochelle, it has come to my attention that an elected official of the City of New Rochelle sought to use his elected office to enrich himself by obtaining through coercion, actual or implied, a job with an annual salary exceeding $200,000, plus benefits, for which he is not qualified under the New Rochelle City Charter, that he subjected a public officer to unwarranted assaults on their integrity and that he has sought to usurp the authority of the City Manager through coercion, actual or implied, and in so doing may have violated the New Rochelle City Charter, the New Rochelle Ethics Policy and New York State law.

This allegation was sustained by the Board of Ethics, which is somewhat surprising considering the derisive comments made by Phipps and Blumenthal about me and my complaint. That the allegation was sustained by both members speaks to the overwhelming evidence and testimony supporting this allegation.

Noam Bramson, the Mayor of New Rochelle, sought appointment by City Manager Charles B. Strome to the position of Commissioner of Economic Development.

Even the Mayor admits to this.

The Mayor Bramson violated the New Rochelle City Charter for the purposes of obtaining a lucrative management position in the City organization, a position for which Mayor Bramson is clearly unqualified.

Mayor Noam Bramson does not meet any of the qualifications required under the City Charter to fill the position of Commissioner of Economic Development in the City organization and is prohibited under the City Charter from requesting, formerly or informally, any position in the City organization, but did so anyway, repeatedly, for about one year and possibly more.

The testimony, especially of the City Manager, and HR Commissioner Robert Yamuder, makes clear that a plain reading of the City Charter shows the Mayor did not meet any of the enumerated qualifications for the position of Commissioner of Economic Development.

Mayor Bramson may have had the support of a former Commissioner of Economic Development, who, in turn, was seeking a lucrative consulting agreement for himself in the event Mayor Bramson was appointed as Commissioner of Economic Development.

Luiz Aragon denied this during a phone call he made to me on March 20, but the testimony of Kathleen Gill, Adam Salgado and Ivar Hyden suggest otherwise.

Since the City Manager announced the appointment of Kathleen Gill as Deputy City Manager on Thursday, Mayor Bramson, I am told, has reached out to four members of Council to organize four or more votes to go to the City Manager with enough votes in hand to demand the City Manager rescind the appointment of Gill as Deputy City Manager under a not-so-veiled threat that the Council would vote to fire Strome if he did not capitulate and rescind the Gill appointment.

Bramson may have received support from two other members of Council but not enough to accelerate what amounts to a coup d'état by the Mayor to circumvent the City Charter...

Not even the Mayor denies he went to four members of Council (Kaye, Fried, Lopez, Ramos-Herbert) to organize four votes to go to the City Manager.

As to why he did this, Bramson preposterously claims that his purpose was to gather a majority of Council to go to the City Manager to say they had a concern about “the timing” which begs the question, and then what?

If we stipulate the Mayor’s claim to be true, how does he imagine that meeting would go?

BRAMSON: Me and three other Council members are concerned about the timing of your appointment of Kathleen Gill as Deputy City Manager.

STROME: OK.

BRAMSON: Me plus three equals four.

STROME: Three plus one equals four? OK. Got it.

BRAMSON: Four is a majority of the City Council.

STROME: I am aware of that.

BRAMSON: The four of us agree we are not comfortable with the timing of the appointment of Kathleen as Deputy City Manager.

STROME: You mean the appointment I made yesterday?

BRAMSON: Yes.

STROME: Did you build a time machine?

BRAMSON: No.

STROME: Unless you have invented time travel, what would propose I do about something I already did?

BRAMSON: Well... we want you to know we did not care for the timing of the announcement.

STROME: Duly noted. Thanks for stopping by.

Strome and Tarantino testified to their belief that the Mayor was seeking to get enough votes in hand to demand the City Manager rescind the appointment of Gill as Deputy City Manager under a not-so-veiled threat that the Council would vote to fire Strome if he did not capitulate and rescind the Gill appointment.

This allegation was partially sustained only because while Phipps agreed, Blumenthal took the view that because the Mayor’s attempted coup d’etat failed it did not count. In most countries, failed coup plotters are lined up against a wall at dawn, not exonerated by a sycophant.

