Thursday, June 12, 2014

To Recuse or not to recuse, you be the judge

After observing last night''s Planning Commission meeting it occurred to me that one of the commissioners  had a prior business relationship with a petitioner in front of the commission and maybe should have recused herself. The following email chain reflects my concerns and responses from Dave Rosenblum,  Planning Commission Chair and inadvertent (but telling) comments from Dick Horner, Town Zoning Administrator .
Do you think recusal was warranted based up what is contained in the chain? You be the judge.
Vito

From the Vermont League of Cities and Towns Selectboard Handbook concerning conflicts of interest.










       





From: Vito & Susan
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:40 AM
Subject: Recusal process Planning Commission

Gentleman, Ma’am,

I’m a little confused about the recusal process on the Planning Commission. My understanding is the Jennifer Conley was appointed to the Planning Commission with the provisio she would recuse herself on any business brought to the board by Steve Durkee since she had business relationship with him. Yet at last night’s meeting Steve brought business before the board and Jennifer did not recuse herself. I understand the Steve was acting as an agent for the owners of Liquid art but he had an economic interest in the outcome as he is selling the adjacent land to them and obviously consulted on the site plan if not prepared it.
Can you clarify ?

Vito

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Recusal process Planning Commission

1. Nobody objected.

2. To the best of my knowledge Jennifer has not done work for the applicant. 

3.  There was no business relationship between Durkee and Jennifer connected with the application before the Planning Commission.  There was no business relationship with anyone in opposition to the application and Jennifer.

In the past Jennifer may have recused herself because she had done work for a party who was in an adversary relationship with an applicant and the subject matter of the that hearing related to the work she had done.  This raised the potential for her to be an adverse witness to the applicant.  However that situation was such that this did not develop. 

From: Vito & Susan [mailto:Marla@Vermontel.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:30 PM
To: David Rosenblum
Cc: Richard Horner; Seth Webb; Chris Bianchi; Ken Lee; Patty McGrath
Subject: Re: Recusal process Planning Commission

David,

Thanks for the brief. I think Jennifer Conley’s business relationship with Steve Durkee constitutes a cause for recusal as Steve was a proxy for Liquid Art as well as having an economic interest in the approval, thus your second point is somewhat negated. Maybe I’m too jaded, but I think to avoid any appearance of impropriety, especially given the glossing over of what Liquid Art’s primary business is without consideration of a change of use, she should have recused herself. It looks too much like Steve had an inside influence on the commission. Approval seemed to be a slam dunk anyway so why not recuse.

Vito

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:38 PM
Subject: FW: Recusal process Planning Commission
FYI
Keep the blood pressure down. You would think he would be more concerned about Chris Karr being business partners with Steve on the Bill’s business. But once again this is a small town and there are lots of business relations out there and Vermont law recognizes that issue.
Dick

From: David Rosenblum 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Recusal process Planning Commission
The decision to recuse is at the discretion of the commissioner. 
Jenifer’s business with Durkee was far too remote to be a factor in the application that was before us.   There are also 7 commissioners which makes it unlikely any  one commissioner can exert any undue influence.
Perhaps you should run for the selectboard  or get appointed to a commission to see what it looks like on the other side of the table.

Dave, Dick, Jennifer,
So David, first it was Jennifer’s decision to recuse now its “at the discretion of the commissioner” which is it?  No need to answer, it’s beside the point.
The thrust of all I said was and I repeat “AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That has more to do with how you guys manage your responsibility to the town’s residents and how you are perceived  than any legal requirements. Has it got through yet or do I need larger, bolder, redder type.
And thanks Dick, it did slip my mind that Chris is partners with Steve. I’ll keep that in the back of my mind for future reference.
Oh, and I have tried to get appointed to a committee or commission multiple times with no luck, apparently I’m not good enough for the club and have to do my work from the audience.
Vito




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)