Fair and Impartial

“The appearance of impropriety” is a phrase that’s often used as a cautionary note: Elected officials, journalists and others for whom ethical questions can be devastating are advised to avoid situations that could be perceived as compromising. It’s meant to be a high bar.

It comes to mind with the recent debate over East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals member Jaine Mehring, who declined an attorney’s request to recuse herself from reviewing an application. The argument: Mehring’s very public stances on the subject of overdevelopment and egregious examples of construction gone awry make her biased against applicants before the ZBA.

An activist who founded the website and Instagram feed Build.In.Kind three years ago — she became involved in the public debate over a large house that appeared in her Amagansett neighborhood, to her dismay — and soon became more interested in zoning at the local level, and the larger issues surrounding it. That led to her appointment to the ZBA by Town Supervisor Kathee Burke-Gonzalez in 2024. An earlier attempt to have her recuse herself from a ZBA matter went before the town’s Ethics Board, which ruled that she did not have to do so.

Perhaps with the idea of avoiding “the appearance of impropriety,” Mehring has, actually, recused herself from numerous applications that she had publicly opposed before being appointed to the board, which shows both that she’s aware of the complicated situation and willing to take reasonable steps to ensure that applicants get a fair shake.

Yet another attorney has asked her to recuse herself from considering an Amagansett house: Elizabeth Vail pointed to Mehring’s support of and involvement in a subsequent cut in the potential size of houses; her client’s application is grandfathered because it was filed before the Town Board enacted the changes. She also noted Mehring’s “ongoing public activism against local development and expansion projects.”

This is a legitimate issue to be raised — but an eyebrow has to go up as well.

So, to be clear, the years of people well-versed in the real estate industry of the East End, who often can be shown to hold, and enforce, pro-development agendas, are permitted to have that history of advocacy on their resume — but not someone who raises a hand to simply suggest that there might be a more sensible way to consider the issue of development?

And does familiarity with a neighborhood in question — the mere fact that she lives close enough to occasionally stroll by a site under review — mean she is unable to rule without bias on whether it fits the town’s zoning rules and regulations, or whether it deserves a variance?

“I believe I can be objective,” Mehring has said. Can she be trusted? Should that be enough?

It’s not throwing stones to point out that the ZBA’s current chairman, Roy Dalene, is executive vice president of a company that builds houses. In his LinkedIn biography, he notes that the company “has for over 30 years been working with architects and clients in creating homes that exceed our clients’ expectations.” He works directly with clients, architects and builders.

He’s not atypical — the local development community is huge, it’s an enormous part of the region’s economy and it helps for regulatory board members to have some background in the issues that will come before them. It’s why so many are appointed to the boards in both East Hampton and Southampton towns. And nobody has suggested that Dalene’s background makes him unfit to serve, nor have they had reason to.

Has a single member ever recused himself or herself to avoid the “appearance of impropriety” because their private wealth often is tied directly to successful construction projects, often that work within the gray areas of the zoning code, requiring variances from time to time? It seems to be, at the very least, a reasonable expectation — if an activist, who doesn’t make a dime from her lobbying, is suspect for holding the opposite views.

In the end, bias comes out when decisions are made: A court can review a case and see, clearly, that it veers from a reasonable interpretation of the law, or code, and thus is “arbitrary and capricious” in execution. But a diversity of perspectives on a regulatory board is healthy, and merely holding different views should not be a reason to suggest that an appointed member cannot be fair and impartial.

Perhaps, however, Jaine Mehring should consider the “appearance” to some degree and, now that she’s in a position to make policy at Town Hall, begin to step away from actively serving in an advocacy role. Her involvement in conversations at Citizens Advisory Committee meetings, for example, are not necessarily evidence of bias — citizens can still have individual opinions — but they do begin to bump the “appearance” bar.

Ultimately, the Town Board, which appoints her, and the citizens of the town should evaluate Mehring based on her actions — not simply on the beliefs she carries with her to the job.