Overall, the testimony of multiple witnesses show that the information in my ethics complaint is corroborated by the top-echelon of City officials and 4 of the 6 council members. Regardless of whom you believe among the 12 witnesses, it is inarguably the case that my reporting on what was going on at City Hall was entirely accurate and my ethics complaint is based on that reality.

The transcript excerpts make these points better than I ever could so here they are:

(Mayor Noam Bramson and his attorney, Steven Leventhal, enter the chambers.)

MR. LEVENTHAL: We have just arrived at the appointed time for our interview before the Board of Ethics and learned for the first time that the Mayor's comments will be transcribed. The Mayor's desire to participate and cooperate with the Board of Ethics has overwhelmed my concerns about the unfairness of this process. The reason I say the process is unfair is because no charges have been proffered. The mayor has not had the due process that would be accorded to a respondent in an administrative proceeding and that is the right to be present and hear what his accuser has to say and to actually hear the testimony of the other witnesses before being interviewed himself. This is the normal universal practice. We came here with the intention of answering whatever questions the Board of Ethics might have. We are going to do that, but it is over my very serious objection and recommendation to the Board of Ethics. Although I am not his counsel, you have highly qualified counsel, it is my recommendation in the future the Board of Ethics seriously reconsider that process. I have no problem with a Board of Ethics doing triage, doing it preliminary, a formal investigation to see whether the circumstances warrant a more formal proceeding with charges, but to actually take testimony and record that testimony as a record of the proceeding in my opinion under these circumstances is unfair.

MR. MEISELS: Is there anything else you want to add to the record?

MR. LEVENTHAL: No.

MR. MEISELS: Proceed.

MR. LEVENTHAL: Sworn testimony?

MR. MEISELS: Absolutely.

MR. LEVENTHAL: This is an informal meeting in which we are giving you the opportunity to interview the mayor. If you want the mayor to be sworn, proffer charges, conduct a formal proceeding and the mayor will be sworn. The mayor is not going to give sworn testimony. You haven't given me the opportunity to adequately provide advice and counsel to the mayor. This is completely different than what my understanding was about this proceeding.

MR. MEISELS: Firstly, I thought I was very clear that we do this on the record and we even had a discussion earlier today that it ultimately could be FOIL-able.

MR. LEVENTHAL: There was no mention of a transcribed record.

MR. MEISELS: I can't imagine-- we always do it on the record. This is how we always have done it and of course it is sworn testimony. This is not prosecutorial, it is investigatory, but every witness who testifies here takes an oath and does it on the record. Obviously we invited your client. We did not subpoena your client and you are here voluntarily and you can leave voluntarily if that's your best legal advice.

MR. LEVENTHAL: I understand that.

MR. MEISELS: If we are going to take testimony it is going to be sworn testimony.

MR. LEVENTHAL: You never characterized this as a meeting to take sworn testimony. You never did.

MR. MEISELS: It is an investigation and I am not aware of any investigation like this-- we have done or other have not testify.

MR. LEVENTHAL: Does the Board of Ethics have rules of procedure that it has adopted?

MR. MEISELS: I am not certain.

MR. LEVENTHAL: Are there published rules of procedure that someone who is a respondent —

MR. MEISELS: These are all questions that you could have asked before today and you had an opportunity to counsel your client before today.

MR. LEVENTHAL: I would have asked them and I would have counseled my client had we given a clue that there would be sworn testimony.

MR. MEISELS: The clue is that this proceeding, the way any other investigatory proceedings proceeds.

MR. LEVENTHAL: Maybe in the City of New Rochelle but not elsewhere.

MR. MEISELS: That is all I am concerned about is the City of New Rochelle. This relates to the City of New Rochelle.

MR. LEVENTHAL: How many other investigations involving the sworn testimony have been taken?

MR. MEISELS: I am not under oath, first of all, okay, so I am not going to answer any questions.

MR. LEVENTHAL: You are telling me this is a normal procedure. Is it in fact a normal procedure?

MR. MEISELS: This is a normal procedure and you are entitled to deal with it as you please, so you just have to go speak to your client and make a decision what you want to do and whatever you want to do, you know, is acceptable to us. What can I say.

MR. LEVENTHAL: My client will answer your questions but once again, I want to register my objection.

