Bangor committee reviews conflict-of-interest rules for opioid-settlement grant scoring

City solicitor Dave Zemtak told the Bangor City Opioid Funds Advisory Committee on the evening the group must decide, before any review, whether a member has a financial or special interest in applications to be scored.

Zemtak said the city code’s ethics sections—cited in handouts to in-person attendees as sections 33-11 and 33-2—require that “no board member or commission member shall, participate in the deliberation or vote or otherwise take part in the decision making process on any agenda item before their collective body in which they or a member of their immediate family has a financial or special interest other than interest held by the public generally.”

The committee discussed how that rule would apply to scoring of grant applications against a limited pool of opioid-settlement funds. Several members said multiple committee members lead or are affiliated with organizations likely to apply for grants; others said they worried ruling some members out of scoring would shrink the active membership available to do the work.

Zemtak emphasized the ordinance’s procedure for conflicts: the committee must hear the facts, the committee then votes on whether a particular member has a conflict, and if a majority finds a conflict that member must not take part in deliberations on that agenda item and should leave the room to avoid the appearance of conflict. He noted the ordinance distinguishes a financial interest—"a direct or indirect interest having monetary or pecuniary value"—from a special interest, which is "an interest having value peculiar to a certain individual or group…not shared by the general public." Zemtak said those determinations must be made before substantive review of any application begins.

Committee members described possible approaches used elsewhere, including drawing reviewers from distinct application categories so applicants do not review in their own category, or swapping reviewers with an outside jurisdiction. Jamie Halstock, a committee member who said she works for CHCS but was participating as an individual, said, "I work for CHCS even though I'm not here as a representative of CHCS. I'm here as an individual." Member Scott said he did not expect volunteers would try to undermine others’ applications: "I don't think anybody's gonna go out of their way to throw somebody else under the bus, especially when we're talking about a lot of applications."

After discussion, members agreed by consent to ask the Moss Center (and its law center) whether an outside reviewer swap or other expedited reviewer support is available. The committee also agreed to schedule a follow-up meeting in two weeks to consider results of that outreach. No formal roll-call votes were recorded on those directions at the meeting.

The committee heard that applications will be scored and that top-scoring applicants will receive grants from the limited pool; members noted a filing window already in motion with an application deadline discussed during the meeting as Dec. 1. Several members said they had previously proposed a small subcommittee of non-applicant members to do initial scoring and report back; others objected that leaving most members out of scoring would undercut the committee’s purpose. Zemtak advised that any member who believes they have a conflict must disclose it before discussion of the related agenda item and that any member may raise a potential conflict for the committee to consider.

The session closed after members expressed support for contacting the Moss Center and for returning in two weeks to continue the matter.