Dianne Tsitsos and Marylou Armstrong have submitted letters of interest and resumes rich with environmental expertise and governmental oversight processes for the commission’s consideration for the empty seat they are seeking to fill.

Tsitsos said that the subject matter handled by the commission is of interest to her as well as wetland issues. Her background contains working for U.S. agencies in international development, domestic economic development projects, and has interfaced with various wetland protection agencies.

Armstrong has been working in the environmental protection field since the 1980s and was Stoughton’s former conservation agent in the early Nineties. She presently works for a firm that provides environmental consulting primarily in the Boston area.

Both candidates were told that their interest in assisting the town was very much appreciated by the commission and that their qualifications would be evaluated with a recommendation being given to the board of selectmen in the coming days.

Public Hearings

Rich Charon, representing Gabriel Estrela of 48A Shore Drive, for extending and making major modification to an existing jetty in Hiller’s Cove. Citing that the plans previously submitted would require major redesign and resubmission due to various natural resource considerations at the site such as marine fisheries, eel grass beds, shellfish beds, and storm damage, Charon asked for a four-week continuance.

Abutters Carol Amick and William Moonan , 48B Shore Dr., read a lengthy and comprehensively composed statement detailing everything from visual ugliness to storms pushing the new dock onto their parcel as reasons why the present plan is not in tone with the Hiller Cove area and was opposed to the plan.

Charon said he would provide abutters with the updated plans prior to the next public hearing so they might have time to review them and provide their continued input. The commission granted the four-week continuance.

Request for determination of applicability filed by Ann Shepley, 16 Winnatuxett Beach Rd., to replace an existing drain pipe under the driveway and also clear an existing ditch to the culvert was positively supported.

Request to amend order of conditions filed by Mattapoisett Water and Sewer Commission, Acushnet Road, to prolong pumping test at pump station #2; the pump test will be completed as part of the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection with a total of six days of pumping at the site to determine if there is sufficient water as a resource. Commission approved the amended request after assurances that the water will not be an issue to the area, as it is pumped from underground.

Jay and Julie Starr-Duker, 112 Aucoot Rd., came forward next but said they will be requesting a continuance. They had not received a DEP File #, nor had they received a response from natural heritage. The issue is the eradication of the phragmite (invasive species) within the bordering vegetated wetland. Phragmites are most commonly found in freshwater wetlands but it readily invades salt marshes that have been degraded by some type of flow restriction. In these cases, the most effective treatment is to restore the flow of salt water. That is not possible at the Duker parcel so they are seeking other remedies. They hope to plant native grasses and to nourish the remainder of the beach down to the mean high water line with compatible sand.

When the public was invited to comment on the proposed work, abutter Richard Cederberg of 108 Aucoot Rd. gave the commission members a recent picture of the marsh saying that since the 1930 the marsh area has been undergoing erosion, that it would continue and could not be stopped no matter what restorative actions the Dukers might attempt. He said he wasn’t opposed to the applicant’s plan but felt it was ill conceived and a waste of time and money. Chair Peter Newton said they weren’t able to comment on how people spent their money, only on whether the wetlands were protected.

Brad Hathaway said, “I agree I’d like to see the phragmite gone.” But he said he didn’t know how it could be removed and clearly now occupied two-thirds of all marsh areas.

The applicant requested and received a two-week continuance for further plan development.

Robert Field, 8 Whaler’s Way, brought a request for determination of applicability. Field wishes to alter existing deck into an enclosed porch at the rear of the dwelling near the 100-foot buffer zone of a bordering vegetated wetland area subject to coastal storm flow. He was approved to proceed.

A continued request for determination of applicability filed by Jon Ruel, 1 Atkinson Way, for repaving driveway and drainage improvements. The applicant simply wants to repave the driveway without making changes to the drainage. No special conditions were noted, and the applicant can move forward.

Finally, Crescent Beach Improvement Association discussed their plan for seaweed removal and ongoing maintenance.

By Marilou Newell

“The basis of effective government is public confidence, and that confidence is endangered when ethical standards falter or appear to falter,” said then-Sen. John F. Kennedy in an April 27, 1957, address to Congress

With that guiding light as the beginning of his presentation, David Giannotti, Chief, Public Education and Communication Division, State Ethics Commission, brought to Mattapoisett’s public employees the latest information on “conflict of interest law” and “code of conduct.”

Giannotti, flew at about 30,000 feet for most of the voluminous information covered in his presentation, information that city and town employees must embrace and comprehend in order to perform their duties in a manner that is legal, safe, and lacking conflict.

There is a five-member, independent, nonpartisan agency comprised of three members who are appointed by the governor (only two may be from the same party), one appointed by the attorney general, and one by the Secretary of State. Their appointments are unpaid and last five years. They may only sit for one term without re-appointment. Major changes to the commission and the laws and requirements were made during the Seventies and again as recently as 2009.

The commission has three operating divisions: Public Education, Legal, and Enforcement. The group learned that they receive as many as 1,200 complaints a year. All matters handled by the commission are held in the strictest of confidence and anonymous complaints are also accepted.

Giannotti told the assembled that whether they are an employee, volunteer, or appointed board member, in the eyes of the commission they are all considered employees working on behalf of the town. With this stated, he said they all had to adhere to the same ethical standards.

Covering the issue of receiving gifts, Giannotti said that any gift with a value of $50 or more given for the promise to influence a public act was bribery; gifts or gratuities of that same value given for acts performed were considered accepting gratuities; and gifts given for $50 or more because someone holds an official position would be considered receiving gifts. All forms of gift accepting under those established monetary sums would be viewed as illegal.

There was some discussion about fine lines, where a board member might be personal friends with someone who is also seeking permits or positive decisions from the board the friend sits on. What if they went to a ball game together; would that be considered accepting a gift? Giannotti suggested that such a situation might be viewed as questionable and that before engaging in social situations where the board member would be receiving a gift, to check with the Board of Selectmen first. Better to err on the side of caution then be fined for doing something inappropriate.

The goal is to not only restrict influence pedaling, but also control even the appearance that the public employee could be improperly influenced in the performance of their duties.

Nepotism was also explained as restricting a municipal employee from participation in particular matters where he/she, their family, partner, or business organization affiliations has a financial interest. The commission viewed family members of the public employee as their parents, their siblings, their spouses, and their children.

On the topic of ‘code of conduct’ the state stipulates: a public official or employee shall not knowingly act in a manner that a reasonable person might conclude that he/she might act with bias. It further detailed such behavior as trying to secure privileges for his/herself or others, inherently coercive authority, use of official resources for private or personal use, disclosure of confidential information, and accepting inherently incompatible employment.

Political activities are also not allowed such as soliciting campaign support from colleagues, subordinates or constituents, campaign activities in public buildings, and use of public resources for political purposes.

To insure against divided loyalties, the commission mandates that public employees may not act on the behalf of or receive compensation from third party connections with anything of direct or substantial interest to the municipality.

Of course to every rule there are exceptions and those were also detailed to help the group understand that certain circumstances may not necessitate their recusing themselves or otherwise removing their expertise from a decision.

Giannotti gave Mattapoisett’s employees a full packet to take with them for future reference, which included website and contact information. The State Ethics Commission is for the general public also. You can contact them at www.mass.gov/ethics or call 627-371-9500 or 888-485-4766.

By Marilou Newell