MR. MEISELS: You are free to register whatever objection, of course.

MR. LEVENTHAL: This is testimony by ambush but please proceed.

MR. MEISELS: I want you to be able to say whatever you would like to say on the record but I am not getting into an argument with you about it.

MR. LEVENTHAL: I said what I wanted to say.

MR. MEISELS: You said what you want to stay and you are free to come back another time if you think that's appropriate so you don't feel ambushed. Would you like to do that? You want to come back another time?

MR. LEVENTHAL: The mayor wishes to proceed today. I will say one more thing. This is not the tone that we hoped to set for this. We came here in good faith to cooperate.

MR. MEISELS: Well, so far I don't see how that is any different. Certainly as far as the Board is concerned nothing has changed as far as this regards. I can't speak for your side of it but we don't see any reason why this isn't cooperative.

MR. LEVENTHAL: Let's proceed.

NOAM BRAMSON, a witness called on behalf of the City of New Rochelle, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. MEISELS:

Q. Mr. Mayor, welcome.

MR. LEVENTHAL: One more thing just occurred to me. Sir, I am asking, do you have a card.

THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.

MR. LEVENTHAL: If you will provide it to me at a convenient time.

Q. Thank you for coming.

Q. ...if I were to ask you to explain to an uninformed citizen how the council manager form of government operates in New Rochelle, how would you explain it?

NOAM BRAMSON: I will answer it in a moment. Can I say something first which I intended to say before we got into that initial kerfuffle? I realize this is kind of an uncomfortable situation for all of us. As you can imagine it is not pleasant for me to have my integrity challenged, particularly in a public context and I have to believe this is awkward for you as well. I just want you to know that I very much respect each of you as individuals. I respect the roles that you have here and I realize that you are handling as well as you can a burden that has been thrust upon you and I appreciate very much that I have counsel who is sticking up for my legal interests. I am not a lawyer myself. I would offer the same testimony whether I was under oath or not under oath because I have only one story to tell and it is a truthful story but I just want to perhaps reset the tone of this dialogue and make it clear that I recognize the role that you have and I hope I could be helpful in sharing with you my prospective of what transpired and providing any other information that may be helpful to the Board in your consideration of this whole matter.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: In the same context I was going to make a statement also. I have known you for many years and I just wanted to thank you for your years of service and the word distasteful does come to my mind, not only what you are going through, what everyone is going through. It is an unfortunate situation, whether there is kernels of proof, I have no I clue. We have to make a recommendation when we are done but I appreciate all you have done for the city and all the citizens of this city.

NOAM BRAMSON: Thank you for saying that. We'll all do our best to get to the right conclusion, so...

MR. PHIPPS: You know where I come from. We have been around a long time.

NOAM BRAMSON: The fact that know each other personally makes more awkward, so with that, your question I felt it was necessary to say that in light of how we began. State the question, how would I describe the council manager system?

Q. ...as far as you are aware as mayor, is there any provision in the charter that prohibits council people from attempting to influence those decisions?

NOAM BRAMSON: I am aware of the charter provision that is cited in the complaint which I am sure you are making reference to right now. It does prohibit the City Council from —

MR. LEVENTHAL: The charter section speaks for itself.

MR. MEISELS: I am asking the mayor if he is aware of it.

MR. LEVENTHAL: He is aware of it.

MR. MEISELS: You can't testify.

MR. LEVENTHAL: I am not testifying.

Q. Are you aware of it?

MR. LEVENTHAL: I don't want the mayor--

MR. MEISELS: No.

MR. LEVENTHAL: Excuse me, let me do my job.

MR. MEISELS: This is an investigation, this is not adversary and you can really can't obstruct it.

MR. LEVENTHAL: We are making a sworn transcript to I need to be able to represent my client.

MR. MEISELS: If you want to let him the answer and then counsel him you can but you can't keep testifying for him.

MR. LEVENTHAL: I am not testifying. Well, I am advising him. I don't want you to characterize the charter provision. If the question is what does the charter provide, we should read the charter provision into the record.

Q. The question is, what do you understand it to mean?

NOAM BRAMSON: I understand it to mean that the City Council and the mayor should demonstrate respect for the city manager's appointments and personnel authority and not interfere inappropriately with that appointment authority.

