GREAT BARRINGTON — An often acrimonious debate between two selectboard members over a proposal to limit short-term-rental operations in town has escalated with the revelation that one of them has an apparent conflict of interest.
Board member Ed Abrahams, who has contested at every turn the proposal of colleague Leigh Davis to restrict Airbnb and Vrbo-style rentals, shares his home and is involved romantically with Penelope Harris Greene, who herself owns and operates a short-term rental in the Housatonic section of Great Barrington.
Greene owns and operates a short-term rental home through Airbnb at 11 Wyantenuck Street for $264 per night. Click here to view the listing. For more than five months starting on December 31, 2020, Abrahams himself was a mortgage holder of the property to the tune of $200,000, according to property records at the Southern Berkshire Registry of Deeds.
Abrahams has not publicly disclosed the apparent conflict, though he told the Edge he did file a disclosure with the state Attorney General’s office. In an interview, Abrahams insisted there is no actual conflict of interest but merely the appearance of one.
“I checked with the Attorney General’s office and they said there isn’t a conflict,” Abrahams said. “I filled out an appearance-of-a-conflict form which now is with the town clerk.”
The Edge contacted the State Ethics Commission, whose spokesman Gerry Tuoti declined to comment or confirm whether the commission had received a complaint about Abrahams, but the goal of state law governing conflicts of interest for municipal employees is “to prevent conflicts between private interests and public duties,” according the ethics commission’s summary of the law.
The applicable statute is Massachusetts General Law Chapter 268A, which deals broadly with the conduct of public officials and employees and is intended to prevent, among other things, self-dealing and nepotism.
According to Section 19, a municipal employee such as Abrahams “may not participate in any matter in which he or a member of his immediate family (parents, children, siblings, spouse, and spouse’s parents, children, and siblings) has a financial interest.”
The law also says the official may not participate in any matter in which a prospective employer, or a business organization of which he is a director, officer, trustee, or employee has a financial interest. Participation includes discussing as well as voting on a matter, and delegating a matter to someone else. Greene is not a member of Abrahams’ immediate family, so he does not appear to be caught by the statute, though he indicated to the Edge that wedding bells may be in the offing.
However, Section 23(b)(3) states, in part, that “acting in a manner that would make a reasonable person think you can be improperly influenced is prohibited.” That law requires a municipal employee to consider whether his relationships and affiliations could prevent him from acting fairly and objectively when he performs the duties of his office, the ethics commission’s summary says.
“If she cannot be fair and objective because of a relationship or affiliation, she should not perform her duties. However, a municipal employee, whether elected or appointed, can avoid violating this provision by making a public disclosure of the facts,” the commission said, using female pronouns.
Asked why he did not publicly disclose the appearance of a conflict, Abrahams said the Attorney General’s office did not advise him to do so and, besides, he had complied with the requirement by filing the disclosure form that is now publicly available in the town clerk’s office. But Abrahams acknowledged that he will likely feel compelled to make a public announcement of the apparent conflict at the selectboard’s next regular meeting.
Davis’ revised proposal would require those who offer STRs to register with the town and obtain a license. But it would treat part-time residents differently from those who lived in town full-time, which Davis defines as “any owner who resides greater than 183 days, in the aggregate, in the Town of Great Barrington.”
So STRs operated by part-time residents would face more restrictions than those who own properties but live in the town full-time, a distinction that has irked Abrahams and — to a lesser extent — selectboard chair Steve Bannon.
At last night’s selectboard meeting, Davis displayed some flexibility on the 183 days during yet another extended discussion of STRs. See video below:
In a comment on an STR post on the Great Barrington Community Board Facebook page, Abrahams said, “I don’t have a dog in this fight.” He told The Edge he continues to believe that. He said that Wyantenuck Street is Greene’s primary residence, and Davis’ proposed bylaw would not affect primary residences.
“Nothing in this bylaw impacts her,” added Abrahams, who did acknowledge on his personal Facebook page, however, that Greene had moved in with him at his Pleasant Street home in April of last year.
As for Abrahams holding a $200,000 mortgage on Greene’s Wyantenuck Street property, Greene purchased Wyantenuck Street for $193,000 at the end of 2020 and was not able to sell her home on Robin Road in West Stockbridge for $500,000 until May 2021, according to records at the Southern Berkshire Registry of Deeds.
“I used my retirement funds to cover the difference long before we took up this bylaw,” Abrahams explained. “I loaned her the money, which she paid back.”
The selectboard meets again on March 28. Town Planner Chris Rembold is going to incorporate suggested changes in Davis’ proposal into yet another draft for the board to deliberate on and ultimately decide whether to place on the warrant for the annual town meeting on June 6.
Reached this morning, Davis declined to comment, as did several of Abrahams’ detractors on this issue.
