Brian Dubois defends actions during Auburn ethics panel review of Planning Board vote

AUBURN — Planning Board member Brian Dubois said he didn’t meet any of the established criteria describing a conflict of interest when he voted to approve a 60-unit housing project earlier this month, which has since led to an Ethics Panel review.

During an initial hearing of the three-member panel Tuesday, Dubois said his vote came only after the Planning Board voted unanimously against asking him to recuse himself.

During the same April 12 meeting, Auburn resident Ryan Smith told board members that Dubois, a real estate agent, represented the developer, Jessica Klimek, when the property was purchased.

Dubois has argued that he has had no involvement in its subsequent development.

Following a lengthy discussion Tuesday, the panel plans to reconvene one more time to deliberate and issue a written advisory opinion on whether there is a conflict. The opinion will be submitted to Smith as well as the Planning Board chairman, but the board is not bound to take action on the opinion.

Jim Pross, ethics panel chairman, said typically the panel is asked to weigh in on a conflict prior to a vote taking place, and argued that the panel should decline to issue an opinion. However, panel members Leonard Kimble and Sara Bartlett disagreed.

Shortly after the Planning Board decision, Smith gathered the required 25 voter signatures to force a hearing of the panel. Among the questions submitted by Smith was, “Is it appropriate for (Dubois) to vote on a development in which he was a buyer agent for?”

During Tuesday’s hearing, Dubois said his professional relationship with Klimek ended with the transaction on the property, and the development proposal came before the Planning Board several months after.

He described his efforts to volunteer time and be involved in the Auburn community, and said he “has more to lose than gain” from being on the Planning Board. Dubois said that when the Planning Board determined that he didn’t meet any of the criteria of a conflict, he was compelled to vote on the issue as a full member.

“My involvement in the Planning Board is driven by a sense of community, not self gain,” he said.

Evan Cyr, the Planning Board chairman, said that since there was a question of a perceived conflict, the Planning Board was asked to vote on whether Dubois should proceed. He said if the board had voted against allowing Dubois to vote, Dubois would have been replaced with an associate member for the item.

Cyr said it was “worth noting” that even though the board voted 4-3 on the Stable Ridge Apartments project on Court Street, the board voted unanimously to allow Dubois to vote.

According to Cyr, board members did not know of Dubois’ involvement as agent on the property until Smith told them in public comment. But, he said, the board had just received a “refresher” on potential conflicts from the city attorney and discussed the matter in depth.

John Cleveland, who is one of five petitioners — also including Smith — seeking to repeal the new zoning that paved the way for the project, said Tuesday that Dubois should have recused himself simply due to the “appearance” of a conflict.

Cleveland said Dubois didn’t voluntarily disclose his business relationship with the property owner, “which violates the essential principle of transparency.” He said if there is even a question, officials should “err on the side of caution” in order to maintain public trust.

On more than one occasion, Bartlett probed about why Dubois went ahead with the vote even after the question came up.

Dubois said he saw the decision as “black and white,” and said that while his motives have been questioned, he questions the motives of individuals “out of desperation” to change a result they don’t like.

Asked about his relationship with Klimek, Dubois said the two “might wave in the neighborhood,” but that she’s “not on my Christmas card list.”

Dubois also said the property at 555 Court St. was “in the sights of many developers.”

“It wasn’t a question of whether it would be developed. It was how,” he said, adding that the former farm property received multiple offers from developers.

Cyr, who has been on the Planning Board for 12 years, said that in a scenario when the board determines a member should not recuse themselves, “the expectation is that they vote.”