Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press ethics concerns and call for town attorneyclarity after appointments
Summary
Multiple residents and a public letter raised questions about recent ethics-board appointments, alleged conflicts of interest and the conduct of the town attorney; the attorney denied soliciting party changes and the board did not take immediate disciplinary action.
Residents used the public-privilege period at the June 2 meeting to press a series of concerns about recent ethics-board appointments, changes to the town ethics code and conduct by the town attorney.
Speakers alleged that a recent appointment process bypassed longstanding town-code procedures and that overlapping county and town appointments left ethics-board members unable to vote; one resident said the conflict may need to be resolved in court. Anthony Marley and other commenters said the sequence of code changes, reinterpretations and appointments created confusion and damaged public confidence in the oversight process.
A written, public letter from Michael Bush was read into the record demanding the immediate resignation of the town attorney and alleging conflicts of interest and inappropriate conduct. The letter argued the attorney had represented private interests related to Windover Farm matters, highlighted pay and availability concerns, and said counsel had counseled an ethics-board appointee about party affiliation. The letter asked the board to open formal proceedings or accept the attorney's resignation.
Town Attorney Daly responded from the dais, saying he did not request any appointee change party affiliation and that a potential appointee volunteered information about changing registration. He noted that he prepares resolutions if asked and that the appointment process is determined by the board. The exchange did not produce a formal investigation; board members said they would provide written responses to specific public questions.
Several residents noted there are currently two ethics-board appointees claiming the same seat (one appointed by the county and one by the town), which could leave the board functioning with only four voting ethics members until a court or other process resolves the dispute. Speakers urged clearer procedures and transparency from the town on appointment documents and on communication with residents.
The town did not take immediate disciplinary action at the meeting. Board members agreed to provide written responses to some of the public's questions and to post submitted materials.
