NEW ROCHELLE, NY (September 3, 2026) — New Rochelle Council Member Shane A. Osinloye faces a sworn ethics complaint alleging an apparent omission of $6,727.50 in wage payments from Bowman for Congress from the public copy of his amended 2024 financial disclosure statement.
The complaint, submitted by Robert Cox of Talk of the Sound, asks the New Rochelle Board of Ethics to inspect Osinloye’s complete, unredacted disclosure records and determine whether the source and nature of the campaign payments were accurately and completely reported.
The complaint does not allege that Osinloye intentionally concealed the income or ask the board to impose a predetermined finding or penalty.
The City of New Rochelle’s six-page public production concerning Osinloye’s 2024 financial disclosure includes the first page of a statement dated Feb. 28, 2025, followed by an amended statement dated April 8, 2025, and an accompanying letter. The production does not contain the remaining pages of the February statement.
Question 7(C) of the amended disclosure requires the filer to identify “the source and nature of any other income in excess of $1,000 per year from any source not described above,” including consulting, contractual or other income.
The public copy of Osinloye’s amended statement identifies “Singularity Consulting” as the source of “Consulting Fees.” It does not identify Bowman for Congress or wage income from the campaign.
Federal Election Commission records identify three itemized payments from Bowman for Congress to “Osinloye, Shane,” each described as “Wage Expense.”
The campaign reported paying Osinloye $1,852.50 on March 15, 2024, and $1,625 on March 29, 2024. Those two payments, totaling $3,477.50, appear in the campaign’s April Quarterly Report covering Jan. 1 through March 31, 2024.
A third payment of $3,250 was reported on April 15, 2024, in an amended Pre-Primary Report covering April 1 through June 5, 2024. The three itemized payments totaled $6,727.50.
The complaint states that no additional itemized payments to Osinloye appeared after April 15 in the FEC’s processed 2024 disbursement data. It also notes that the FEC records are not a complete payroll ledger and that payments below the applicable itemization threshold may not appear.
The FEC identified Osinloye personally as the payee for all three payments, rather than Singularity Consulting, and described each payment as a wage expense.
The complaint acknowledges that information unavailable in the public records could explain the apparent discrepancy.
“I do not possess the Board’s unredacted records or any request by Osinloye for deletion or exemption,” the complaint states. “It may be that unredacted text, an approved deletion or exemption, a later amendment, a payment reversal, or other information available to the Board explains the apparent discrepancy.”
The filing asks the board to examine those possibilities and obtain Osinloye’s response rather than refuse to receive the complaint.
The complaint is submitted under sections of the New Rochelle City Code governing annual financial disclosures, deficient statements, sworn complaints and Board of Ethics investigations. It identifies the apparent deficiency under Sections 33-10(C) and 33-12 as the primary issue.
Section 33-14, which concerns a knowing and willful false statement made with intent to deceive, is identified only as a possible issue if the board reaches such a finding after completing the required process.
“This complaint does not ask the Board to begin with or presume such a finding,” the filing states.
Cox also expressly identifies the submission as a sworn complaint rather than a request for an advisory opinion under Section 33-16.
“I am not a City officer or employee, and I do not seek prospective advice about my own conduct,” the complaint states. “I am reporting a possible violation of the financial-disclosure requirements that Chapter 33 directs the Board to administer.”
The complaint asks the board to notify Osinloye of the alleged violation, provide him an opportunity to respond, permit any required correction and conduct whatever investigation it determines necessary.
If the board refuses to receive, process or decide the complaint, Cox asks it to issue a written determination identifying whether its refusal is based on subject-matter jurisdiction, Cox’s status as someone who may not request an advisory opinion, the complaint’s form or verification, or another specifically identified ground.
This article was prepared with the assistance of AI tools under the direction and editing of Robert Cox.
Have information about this story? Email robertcox@talkofthesound (preferred) or contact via WhatsApp: +353 089 972 0669.