Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge dismissal of conflict-of-interest complaint; Select Board agrees to preliminary investigation
Summary
Public commenters at the Deerfield Select Board meeting called for dismissal of a conflict-of-interest complaint and urged clearer procedures. The board apologized for poor optics, agreed to have staff select two nonaffiliated investigators to conduct a preliminary inquiry and report back.
Chair convened the select-board meeting and opened public comment with a complaint about how a recent conflict-of-interest allegation was handled.
Kevin Verville, a private citizen, told the board the complaint filed by the town’s chief of police failed to specify which of the ordinance’s seven criteria it invoked and urged immediate dismissal. “The complainant doesn't even say which of the 7 he's alleging, is incorrect,” Verville said, adding he believed the matter should be dismissed “out of hand.”
Other residents who spoke during public comment backed that view. Stacy Marchionni, who said she serves on the Municipal Budget Committee but spoke as a private resident, told the board she attended the MBC meeting at which the matter arose and said there was “absolutely no basis for the chief's complaint whatsoever,” adding that the police budget was passed with the cruiser included and that the MBC did not attempt to remove that line.
The chair acknowledged the optics of his earlier handling of the complaint were poor, apologized and described his intent to form a small group to conduct the ordinance’s required preliminary inquiry. “I do apologize for, appearing to do that. It wasn't my intention,” the chair said, explaining he had been attempting to identify staff who could assist with a short fact-finding review.
After discussion the board reached a consensus to allow Karen (town staff) to organize an initial fact-finding team: Karen will identify two nonaffiliated people to serve with her in conducting the preliminary investigation into whether a reasonable person would find merit in the complaint. The board characterized that step as procedural — an initial check to gather facts and return with a report so the select board can decide whether further action is warranted.
The board and several residents also urged clearer written procedures for handling conflict-of-interest filings going forward so the ordinance is not used as a “weapon,” and to reduce misunderstandings about who should investigate complaints and when recusal is required.
The board did not take formal disciplinary action at the meeting; it limited its immediate action to approving the preliminary investigative step and asking staff to prepare clearer handling procedures for future complaints.