Q. What is your understanding, what would be an inappropriate interference?

MR. LEVENTHAL: I am going to object again because the city — the charter provision is precise. It has words. The words mean something.

MR. MEISELS: Can we have the question read back?

MR. LEVENTHAL: I would like to speak to my client. You have a pending question, I won't do it while the question is pending but after this answer I would like to speak to my client.

NOAM BRAMSON: Just say the question again, please.

Q. ...do you recall when you first discussed (the Development Commissioner position) with the city manager?

NOAM BRAMSON: It was, I believe, in approximately the spring of 2021. You want me — would you prefer —I am wondering if I should answer yes or no or you want a more expansive narrative.

Q. Let me explain. This is investigatory. We would like to hear what you have to say so you go ahead and tell us what happened.

NOAM BRAMSON: Let me first, if I could, make an observation about the complaint from 20,000 feet and then I am happy to get into whatever level of detail would be helpful to these discussions.

Q. Sure.

NOAM BRAMSON: In my estimation, the complaint mischaracterizes conversations that did actually occur and it holy fabricates other conversations that never occurred, and the effect and its totality is to create an entirely misleading impression that is frankly typical of this particular complainant who you may be already familiar with and whose method of operation is to blend facts with conjecture and conspiracy theory and to weave from those things a false native. So to be very clear, I utterly reject that false narrative. It is my belief that every conversation I had with either elected or appointed officials was entirely ethical and appropriate and that is how I always conduct myself. I assign the highest value to ethics in public service and believe that that is enormously important for anyone in a position like mine. So that said, let's get into the details, and I guess there is two components of the complaint, one which you began questioning is the development commissioner conversation and the city management appointment.

Q. I would like you to actually talk about the development commissioner...

Q. Is there anything in that jumps out to you in that memo in particular that you think is either not completely accurate or completely inaccurate or doesn't accurately reflect what occurred between the two of you?

MR. LEVENTHAL: Just for the record, the exhibit, Exhibit B contains more than the memo. I don't know if that is intentional or inadvertent.

MR. MEISELS: The memo includes the opinions that the mayor-- that he attached to the memo, is that what you are referring to?

MR. LEVENTHAL: There is an e-mail message and the opinion from the ICMA.

MR. MEISELS: Correct, that was attached to the original.

MR. LEVENTHAL: The record should be clear what Exhibit B is, that's all.

MR. MEISELS: Certainly. The opinion from the ICMA was included in the original but we can ask the mayor was the opinion —

MR. LEVENTHAL: I am not challenging you, I am just saying the record should be clear what Exhibit B is, that's all.

MR. MEISELS: Okay, and you have a copy of it.

MR. LEVENTHAL: It is not that I have a copy.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: He is saying the memo did include an attachment that is still attached.

MR. MEISELS: It is as it was.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: The record should show that.

MR. MEISELS: Yes.

NOAM BRAMSON: Yes, I think this is an accurate statement of the city manager's prospective and I don't dispute any factual component with it.

Q. ...At the bottom of the pile of documents that I gave to you and to your attorney that are all labeled Exhibit A, one called Exhibit A-5--

MR. LEVENTHAL: I am missing A-2.

MR. MEISELS: The reason — no, you are not. The reason you don't have an A-2 is that when we duplicated the documents it ended up that A-2 was a duplicate of A-1.

MR. LEVENTHAL: So there is no A-2.

MR. MEISELS: It exists in my garbage pail.

Q. Referring to A-5, you mentioned that you briefly responded to Robert Cox. Is A-5 the communication?

NOAM BRAMSON: Yes, it is.

NOAM BRAMSON: I am curious, I am not challenging you, I am puzzled by the relevance of these conversations.

Q. Let me explain it to you. I have been a lawyer and I have been a witness.

MR. PHIPPS: I can't hear you.

MR. MEISELS: First of all, relevance is actually not in an investigation, okay, in an appropriate objection.

NOAM BRAMSON: I am not objecting.

MR. MEISELS: I am not under oath can't answer any questions. I am asking my questions.

NOAM BRAMSON: All right.

MR. MEISELS: This is a pretty informal proceeding.

MR. LEVENTHAL: There is nothing informal about this.

