Scarborough Council preps for hearing

As censure is debated, a company at the heart of the pesticide argument is fined by the state

SCARBOROUGH — As the Scarborough Town Council prepared to delve into “uncharted territory” with censure proceedings Wednesday against one of its own, the subject of that hearing, Richard Sullivan Jr., claimed the moral high ground.

Sullivan is the subject of a censure hearing, set for Wednesday after The Current’s deadline, after being accused by two councilors for failing to reveal a potential conflict of interest during contentious talks regarding Scarborough’s pesticide application policy. Now, an organic-based pest control company favored by opponents of a pesticide policy Sullivan authored, which allows for the use of chemicals, has been fined $37,000 by the Maine Board of Pest Control for “a pattern of fraudulent business practices” in which it “knowingly and intentionally applied conventional chemical pesticides” in violation of state and federal laws.

The state board found that between 2008 and 2010, Purely Organics of York Harbor mixed synthetic herbicides into its turf treatment at multiple locations, including Wainwright Field in South Portland, while passing itself off as an organics-only company.

Purely Organics was one of three applicants for field treatment services in Scarborough this year, and was the favored choice of Citizens for a Green Scarborough in a May 1 review of bids. That advocacy group pushed for a stringent organics policy adopted by the Town Council in September and opposed a relaxed version offered by Sullivan at the April 18 meeting.

“See, this goes right to what I’ve been saying all along,” said Sullivan on Friday. “The cost to go organics only to the exclusion of every other option is just not worth it. I guess these people found they couldn’t make any money that way.”

On Monday, Town Manager Tom Hall said that, in light of the state ruling, Purely Organics has been removed from consideration for this year’s bid. Hall is in the process of weighing the remaining bids.

“I have different reservations regarding each company,” he said. “Right now, I’m in the process of formulating different question for each of the other two. It won’t be until after I hear back that I’ll know if we’ll award the bids at all.”

On Monday, South Portland City Manager Jim Gailey said he was unaware of the ruling against Purely Organics.

“I am not ready to answer questions about this until I can explore this further,” he said.

On Tuesday, Mark Follansbee, a 15-year contracted toxicologist for the Environmental Protection Agency who weighed in on the Purely Organics bid on behalf of Citizens for a Green Scarborough, said he is “confused by the matter and disappointed that it has led to further delays in making an award.” He recommended Purely Organics, he said, based partly on a letter of recommendation the company provided from South Portland.

While Sullivan’s admits taking some pleasure in seeing his accusers take in on the chin, the pesticide-bid snafu will have little to no impact on his censure hearing.

Sullivan stands accused by fellow councilors Carol Rancourt and Karen D’Andrea of failing to reveal a conflict of interest when presenting a less stringent alternative to an organic pest control policy adopted by council by a 4-1 vote last September. The lone dissenter in that vote, Sullivan called upon his experience as a landscaper to suggest new rules based on “best management practices” adopted by the Maine Board of Pesticide Control in February. Those guidelines encourage but do not require the use of organic pesticides, focusing instead on long-term management of soils over spot eradication of grubs and other insects.

However, Rancourt and D’Andrea intimated that Sullivan’s goals were not purely altruistic. They noted that his brother, Dan Sullivan, holds a $40,000 contract with the town to mow lawns at Scarborough’s public library and three elementary schools. A 2009 update to Scarborough’s Town Council Policy Manual calls on each councilor to file with the town clerk by April 1 the name of any person holding a town contract worth more than $1,000 from whom the councilor “or a member of his/her immediate family” received $1,000 or more during the preceding year.

Sullivan had not done so, they said, while D’Andrea went on to add that, “From evidence sent to me, it does appear that Richard does gain materially from the business [of his brother].” That evidence, shared by a member of the Citizens for a Green Scarborough, has since turned out to be unfounded.

On Monday, D’Andrea acknowledged confusion of the name of Sullivan’s business, RJ Sullivan Landscaping, which he started while in high school, and the company belonging to his brother, RJ Sullivan Lawn Care, inherited from their father.

However, while Sullivan detractors don’t seem able to prove he had a financial interest in his proposed rules change, the censure hearing was scheduled based solely on the fact that he did not register the existence of his brother’s contract. It does not matter that councilors do not award lawn care contracts, that Dan Sullivan only mows lawns and does not apply pesticides, or that no one else on the council had complied with the conflict-registration rule.

Sullivan said Monday that he initially asked to have the hearing held in public, “because I have nothing to hide,” but relented on advice of council Chairman Ron Ahlquist and town attorney Rob Crawford. Ahlquist did not respond to voicemails left Monday and Tuesday requesting comment.

Hall, who will not participate in the executive session, said the hearing is “uncharted territory” for the council, which will have to feel its way through the proceedings with advice from Crawford.

Hall said that although it might make grounds for a citizen’s recall petition, the censure itself carries no legal penalty.

“It’s an official condemnation or reprimand, or expression of adverse criticism by the council to one of its own, but it does not limited the participation of that person in the council in every way possible.”

Still, said Hall, “These are every serious matters. What’s being called into question is the character and integrity of one person who was voted into office by a majority of the people.”

“This is my reputation we’re talking about here,” said Sullivan. “It’s a pretty big deal.”