Harpswell Select Board Chair Kevin Johnson and member Matt Gilley on Thursday criticized member David Chipman for using his position to advocate against a referendum involving Clark Cove despite his personal ties to nearby property.
Gilley was first to raise the issue at Thursday’s Select Board meeting, after Chipman spoke out against the Clark Cove referendum during the meeting’s public comment period. Residents will decide the issue via secret ballot on March 14 as part of Harpswell’s annual Town Meeting.
Gilley focused on Chipman’s decision to speak out against the Clark Cove plan at a Mitchell Field Committee meeting on Monday, March 2. Chipman, whose family trust owns property abutting the site, is the Select Board’s liaison to the committee.
“I have some issues with how you’ve handled this,” Gilley told Chipman. “Using your position as a Select Board liaison to announce at a committee meeting that people should vote no on a ballot item is not transparent, and it does not help the integrity of the board.”
Johnson agreed, saying Chipman had shown poor judgment in how he used his position in matters involving personal interests.
“It’s not appropriate, David,” Johnson said. “It’s not about (being on) the wrong side or the right side; it’s how you handle yourself in these situations.”
The referendum asks voters whether Harpswell should enter into a 10-year agreement with the state Bureau of Parks and Lands to manage an 18-acre shorefront parcel at Clark Cove and spend up to $5,000 on public access improvements.
Nearby property owners — including Chipman, who said he owns three properties near the site — have strongly opposed the access plan, arguing it would increase traffic, invite trespassing, bring hidden costs to taxpayers and disturb sensitive wildlife habitat.
In an interview on Friday, Chipman said he only spoke out against the referendum at Monday’s committee meeting after official business had concluded.
“The meeting was over, it was adjourned, and I just said, ‘OK everybody, please vote no on (the referendum),’” he said.
Chipman acknowledged that Gilley and Johnson “may be right, in a way.” Still, he said that as a leader of multiple community groups, he feels an obligation to speak out on important issues. He said it can sometimes be difficult to gauge the correct timing.
“I’m always trying to be careful of the integrity of the board — that is very important,” Chipman said. “But at the same time, as a person of leadership in the community, which is not just the Board of Selectmen, sometimes I need to express where I’m coming from.”
Chipman abstained from the decision to place the Clark Cove plan before voters, but he later joined Johnson in recommending that residents vote against it. He has said he didn’t believe his recommendation put the board’s integrity at risk.
Chipman has said he consulted an attorney with the Maine Municipal Association, who advised that he was not required to abstain from voting on the Clark Cove matter, but that not doing so could create a perception of bias.
Under Maine law, a municipal official’s vote can be challenged if the official has a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome, and officials are also expected to avoid the appearance of a conflict through disclosure or abstention.
In an interview, Johnson said Chipman should have abstained from recommending that voters reject the referendum, regardless of the legalities.
“You don’t need an attorney; you need common sense,” Johnson said.
