Scott Howard wrote an opinion piece in The Times Record, in which he defends the “loan” that Brunswick Taxi received from the Brunswick Development Corporation (Sept. 10, Page A6). The title of the piece was “Why Brunswick Taxi deserves a BDC loan,” but it could just as accurately have been titled “Why a private business deserves a quarter million dollar gift of public money.”

I feel compelled to point out Mr. Howard is not an uninterested observer. He facilitated the “loan” that Brunswick Taxi received, saying in his opinion piece he was “approached” by Brunswick Taxi owner Dale King for assistance in securing funds to upgrade the taxi fleet. Other published reports identify Mr. Howard as Mr. King’s “business consultant.”

In order to judge Mr. Howard’s credibility in this matter, it’s fair to ask the question whether or not Mr. Howard was compensated for his role in securing the “loan.” If Mr. Howard has in fact worked as a business consultant for Mr. King, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that he was paid for his work. This provides important context to any argument that Mr. Howard makes in defense of the “loan.”

In his opinion piece, Mr. Howard states the BDC is a private corporation. While this may be technically correct, by any objective measure the BDC is a public entity and its board owes a fiduciary duty to the public the BDC purportedly serves. Here are some facts:

— The BDC is a creation of the town of Brunswick.

— The BDC was initially funded by the town of Brunswick.

— The BDC is “staffed” by Brunswick’s business development manager, an employee of the town.

— Of the seven BDC board members, two are ex-officio members of town administration (the town manager and the finance director) and the other five are appointed by the Town Council.

— Of the five board members appointed by the Town Council, two must be town councilors, effectively giving town officials control of the board with four out of the seven board seats.

— BDC conducts its meetings, as if it was a public entity. When the board goes into executive session, it cites the state’s Freedom of Access Act as authority to do so.

But the Freedom of Access Act applies only to public proceedings of certain public entities; private corporations, as that term is generally understood, are not subject to the Freedom of Access Act.

— The town of Brunswick, as per the BDC’s Articles of Incorporation and by-laws, is the only “member” of the BDC. It therefore follows that every resident of Brunswick has a legal interest in the BDC.

Mr. Howard states “current BDC funds being loaned are not citizen-paid taxes.”

Again, while this may be technically correct, it doesn’t tell the whole story. BDC had the funds to “loan” to Brunswick Taxi because of seed money provided by the town (i.e., taxpayers). Through various real estate transactions, BDC turned a profit, and that seed money has been repaid; the taxpayers have been made whole.

So who “owned” the money that BDC “loaned” to Brunswick Taxi, and who “owns” the money that currently sits in BDC bank accounts? If a public corporation were to vote itself out of business and wind down its affairs, the corporation’s stockholders would share any remaining net business assets.

Likewise, if a private corporation were to do the same, the corporation’s owners would split the assets.

If the BDC board were to vote to dissolve, any remaining funds, after all liabilities are paid, would go to the town of Brunswick, as the BDC Articles of Incorporation require.

A review of the minutes from BDC board meetings shows that much of the substantive business of the BDC board is conducted behind closed doors, in executive session beyond public scrutiny.

The BDC board justifies this by invoking a section of the state’s Freedom of Access Act, which allows public bodies or agencies to go into executive session when the discussion involves the condition, acquisition or use of real estate; the disposition of publicly held property; or “economic development,” but in each case “only if premature disclosures of the information would prejudice the competitive or bargaining position of the body or agency.”

Perhaps a BDC board member can explain what competitive or bargaining position might be compromised if the board were to openly discuss whether or not to approve a “loan” application and any associated conditions. And if “premature disclosures” are the concern, what reason is there to keep BDC from releasing minutes of executive sessions after a deal has closed, a transaction has been completed or a loan has been agreed to (or denied)?

None of this is to say that BDC does not do good things for the Brunswick community; it does, and there are many Brunswick success stories that attest to this. BDC board members, past and present, should be commended for the hard work and many hours that they have contributed for the purpose of economic development in Brunswick.

It must be recognized, though, that for all intents and purposes, Brunswick Development Corporation is a public entity serving a public purpose using public money. BDC board members have a moral, if not a legal duty, to conduct BDC business with full transparency as much as possible.

Whether or not the “loan” that was made to Brunswick Taxi serves a valid public purpose and was the best use of public money is a matter of debate. What should not be subject to debate, however, is the idea that the BDC board is responsible to, and should be responsive of, the people of the town of Brunswick.

DAVID CARPENTER is a retired naval officer who has lived in Brunswick with his family since 1996.