BRUNSWICK

Members of the Brunswick Town Council may be taking a refresher course on their own conflict of interest policy in September. The policy review, supported by councilors and yet to be scheduled, came at the suggestion of Councilor John Perreault on Monday, after he recounted an anonymous insinuation that he and Councilor Jane Millett were violating that policy.

A photograph was mailed in April, anonymously, to The Times Record of a sign for Jane Millett and RE/MAX alongside a sign for Perreault’s properties in West Brunswick. No text or other information was included. The town’s attorney at the time concluded that no conflict of interest existed, according to several other councilors. Earlier this week, the topic was broached on WCME’s Midcoast Morning Buzz program, prompting Perreault to suggest the council hold a workshop on its policy with Town Attorney Stephen Langsdorf.

On Tuesday, Millett reiterated comments she made to The Times Record in April, in that she had been listing Perreault’s properties since before she was elected.

“If you follow the argument to the logical conclusion, I wouldn’t be able to do business with anyone,” Millett said.

Previously, Councilor David Watson came under fire for not disclosing what some have argued was a failure to disclose an appearance of a conflict of interest.

Watson was criticized for not informing the public that he was a cousin of developer Ted Crooker during a July 21 discussion over whether to rezone a portion of the Cook’s Corner area. The rezoning would allow Crooker to sell a parcel he owns on that property to a party that wants to build a self-storage facility.

The council, including Watson, voted to table the rezoning, a decision that was heavily criticized at the time by Crooker.

“I don’t see any conflict of interest,” said Watson in an interview on Tuesday. “For an actual conflict, I would have to have received some financial gain. There is none for me.”

Watson said the council needs to act on rezoning in order to develop an empty lot he said has been for sale for about 25 years.

“I would be crazy to be in opposition to that,” Watson said. “I’m pretty honest. I don’t beat around the bush. Yes, Ted and I are cousins. I’m not ashamed of it.”

When asked whether he ought to have made note of the relationship in the July meeting, Watson said, “That’s flipping a coin.”

“It never occurred to me to jump out there and say that,” Watson said, adding that he was concentrating more on the proposal than on his familial relations. “I just viewed him as another citizen.”

Watson said that he has disclosed his connection with Crooker so many times in the past that he didn’t think to bring it up again.

Vice Chairperson Sarah Brayman said she couldn’t comment on whether Watson had a conflict of interest.

Brayman said common knowledge of familial relations is not an excuse for failing to disclose such a relationship.

“Since when does government function on common knowledge?” said Brayman. “Government does not function on common knowledge.”

Chairperson Benet Pols said that conflict of interest issues are “sometimes raised as a political thing,” which may have been the case with the Watson-Crooker issue.

Pols said renewed criticism of Millett’s real estate dealings may have been a reaction to her criticism of the Watson Crooker matter in an article in The Forecaster.

“You can surmise that, whoever re-raised the Perreault Millet thing did it as a tit-for-tat reaction. That’s certainly not healthy,” Pols said. “I think that’s treading a dangerous path. I don’t think they did Councilor Watson any favors by stirring the pot a little more. These things almost always lead to further recriminations.”

The council’s policy defines a conflict of interest if a councilor has a direct financial interest in a matter on the table.

The policy also prohibits relatives — including spouses — of councilors from being appointed to any board that has judicial authority, or has the power to levee fines or fees.

Both of those parts of the policy are clear, according to Pols.

What is more subjective, Pols said, is how the policy addresses the appearance of a conflict.

“Appearance requires disclosure by the councilor,” said Pols. “It puts a burden on the person to make the judgement — to be the gatekeeper of their own propriety.”

“I think different councilors have a different sense of what the conflict policy means,” Brayman said, when asked if she thought the council, as a whole, has a good understanding of its own policy.

jswinconeck@timesrecord.com