Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public comments and ethics questions surface as town attorney reiterates abstention advice
Summary
A written public comment accused Senior Services of nepotism and unsafe driving; a letter from Board member Michael Rocchetti questioned the Ethics Commission timeline. Town Attorney Rob Avena advised that members should abstain on sub-budgets that present apparent personal conflicts and that the ethics commission decides violations.
A written public comment and an attached letter about ethics complaints were included with the Board of Finance minutes on March 4, 2026, prompting discussion of process and conflicts of interest. The board read a public comment from resident Helen Kwasniewski that criticized Senior Services hiring practices and alleged a safety incident involving a senior-services van.
The minutes also list an attached letter from Board of Finance member Michael Rocchetti to the Ethics Commission asking for a timeline and questioning why the commission did not convene sooner after complaints were filed; Rocchetti urged the commission to uphold its probable-cause determination and recommended abstention by employees voting on budgets that could benefit their employer.
Town Attorney Rob Avena addressed voting procedures in a recorded remark included in the minutes. Avena summarized the town’s practice around potential conflicts in budget votes and recommended that members consider abstaining on sub-budget votes that could create a personal conflict while noting that abstention does not require recusal from debate. Avena told members: "When in doubt, when you think you have any personal interest involved, abstaining is perfectly fine." He said the Ethics Commission is the body that determines whether a violation occurred and that his remarks were guidance rather than a binding rule.
During a brief question-and-answer exchange, a new RTM member, Mike Bono, asked whether voting on a budgetary matter that affects a personal financial interest could constitute an ethics violation; Avena confirmed the commission handles such determinations and reiterated that abstention is an acceptable response when members are unsure. The minutes do not record an immediate action by the board in response to the public comment or the letter; the ethics-related materials were attached to the minutes for the record.
What was in the public comment and letter
- Public comment (submitted in writing by Helen Kwasniewski): criticized Senior Services operations and hiring, alleged a van driver passed a stopped school bus with flashing red lights and called for people to be fired; urged the Board of Finance to reject the budgets. - Letter from Michael Rocchetti to the Ethics Commission: requested the timeline for complaint handling, questioned delays in convening the commission after complaints were filed, and urged the commission to uphold probable cause and to advise abstention in cases where employees vote on matters that directly affect their employer.
Next steps
The materials are on file with the minutes and the Ethics Commission or other town bodies may address the procedural and conflict questions outside the Board of Finance budget hearing record. The minutes do not record a formal response from the Ethics Commission at this meeting.
