Councilman Olney loses suit challenging Watertown Ethics Board decision

Yahoo

10-05-2025

May 10—WATERTOWN — City Councilman Cliff G. Olney has lost his court case that challenged the city's Ethics Board that ruled he should be removed from office for violating the city's code of ethics.
In a court decision on Friday, Supreme Court Judge James P. McClusky dismissed the lawsuit, citing that Olney's due process was not violated.
In February, Olney's attorney, Stewart Weisman, an attorney with the Syracuse law firm of Centolella Law, filed court papers "to put an end to Defendants' continuous and systematic violations of the due process" after the Ethics Board ruled that Olney engaged in alleged unethical conduct.
But McClusky ruled that the Ethics Board's opinion to remove Olney from office was not binding and did not make a final decision, so it did not impact his status of a council member.
"This court has nothing to review as the issue is not ripe," according to McClusky's ruling.
The judge also disagreed with Olney's claim that the Ethics Board was improperly comprised because when it met, only four members were involved in the ethics complaint and not a full contingent of five members.
Therefore, Olney's due process was not violated, McClusky ruled. The Ethics Board only needed a simple majority "to do business."
Olney's attorney asserted that the City Charter required that the Ethics Board be comprised of five members to take any action. Olney has 30 days to appeal the decision.
"I'm not disappointed," Olney said. "We did what we had to do."
On Sept. 18, 2023, the Ethics Board recommended that the city hold a hearing to determine whether Olney engaged in a pattern of ethics violations and that he should be removed from office.
Then-Mayor Jeffrey M. Smith, a political adversary of the councilman, filed the ethics complaint accusing Olney of releasing confidential information, having a conflict of interest and breaching his fiduciary duty involving the city's purchase of the former Watertown Golf Club in January 2023.
According to the 13 pages of court papers, Olney alleged dozens of instances when the city was accused of failing to follow due process and give him "a meaningful opportunity to be heard."
The lawsuit asked that the Ethics Board's Advisory Opinion be "declared null and void and without effect because of the Due Process violations."
Among those arguments, Weisman argued that Olney was not given an opportunity to defend himself throughout the Ethics Board investigation.
Hancock Eastabrook attorney John G. Powers defended the city in the lawsuit.
Olney has denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the allegations were politically motivated by Smith, often an adversary when the two served on the City Council together.
Olney believes that the public "should be aware" that Smith "politically weaponized the government" to attack him.
He added that the city could "stack the deck" against him because it had more money to spend on legal bills than he had.
Olney raised $15,000 for a legal defense fund to pay for his lawyer and all of that has been spent.
The City Council could still proceed with an ethics complaint hearing against Olney to determine whether he violated the city ethics code.
If he's found guilty of ethics violations, Olney could be removed from office, be censured or the council could do nothing.
Mayor Sarah V.C. Pierce could not be reached for comment.