MR. MEISELS: Please don't interrupt me.

MR. LEVENTHAL: You are giving sworn testimony on the record.

MR. MEISELS: I would appreciate the courtesy of not interrupting.

MR. LEVENTHAL: You mischaracterized to me what would take place say. You said you would ask a few introductory questions and leave it to the Board members.

MR. MEISELS: I made a mistake. I did not realize you were going to misrepresent our conversation.

MR. LEVENTHAL: I did not misrepresent the conversation.

MR. MEISELS: We need to move on.

MR. LEVENTHAL: You mischaracterized to me what would occur today.

NOAM BRAMSON: I withdraw my question.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: It was the question about the other sixth councilperson, what was the nature of that conversation.

MR. MEISELS: Right, which was Yadira.

Q. During the entire time that you have been mayor, actually the entire time that you have been a councilman and then the mayor, have you ever had occasion in the company of other council people to go to the city manager to discuss a personnel issue?

NOAM BRAMSON: In the company of other city councilmembers? That's an important qualifier to the question. I don't remember. I don't have a specific memory of ever doing that but it doesn't mean it never happened in the last 17 years.

Q. Now, just in terms of the way things actually work, could four council people fire the city manager?

NOAM BRAMSON: Of course. Let me — perhaps this is unintentional but there was a pregnant pause after your question which seemed to imply other things. So I want to make clear the notion to firing a city manager is not something that crossed my mind or crossed my lips. It was not in any way, shape or form a part of the conversations I had with councilmembers. It is a whole cloth invention of Mr. Cox or others who wants to generate rumors without firsthand knowledge of the conversations that occurred so that was not in my mind in any way at all. It is clear that the city manager got the impression that that was in my mind because this is where I was going when I paused for your question and this is where we descend into kind of schoolyard nonsense. Someone called the city manager the next morning. I don't know whether it was one of the councilmembers with whom I spoke or perhaps someone with who they spoke and then recounted these discussions secondhand, gave the city manager the impression that we had been conspiring to fire him in order to undue the appointment of the deputy city manager.

Q. As a practical matter, is the city council Chuck's boss?

MR. LEVENTHAL: You know again, I object to that kind of a question. It is vague. It calls for something approaching a legal conclusion. The witness is here as a fact witness. Either the city council is the boss or is not and that is for lawyers to determine. This is not part of your investigation. This is part of building a case and I object to it. It is completely contrary to what you said the purpose of this meeting was. The mayor has given you a full, fair, complete account of the events that occurred. If you have further questions about what occurred I would encourage the mayor to answer them but if you don't, I would encourage the mayor to thank you very much for your time and call it a day.

MR. MEISELS: You are always free to get up and walk out, okay, but I am going to have the question reread. We heard your objection and I would like to know what his understanding is. He has been a councilman, he has been the mayor and the question is, is the city council in effect the city manager's boss?

NOAM BRAMSON: In a global sense yes in that we oversee the performance of the city manager. The city manager serves at our pleasure and the council is collectively ultimately accountable for the performance of the city government but not in the sense that we direct the city manager's day-to-day activities or that we give the city manager directives when it comes to specific actions.

Q. Is it correct the City Council ultimately hires the city manager?

NOAM BRAMSON: Yes.

Q. By a vote of four the City Council can fire the city manager?

MR. LEVENTHAL: These questions have already been asked and answered.

NOAM BRAMSON: I will say again, though, if the implication of your question is that every expression of opinion to the city manager comes with the implicit threat that you will be fired, then I think it is a complete mischaracterization of how we actually relate to each other in this building.

Q. The question was much simpler. Is it correct that the City Council, by a vote of four, can fire the city manager?

MR. LEVENTHAL: Just a moment. If you have further questions about the events that occurred that will advance the purposes of your investigation we'll be happy to answer them, but asking legal questions that can be answered by you reading the city charter or speaking to the City Council are not appropriate for a fact witness as what you characterized as an informal investigation.

MR. MEISELS: Can I have the question read back, please?

MR. LEVENTHAL: I wouldn't answer it. Enough is a enough.

MR. MEISELS: You can do something very simple. You can direct your client not to answer the question and in which case I move on. Do it the way that it is normally done.

