Alna First Selectperson Ed Pentaleri awaits his turn to defend himself during an ethics hearing on June 8. Agreeing Pentaleri’s actions could arguably contribute to a perception of bias, Pentaleri’s fellow board members ultimately voted to recuse him from further participation in litigation involving Golden Ridge Road resident Jeff Spinney. (Sherwood Olin photo)
Following an occasionally tense two hour meeting at the Alna town office Thursday, June 22, the Alna Select Board formalized the findings of a June 8 ethics hearing recusing Alna First Selectperson Ed Pentaleri from further participation in litigation issues related to Jeffry Spinney’s private boat ramp.
The June 8 hearing focused on a 10-point complaint filed by Ralph Hilton alleging Pentaleri violated the town’s code of ethics policy by acting with bias, failing to disclose a conflict of interest, and perjury, all related to Pentaleri’s opposition to the permitting and construction of Spinney’s boat ramp.
Federal, state, and local permits in hand, Spinney installed his boat ramp on his Golden Ridge Road property in December 2020. The town is currently pursuing land use enforcement action against Spinney for violation of the town’s shoreland ordinance. He is countersuing the town seeking to overturn the board of appeals’ decision regarding his project.
At the conclusion of the listcontentious near-four hour June 8 hearing, board members Steven Graham and Coreysha Stone agreed Pentaleri’s actions as a private citizen were enough to create an appearance of bias, although neither personally felt he acted with bias.
On June 22, Stone and Graham formalized their finding with a single sentence: “In acknowledgement that there might be a perceived conflict of interest and an appearance of bias at this time, a censure to Mr. Pentaleri and a recusal from all further matters related to the Spinney boat launch is best for the town.”
With their vote, Graham and Stone declined to incorporate stipulations suggested by Hilton June 22 specifying what recusal actually meant. Hilton and his attorney Benjamin Smith made the case that recusal was not defined in the ethics policy or in the board’s finding.
Hilton suggested incorporating language requiring Pentaleri refrain from any communication, direct or indirect, with town officials, employees, or agents, and refrain from participating in any board votes, resolutions, discussion, or other actions related to Spinney’s boat ramp. Hilton also suggested Pentaleri submit an updated, signed conflict of interest disclosure as required by the town’s ethics policy.
Graham suggested that much of what Hilton specified was already covered by the broad language of the single sentence.
Pentaleri said he would accept the findings of the board, noting it would be appropriate to recuse “a person in my shoes,” but suggested recusal should not interfere with the town’s acting in its own best interest.
In this case, Pentaleri said he was the most knowledgeable of the three board members regarding the Spinney litigation and therefore he was the most qualified to consult with counsel on the issue.
“In order for the town, if you two choose to proceed with the litigation, if that counsel needs information, needs to communicate with me, I should not be prevented from interacting with town counsel to give them the support they need to effectuate the policy choice you’ve made most effectively,” he said.
Graham, Smith, and Spinney and indicated that would be a nonstarter.
“I don’t know how you could possibly have ongoing contact with town counsel on this matter without having some ongoing perceived influence on the process, and so I think the line needs to be drawn,” Graham said.
“Having access to the attorney is everything,” Smith said. “That’s what causes litigation to persist.”
Spinney promised his litigations would continue as long as Pentaleri is involved.
“It’s not going to stop,” he said. “I’m just telling you that everyone in the world understands the concept of recusal, but Ed seems to think he is the only one close enough, he just said it, he is the only one close. That is the very definition of being too close. I don’t fathom why you are even still discussing this with the man being censured.”
