Opinion ID: 2050258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: depriving commission of professional advice

Text: Finally, the plaintiff is charged with depriving the commission of professional advice. The specification under this charge is that on one occasion the plaintiff called Howard Kelly, the town engineer, informed him that she had been urged by the members of the commission to use his service, but she did not know whether she was going to do this or not because she did not think he had the expertise to tell her what she wanted to hear. The specification which relates to an expression of opinion does not support the charge of depriving the commission of professional services. All that it expresses is doubt in the plaintiff's mind about the value of the town engineer's advice for the purposes of the commission. This is further borne out by the plaintiff's testimony at the hearing that when she asked the town engineer what experience he had in hydrology he responded that he was not basically an environmentalist. The most that can be said about this charge is that the plaintiff had reservations about the value of the town engineer's advice on certain matters before the commission. There is nothing in the record to support the charge that the plaintiff at any time deprived the commission of professional advice. It should be noted that this is not a case of misconduct or wilful neglect of duty. See Molino v. Board of Public Safety, supra. The board found none of the charges sufficient in themselves to warrant removal, but relied on the cumulative effect of all the charges. It requires more than a chain of insufficient causal links to justify removal of a public official from office. There is no error.