Difficult questions

Difficult questions

Last month’s approval of the Stuart subdivision by Washington’s Town Council raises difficult questions.

They are difficult because of the issues involved, and also because it is hard to even raise them without impuning the integrity of the individuals involved. That, we wish to make clear at the start, is not our intent.

The subdivision request was unique in the town’s history, due to the people involved. The partners in the LOMP Joint Venture included Mayor Dean Morehouse, Architectural Review Board member Robert Parrish and his wife Susan, who serves on the town Planning Commission, Town Councilman Reinhardt Lynch and ARB member Patrick O’Connell.

Of the partners, only Mr. Morehouse’s wife Linda is not a town official. The others quite properly disqualified themselves from voting on the proposal.

Our discomfort about the approval of the subdivision request stems from the waivers granted by the members of the council who voted in favor of the proposal — chiefly the one to allow septic fields to be sited on adjacent lots, rather than the lots they serve.

Given the poor condition of some of the town’s soils, and the disrepair of its present water system, we question the wisdom of granting such a waiver. If the soils in the town are polluted by septic effluent from developed lots which cannot absorb their own waste, who will pay for a sewage system for the town?

And, we think that the Planning Commission ought to seriously reconsider the wisdom of allowing such off-site septic fields in the proposed revision of the town’s subdivision ordinance. Until more is known about the possible consequences from such septic effluent, the long-term risks for the town are too high to take.

Meanwhile, regardless of whether the concept is ultimately approved, the precedent of approval of such a plan already stands. We’re afraid that if subsequent similar applications are denied, the council is going to have a tough time explaining why it approved a subdivision whose developers included town officials and denied another whose principals lack such credentials.

Again, we’re not alleging any underhanded dealings, or a lack of integrity among the members of the present council. But in politics, perceptions are often at least as important as the facts of an issue. And in this case, there’s no doubt that a perception of special treatment could be drawn. In the consideration of subsequent applications, that waiver could come back to haunt the council.

We’re not sure what the answers to these difficult questions are.

Certainly, public officials, like other citizens, have the right to pursue business dealings. However, because of the positions of trust to which they have been elected or appointed, they are also subject to certain limitations which do not apply to purely private citizens. This is particularly true when the business dealings involve or arb approved by the bodies on which they sit.

Where to draw the line becomes a particularly vexing question in a town as small as Washington, where everyone knows everyone else and many of the government’s officials are friends. It’s a gray area, not covered by the explicit provisions of the state’s conflict of interest act, but yet open to the appearance of impropriety.

Perhaps, in the future, an independent commission ought to be appointed to review such requests — similar to the special prosecutor appointed when a Commonwealth’s Attorney has a conflict of interest. It is an oft-used process, and does not imply any wrongdoing by the attorney involved. It merely avoids that all-important appearance of impropiety.

Meanwhile, the situation of town officials coming before their own bodies to request approval of development proposals will likely surface again. We think that the questions involved deserve a healthy public debate by the residents of Washington and their elected officials.