Select Board debates ethics complaint over DRB sketch-plan review and asks State Ethics Commission for guidance

A complaint brought to the Richmond Select Board alleged that a Development Review Board (DRB) member, Matt, had a conflict of interest tied to conversations with a condo association about a boundary-line adjustment and a potential future purchase. Bradley, who submitted the complaint, said the minutes and recording indicate the member had been "in conversation" about purchasing property tied to the subdivision and questioned whether the member should have recused himself.

"I think in this case it's pretty simple ... he has a conflict of interest; he should recuse himself," Bradley said during the Select Board discussion. In response, Matt said he "was not part of the application at all" and described his conversations with residents as informal and typical of his work as a developer: "I just talked to ... people about purchasing land because that is what I do for a living."

Town staff and board members disputed whether the DRB sketch-plan review meets the code-of-ethics definition of an official act. Tyler (administrator) noted the sketch plan is defined in Richmond's subdivision regulations as a voluntary, informal, non-binding process and therefore not appealable to Environmental Court. He concluded that because sketch-plan review does not produce a written, appealable decision, it may not qualify as an "official act" that triggers the town's former ethics enforcement framework. "Sketch plan review is a voluntary informal process and is not binding on the DRB or the subdivider," Tyler said.

Other participants disagreed. Bradley and several residents argued the sketch-plan discussion plainly influences subsequent applications and therefore can have an official effect. "It absolutely does have an influence ... it influences the future direction of that application going forward," one participant said. Several speakers urged caution and emphasized the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

The Select Board declined to adjudicate the complaint at the meeting. Members agreed to seek a formal advisory opinion from the State Ethics Commission and legal guidance on whether the December sketch-plan meeting constituted an official act under the policy in force at that time. The matter will return to the board after outside review.

The board also signaled it will review internal procedures to require clearer disclosures on agendas, and Chair signaled a desire to incorporate recusal/disclosure checks as a standing agenda item for land-use bodies going forward.