Regional planners urge review after consultant’s legislative testimony contrasts with town positions

RiverCOG committee members used their March 23 meeting to flag what they described as an optics and conflict-of-interest concern: a planning consultant who provides services to multiple towns has testified before the General Assembly in ways that some member municipalities find inconsistent with their local positions.

Chair Frank invited Raul and others to describe the issue. Raul said he was "taken aback" by testimony the consultant had submitted in favor of a housing bill and observed that the consultant also advises RiverCOG towns. "That's a problem," he said, asking how member towns should handle testimony that appears to contradict client interests.

Sam Gold responded that the chapter’s legislative chair sometimes prepares testimony on behalf of the American Planning Association and that draft testimony is circulated, but acknowledged members’ concerns about how widely the chapter engages and whether clients are aware. "Giving testimony as the legislative chair of CCAPA ... it is not necessarily a conflict of interest," Sam said, but he conceded the situation "gets a little messy" when town planners’ public testimony diverges from the positions of towns that employ them.

Members suggested practical next steps: circulate the testimony in question so town staff and counsel can review it, and consider strengthening conflict-of-interest language in procurement documents or RFPs. Ray Fusco and others also recommended that each town’s attorney review contract language and that RiverCOG staff help assemble the testimony for local review.

What’s next: Staff agreed to gather the relevant testimony and distribute it to member staff and officials for local review; members may raise procurement or policy changes at a future RPC meeting.