Bouley & Duprey - Rick Got it Right

Here’s how the city of Concord defines a conflict of interest in their code of ordinances:

Conflict of Interest. A conflict of interest is defined as an actual conflict of interest when a person takes an action or makes a decision that would affect his or her financial interests, business, or those of a family member. An apparent conflict of interest is one that does not affect a person's financial interests, but does call into question his or her objectivity and independence.

This is what our city charter says concerning councilors acting independently without the consent of the full city council:

27. Noninterference by the City Council. The City Council shall act in all matters as a body. Members of the Council shall not seek individually to influence the official acts of the City Manager, or any other officer; or to direct or request, except in writing, the appointment of any person to, or removal from, office; or to interfere in any way with the performance by such officers of their duties; but they may make suggestions and recommendations. Any member of the Council violating the provisions of this section, as determined through procedures established in this Charter, shall forfeit the office. 

And from the city council’s own rules:

Section 6A. No Councilor shall introduce, speak on or vote on any motion, ordinance, resolution or issue in which he/she has an interest, direct or indirect, apart from his/her own compensation as Councilor. Every Member who is present when a vote is put shall give his vote unless excluded by interest or excused by the Mayor. Interest shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

So here’s why Rick got it right:

Jim Bouley, our mayor talked with the administration and met with State Senators and Representatives to help push through changes to a state law to allow developer Steve Duprey to receive a tax abatement on his Smile building. At the time, state law only allowed for these abatements (through RSA 79:E) to be granted if the current building was rehabilitated, not demolished. Duprey was asking to receive these tax abatements even though he was going to tear down the original building.

So was Bouley lobbying or representing the city when he spoke to city administrators and state legislators. Did he break city council rules by speaking with and influencing members of the administration without the explicit approval of the council. Did Bouley violate council rules by appearing to represent the city when speaking to state legislators, again without the explicit consent of the council. 

When Bouley spoke with Senators and Representatives did he act in his capacity as the Mayor or a lobbyist. It will be telling how the state legislature perceives the mayor’s actions.  Because if they determine he was lobbying, there is no record  in the Secretary of States office of Bouley representing Duprey or his companies. A serious violation for a lobbyist. And if he wasn’t lobbying who was he representing?

Will the city solicitor determine that the Mayor was in violation of the city charter, city ordinances and council rules or will he hand it off to the city council? And if it is handed off to the city council how will they rule?  That is if they can even be bothered to discuss likely violations of city council rules.

I believe the Mayor should have recused himself from all discussions and votes relating to Duprey and his business. Had this been just a simple landlord tenant relationship it might be possible to argue that voting against the interests of your landlord would not have a negative effect on your relationship with your landlord. (Remember, I said might be possible.)

But here we have a landlord who is active in the republican party at the local, state and national levels. And we have a mayor whose lobbying firm, Dennehy & Bouley advertises: “Based in Concord, New Hampshire, Dennehy & Bouley is a full service public affairs firm specializing in Democrat and Republican lobbying, as well as issue advocacy.”

So is it too hard to imagine, if the mayor voted against the interests of his landlord that Duprey could find a reason to send his business and that of other republican operatives elsewhere. And conversely how hard is it to imagine that should Bouley vote in favor of Duprey’s interests that Duprey would be more inclined to recommend Bouley’s lobbying firm.

An apparent conflict - in addition to the city’s definition - is a conflict that would be recognized by a person on the street with an average education as providing a benefit to the person making the decision. It is the perception (or appearance) that there can be a benefit for the individual who is making the decision that determines that there is a conflict.

For all these reasons Bouley should have recused himself. Just the appearance that Duprey received special treatment - that others not as well connected would not have received - is reason enough for the mayor to step aside. It is this perception that Duprey appears to have received special treatment that erodes public confidence in government and those elected to represent us. 

As long as the mayor refuses to recuse himself and stays involved with issues concerning his landlord the questions remain. Did Duprey receive special treatment? Did the mayor break state laws, the city charter, city ordinances and city council rules? Was Duprey treated the same as any other person coming before the city for a similar project? Or as George Orwell wrote in his book Animal Farm; “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

As the city moves forward with the Employment Security project and if it is awarded to Steve Duprey, let’s encourage the mayor to do the right thing and recuse himself from participating in all council discussions and votes concerning this issue. And in the meantime it might not be such a bad idea to look at our mayor’s past conduct in smoothing the way for Duprey to change a state law, as Rick has requested in his letter to the city clerk.