In the Midst of the Canton Town Garage Proposal Come Ethical Questions, Allegations

Posted at 12:54 p.m., updated at 2 p.m. on Thursday, April 11

In the midst of recent discussions on a proposal to build a new town highway garage at 325 Commerce Drive have been allegations of potential ethical violations.

The Board of Selectmen has asked the town’s ethics board to determine whether past comments by EDA members has compromised their ability to “study” the project while one of those individuals has accused some selectmen of tainting the site selection process.

At a March 27 Board of Selectmen meeting, members discussed the Economic Development Agency’s decision to study the town garage project. After some discussion of the issue, selectmen voted to request that the Board of Ethics advise whether EDA members Kevin Jackson and Glenn Arnold potentially have a conflict of interest based on past comments opposing the project and proximity to the site.

Earlier March 14, the EDA voted, without Jackson present, to pursue an “economic analysis of the project. According to the draft minutes, Arnold request the discussion, which was eventually endorsed by members Robert Bessel and Chris Budnick.

On March 26, Chief Administrative Officer Robert Skinner sent a memo to the chairman of several town agencies, the town attorney and staff members advising that Arnold had requested several specific documents and information about the proposal to bond (borrow and pay back over time with interest) up to $5.4 million for the project, which, along with roads spending, is set to go to referendum on May 22.

The memo included statements Arnold and Jackson had made at a previous Board of Selectmen meeting. According to the memo, Arnold at that previous said he was there to “clearly oppose the consideration of the location” and referenced safety issues, particularly when users of the multi-use trail go down the road to access it.

At that same meeting Jackson spoke about the densely populated neighborhood and contended the garage could negatively affect property values. He also state it was the EDA purview to research economic conditions and said you can “count on” the EDA providing data on the project, according to the memo.

“Both quoted here seem to have already come to a conclusion,” Selectmen Lowell Humphrey said at the March 27 meeting. “To state a conclusion first and then go and have your study — I’m just not quite sure what kind of independent conclusion is going to be reached.”

Selectmen and Skinner also discussed the role of the EDA, a topic also broached by Permanent Municipal Building Committee member David Madigan in an e-mail response to Skinner’s memo. In part, his response stated, “It’s one thing for these individuals to publically comment of the garage plans at (sic) they perceive they will be affected, it’s quite another to use their positions on a Town appointed board to push a very clear agenda that is not balanced with the overall needs of the town.”

Selectmen ultimately stated it was the ethics commission that should decide whether there is a conflict and voted unanimously to request action.  

Arnold also said he and Jackson live 6/10th and 7/10ths of a mile from the site and feel they are not close enough for any conflict of interest. Arnold said his comments as a citizen have no bearing on collecting more specific data on the site selection and needs assessment, which he also said has been difficult to obtain.  

He also does not see an issue with the past comments.“Why does that impact what I’m doing in my unanimously appointed role on the EDA?” Arnold said. “I want some financial accountability.”

“We’re looking at arithmetic, period,” Jackson added.

Some question the timing of the study after Griswold Farms residents initially made passionate arguments against location of the garage. Roberto said members of the EDA have been talking about prices and "other sites" for the past year and half but never put forth a viable alternative. Several times, he asked to see the data, Roberto added.

“No action had been taken by the EDA until the proposal to put it on Commerce Drive,” he said.

Arnold said the study finally became necessary, arguing that he thought the town would “get real” with the project. He also thinks the referendum date should not have been set while the study was ongoing.

“This is checks and balances,” Arnold said. “They appoint us and we are serving the people.”

Arnold has also publically questioned the ethics of some selectmen. During public comment at an April 3 special meeting of the Board of Selectmen when the dates were set for a town meeting and referendum in relation to the project, Arnold began reading a document he’d prepared. 

When his allotted time ran out, other speakers in the audience continued reading it.  Arnold called the site selection process “flawed and broken,” claiming that many sites taken off the table were not adequately pursued or could be considered with a smaller footprint. Officials say the 5-plus year search has been exhaustive and that the size is appropriate. 

Arnold also contends two selectmen have ethical issues, even asking them to resign at the April 4 BOS meeting. Arnold spoke to two lines in a Permanent Municipal Build Committee Meeting meeting minutes from Dec. 4, 2012 that state that “Mr. Gilchrist advised that Lawton Rd. is the heaviest traveled town road.”The next statement in the minutes states, “The PMBC recommended removing this site from further consideration." 

Earlier, those same minutes also state, “Mr. Skinner advised that when he spoke to DEEP he was told it would be very difficult to recatergorize the parcel, and got the impression it was not worth the effort.”

But Arnold feels Gilchrist was in violation of town and state guidelines by making that statement in the middle of the meeting.

“This infraction is unacceptable as an elected Town Official of Canton and I request that Mr. Gilchrist, in Selectman Lowell Humphrey’s words regarding conflict of interest, I think you 'should obviously do what’s right and step away.'  Again, I’m thankful to your service to the Town of Canton over the years, but I respectfully request that you resign your Selectman position immediately,” Arnold wrote.

Gilchrist said he has commented on Lawton Road traffic for years and said he does not feel he in any way had influence over the PMBC. The comment was made as a private citizen, he added.

Permanent Municipal Building Committee Chairman Peter Reynolds said he’d read data on Lawton Road traffic elsewhere and didn’t feel any comment influenced a decision. 

“I certainly didn’t feel there was any improper influence or attempt to influence on the part of David Gilchrist,” he said, adding that the committee considered that property a “non starter” after talking to officials.

On Jan. 24, 2013, Gilchrist did officially file paperwork in reference to another property — disclosing that he lives across the street from town-owned property at 55 Lawton Road and has recused himself from meetings discussing it. That site had also been considered for a garage but officials say it has many negatives and it was most recently approved for field space.

In his comments, Arnold also asked Roberto to resign, objecting to the selectmen’s comments on March 27 about the role of the EDA.

He wrote, “It’s clear that in the March 27, 2013 Board of Selectmen meeting, Mr. Roberto has the skewed misunderstanding of the purpose of town committees and agencies as he makes comments like, they are ‘committees that we use to help accomplish our goals’ and ‘we should instruct them to do it.’  Mr. Roberto, it’s hard believe and completely unacceptable that in your 3rd term in office, you do not understand the limits of your authority under the Town Charter and the purpose of the town committees.  I thank you for your service to the Town of Canton and respectfully request that you immediately resign from your Selectman position.”

“I have no intention of resigning,” Roberto later said. “If anybody has identified a bias or conflict of interest with any subject, I urge them to come forward and let the ethics board decide how I need to proceed.”

While Arnold repeatedly mentioned the EDA in his comments, he said asking for resignations is coming from him, not the agency.

The Board of Ethics will meet on April 16 to discuss the advisory request as well as two complaints filed this week. Those complaints remain sealed.

In a PMBC meeting this week, Jeff Alberti of Weston and Sampson, the firm working with the town on the selection and needs process, said he would be prepared to answer question on why some of the sites most mentioned were eliminated for the May 9 town meeting, at which residents will be allowed to comment and ask questions.

Officials said the town will also explain the need, process and ideas in greater detail, including the bid, build process, the fact that there are no final building plans but rather concepts and prevailing wage, a mandate about union labor that drives up cost for municipalities.

Residents can find documents on the garage search here  and full recordings of  the recent selectmen meetings here.