Put it to Rest

On Monday April 11, Moorestown Township Council considered a resolution to use funds raised by the local Open Space tax levy to begin a parks-improvement project, a project that includes installation of a $1 million synthetic-turf playing field. Despite objections from many residents who opposed what amounted to an unprecedented use of the township's Open Space funds, the council approved the controversial resolution 3-2. Council Member Michael Testa voted with the majority.

During the public hearing, one resident raised questions about Mr. Testa's possible conflict in voting, since he has a business interest in a local lacrosse training facility and equipment supplier. The township solicitor absolved Mr. Testa of conflict, but Mr. Testa did not speak to the issue himself. His silence is unfortunate. Ethical questions have a way of festering if not addressed directly.

A representive of the Moorestown Lacrosse Club rose to say that Mr. Testa's business does not have contracts with the club. Thus, the business does not benefit directly from contracts with the club that uses township fields and would use the new synthetic-turf field.

But it gets dicier when you consider more indirect benefits. For instance, it stands to reason that a local lacrosse business (not just Mr. Testa's) would benefit from a strong local program. And it stands to reason that coaches' referrals are fundamental to the success of any such business.



In this case, the Moorestown club and coaches wanted a new synthetic turf field. Mr. Testa, as Council's representative to the Recreation Advisory Committee, participated with the clubs and coaches in the planning for field. He previously voted to fund the project with a bond (the effort failed), then voted Monday night to kick-start the project with Open Space funds. Will the coaches forget his cooperation and affirmative votes when referring players for training and equipment? Will they consider possible conflict and appearances of conflict issues when making referrals?

This isn't a "gotcha" exercise. Legitimate ethical questions have been raised and need to be answered. The solicitor's opinion is not enough. For his own good and the good of the community, Mr. Testa should fully address the conflict issue himself in public.

Residents should reserve judgement until Mr. Testa speaks up and puts the conflict issue to rest. It won't rest until he does.