Must be the glasses

I want everyone to know that I do in fact know when the sky is blue.  Although this time of the year in New England it is a 50/50 chance that you will in fact see a blue sky.  

I also believe that it fact no matter what you tell some people, they are going to believe what they want to believe. I do know from experience that as stubborn as some people may be, most people do in fact have a basis for their beliefs.  A fair amount are willing to withhold final judgment, assuming you can give them reasons to formulate their opinions, in the end most people do tend to hold reasonable beliefs.

A simple fact in life, whether you believe it or not, is perception is 95% of the battle. For example, I can pound away on the keyboard in give you a hundred reasons, well maybe 50 reasons, all right perhaps 10, as to why I am the nicest guy I know. Irrefutable arguments to support that proposition can be made.  I won't give them to you though because in the realm of reality, that perception battle has been lost.

Perhaps I digress a bit, or maybe am just a little bit ahead of myself on this piece.

Anyway ...

There is a very interesting piece in the Fairhaven Neighborhood News this week on the latest planning board meeting at which the issue of medical marijuana pot plants, or as more formally referred to as RMD facilities and zoning were discussed.  Read it for the detail that just isn't all going to get in here.

Points about conflict of interest are raised in the article.  At any point in such a discussion an individual essentially has nothing more than a personal opinion. Violations are determined initially by the state ethics commission and ultimately, depending on appeals, by the courts.  

There do appear to be some unique aspects raised in the article. 

One point I always make when ever such a discussion comes up, is when in doubt contact the state ethics commission.  Any municipal employee (and under the law that covers all paid and unpaid elected and appointed board and committee members) is entitled to contact the commission to obtain a verbal opinion or a written opinion.  

I have done it myself on a number of occasions.  

There are two general concerns everyone needs to remember.  The first is whether an actual conflict exists. For what it is worth, and in the end it is worth anything, my opinion is at this stage of the game, there is no actual conflict.  

Why isn't that worth anything?  Reference above as to who determines violations.  Everyone else simply has any opinion.

I get called often about conflicts.  I make it a point to stress, repeatedly, the best advice I can give you is to contact the state ethics committee.  Make sure you note when you call, the person you talk to, and better yet, create a paper trail.  

The second piece of advice: when you have done or been able to follow the first piece of advice, when in doubt, leave the room.  

Here is the sticky wicket with conflicts.  An issue on its face may not present one.  Once discussions commence, or more information is received, the tangled web can begin to be weaved.

That web also may not contain any strands leading to an actual conflict. However it is at this the point we need to remember there are two general concerns.  The first being the actual conflict, and the second ... what is known as an appearance of a conflict of interest.

This is where a whole lot of people at times get tangled up in what is admittedly a complicated web.  

Even if you do not have an actual conflict, if facts exist or come up which would cause "a reasonable person" to conclude that your actions are being influenced by relevant circumstances you would have an appearance of a conflict of interest. As a caveat, being a reasonable person isn't always what you yourself may consider to be a reasonable person.  

Having an appearance of a conflict doesn't prohibit you from acting.  It does however require disclosure. For example, under the law, if mom or dad, brother or sister, or a few others appears before your board, you would have a conflict.  Yet your second cousin appearing would not create an actual conflict.

Similar distance in relationships, either by blood or personal connection, could and have been looked at however as creating an appearance of a conflict.  Which by the way can be dispelled rather easily under the law by filing a disclosure and announcing at the meeting.  

The moratorium discussion and vote simply left in the aspect of RMD zoning would not create an actual conflict. Such a matter is in my opinion on its face of such a significance to the town as a whole as to negate the "personal" conflict.  I would also opine personally that the additional circumstances of  the discussion on the moratorium with a known potential applicant with a known potential site would not per se create an actual conflict. Again a personal opinion.

With the additional circumstances of discussion involving a specific applicant at a specific site, the strand of the web leading to an "appearance" of a conflict has at least been spun.  Whether the strand actually ends up being attached,  I don't know.  

Whether the circumstances at that point rise to the level of what a reasonable person might conclude, is ultimately for someone else to decide.

Folks if you serve, I am telling you, if there is any doubt, call the ethics commission.  DO NOT ever rely on the personal opinion of anyone.  You can call your private attorney and get advice, and if there is eventually an opinion by the commission to the contrary, that initial advice doesn't negate the violation   All roads to CYA must run to the state ethics commission.  

Below is an excerpt from one page of the state ethics commission web site which discusses the appearance issue.  It actually is from a page specifically discussing finance committee members.  As we all know people will believe what they want, however I will tell you you can delete the "finance committee" reference and insert the name of any committee or board you sit on and it is applicable.

The law prohibits you from taking any type of official action that could create an appearance of impropriety, or acting in a manner which could cause an impartial observer to believe that your actions are tainted with bias or favoritism. Before taking any type of action which could appear to be biased, you must first file a full, written disclosure of all the relevant facts with your City or Town Clerk. (We also recommend that you make the disclosure public at the finance committee meeting where the issue arises.) Instances where you should file such a disclosure include: actions affecting the financial interests of a relative who is not an immediate family member; actions involving a friend, neighbor, business associate, or anyone with whom you have a significant personal or professional relationship. If you are in doubt as to whether there is an "appearance problem", the safest approach is to make the disclosure.

Note: the listed actions should not be considered all inclusive.

In the end, there is probably an easy fix to the whole appearance issue, if it is even deemed an issue.  It is only an issue if and when adding the specific potential applicant is deemed a relevant circumstance.

Shifting focus a bit. Back to the perception thingy.  What you say, what you propose and what your argue for is what creates the perception of others as to where you stand. If for example you have in the past cited examples of communities in other states banning facilities, if you bring up examples of legal challenges being waged by communities in the Commonwealth, if you state you want to be more restrictive, you might just have created a perception of where you stand on an issue.

A small part of me regrets not going to the meeting. A very small part to be frank.  First, it wasn't a public hearing, and while perhaps the chair might have allowed public comment, I still try to resist temptation and fate and really do my best to keep quiet at OPM (other people's meetings), at least the not public hearing ones.

From the read of the article, my best simply would not have been good enough. Thus why I tend to prefer watching the tape when comment is not a matter of right.  

In any event, for better or worse, the advent of government access television kind of negates the need to show up in person to every single meeting.  Unfortunately we all have to pick and choose where we can be at times, just as when to fight certain battles.  Reading the paper I can tell you right now I have to make a hard decision about December 10th.  

If I can manage it though, I promise not to wear my rose colored glasses.  That tint with a blue sky, well than I would be seeing a shade of purple wouldn't I?

Let's set one thing straight for the record though.  The planning board is not attempting to impose a permanent ban.  Yet another thing must be said for the record, that is the public hearing and the vote to move forward with the moratorium article has created the what amounts to a temporary ban.  For six months, unless the vote is sooner rescinded or acted upon by town meeting, it creates a permit limbo.  

Point blank, I fail to see any misconception over whether the planning board voted for a ban.  I would agree with the fact that there is some confusion over permanent vs temporary.  A ban however short the period is still a ban.

I can see the potential for this one on town meeting floor.  Debate. Might even have the revival of majority and minority planning board positions.  Hand count. Challenge. Teller count.  All good stuff. What I can't see right now is a 2/3 vote. That could change.

Maybe its my tinted shades?

Enough for today.