MR. LEVENTHAL: What do you mean "normally done?" What is normal about this?

Q. Mr. Mayor, would you like to answer that question or would you decline to answer that question?

MR. LEVENTHAL: Please do as you wish.

NOAM BRAMSON: I think the question was already asked.

Q. I am sorry?

NOAM BRAMSON: I think the question was already asked.

Q. And what was that answer?

MR. LEVENTHAL: The record will reflect what the answer was. If you have questions about the events that occurred, the mayor is here to answer them.

MR. MEISELS: We'll eventually get it at some point. It is going to take longer than expected.

MR. LEVENTHAL: In that case why don't we move on.

MR. MEISELS: I want to get an answer to the question.

MR. LEVENTHAL: The mayor just told you he answered the question.

MR. MEISELS: I asked you to refresh my recollection. What was the answer to the question?

MR. LEVENTHAL: The transcript will reflect what the answer was.

MR. MEISELS: We have several choices. You can refuse to answer the question, you can take the Fifth Amendment if you want to. We got to do something with that question.

MR. LEVENTHAL: The last thing in the world that the mayor wanted to have have happened today was any kind of adversarial tone. He is here to cooperate.

MR. MEISELS: Answer the question.

MR. LEVENTHAL: This is not a good faith investigation by you. You are not limiting yourself to factual questions to aid the Board of Ethics in determining what occurred. Once the Board of Ethics determines what occurred it has the prerogative, the power and the authority to apply its interpretation of the law to the facts but we are not here to testify about what the law is, we are here to testify about the facts.

MR. MEISELS: Let me rephrase the question.

Q. Is it your understanding — I am not asking for a legal opinion — based on your experience, that by a vote of four, the City Council could fire the city manager?

MR. LEVENTHAL: That is the same question. He answered that the City Council can fire the city manager, you know that, you heard it. You saying it will not change it.

Q. Mayor, is that your answer, yes?

MR. LEVENTHAL: We'll stipulate that the City Council can fire the city manager.

MEISELS: Good.

Q. Now, given that the City Council hires a city manager and by majority vote can fire the city manager, would you not consider it to be reasonable if the city manager would be quite concerned about incurring the displeasure of the City Council?

NOAM BRAMSON: I don't think any city manager would want to incur the displeasure of the governing body of the municipality. That is not the same thing as fearing that one will be fired.

Q. That really in fairness relates to the state of mind of the city manager.

MR. LEVENTHAL: I don't understand. What is that question? Are you engaging in an analytical discussion now or are you asking fact questions of a fact witness?

MR. MEISELS: Can we have the question read back, please?

MR. LEVENTHAL: I am getting ready to pull the plug on this.

MR. MEISELS: Do whatever you want to do. You are here by invitation. If you would like the record to reflect that you and the mayor have gotten up and walked out, do it, okay. I would like if you would stop wasting everybody's time, that's all.

MR. LEVENTHAL: It is not me who is wasting time, and excuse me, if you regard me representing my client as wasting time, I have a fundamental problem with that too.

MR. MEISELS: Why don’t you write us a letter of all your problems, do whatever you would like to do but I would like to proceed with this hearing. I didn't expect you to obstruct it.

MR. LEVENTHAL: You just used the word hearing.

MR. MEISELS: We didn't schedule enough time actually to have you obstruct it.

MR. LEVENTHAL: I would like to know whether your clients feel that I am being an obstructionist.

MR. MEISELS: The last thing in the world you are here (to do) is to ask questions of this Board that is conducting an inquiry. Could we have the question read back and I would like to move this. I would like to actually ultimately excuse the mayor shortly, shortens the transcript unfortunately but nevertheless can I have the question read back?

(Question read back by the court reporter.)

NOAM BRAMSON: I think I already answered that. What is the question?

Q. I never finished the question, whether or not the city manager felt intimidated relates actually to the state of that person's mind rather than anyone else's

NOAM BRAMSON: What is the question?

Q. Would you agree that whether or not a city manager felt that he was being pressured by his boss, the City Council, deals with that person's state of mind rather than the state of mind of the City Council.

NOAM BRAMSON: In theory yes but I think whether such a fear is reasonable or not depends on the totality of circumstances...

