State adviser's role fighting wind farm deemed ethics breach
A Cape Cod man who is a former member of a state fisheries advisory board has admitted to violating ethics laws by working with a group opposed to the wind farm Cape Wind Associates wants to build in Nantucket Sound.
Mark Weissman, 70, of Mashpee was a member of the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission from 1993 until August.
The commission is a nine-member volunteer board that represents recreational and commercial fishing interests at the state Division of Marine Fisheries. Commissioners are appointed by the governor to three-year terms.
The Division of Marine Fisheries is a cooperating agency in the ongoing review of Cape Wind’s proposal to build 130 wind turbines in the Sound.
Weissman admitted in an agreement with the State Ethics Commission released yesterday that between 2002 and 2007 he testified at hearings about Cape Wind and that he requested that the advisory commission send letters to other agencies regarding the project.
Since 2003 Weissman has been paid more than $48,000 for consulting services he provided to the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a nonprofit organization and a vocal opponent of the wind farm.
Weissman received more than $8,000 for work related directly to the alliance’s opposition to Cape Wind, including $2,000 for work related to the environmental review of the project, according to the agreement reached with the ethics commission.
Although his status as a “special state employee” gave Weissman more latitude in his ability to represent interests before the state, he gave up that distinction when he discussed Cape Wind as a member of the advisory commission, state ethics commission spokesman David Giannotti said yesterday.
“Once he participates as a state employee the conflict law bars him from representing private interests before the state,” Giannotti said.
In failing to make a written disclosure to the governor regarding his work as a consultant with the alliance, he broke another section of the ethics law, according to the agreement.
Weissman was fined $2,500 for the violations.
“This whole business was a misunderstanding of the statutes, which was shared by two (ethics commission) staff attorneys doing the investigation and the general counsel,” Weissman wrote in a statement provided to the Times yesterday. “The (ethics commission) disagreed with its attorneys’ interpretation and gave me a slap on the wrist.”
Most of the work that he did for the alliance dealt with promoting health and boating safety on the Sound, Weissman said in a telephone interview. Additionally his supervisors were aware of his work with the alliance, he said.
“Everything I’ve done has always been in the public,” he said. “I’ve notified my boss and my boss’s boss about this from day one.”
Weissman’s work for the alliance was included in his biography, which was still on the Division of Marine Fisheries Web site yesterday.
Weissman said he declined to seek reappointment to the commission in August because his opposition to locating Cape Wind in the Sound would likely eliminate him as a candidate.
Although Giannotti declined to say what prompted the investigation, Barbara Hill, executive director of Clean Power Now, a group that supports Cape Wind, wrote at least two letters calling for a probe of Weissman’s actions in March 2007.
Weissman’s comments on Cape Wind at the time became fodder for news stories and letters to the editor when he raised the potential impact of dredging to install the turbines.
Cape Wind countered Weissman at the time that dredging would not be required to access the turbine locations.
“Clearly we saw this happened and we felt it was inappropriate and it could have qualified as an ethics violation,” Hill said yesterday.
Weissman’s actions are part of a larger track record of questionable activities by Cape Wind’s opponents that “speaks for itself,” Hill said.
The investigation into Weissman’s actions was typical of advocates for Cape Wind who want to silence opposition to the project, alliance spokeswoman Audra Parker said.
“I think it’s very consistent with their tactics when a problem is exposed,” she said. “To the best of my knowledge the dredging issue has not been addressed.”
The U.S. Minerals Management Service — the lead federal agency to review Cape Wind — is expected to release a final environmental report on the project this month.
Violation of state ethics law
* August 2002 — Weissman proposes state Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission send comment letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the commission’s exclusion from review of Cape Wind
* 2003 — Weissman begins consulting for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a nonprofit group opposed to Cape Wind, collecting $48,000 from the group over the next four years; $8,000 of that money is directly tied to the alliance’s opposition to Cape Wind
* October 2004 — Weissman moves that the advisory commission send letters to several federal agencies requesting formal review of a draft environmental report prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers
* December 2004 — Weissman testifies about the Army Corps’ draft environmental report at a hearing held by Corps and state
* February 2005 — Weissman provides comments about the Corps’ draft report at a public hearing of the Cape Cod Commission
* March 2007 — Weissman provides comments about the state’s final environmental impact report at a public hearing of the Cape Cod Commission
Source: Massachusetts State Ethics Commission
By Patrick Cassidy
2 December 2008
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy
Some possibly related stories:
The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.
