Even More Decidedly Dastardly Deals?

Even further allegations include contradictory statements, video testimony, unprofessional behavior and bizarre and unexplainable actions are too much to ignore and yet our town officials seem determined to look the other way.

Who is looking out for taxpayers and the interests of Concord?

Read this list of allegations and decide for yourself.

Did Delia…

Engagee in a multi-year effort to prevent the Town of Concord and MIG from filing a Notice of Intent (NOI)and obtaining a required Order of Conditions (OOC) related to wetland violations at 1175 Elm Street?
Allow unpermitted activity in wetland areas to continue despite being aware of the violations as early as February 2023?
Deny the existence of wetland violations to both the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)?
Direct or permit MIG to dump soil within wetland resource areas, including up to the 25-foot No Disturbance Zone, without filing an NOI or receiving an OOC?
Misrepresent the nature of the violations to MassDEP, claiming the issue involved only a buffer zone rather than activity within regulated wetland resource areas?
Provide misleading information that caused MassDEP not to investigate the site and influenced the NRC to take actions later deemed “misplaced” by a court?
Exert undue influence over regulatory oversight of the site, preventing required filings and regulatory scrutiny?
Place MassDEP in a compromised position by asserting that the agency supported her interpretation that an NOI and OOC were not required for activity within wetlands?
Likely commit perjury in an affidavit, stating she only learned of violations in October 2025 despite email evidence indicating knowledge of them in February 2023?
Mislead the NRC and the public during an October 2025 meeting, asserting the activity did not affect wetland resource areas and did not require permitting?

Mislead MassDEP through internal communications, resulting in the agency believing there were no violations or only minor buffer zone issues?
Misrepresent scientific data related to the Warner’s Pond dredging project, describing sediment that laboratory results identified as mostly sand as “compost,” “good soil,” “muck,” or “fertilizer”?
Allegedly sabotage the Warner’s Pond dredging project, resulting in project failure and loss of approximately $141,000 in taxpayer funds?
Allegedly collude with contractors and consultants to influence project outcomes, including promoting dam removal after dredging plans failed?
Approve payments for work that was allegedly not performed and oversaw contracts that may have overcharged the public?
Potentially improperly influence a Warner’s Pond Taskforce through outside consultants, potentially circumventing competitive procurement requirements?
Maintain a potentially inappropriate relationship with the advocacy group OARS, raising possible conflict-of-interest concerns?
Potentially allow a land theft of a million-dollar property to proceed by ignoring the warning from the landowner’s husband – which specifically stated the land wasn’t for sale?
Potentially misuse or waste approximately $525,000 in public funds, including on a failed plan to dredge a pond and an unused dam removal design. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were expended under non-compete contract awards.?

Even More Decidedly Dastardly Deals?

Even further allegations include contradictory statements, video testimony, unprofessional behavior and bizarre and unexplainable actions are too much to ignore and yet our town officials seem determined to look the other way.

Who is looking out for taxpayers and the interests of Concord?

Read this list of allegations and decide for yourself.

Did Delia…

Engagee in a multi-year effort to prevent the Town of Concord and MIG from filing a Notice of Intent (NOI)and obtaining a required Order of Conditions (OOC) related to wetland violations at 1175 Elm Street?

Allow unpermitted activity in wetland areas to continue despite being aware of the violations as early as February 2023?

Deny the existence of wetland violations to both the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)?

Direct or permit MIG to dump soil within wetland resource areas, including up to the 25-foot No Disturbance Zone, without filing an NOI or receiving an OOC?

Misrepresent the nature of the violations to MassDEP, claiming the issue involved only a buffer zone rather than activity within regulated wetland resource areas?

Provide misleading information that caused MassDEP not to investigate the site and influenced the NRC to take actions later deemed “misplaced” by a court?

Exert undue influence over regulatory oversight of the site, preventing required filings and regulatory scrutiny?

Place MassDEP in a compromised position by asserting that the agency supported her interpretation that an NOI and OOC were not required for activity within wetlands?

Likely commit perjury in an affidavit, stating she only learned of violations in October 2025 despite email evidence indicating knowledge of them in February 2023?

Mislead the NRC and the public during an October 2025 meeting, asserting the activity did not affect wetland resource areas and did not require permitting?

Mislead MassDEP through internal communications, resulting in the agency believing there were no violations or only minor buffer zone issues?

Misrepresent scientific data related to the Warner’s Pond dredging project, describing sediment that laboratory results identified as mostly sand as “compost,” “good soil,” “muck,” or “fertilizer”?

Allegedly sabotage the Warner’s Pond dredging project, resulting in project failure and loss of approximately $141,000 in taxpayer funds?

Allegedly collude with contractors and consultants to influence project outcomes, including promoting dam removal after dredging plans failed?

Approve payments for work that was allegedly not performed and oversaw contracts that may have overcharged the public?

Potentially improperly influence a Warner’s Pond Taskforce through outside consultants, potentially circumventing competitive procurement requirements?

Maintain a potentially inappropriate relationship with the advocacy group OARS, raising possible conflict-of-interest concerns?

Potentially allow a land theft of a million-dollar property to proceed by ignoring the warning from the landowner’s husband – which specifically stated the land wasn’t for sale?

Potentially misuse or waste approximately $525,000 in public funds, including on a failed plan to dredge a pond and an unused dam removal design. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were expended under non-compete contract awards.?