MR. MEISELS: You gentlemen have any other questions?

MR. BLUMENTHAL: I will speak for myself but I apologize that you had to be dragged through this. However we decide, whatever the recommendations are, we owe you a debt of gratitude not only coming in today but in general what you have done now for the last 26 and a half years.

NOAM BRAMSON: I appreciate that very much and Charles, unless I misread your body language, maybe you do have a question, is that right?

MR. PHIPPS: Yes. I am heartened by this also, as you have so eloquently spoken. I am sad to get to this point and I think we understand why and how it happened but it is so unfortunate from my perspective. I thought we were doing great until this happened. It is kind of sad and sorrowful and we have a whole bunch of people who mean well for the city and who was involved at the top echelon and that's why I think it is important for us to take the time to go through this to be certain what is happening and not just guess. We need to really know what is going on before we come to any kind of conclusion, so I appreciate your forthrightness coming in and telling us your prospective as you see it. That's important. I know you feel you gave us your honest opinion, and speaking for myself I appreciate it. Of course the period that you have spent, that we have spent together also is very personal to me, so thank you for being open today also.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: You don't think we should recuse ourselves and start over?

NOAM BRAMSON: You will have a Board of Ethics with zero members. May I say I appreciate both of your comments very much, and as I said at the beginning, I think we all regret that we find ourselves in these circumstances and I know you are applying yourself as well as you can and I agree it is important for you to do your due diligence and reach a conclusion that you can in good conscience present to whoever is interested in this and be able to look in the mirror and feel that you have done right by the community.

I will just say kind of in summary beyond what I have already indicated, that I am absolutely convinced that the intent and motivation of everyone involved in this process at every stage was to advance the interests of the community and the interests of the city and I know that was my motivation and intent every step of the way, and I feel if we are talking about ethics, that that's at the heart of it and I just hope that lens will be applied to your consideration of whether the specific issues raised here which, as I have said, I think have been significantly mischaracterized, in some cases fabricated, whether that really merits launching a formal charge or anything of that nature, and keep in mind also that I think by this particular complainant there has been an effort to sort of abuse process and to validate and legitimize complaints by laundering it through the Board of Ethics. The mere existence of an inquiry lends it validity, and I ask you to respectfully consider that aspect of this as well because even-- again, even the existence of an inquiry as you see a piece in the Journal News, News 12, it is harmful to me and harmful to others who are dragged into this process. It is harmful to poor Alisa Kesten who is the product of the complaint which was made out of thin air.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: We didn't ask that question.

NOAM BRAMSON: I know you didn't but it is in there.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: Was she at all, with a misspelled name or not--

NOAM BRAMSON: No, no. I mean it was completely made up of whole cloth. It is an illustration of the recklessness of this particular complainant with callous disregard for what can be sourced, what actually can be substantiated, that something like that would be brought on the record to drag a third party in. Again, it is peripheral to all this and I'm glad you didn't focus on this because it is nonsense. Again, it is an illustration of what you are dealing with here and I hope that you will consider the source of all this.

MR. PHIPPS: We are. We are hard pressed. We understand where the complaint is coming from. We know where the complaint is coming from and we are taking that into consideration, but as you stated, we have to do our due diligence. We have to do our due diligence to make sure we are asking the right questions and to get the right answers.

MR. LEVENTHAL: The mayor wouldn't want to be vindicated in a process that didn't have you going through your due diligence. Then he couldn't point to your determination.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: And be on the record too.

MR. LEVENTHAL: Right.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: We should let them go home, okay.

MR. PHIPPS: We recognize that.

NOAM BRAMSON: Maybe that's a nice way of saying I can go home too.

MR. LEVENTHAL: I want to speak to you for one second before we actually leave.

NOAM BRAMSON: You want us to go out and come back in?

MR. LEVENTHAL: I can come back in if necessary.

NOAM BRAMSON: You guys okay if we do a quick sidebar? I will come back to say goodbye.

MR. MEISELS: I am saying to you as mayor make yourself at home.

NOAM BRAMSON: Thank you, Peter. (Recess.)

MR. LEVENTHAL: Thank you very

much. Have a good night.

MR. MEISELS: Mayor, thank you for your time.

(Witness excused.)