The Select Board on Tuesday held the latest in a series of closed-door meetings to consider whether it should recommend the town purchase 138 acres in Cedarville for about $5 million or allow a developer to buy the land and build homes on part of it.
Under the best of circumstances, the decision would involve weighing piles of pros and cons – all without the public being privy to the conversations.
But in this instance, it’s also muddied by personal and political relationships between developer Matt Sheridan and two of the five board members engaged in private negotiations over the deal – Kevin Canty and David Golden. The three-way connection, layered on top of the secret nature of the negotiations, is raising concerns about the process.
Not only is Sheridan an acknowledged close personal friend to both men, he also serves as Golden’s campaign manager in his bid for state representative and ran Canty’s recent re-election campaign. Now, they are in a position to take a vote that could directly benefit Sheridan.
The property, divided into two parcels, is owned by P.A. Landers Inc. Known as Landers Farm Road, it was taxed at a discounted rate as undeveloped land – part of state law under Chapter 61. The proposed development removes the tax break and triggers a provision giving the town 120 days to either match the purchase price to preserve the land or let the sale to Sheridan go through.
The four-month window closes in mid-August.
Executive sessions to hash out such transactions are permitted in cases where public discussion might affect the sale price, but questions have been raised about Canty and Golden’s ability to remain impartial. Throughout their tenure together on the Select Board, the two men have been at odds with each other politically and personally almost from the start. But they still have in common the friendship with Sheridan.
Neither board member appears to be violating state ethics laws by participating in the negotiations. Both have filed a “disclosure of appearance of conflict of interest” form with the state ethics commission in which they acknowledged their relationship with Sheridan, and any vote the board takes behind closed doors must be announced in public.
But the perception of favoritism plays into a rampant mistrust of elected officials here and nationwide, as well as the belief held by some Plymouth residents that developers receive special treatment from town committees.
“I can understand how members of the public could see that it appears like there’s a conflict,” Canty said in an interview, “but that’s the purpose of the public disclosure – to convey that and express why I still believe that I can conduct my review of the topic consistent with my responsibilities and my role of looking out for the best interests of the town.”
Had he thought otherwise, Canty said, he would have recused himself from the executive sessions.
Canty acknowledges it’s a strange situation. After all, not so long ago the three men were buddies.
“Matt and I still are close friends, but David has made some choices that mean that I no longer consider him to be a friend,” Canty said. Those choices include Golden’s successful move to wrest the chair position from Canty last year, and his endorsement of Canty’s opponents in the May town election.
That puts Sheridan – who has a reputation for building reasonably priced housing – smack in the middle of a political minefield.
“Matt and I do not really talk about David,” Canty said. “I treat Matt Sheridan like Switzerland in terms of being between David and I – he’s a neutral party.”
Golden – who is seeking the Republican nomination for state rep – did not respond to an email seeking comment. In the disclosure form he listed his “personal relationship with the purchaser” as well as his role as “my campaign manager.”
“Under the circumstances, a reasonable person could conclude that a person or organization could unduly enjoy my favor or improperly influence me when I perform my official duties, or that I am likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of a party or person,” Golden wrote. “I am filing this disclosure to disclose the facts about this relationship or affiliation and to dispel the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
Canty said it was Golden who alerted him to the appearance of a conflict earlier this year.
“David and I don’t talk often, but he did call me up and say that he spoke to the state ethics commission about this land and the right of first refusal issue,” he said. “They advised him that he should file this disclosure, and he was giving me a courtesy heads-up. He said I should look into it myself…I didn’t know Matt was looking to buy this parcel until we got the notice of the Chapter 61 because we hadn’t talked about what he was looking to do. He’s always permitting a project and working on another project.”
Fellow board member Bill Keohan, however, isn’t convinced the filings are enough to dampen speculation about the relationship between the three men and how it might affect the Landers Farm Road recommendation.
“I was taught early when I entered into politics that you don’t ever do anything that even gives the air of impropriety,” Keohan said. “That’s something that I always hold up as a personal standard and the standard of the people I support and serve with. It’s just that the optics alone could be better.”
That sentiment was amplified by Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition.
