Did the Maine Turnpike Authority chair violate state conflict-of-interest law by voting on a turnpike interchange while owning nearby property?

Plain-English summary

In February 2000, Governor Angus King asked the Attorney General to investigate whether Julian Coles, the Chair of the Maine Turnpike Authority, had violated Maine's conflict-of-interest statute by participating in Authority proceedings about a proposed Rand Road interchange in Portland while owning property in that vicinity. Over the following months, AG staff reviewed development plans and documents dating back to the 1960s, conducted numerous interviews including a lengthy interview with Mr. Coles himself, and stayed in contact with the Governor's chief legal counsel.

The investigation reached a split conclusion. Mr. Coles did not violate the substantive conflict-of-interest prohibition in 5 M.R.S.A. § 18(2), and did not violate the Maine Criminal Code or abuse his position for personal gain. The AG also concluded, however, that Mr. Coles failed the separate duty in 5 M.R.S.A. § 18(7), which requires every executive employee to "endeavor to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by disclosure or abstention." The AG found that Mr. Coles was insufficiently aware of, or sensitive to, the appearance of a conflict created by his participation in Authority proceedings about an interchange that affected property he owned and was purchasing. He should have recused himself from those proceedings, or, at minimum, made a more formal disclosure of his interests and sought guidance on whether to abstain.

The opinion is significant because Maine's § 18 ethics framework has two layers. § 18(2) is a substantive prohibition with criminal-style elements (acting on a matter in which the official has a direct financial interest, etc.). § 18(7) is a softer behavioral duty: even where the substantive line is not crossed, executive employees must affirmatively work to avoid the appearance of a conflict. The Coles report is one of the office's clearest applications of that distinction.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Who is Julian Coles?

At the time, the Chair of the Maine Turnpike Authority. The report explains he owned three pieces of property with buildings in the Pine Tree Industrial Park off Rand Road in Portland, the area an Authority-considered interchange would have served.

What is 5 M.R.S.A. § 18?

Maine's executive-branch ethics statute. § 18(2) sets out the substantive conflict-of-interest prohibitions for executive employees. § 18(7) establishes the broader duty to avoid the appearance of a conflict by disclosure or abstention. The two subsections operate independently.

Why didn't the AG find a § 18(2) violation?

The opinion's full reasoning runs long, but the substance was that Mr. Coles' participation did not constitute the kind of direct, identifiable financial interest at stake in the Authority's specific proceedings that § 18(2) targets. The Rand Road interchange concept had been studied since the 1960s, the recommendation in question was unanimous, and the connection between Authority votes and Coles' property values was not direct enough to trigger the substantive prohibition.

Why did the AG find a § 18(7) violation?

§ 18(7) is about appearances, not actual prohibited conduct. The combination of (a) Coles chairing the Authority, (b) the Authority voting on an interchange that would directly improve access to an industrial park where he owned property, and (c) Coles purchasing additional property in the same vicinity during the proceedings, created an appearance of a conflict that an executive employee in his position should have recognized and addressed by disclosure or recusal.

What remedy did the AG recommend?

The opinion as captured here does not include the AG's full remedial recommendations (the file is multi-page and the remedy discussion appears further in). For the canonical statement, consult the linked PDF.

Does an appearance-of-conflict violation carry penalties?

§ 18(7) is structured as a duty, not a criminal prohibition. The remedies are typically administrative or political (correction of practice, training, public disclosure) rather than fines or criminal liability. § 18(2) violations can carry more significant consequences.

Background and statutory framework

The Maine Turnpike Authority is the state's statutory body responsible for the Maine Turnpike. Its members are appointed and its chair leads the body. The Authority makes decisions about interchanges, tolls, and infrastructure that have direct effects on adjacent property values, so the conflict-of-interest framework in 5 M.R.S.A. § 18 applies with particular force.

The Rand Road interchange concept had a long history. Plans were developed in the late 1960s, the Maine Department of Transportation commissioned exit ramp designs in 1972, a connector roadbed was partially constructed in the 1970s, and the project was eventually abandoned because of opposition to running the connector to I-295. The Authority's renewed consideration in the late 1990s was thus a revival of a long-dormant project, not a new initiative.

Citations

• 5 M.R.S.A. § 18 (executive-branch conflict-of-interest statute)
• 5 M.R.S.A. § 18(2) (substantive prohibition)
• 5 M.R.S.A. § 18(7) (duty to avoid appearance of a conflict)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/2000/ag_20001214.pdf

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable in this entry. This investigation report runs many pages and is not reproduced here verbatim. See the linked PDF or landing page above for the complete text, including the AG's full "Historical Background" discussion and the detailed reasoning behind each conclusion.