Council clash over noise-ordinance memo prompts recusal dispute

A contested exchange over a draft noise ordinance took up a significant portion of the meeting after a council member read excerpts of a 12-page memo challenging the provenance and tone of legal advice provided to the council.

The council member said the attorney's memo "reads as a defense of the ordinance and includes assertions that call into question my integrity, motivations, and ability to participate in counsel deliberations." He said he had retained outside counsel for clarification and disputed the suggestion that he must recuse himself. The town attorney responded: "I will stand by my position that you should recuse yourself," saying his guidance aimed to protect the town from the perception that a member was using office to target a particular business. Several council members said they wanted the matter aired and suggested continuing discussion in a separate session; no formal recusal vote occurred.

Councilors referenced case-law and outside opinions during the exchange. Several speakers said that legislative decision-makers typically do not face the same appearance-of-impropriety standards that apply to judges, while the town attorney emphasized the town's litigation risk if the perception of bias persisted. The chair asked to move the meeting back to ordinance work, noting that the noise-ordinance drafting work still continues.