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. [§ 113(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