“This comes down to the people of Plymouth being comfortable with the decisions being made on the town’s behalf. And you can’t reach that level of comfort if you don’t know of all the potential conflicts that exist,” Silverman said. “So even abiding by the law and filing whatever disclosures might be required, that’s not going to do the trick if most people don’t even realize what disclosures have been made or if they’re difficult to find in the first place.”
Silverman said Canty and Golden could be more forthcoming without violating the rules of an executive session, especially since the party they’re speaking with in private – Sheridan – has been publicly named.
“There’s no reason that the board can’t come out and say, ‘We’re in the middle of negotiations with this party. We’re entitled to keep the details of those negotiations secret for negotiation purposes,” he said. “However, we have a couple of Select Board members that have relationships with this party that might give the perception of a conflict, and we want to be fully transparent about that.’”
By “providing that kind of transparency, even if it’s not required, you’re generating a lot of trust and goodwill with the community you serve,” Silverman added. “And there’s no reason why that type of transparency shouldn’t be provided.”
For Sheridan – who owns Sheridan Home Builders – being friends with two of the five people charged with rendering a recommendation on a major land buy complicates his business plan.
“I obviously have a relationship with David and I have a relationship with Kevin,” he said in an interview. “At one point we were all friends. They both have great ideas for the town and I think they both have the town’s interests at heart… We try to put as much of the political stuff aside as we can and do what we think is right for the community. I’m proud to be friends with both of them and I wouldn’t change any of it.”
“I hope that my having a relationship with them doesn’t jade people’s opinion on anything that’s going on right now,” Sheridan continued, “because, quite frankly, nobody’s actually doing anything wrong.”
Should he be able to buy the property, he said, “I want to preserve as much open space as possible. I want to do a project that makes sense for all parties involved – myself, the town, the community.”
On Tuesday, the Select Board met in executive session for more than an hour but did not act on Landers Farm Road. During the open session that followed, a procession of speakers urged the board to either recommend the town purchase the property or assign its right of first refusal to the Community Land & Water Coalition. According to Meg Sheehan, the nonprofit’s co-founder, it could then seek to raise the purchase money through state grants, private donations, and other sources.
Hampton Watkins, chair of the Land Use & Acquisition Committee, told the Select Board residents need more information about a possible deal.
“It would be a benefit to open public discourse to provide some explanation for the basis of whatever decision is reached, and that would shed light on the actions taken,” Watkins said.
After meeting with Sheridan last month, the committee unanimously recommended the Select Board invoke its right of first refusal.
Katherine Harrelson, an environmental analyst with the Community Land and Water Coalition, also addressed the board Tuesday.
“Conserving these parcels would align with the town’s climate action, open space, and comprehensive plans,” she said.
Harrelson urged officials not to “rush the process,” citing the August deadline.
“We’re asking the town to take its time in consideration of the vote on these parcels,” she said.
One option, Harrelson said, is for the town to transfer its right of first refusal to the Community Land and Water Coalition, which would then be empowered to buy the property. That prospect would hinge on the coalition’s ability to secure financing, whether Landers would sell to it, and whether the town would be protected from financial fallout if the group failed to close the sale.
The coalition has scheduled a public discussion on the subject from 2 to 5 p.m., June 6, at the Plymouth Public Library on South Street.
Planning Board member Frank Mand, who said he was speaking as a “private citizen,” complained about the secretive nature of the negotiations.
“Too much of this discussion is happening behind closed doors,” he said. “I don’t see the need to have these discussions in executive session.”
Residents need to know “what the town hopes to see happen in this space,” Mand said, “and then to have either Mr. Sheridan agree to a plan that meets his and the community’s needs or for the town to exercise its first right of refusal, or designate some other entity to do so and then seek out a developer that would meet the community’s needs.”
The Select Board is tentatively set to take up the matter again next Tuesday. Meantime, Sheridan is busy tending to his other permitted projects – which did not need the Select Board’s sign-off – including a 49-unit development in South Plymouth. It will feature houses starting at $500,000, an attractive price in a town where median home sales are far higher.
“Right now,” he said with the hint of weariness, “I’m kind of in the same spot everybody else is.”
Mark Pothier can be reached at mark@plymouthindependent.org.