With conversations on the Belmont Center Overlay moving forward, the Select Board has accepted two financial disclosures from members of the Planning Board—both out of an “abundance of caution,” according to Select Board Chair Matt Taylor.
The disclosures for Rui “Renee” Guo and Alisa Gardner-Todreas were related to their work in real estate and affordable housing development, respectively. In separate emails to The Voice, both members said they filed the disclosures out of an abundance of caution.
“In reality, I don’t have any business dealings or financial interests in the [Belmont Center], so I believe the conflict of interest concern is more speculative than factual,” Guo wrote.
Gardner-Todreas, too, said per town counsel, her conflict of interest is speculative; thus, the disclosure was not technically necessary.
The law in question, Section 19 of the Massachusetts General Laws, forbids municipal employees—in this case, Planning Board members—from participating in any matter in which they, their employer, or a family member has a financial interest.
“The disclosures are from an abundance of caution, above and beyond, based on statements people were making in the community,” Taylor said, echoing both members. “I’m grateful they’re going through the extra steps to be transparent and visible about this, but there isn’t actually any concern.”
Previous Coverage
Disclosures discussed Monday night followed the Planning Board’s receipt of an anonymous email, which requested Planning Board members with a potential conflict of interest — or even the appearance of one — to recuse themselves from participating in related discussions or votes regarding the re-zoning.
“This expectation applies broadly, including those who work in or have financial ties to real estate, development, or property-related businesses,” the email states. “Even unintentional appearances of bias can erode trust and raise legal concerns about the integrity of the decision-making process.”
The letter was signed by Concerned Belmont Residents.
“We respectfully urge the Chair and Planning staff to ensure that potential conflicts are disclosed and that recusal procedures are followed,” the residents wrote.
Speaking to the Planning Board last week, Attorney Paul Kominers said while he doesn’t see any “actual conflicts,” he appreciated the two members for “dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s.”
“Somebody who works as a realtor conceivably has an interest in any piece of zoning because, conceivably, they could be retained to work on any piece of property that is affected by any particular piece of zoning,” Kominers said. “But that is generally too speculative to amount to a financial interest under the conflicts of interest law.”
Kominers said there are a lot of narratives that can be construed as having a financial interest.
“That is not what a financial interest means here,” he said. “It has to be relatively direct and likely. It cannot be remote or speculative.”
