City Ethics Questions for the Council

A month ago the Concord Monitor had three front page stories concerning City Councilor and his call to the Concord police over a friend’s traffic ticket. Mayor asked the council whether an investigation was in order.  Councilor went on WMUR and raised the possibility of a suspension from the council. A Monitor editorial called for Patten’s resignation.

But what, if anything, has happened? Not much, aside from the tarnishing of Patten’s reputation.

A check of the city website reveals no meeting scheduled for the council rules committee. The agenda for the Feb. 13 council meeting has no mention of the Patten issue, nor any mention of the rules committee or the new Board of Ethics.  Is there an investigation or isn’t there? Did Patten violate city rules or laws?

I wrote a piece for the Monitor about what happened in the last city rules investigation.  [http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/305586/city-has-weak-record-on-ethics-rules-enforcement]  I wrote about how then city rules committee members Bouley and St. Hilaire found nothing wrong with city councilors interacting with city officials and committees in a way that benefited themselves or their corporation. I wrote how neither of them objected when the councilor who was with the matter under investigation. I concluded that with the council’s terrible record on enforcement of city ethics rules, it’s easy to see how anyone could be confused about what may be prohibited in city government.

With that in mind I wrote a letter last week to the council, asking it to identify what actions are prohibited and what is allowed. I wrote a similar letter a year ago, but neither the council nor the rules committee answered the questions. I hope with the latest confusion over what constitutes a city ethics violation, the council actually responds this time — otherwise I predict both councilors and the public will remain unclear on the rules.

Here are my first four questions:

• Are city councilors prohibited from contacting city officials or employees about a matter in which they have a financial personal interest?
• Are city councilors prohibited from contacting city officials or employees about a matter in which they have a personal interest that is not financial?
• Are city councilors prohibited from speaking or voting on matters directly impacting corporations or businesses of which they are owners, members or employees?
• Is there a prohibition against no-bid contracts or funding agreements going to a corporation or business of which one or more city councilors are a part?

My last three questions, arise directly from the passed late last year. Unfortunately these ordinances seem to muddy the water even further, and answers to these questions might provide some clarity.

Are elected officials who are appointed officers to boards, committees or commissions by the mayor and city council considered an “officer” or an “elected official” under the definitions of the 2011 ethics ordinance?

Article 1-6-7 of the new tthics ordinance prohibits Disclosure of Confidential and Other Information. Does that prohibition apply to information that may be needed to determine if city rules or laws have been violated by elected officials?

If there was an ethics complaint against the mayor, would the three members of the Board of Ethics appointed by the mayor investigate the actions of the mayor?

These are not trick questions. Clarifications by the council — and if necessary amending the rules — would go a long way to identifying what is expected of our city officials.