Hanover — In an early meeting over a contentious, and ongoing, site plan review of an athletic facility proposed by Dartmouth College, members of the Planning Board went down the line, one by one disclosing their connections to the college.

Every board member had something to say: Dartmouth had employed someone’s family member; someone else’s company had done some business with the school.

Those connections, which are perhaps inevitable in a college town, did not require any board members to recuse themselves, they decided at the early June meeting.

Now, a resident’s attempt to disqualify two of the Planning Board members hearing that proposal raises the eternal question: For Hanover town officials, how close to Dartmouth is too close?

In a letter dated Aug. 24, Francis Manasek, of Chase Road, singled out two board members, Jon Criswell and Iain Sim, saying they had business connections to Dartmouth that made them unfit to rule on the project.

Manasek is part of a group of residents who fear that the proposed 70,000-square-foot college athletic facility would loom over their homes and ruin the character of the neighborhood around Tyler Road, just past the eastern end of campus.

He and other abutters have fought the project every step of the way, lobbying the board during meetings, hiring an attorney, and now, attempting to bring the process to a halt by sidelining board members.

Criswell, Manasek said in his letter, is employed by a firm that did construction business with Dartmouth. And Sim, who is treasurer of the education organization Osher at Dartmouth, is engaged in negotiations over the college’s potential support for a purchase of property by Osher, he alleged.

“In the absence of self-recusal by Mr. Sim and Mr. Criswell,” Manasek wrote, “the board is not in a position to make any decisions, and those deliberations made may already be poisoned.”

Criswell already has addressed the claim. At a recent meeting, he declined to recuse himself, explaining that he worked for a large firm whose subsidiary had built several modular homes around town for Dartmouth. He had no part in that project, he said, and his service as a board member and his success at work were “in no way tied to” it.

Multiple attempts to reach Sim were unsuccessful on Friday and Saturday, but his colleagues at Osher and in town government roundly dismissed the claim.

“I think anyone that intimates that in any way Iain is beholden to Dartmouth doesn’t know the man,” said Sylvia Paxton, president of Osher.

Paxton said Osher had been asking Dartmouth to help buy a new property for about a decade, and that Sim had been on the Planning Board before becoming Osher’s treasurer.

She said she “couldn’t imagine” Sim would rule one way or another “to please Dartmouth.”

Town Manager Julia Griffin agreed.

“He has no pecuniary interest in the outcome of negotiations with Dartmouth,” she said in an email Friday.

“He will not profit from the sale or benefit from the purchase other than fulfilling his fiduciary role” as an Osher board member.

As for the presence of a minor connection for every board member, she said, “Welcome to life in a college community.”

Some volunteer members of town government are Dartmouth staffers, she said, and some are involved in organizations that have taken an adversarial position against the college in other matters.

To help volunteers know when a recusal is necessary, Hanover maintains a code of ethics, a copy of which Griffin provided.

In addition to prohibiting such things as improper gifts and misuse of confidential information, the policy bans conflicts of interest.

“As a town official, board or commission member, volunteer or employee, you shall not participate in any matter in which you, or a member of your family, have a personal, financial or pecuniary interest which may directly or indirectly affect or influence the performance of your duties,” the ethics code says. “In such instances, you shall recuse yourself from discussion and decision­making.”

Griffin added in her email, “Board members are very good about recusing themselves when they feel they have a conflict on any basis.”

So far, the only Planning Board member to recuse herself from the athletic facility proceedings has been Vice Chairwoman Kelly Dent, an abutter who opposes the project.

At the beginning of several recent meetings she excused herself as a board member but spoken out against the proposal as a neighbor. She also has hired a Concord-based attorney to file motions to the board in opposition.

Hanover’s policy says recused members may participate in discussions if they “clearly state for the record that they are doing so only as general members of the public.”

The code of ethics also makes a distinction for town officials making “quasi-judicial actions” — decisions where a board or commission acts like a judge or jury. That includes rulings from the Planning Board.

“Not only do town officials, board and commission members, volunteers and employees of the Town of Hanover have a duty to recuse themselves as outlined in the section above, you must recuse yourself in a quasi-judicial action if you would not be qualified to sit as a juror in that case,” the policy says.

State law for jury selection says jurors may be questioned on whether they are related to parties in the case; have advised or assisted a party; have given or already formed their opinion; are employed by or employ a party; are prejudiced “to any degree” regarding the case; or employ any of the counsel appearing in the case.

Manasek, in his letter, said he believed the board members’ connections to Dartmouth failed this test, and said the community should seek to avoid “the merest suggestion of bias.”

Griffin, for her part, did not appear to be convinced. She said the nature of the town made links to Dartmouth practically inevitable.

“Were we to avoid involving anyone as a board or commission member who had any involvement with the college,” Griffin said, “we would have virtually no volunteers.”

Rob Wolfe can be reached at rwolfe@vnews.com or at 603-727-3242.