Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Recusal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select board member seeks written ethics opinion, recuses from watershed permit discussion
Summary
A select board member told the board she had filed for a written advisory opinion from the state ethics commission on whether watershed-permit deliberations are general policy and whether her homeowner status triggers recusal; she said she will recuse from tonight’s discussion until the commission issues its written opinion.
A select board member said June 30 she has formally requested a written opinion from the state ethics commission asking whether watershed-permit deliberations qualify as “general policy” under Massachusetts ethics rules and whether her status as a homeowner in a watershed requires recusal.
The member told the board she filed the request in the ethics commission portal on April 30 and sought clarification on three points: whether watershed-permit discussions are general policy, whether her financial interests as a homeowner are the same as other residents in the watershed, and whether the watershed’s population exceeds the 10% threshold used in the statute. “My request for a written opinion was whether I am allowed to participate in the planning and deliberations during the watershed permit notice-of-intent phase because of the exemptions allowed under Massachusetts’ ethics laws and regulations,” the member said.
Town staff described their conversation with the ethics commission, saying the commission’s guidance is that a board member who has recused should not be included in receiving advance packets for items on which they are recused. “A member who recuses should not receive things in advance,” staff told the board, explaining why recused-member packet distribution was changed in this case.
The select board member said she has not yet received the written opinion and, until she does, will recuse herself from watershed-permit deliberations and the upcoming vote. She added she expects to continue receiving agendas and packet materials and will make a formal decision about participation once the written opinion arrives.
Why it matters: Municipal recusal rules affect who may take part in deliberations that shape local permits. The written guidance the board member requested will determine whether she may participate in substantive phases of the watershed-permit process or must consistently excuse herself when relevant items are discussed.
What’s next: The member will await the commission’s written opinion before making a permanent choice about participation; the select board’s next meeting agenda will include watershed-permit matters.
