In the Matter of Brian Andersson

IN THE MATTER OF BRIAN ANDERSSON COIB CASE NO. 2001-618 MARCH 8, 2004

SUMMARY: The Board concluded a settlement with Commissioner Brian G. Andersson of New York

City Department of Records and Information Services (“DORIS”). Mr. Andersson agreed to pay a fine of

$1,000 and acknowledged that he had used DORIS records to conduct genealogy research for at least four private clients, in violation of City Charter provisions and Board Rules that prohibit public servants from using City office for private gain and from misusing City time and resources for non-City purposes. In the settlement, Mr. Andersson acknowledged that he violated the Board’s advice and his own written representations to the Board when he used DORIS records for private clients, by supplying them with

DORIS marriage, birth, and death records or identifying information needed for such records, as well as

DORIS photographs. He charged his clients $25-75 per hour for his time performing archival research, primarily in the National Archives and the New York Public Library. Although his invoices did not show any breakdown of the time he devoted to searching DORIS records for private clients, Mr. Andersson stated that he did not charge a fee to his clients relating to DORIS records or time spent searching for

DORIS records. He also acknowledged that when he sometimes deferred or waived DORIS fees in the exercise of official discretion, the “mixture of [his] private interest and [his] public duties could be construed as a conflict of interest,” given his official access to DORIS records. Mr. Andersson stated further that while he received fees for EICGR work, he never cleared a profit from his private work, and has ceased that private work and dissolved the company. The Board took the occasion of this Disposition to remind City officials to take care to separate their private business matters from their official City work and to seek Board advice if their circumstances change, or the manner in which they intended to conduct their

City and private jobs begins to differ from the reality of their daily work. High-level officials have a special obligation to set an example of honesty and integrity for the City workforce. COIB v. Brian Andersson,

COIB Case No. 2001-618 (2004).

STIPULATION AND DISPOSITION

Whereas the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board finds that Commissioner Brian Andersson cooperated fully and expeditiously with the resolution of this matter; and

Whereas the Board and Commissioner Andersson wish to resolve this matter on the following terms, Respondent Brian Andersson states the following:

I have been the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Records and Information

Services (“DORIS”) since January 2002. From November 1999 until January 2002, I was Assistant

Commissioner of DORIS.

While serving as Assistant Commissioner of DORIS and later as Commissioner, I owned and operated Ellis Island & Castle Garden Research (“EICGR”), a corporation in which I was the sole shareholder. EICGR provided genealogical research for its clients. I did work for private clients as the principal of EICGR.

As owner of EICGR, I billed my clients at the rate of $25 per hour (sometimes $50 or $75 per hour for searching older records) for my time, or $50 for up to two hours of archival research. My archival research was mainly in the National Archives and the New York Public Library, but I sometimes also searched DORIS records for my clients. I represent that although I did not bill my private clients for time I devoted to searching DORIS records, my invoices to these clients did not show any deduction or breakdown of the time I devoted to searching DORIS records for these private clients. My EICGR records did not permit an accounting of the time I devoted to finding DORIS records for my private clients.

As Assistant Commissioner of DORIS, my official job duties as I understood them included conducting genealogical research on behalf of the City and promoting collections. Although I had received written advice from the Conflicts of Interest Board in 2000, stating that I could own and work for EICGR on stated conditions, including the condition that my work for EICGR would not involve any records available at DORIS, I violated that advice and my own written representations to the Board when, in 2000 and 2001, I used DORIS records for at least four of my private clients who could be identified from my

EICGR records, by supplying my clients with DORIS marriage, birth, and death records or identifying information needed for such records, as well as DORIS photographs. I represent that I did not, however, charge a fee relating to DORIS records or time spent searching for DORIS records.

My private clients paid EICGR for my time and paid DORIS the record search and copy fees by separate checks. Normally, DORIS requires payment for record searches and copies prior to doing the research and copying, and my practice of obtaining the records before obtaining payment delayed payment of the record fees to the City. In six instances in 2001-2002, I obtained DORIS photographs at no charge, although normally fees would be due for such records. The DORIS “Tax Photos Order Form” states:

“Payment must be in advance.” It is not possible to tell from DORIS records whether these fees were waived for private clients or friends of mine or for City purposes. Even if the payment could be deferred or if fees could sometimes be waived in the discretion of the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, I realize that my exercise of that discretion, given my official access to DORIS records, gave an appearance of a conflict of interest, and I understand that the mixture of my private interest and my public duties could be construed as a conflict of interest.

In addition to the four clients for whom I used DORIS records, I also helped friends and private clients locate DORIS records on City time, by locating the documents prior to DORIS receiving its search and copy fees, and did not keep records of these searches so that the full extent of these searches and delayed payments cannot be determined. I also facilitated access to DORIS records to others in the general public as I felt that this was part of my duties. I believed that I was “switching hats” from private to public and helping people find DORIS records. However, I understand that I was not permitted to do that because it was a conflict of interest. I represent that while I received fees for EICGR work, I never cleared a profit from my EICGR work, and have ceased that private work and dissolved EICGR.

I used the City phones to call EICGR’s business phone number and made, for example, 15 calls from DORIS to EICGR in the period August 2001 to September 2001. I represent that the EICGR telephone number was also a second home phone number, so that the mixed use makes it difficult to determine for certain whether the calls were for my for-profit business or were personal in nature.

