March 29, 2024
Letter

Judicious recusal absent

The article “Rights panel faults shelter/Forced counseling to rent apartment found to be wrong” (BDN, May 25) states: “Paul Vestal, a human rights panel member who has experience in social services, said the allegations were serious. ‘I was particularly disturbed by this case,’ he said.”

Vestal was outspoken and persuasive with his fellow commissioners about this case. He certainly has experience in social services as he is director of St. Michael’s Center in Bangor, a program of Catholic Charities, an organization of the Catholic Diocese of Portland.

It’s important to note that partiality or bias has a long tradition of running either for or against in such matters. To avoid any semblance of that, in a case regarding what the article called: “A Hancock County charitable organization run by Catholic nuns,” Vestal should have recused himself.

Or, he should have refrained from comment, or, at the very least, have acknowledged the potential perception of bias. Then he might have explained the reasons he believed he was able to participate in the case discussion and decision, objectively and fairly, in the public interest. Instead, Vestal was emphatically critical of that organization.

The Maine Human Rights Commission, as a public body, and the commissioners, as public officials, must always be concerned with appearances. In this case decision, is there the appearance of deeply flawed process? Did statements made by Vestal about this case to the commission lead to the appearance of impropriety or prejudice?

Considerable damage has occurred because of the lack of judicious recusal in this case, to the appearance and process of justice and to human rights in Maine. Alas, this damage is, because of the particular structure of the commission, apparently irreparable.

Brian Sabbath

Ellsworth


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

You may also like