Clam Shack, Baby

Look.

I like secret meeting talking as much as the next guy, maybe even more, but I have a hard time coming down on the mayor for meeting with the Clam Shack owner. And I certainly can't buy into the "secret meeting" charge put forth by Larry McCavitt in Today's Daily News.

McCavitt says the new hearings are the result of a "secret" meeting in which Mayor John Moak and a city solicitor met with Roland and his attorney. He said the meeting was designed to find a way to get the matter back before the board.

McCavitt said that the meeting was at the least inappropriate, and could also be illegal under the state's conflict of interest law.

"There is something stinky about this and it is not right," McCavitt said. "And that is what gets my Irish blood boiling."

The city councilor says for a city solicitor to "intervene" in such a matter is "highly extraordinary." He said it is not a right applied to other applicants — or even himself in this case. He said, for example, why he does not have the right to also solicit the city's attorney for an opinion.

But Moak — who has previously butted heads with McCavitt on other issues and questioned his tactics — said the councilor's claim "is again one of Mr. McCavitt's interpretation of the laws."

Moak said a taxpayer came to him who didn't believe he received a fair shake at the hearing because of filing errors. The mayor said since he is not an attorney and stays neutral in such cases, he called in the city solicitor to help make a determination, which was to have new hearings.

"It is extremely appropriate," the mayor said. "It would be extremely inappropriate not to listen to that. If somebody feels aggrieved, it is my responsibility to listen to that.

"That comment about unethical, ... it is Mr. McCavitt's style of trying to put a point across without all issues being reviewed," Moak said. "My job was to make sure that if (Roland) had a problem with the procedure, that the procedure was followed."

First off, let admit I know next to diddly about this clam shack issue. I know where it is. I know what it is. I understand the pros, cons and the stuff in between. But as far as behind the scenes machinations, well, I've got no clue.

Amazingly enough, I still have opinions. The primary one being this: McCavitt is way off tossing around a "conflict of interest" charge unless he's got some dirt tying the mayor or ZBA members to this particular piece of property or this particular property owner. That's a pretty big charge and it's one that implies that there's something untoward or even illegal going on, and, of course, that's exactly what he said.

Perhaps my Italian-Iberian blood just has a higher boiling point, but I really don't have an issue with the mayor meeting with an aggrieved property owner, particularly if he or she may be aggrieved enough to threaten legal action. Let's be clear. I'm not sure if that's what happened, but the fact that the ZBA--in the words of Chairman Ed Ramsdell--has to "reset" the hearing to "make sure that the i's are dotted and t's are crossed" suggest the proponent might have a case.

"It is us doing it to make sure it is being handled properly."

Good for them for making sure this is done right.

As usual, Gillian Swart raises some good points in her post today.

Since she's been involved in this directly, I concede she has a closer feel for the situation. But it seems to me her point about the legal opinion misses the mark. From my reading of the News, the question isn't with the decision the ZBA took but rather whether or not the ZBA took every necessary step before reaching that decision.



.