Letter to the editor

An open letter to Mayor DeVries

To the editor:

Madame Mayor Edna DeVries,

On March 7th I watched the entire 2-3 hours of public testimony on the Gravel Pit OR 22-131 to allow a 10,000 CY permit exemption during the Mat-Su Borough Assembly’s Public Hearing, the majority of which was overwhelmingly against this Ordinance. I am aware that this Public Hearing will continue through the March 21st Assembly Meeting which is necessary given all the substantial amendments proposed by Assembly Members within hours of the March 7th Meeting. These reactive amendments attempt to address objections to OR 22-131 which still reads more like an Ordinance of Convenience for gravel pit owners and home builders than a regulation reduction to benefit the general public.

However, one thing confused me. No one denies that Assemblyman Mokie Tew personally owns and operated one or more gravel pits for profit which he disclosed during the meeting. However, when asked if he should recuse himself due to a conflict of interest (i.e. that he would benefit financially from the passing of OR 22-131) you confidently told him that he was fine. However, since the current Borough Tax records confirm Assemblyman Tew still owns the lots containing these gravel resources and could restart operations anytime in the future, would the Borough Board of Ethics also agree?

Per MSB Code of Ethics 2.71 - “Benefit” means anything that is to a person’s advantage or self-interest, or from which a person profits, regardless of the financial gain, including any … privilege, exemption, … advantage, advancement, or anything of value,” and “Financial interest” means an interest held by a person subject to this code or an immediate family member, which includes an involvement or ownership of an interest in a business, including a property ownership, or a professional or private relationship, that is a source of income, or from which, or as a result of which, a person has received or expects to receive a financial benefit in an amount over $1,000.”

In addition, 2.71.070 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS; PROHIBITED ACTS (A) Misuse of official position states – “(2) A municipal official may not, among other things: (d) take or withhold official action in order to affect a matter in which the municipal official has a substantial financial interest.”

Assemblyman Tew’s future vote on OR 22-131 on March 21st will be an official action on a municipal matter in which he has a substantial interest (over $1,000). If despite this, your opinion remains that his business interests do NOT constitute a conflict of interest in this case, under what alternate criteria or conditions would you draw the line and rule to enforce an Assembly Member recusal?

Best regards,

Amber McDonough, PE