How can a preservation opponent serve as Princeton’s preservation liaison?

To the Editor:

I am very disturbed by Leighton Newlin’s letter that appeared in the Wednesday, June 11, issue of Town Topics. The substance of the letter is not my principal concern. Almost all of it is something that can be challenged and easily refuted.  Rather, my concern is about the ethics of an elected official taking such a biased public stance on a matter that is still under consideration. 

Perhaps I’m troubled because, as a member of the legal profession, I’m held to a Code of Professional Responsibility that prohibits even the “appearance of impropriety”- I.e. any action that creates the appearance of bias in order not to destroy the public trust – in any matter in which he or she is involved. 

Even if elected officials are not held to a codified standard of conduct, at the very least they owe a duty to the electorate to represent all residents, not only one’s own interest group. Not to do so in this case raises an issue of unfair influence on a matter that still has an administrative hurdle to clear with the Planning Board and is now before the court for adjudication.  In addition, how can a Council member who’s shown such contempt for historic preservation continue to serve as the liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission?

Mr. Newlin’s constituents deserve better in order for the Princeton Council to begin to restore the public trust. 

Jane MacLennan
Edgehill Street