Commissioners discuss solar lease disclosures and when to abstain or recuse

At the start of the meeting a commissioner disclosed he leases 225 acres to a commercial solar project (identified in the meeting as Monmouth Solar Dorell) and said he had received about $1,000 per acre. Commissioners asked whether the landowner should recuse from votes on commercial solar matters.

County counsel advised that a commissioner with a financial connection to an applicant should refrain from voting on that matter. Counsel said the legal effect of abstention and recusal is similar in practice and noted that knowingly voting with a financial interest above a statutory threshold can carry criminal penalties; counsel referenced the statute’s criminal classification in general terms during the discussion and said the threshold in question is $250 of interest. Counsel further explained that voting restrictions apply when there is a direct financial interest in the applicant or contract but do not automatically extend to every company in an industry if the entities are unrelated (for example, a different, unrelated solar company on the opposite side of the county would not necessarily create the same conflict).

Following that discussion, the board considered a conflict‑of‑interest statement filed by Gary Locke. A motion to accept Gary Locke's filed conflict‑of‑interest statement carried on a voice vote.

Context and follow up: counsel recommended that commissioners who have a direct financial interest in an applicant refrain from commenting or voting on related agenda items. Commissioners said they will submit conflict statements as appropriate and that the county’s ethics and criminal statutes guide recusal decisions.