A News Miscellany

In Bellingham, Massachusetts, according to an article in the Milford Daily News, a town meeting moderator whose firm was also town attorney resigned as moderator when his firm was replaced as town attorney. He did this, he said, not out of spite, but because he would now represent clients before town boards and commissions, and this would conflict with his position as moderator.

But isn't there a more serious, ongoing conflict between being moderator of the town's legislative body and attorney for the town's executive body, the board of selectmen?

After all, it would be unusual for his clients or their interests to come before a town meeting. But executive-legislative disputes over the budget, additional appropriations, and proposed ordinances are central to town meetings.

In addition, his town government clients often speak before the town meeting. How can their attorney be seen as treating them fairly, especially when there is a dispute between them and members of the town meeting? And what if these town officials need the town attorney's advice during the town meeting?

I feel that a town attorney should never be town meeting moderator.

According to an article in the Clayton (GA) News Daily, the Clayton County board of education censured one of its members for an alleged conflict of interest even though there is an ethics board for the school system. And the conflict itself is questionable. A newly elected (or appointed?) board member, an attorney, had represented someone in a suit against the school board. But the case was dismissed very soon after his membership began, and before he attended his first meeting, and he insists he did nothing for the client after he became a member. It sounds like he dealt with the conflict responsibly, and that the censure -- both unnecessary and outside the board's jurisdiction -- was purely political. Not a very welcoming school board.

And in Cumberland, Maryland, according to an article in the Cumberland Times-News, two planning and zoning commission board members were found to have a conflict of interest with respect to a development. But one of them had a conflict because his real estate firm represented properties owned by the developer. The same thing happened with another matter before the board. People with ongoing conflicts might have useful expertise, but they cannot effectively represent their constituents because they are unable to vote on too many matters. This is where an ethics code provision on continuing conflicts can be useful, something like the following: