After hearing from lawyers, selectmen and fellow residents Aug. 14, Alna’s appeals board determined it does not have jurisdiction to hear Jeff Spinney’s appeal of selectmen’s handling of an ethics hearing.

 

Following that June 8 hearing, Second Selectman Steve Graham and Third Selectman Coreysha Stone censured First Selectman Ed Pentaleri for a perceived conflict of interest and appearance of bias and called for his recusal from all further matters on Spinney’s boat launch that has been the subject of litigation between the town and Spinney. Selectmen found no other violations of their ethics code.

 

Spinney told the appeals board, “a great deal of the evidence was ignored, discarded, or otherwise misplaced.”

 

Graham said he and Stone did their best to handle resident Ralph Hilton’s complaint, the first since the board added the ethics policy; the process will be refined; and the objective was accomplished, in that a violation was found and Pentaleri was censured. “I think we did the right thing  and ... what was appropriate to do under the circumstances,” Graham said.

 

Resident Jeff Philbrick said the ethics code provides no right to appeal; and the appeals board hears appeals of how ordinances, not policies, have been applied. “I’ve never seen the appeals board venture into the realm of the selectboard authority,” he said. It would set a bad precedent for an appointed body to overrule an elected one, Carol Gardner said.

 

On a question from Appeals Board Chair David Abbott, Pentaleri concurred with Philbrick. Pentaleri said he authored and championed the ethics code, it is a policy, and the appeals board does not review decisions linked to policies.

 

Resident Jon Luoma said if selectboard decisions can be appealed to the appeals board, “we’re in deep doo-doo ... Anybody that disagrees with a selectboard decision is going to bring a complaint to the board of appeals and it’s going to make things bad in town, and make partisanship and polarization worse ... It’s opening a can of worms that seems like not a good thing.”

 

Spinney’s lawyer Kristin Collins said it would not “open the floodgates,” because appellants would have to be “interested parties, (not) any old member of the public."

 

 

July 26, the appeals board had put off hearing Spinney’s appeal so the panel could get a lawyer and determine jurisdiction. 

 

Aug. 14, attorney James Katsiaficas, sitting with the board throughout the more than two-hour meeting, told members they could follow his opinion or not and take into account all they heard, including the other lawyers’ opinions. Reviewing the appeals board ordinance, he listed things the board can hear appeals on and partly hinged that opinion on punctuation in the ordinance. Collins disagreed with putting weight on the punctuation Katsiaficas cited.

 

The board voted 3-0 it did not have jurisdiction to hear Spinney’s appeal.

 

Spinney said time has run out on his being able to pursue the matter in court. He said it could still be an option if the board had voted down the appeal instead of finding it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. “Because of the extent of time that this has taken ... you guys have used up the window I would have had ... So you could take this on and rule against me and then I would have a path” to a court appeal.

 

An Aug. 29 appeals board hearing on another matter, the code enforcement officer’s denial of Alan and Tiffany Beaucage’s building permit request, was canceled due to the Beaucages’ withdrawal of their appeal, the town announced Aug. 18. The announcement stated the board will instead hold an organizational meeting at 6 p.m. Aug. 29 at the town office and on Zoom at