Conflict is clear

 

conflict of interest — a conflict between one's obligation to the public good and one's self-interest (Webster's New World College Dictionary, fourth edition).

 

IT'S NOT ALWAYS easy to spot when a public official is conflicted. But that isn't the case in Nockamixon Township, where three members of the zoning hearing board could make a decision that eventually could throw open the township to the drilling of hundreds of natural gas wells.

 

Those three members — Chairman Dave Wolfinger, Lance Arbor and alternate Clarence Berger — have all entered into agreements with the Michigan-based gas drilling company Arbor Resources for drilling on their property. And it's Arbor Resources that is petitioning Nockamixon for the right to drill there. Should drilling commence and be successful, those three board members, along with the other nearly 250 Nockamixon residents who have signed contracts with Arbor, could stand to profit financially.

 

That looks to us to represent a clear conflict of interest for the township officials.

 

Arbor is challenging the validity of two township ordinances that restrict gas drilling, claiming Nockamixon has no right to enforce rules that are more restrictive than state standards. Township officials beg to differ, and a county judge agreed. He ordered that the zoning hearing board rule on the matter before involving higher judicial authority.

 

The judge's ruling makes perfect sense. We think a municipality absolutely should have a say in protecting its own residents and resources.

 

What may not have been considered was that the individuals deciding the future of drilling in Nockamixon might benefit financially from their decision. We have no reason to believe that the three zoning board members are not honorable men. But regardless of whether they say they can hear Arbor's case fairly and not be influenced by the potential of payments for their gas rights, the perception of a conflict is clearly present. And that's enough to taint any proceedings.

 

There seems to be a fairly straight-forward solution here. Two other members of the zoning board, Donald Eisentraut and alternate Lloyd Travern, have not signed leases with the gas company. Why can't Wolfinger, Arbor (no relation to the gas company) and Berger recuse themselves and hand the decision-making over to Eisentraut and Travern?

 

Some confusion exists as to exactly how the zoning board is to operate with three members and two alternates. This potential conflict situation appears to be just the type of difficulty that could be resolved by the board's makeup.

 

Regardless of what the zoning board decides, this case is headed for further litigation. It should not be further complicated by ethical questions raised by the zoning hearing board.

Article's URL:

 

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/318-11182008-1623381.html