To the editor:
I co-write a column for the Edge called It’s Not That Simple, where we look at problems that many of us assume have obvious solutions, and we explore why it is more complicated to solve than it may appear. Yesterday’s article about a potential conflict of interest involving me as a member of the Great Barrington Selectboard did the opposite: it took something rather simple and made it far more complicated than it is. So here’s my attempt to explain why it is that simple.
Massachusetts has a somewhat strict conflict of interest law enforced by the State Ethics Commission. From their website: “Each year, every state, county, and municipal employee [including elected officials] must be given a summary of the conflict of interest law prepared by the Ethics Commission and, every two years, they must complete an online training program prepared by the Commission.” Elected officials are very aware of the law.
A joint subcommittee of the selectboard and the planning board started talking about limiting Airbnb-type short-term rentals. I am not on that subcommittee, but as soon as it became apparent that it was headed to the full selectboard, I contacted the State Ethics Commission. They have a helpful program that allows people covered by the law to call and get legal opinions and advice. I’ve called that office frequently in my almost eight years on the board.
I told them that the issue was headed our way and that my fiancĂ©e sometimes rented out her house. I used the word fiancĂ©e because the intention of our relationship is permanence and I didn’t want to downplay that to the commission’s attorney. (Friends and family, don’t worry. We aren’t snubbing you, we haven’t set a date, and we haven’t picked out a china pattern). I asked if there was a conflict of interest since there would be a possible financial impact to her.
The answer from the attorney was clear and simple. If we aren’t married, she isn’t family so there is no conflict. The law defines family as “parents, children, siblings, spouse, and spouse’s parents, children, and siblings.” I was told that the moment we get married, there is a conflict and I would need to recuse myself.
The attorney continued by saying that there is an appearance of a conflict, which I knew; that’s why I made the call. The process for dealing with something that’s an appearance of a conflict is simple and everyone on the selectboard knows it because it comes up all the time. Here’s the process:
- Decide if you can act honestly and fairly, in the public interest.
- If so, file a form called “Disclosure of Appearance of Conflict of Interest” with the Town Clerk. The form asks us to explain what the possible conflict is and state why there is a low risk of undue favoritism.
I absolutely believe I can act fairly and in the public interest. As stated by the attorney, my fiancée is not my relative as defined by the law and I have no economic stake in her home. Our finances remain completely separate. She is a year-round resident who owns one home, so the proposal would allow her to continue her STR. She rented it out a total of 18 times last year, well below the proposed 90-day limit, so the proposal will have no economic impact on her either.
I was given instructions from the attorney for the commission, and followed them. I completed the disclosure and it has been filed with the Town Clerk since the middle of November.
It is that simple.
Here’s an interesting twist. After the call to the commission ended, the attorney called me back. She asked if I owned my home. (I do). She said that as a homeowner, I do have a conflict of interest since any limits we do or don’t impose could have a direct financial impact on me. When I explained that at least four of the five selectboard members also have this conflict, she said it’s still a conflict of interest. If we all recused ourselves it would make a quorum impossible, so we have continued with the process despite the conflict.
Ed Abrahams
Great Barrington
The writer is a member of the Great Barrington Selectboard.