I wrote to the Conflicts of Interest Board on July 24, 2000, in pertinent part as follows, seeking advice:

“Ellis Island & Castle Garden Research – is a very small company that I own that works only with immigration and naturalization records (obvious from the name) that are mostly housed at the National Archives and New York Public Library. There is no connection whatsoever to any kind of record that DORIS makes available. I also decline any work that a client may request that could involve DORIS records. I perform this work in the evening and weekend hours. I spend maybe 10 hours per week at this endeavor, again in my personal time only.”

(Second emphasis supplied.)

My representation that there was no connection to DORIS records was not accurate in that I did supply DORIS records and information to my private clients. I received the Board’s August 11, 2000

Board advice letter advising me that, among other things, I could not use my official City position or title to obtain any private or personal advantage for myself, my company or my clients, and that I could not use

City time, equipment, letterhead, personnel or other City resources in connection with my non-City work.

The Board’s staff letter stated in pertinent part:

“ You have informed the Board that in your position at DORIS, you assist the Commissioner with special projects and public relations and that you are a specialist in genealogy. You have further informed the Board that you own a small company called Ellis Island & Castle Garden Research (the “Company”) for which you research immigration and naturalization records that are primarily housed at the National Archives and the New York Public Library; that your work for the Company does not involve the records available at DORIS; that you decline any work that a client may request involving DORIS records; that you spend approximately ten hours per week of your own time on your work for the Company; and that the Company does not have any City contracts . . . .

You are advised, based on your representations, that it would not be a violation of Chapter 68 for you to . . . own and work for the Company . . . , provided that you do all outside volunteer and compensated work only at times when you are not required to perform services for the City; that you do not use your official City position or title to obtain any private or personal advantage for yourself, the Company, clients of the Company . . . (which would include not advertising the Company’s services on DORIS premises or in DORIS publications); that you do not use City equipment, letterhead, personnel, or other City resources in connection with this non-City compensated and volunteer work; that you do not disclose or use for private advantage any confidential information obtained as a result of your City employment; and that you do not provide compensated services to any superior or subordinate. See Charter Sections 2604(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(14), respectively . . . . You are also advised that you should contact the Board immediately for further advice should the Company . . . enter into business dealings with the City.”

(Emphasis supplied.) While I believed at the time that I was following the Board’s advice letter, I now realize that in my zeal to help my clients, there was at least a perception that the facilitation of access to

DORIS records was a conflict of interest.

I acknowledge that although in my mind, I was helping people by using my love of genealogy to find information on their family history, or corporations to find family history of celebrities for documentaries, my conducting research that involved DORIS records violated Board advice and gave the wrong appearance, that of seeking a private advantage or gain for me or for my paying clients.

I acknowledge that my conduct in using DORIS records in connection with my private business, and in using City resources and City time to conduct private business, violated New York City Charter §§

Sections 2604(b)(3), (b)(2), and Board Rule § 1-13(b) which state, respectively, that:

“No public servant shall use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant or any person or firm associated with the public servant. [§ 2604(b)(3)]” “ No public servant shall engage in any business, transaction or private employment, or have any financial or other private interest, direct or indirect, which is in conflict with the proper discharge of his or her official duties. [§ 2604(b)(2)]”

“Except as provided in subdivision (c) of this section, it shall be a violation of City Charter § 2604(b)(2) for any public servant to use City letterhead, personnel, equipment, resources, or supplies for any non-City purpose. [§ 1- 13(b)]”

In recognition of the foregoing, I agree to pay a fine of $1,000 to the New York City Conflicts of

Interest Board upon signature of this Disposition.

I agree that this Disposition is a public and final resolution of the charges against me. Furthermore,

I agree to provide a copy of the Disposition to any City agency where I may apply for employment upon the request of such agency or in response to any inquiry calling for such information, and, in any event, prior to accepting employment with the City. I understand that copies of the Disposition will be incorporated permanently in my personnel file.

This Disposition constitutes a waiver by me and my successors of any rights to commence any judicial or administrative proceeding or appeal before a court of competent jurisdiction, administrative tribunal, political subdivision, or office of the City or the State of New York or the United States, and to contest the lawfulness, authority, jurisdiction, or power of the Conflicts of Interest Board in imposing the penalty which is embodied in the Disposition, and I waive any right to make any legal or equitable claims or to initiate legal proceedings of any kind against the Conflicts of Interest Board or any employees thereof relating to or arising out of this matter.

I confirm that I have entered into this Disposition freely, knowingly, and intentionally, without coercion or duress, and after having been represented by an attorney of my choice; that I accept all terms and conditions contained herein without reliance on any other promises or offers previously made or tendered by any past or present representative of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board; and that I fully understand all the terms of the Disposition.

This Disposition shall not be effective until all parties have affixed their signatures below.

Any material misstatement of the facts of this matter, including of the Disposition, by respondent shall, at the discretion of the Board, be deemed a waiver of confidentiality of this matter.

The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board accepts the Disposition and the terms contained herein as a final disposition of the above-captioned matter, and affirmatively states that, other than as recited herein, no further action will be taken by the Conflicts of Interest Board against Respondent based upon the facts and circumstances set forth herein, except that the Conflicts of Interest Board shall be entitled to take any and all actions necessary to enforce the terms of this Disposition.

Dated: March 5, 2004 ______/s/______Brian Andersson Respondent

Dated: March 3, 2004 ______/s/______Brian O’Dwyer, Esq. Counsel to Respondent

Dated: March 2 ,2004 ______/s/______Steven B. Rosenfeld, Chair NYC Conflicts of Interest Board