Letter: Ethics Complaint was Not a Political Attack

To the editor:

I am compelled to set the record straight by responding to Mr. Jim Grundy’s May 28, 2015 published letter.

As a member of the Exeter Planning Board I was the designated representative to North Kingstown’s proposed Comprehensive Plan and Zoning amendments at the western intersection of routes 2 and 102. The Zoning amendment included changes to the North Kingstown Water Service Area Map whereas Mr. Grundy’s Dry Bridge property remained within the North Kingstown Water Service Area Map while 74% of North Kingstown properties were removed from the same North Kingstown Water Service Area Map.

Believing that Mr. Grundy participated in a North Kingstown Planning Commission vote that benefited the value of his property while potentially and probably adversely affecting the value of surrounding property values, I felt obligated to file an Ethics Complaint against Mr. Grundy. The Ethics Commission considered the complaint to be worthy of advancing the complaint to the investigative stage and ultimately presented to the Ethics Commission for a decision that ruled in favor of Mr. Grundy. Although I disagree with the Ethics Commission I respect and accept the Ethics Commission’s decision.

Mr. Grundy asserts that both he and Mr. McKay are “victim(s) of a vicious, unfounded, baseless, mean-spirited Ethics Complaint(s)”. Mr. Grundy further claims that both Ethics Complaints were/are “frivolous and reckless complaints”. The Ethics Commission would not proceed to the investigative stage of its review process if the complaint was “unfounded and baseless” and certainly not to the final stage for a formal decision. As a senior member of North Kingstown’s Planning Commission I would hope that Mr. Grundy understands that the Ethics Commission is an important agency allowing the general public to hold its elected and appointed officials accountable and that the Ethics Commission does not entertain “frivolous and reckless complaints”.

Frank DiGregorio

Exeter, RI