77- No Conflict?

When a new member of the Planning Board encounters a project before the board, it would seem only fair that that member call attention to any conflict of interest between his or her personal or professional interests, and the matter before the Board.

In past blog posts, I called attention to two current Planning Board members who, in my opinion, have conflicts of interest regarding RUPCO's proposal, before the board now, for Woodstock Commons.

Today I will present additional evidence that Jim Huben, the newest member of the Planning Board, has a clear conflict of interest, and should have recused himself from this particular project, Woodstock Commons, although not from other matters before the Planning Board.

The 2005 application by RUPCO to the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal contains numerous letters of support from interested agencies in New York State. One of these agencies is Jim Huben's employer. The agency assists people with developmental disabilities. Woodstock Commons has reserved two units for, it seems, up to four individuals with developmental disabilities. The letter, captured below in a photograph, contains all the details.

I will just mention that Jim Huben has the responsibility to know whether or not his employer has a vested interest in this housing project, and the answer is yes, it does.

Not only is the agency for the developmentally disabled of New York State in favor of Woodstock Commons, in part I would imagine because it has spaces for the developmentally disabled, but the letter also says that the office of the agency that wrote this particular letter has four specific individuals in mind for occupancy in the housing. So the interest is a lot more than passing or general; the agency's mandate will be satisfied by a yes vote on Woodstock Commons, and Jim Huben, one of the agency's employees, has a vote.

If this does not define "conflict of interest," I don't know what does.

Let me just say that I do not think that the agency in question did anything wrong, necessarily. It was Huben's and the Planning Board's duty to take note of and certainly to avoid this conflict. Their individual and collective failures to do so will be raised before the Woodstock Ethics Board, for starters.