Canton Board of Ethics Releases Opinion on Advisory Request for EDA members

The Canton Board of Ethics has released a two-part opinion on a recent advisory inquiry about the actions of two members of the Economic Development Agency.  

Recently ethics questions have been raised surrounding the latest proposal for a town public works garage at 325 Commerce Drive. A proposal to bond $5.4 million for the project will be discussed at a meeting the night of May 9 and go to voters at referendum on May 22. The ethics board has been looking at a request prompted by the Board of Selectmen and a complaint about two selectmen. 

The opinion released this week deals with a request initiated by the Board of Selectmen at a March 27 meeting, in which they discussed a March 14 EDA decision to study the town garage proposal and whether members Kevin Jackson and Glenn Arnold had a potential conflict of interest due to their previous comments opposing the plan and relative proximity to the site. The decision issued this week is for two EDA members. While the names are “redacted” from the decision, it clearly mirrors selectmen’s request.  

The opinion on the EDA members is in two parts. The first is whether the two individuals actions are consistent with the code of ethics. The opinion states that advisory requests for that aspect are for “prospective” or future conduct and said the issue and supporting documents should be filed as a complaint.    

The ethics letter, dated May 7, also refers to an opinion sought on whether the EDA members in question should recuse themselves from participation in the economic analysis. It states that if the members have a financial or personal interested in the outcome they should inform the EDA and not take part in the discussion. The letter also clarifies the guidelines for personal or financial interest and said members can seek an advisory opinion when the are unsure. 

The EDA itself hasn't concluded that study as a referendum and town meeting dates for the projects was set by the Board of Selectmen on April 3. The state elections enforcement commission prohibits the use of any public funds — in a very broad sense — for referendum advocacy for or against a project once a date has been set.

While Arnold has questioned the selectmen calling a special meeting to set the dates a week before their regular meeting, Jackson, according to the draft EDA minutes of April 11, “noted that the members of the EDA are precluded from giving an opinion for or against any referendum question (in a public forum) as members of the EDA” but could do so as individuals.  
 Action on “Quantitative analysis” of the garage was tabled at the meeting.    
The ethics board is still discussing a separate complaint filed in relation to the garage controversy. While it is has not been made public, sources said it references selectmen Steve Roberto and David Gilchrist.  

On April 3, Arnold, speaking at the special Board of Selectmen’s meeting, publicly asked the two to resign. With Gilchrist he cited a statement made about Lawton Road traffic during a 2012 Permanent Municipal Building Committee meeting during a discussion of state property, which is next to his property. Roberto, Arnold argued at that meeting, has a “skewed misunderstanding of the purpose of town committees,” and doesn’t understand the limits of his authority. Sources have told Patch it was not Arnold who filed the complaint. Both Gilchrist and Roberto have stated that they felt there was no wrongdoing on their part.  

Selectmen acknowledged receipt of the ethic board’s opinion on the EDA but said little at Wednesday’s selectmen’s meeting. Barlow said he should not comment on the issue right now.

Jackson said, ""This is just another failed attempt by the Board of Selectmen to keep the Towns Economists  and citizens from releasing facts to Canton taxpayers."

See more on the controversy at http://canton-ct.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/in-the-midst-of-the-canton-garage-proposal-come-et...