Elkton Town Meeting is Packed for Fire Company Rezoning Hearing

The town meeting is underway and they moved it to the large 2nd floor meeting room because there are over 150 people here.  The fire company is here to see if the commissioners will approve the rezoning of some properties adjacent to its fire station on Newark Avenue.  Singerly wants the zoning changed from R-1 (residential) to C-2 (general commercial) so an addition can be built on the station.  It was built in 1970 and the demands have increased singificaintly over the past four decades.

Commissioner Storke and Mayor Fisona, both long time members of the fire company, have recused themselves since they both volunteer with the organization.  Neither receives any compensation for their work with the fire company.  But the issue of conflict of interest is something that had the attention of the town after the Ethics Commission determined that Commissioner Jablonski should not vote on matters involving the Elkton Alliance where she is the Main Street Manager.

We’re blogging live and we’ll keep readers informed.


2 responses to “Elkton Town Meeting is Packed for Fire Company Rezoning Hearing

  1. This evening Mayor Fisonia and Commissoner Storke recused themselves from the rezoning matter. They did this because both of them are long time members of the volunteer oganization, where neither receives any financial compensation for donating their time to public safety.

    This subject of conflict of interest apparently is of higher importance at Elkton meetings now This heightened attention is probably the result of the citizen’s complaint involving Commissioner Jablonski. She was voting on items for the Elkton Alliance, where she is employed as the director of the town’s Main Street program. After a long, drawn out process, the Ethics Commission ruled that she should not vote on matters concerning her employer.

    While we didn’t see the need for Commissioner Storke and Mayor Fisona to recuse themselves this evening, since there is no financial advantage for them, we respect their decision. Whenever there’s the possibility of a conflict of interest, why not just remove yourself. In this case they do not receive any money from the organization, but they decided to step aside.

    Officials would be better off to take such an approach, and as the potential for benefit increases they certainly want to follow such a course of action.

  2. Hey glad to see those commissioners are getting better at watching out for ethics.
    She should have never been voting to give town money to the place where she works. That is just wrong. Anyone knows that. Don’t need to ask a lawyer or ethics committee if you should vote on giving money to the place where you are the director. As for Fisona and Storke, they don’t get 1 cent from the fire company, but they said they wouldnt vote. What a change in ethics from when the lawyer said it wasnt a problem to vote on money for the alliance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s