Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Recusal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State ethics training requires recusal for perceived conflicts; South Burlington DRB discusses alternates
Summary
Board members were briefed on new statewide ethics standards that supersede the city's prior policy, were told a 45‑minute training is required, and debated whether the new perception‑based recusal rule warrants recruiting alternates for the board.
The South Burlington Development Review Board on March 4 was told the state has issued new, statewide municipal ethics standards that supersede the city’s prior rules and require all municipal employees, board members and appointees to complete a training video and certification.
Dawn Philibert, chair of the Development Review Board, told members the training is a roughly 45‑minute video with a short quiz and that completion certificates must be sent to the city attorney, who serves as the city ethics officer. The chair said she would distribute the training link to members.
Why it matters: The new state standard changes how the board must handle conflicts of interest. Under the prior city standard a perceived conflict required disclosure; the statewide standard requires recusal for perceived conflicts. The distinction could increase recusals in a small municipality where members frequently know applicants, contractors and others appearing before the board.
Discussion highlights
- Perceived‑conflict recusal: The chair summarized the principal change as treating perceived conflicts the same as actual conflicts for recusal purposes. Board members expressed concern about how broadly “perceived” might be interpreted in a small community and whether someone triggering a perceived conflict notice would need to step aside even if they feel impartial.
- Alternates: The board discussed whether recruiting alternates who attend meetings and participate routinely would help when members must recuse themselves. Members noted prior experience with alternates sometimes shows they can be less engaged if called only rarely; others suggested alternates be fully integrated and sit with the board so they are prepared when called to vote.
- Next steps: The chair directed that the training link be circulated to all members. Board members were asked to do the training and to bring questions about specific perceived‑conflict scenarios to a future meeting or consult the city ethics officer for guidance.
Ending: Members were asked to complete the training and return certificates to the city attorney. The board agreed to revisit policies about alternates and recusal after members have completed the state training and had an opportunity to consult with the ethics officer.
