Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Conflict topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board members push back after proposed town resolution targets nonprofit roles
Summary
Planning board members who helped form Viable Living Inc. told the board July 1 they sought and received a preliminary ethics opinion finding recusal adequate; they asked the town board to defer a broad resolution restricting board members’ nonprofit roles until the Board of Ethics issues its written decision July 18.
Members of the Town of Greenberg Planning Board spent a large portion of their July 1 meeting pressing the town board to delay a resolution that would bar land‑use board members from serving as officers or directors of organizations whose primary function involves land‑use initiatives.
At the start of the meeting, Walter, a planning board member, and Johan, who said he is co‑chair of a new nonprofit called Viable Living Inc. (VLI), read from a prepared statement calling the draft resolution vague and overly broad. Johan said the nonprofit was created to help bring affordable housing resources to Greenberg and that he and several colleagues had asked the Board of Ethics for guidance; the ethics board issued a draft advisory opinion that will be formally voted on July 18 and — according to the discussion — concluded there was no impropriety so long as members recuse themselves from matters that directly relate to VLI projects.
Board members said they were surprised to learn a town board work session had drafted the resolution and moved it forward without a public discussion of its scope. Several members described the draft language as so broad that it could disqualify large numbers of volunteers across multiple boards and committees and argued that changing long‑standing rules should be done through properly drafted law with clear definitions, not a sweeping resolution.
The planning board agreed to prepare and circulate a letter to the town board requesting (1) that the town board postpone consideration of the resolution until after the Board of Ethics issues a final opinion, and (2) that any change to eligibility rules be drafted with specific definitions and public review. Several members asked that the draft letter be revised by email and returned to the group for approval before transmission.
The board emphasized two points repeatedly: that volunteers bring technical expertise that benefits land‑use deliberations, and that the town’s existing ethics procedures and recusal requirements are intended to address conflicts when they arise. No formal action to adopt the letter was taken at the meeting; members said they would circulate edits and aim to have a signed version to send before the next town board meeting.
