Dear Editor, I read the Select Board candidates’ answers in the latest issue of the Mountain Times, and I’d like to address the conflict-of-interest question further. My comments are not specifically directed at any particular candidate or candidates or even the current Select Board or other town board or commission members.
Each current candidate has answered the question about current or future potential conflicts, but my points are directed more toward the appearance of conflict, an issue specifically addressed in state law, along with actual conflicts.
What is “appearance” rather than actual conflict? Actual conflict is defined as: A conflict of interest exists 1. If you have a direct or indirect interest in a matter you have influence or control over at work or; 2. A member of your immediate family or household, or a business associate of yours, has an interest in a matter you have interest or control over at work. In this case, “work” would be defined as Select Board or other town board membership.
The appearance of conflict is defined as: “would a reasonable, average person with knowledge of all relevant facts think you have a conflict of interest?” If the answer is “yes”, there is an appearance of conflict.
How do these rules apply in Killington or, in fact, in any small town? We can agree that an actual conflict exists when No. 1 above is the case. I trust all of our town officials adhere to this rule and recuse as required. I am not sure we can say the same for No. 2 because, in many instances, we simply do not have enough information to make a judgment and must trust the official to disclose relevant information.
The appearance of conflict, however, can get a little more dicey.
In Killington, we have officials and candidates who have family members employed by the town or are employees of the town themselves. To many, these relationships indicate potential conflict. We also have board members who are beneficiaries of decisions, but those decisions are not limited to themselves. For example, the decision to build a water line on Killington Road could be viewed as directly benefiting businesses owned by Select Board members, but would also benefit many other properties as well. Another example would be development board or planning commission members who are also in the real estate business locally and would benefit from new development. Again, they would not be the sole beneficiary, as anyone in the same business would also potentially benefit.
I raise these questions not to support or oppose anyone in the current election or future contests, or the appointment of anyone to any board or commission, but to try to better define and clarify how we look at the conflict of issue question now and in the future.
I also think the time is now for the Select Board to address this issue by gathering public input and setting basic guidelines for all of our various boards and commissions going forward.
Art Malatzky, Killington
