Concord’s Unethical Board of Ethics

The new Board of Ethics is an to the citizens of Concord.

Its built-in conflicts of interest and one-sided unfairness reflect the questionable ethics of the men behind its creation and the subjects of the first ethic complaints: Mayor and rules chairman, At-Large Councilor .

The fact that both men said they were “very pleased” with the board’s recent performance—in which the board refused to hear evidence and summarily dismissed the separate complaints of myself and —illustrates how Bouley and St. Hilaire selectively ignore conflicts of interest and unethical behavior. 

Imagine a legal proceeding where the accused selects the majority of the jurors, while the complainant has no voice in the matter. On top of that the accused is able to submit written testimony that the complainant doesn’t see or be given the chance to respond to. In fact, the complainant is not permitted to present any evidence.

This is the unethical way that the Board of Ethics conducted its business.

Bouley, , appointed to hear the complaints against himself. City Manager —who answers to the mayor and council—selected the other two members. The mayor and council determine the rules of the ethics board and can reject any recommendation that the board offers.

Is this an ethical way to set up an ethics board? —an organization which exists to provide information for governmental ethics programs—doesn’t think so. He examined Concord’s ethics program, and wrote:

“[T]he mayor and council members are involved in every aspect of the ethics program, and that is the way they wanted it. They decided to place a huge conflict right at the center of the city's conflict of interest program… An ethics program is all about dealing responsibly with conflicts. In creating the Concord ethics program, the council dealt irresponsibly with its own conflicts and with the city manager's conflict.”

A disturbingly Kafkaesque experience

The ethics program appears designed to give city officials every advantage and to put citizens at a disadvantage. And during this experience, neither the city clerk, the city legal department nor the ethics board itself, answered my questions about how this process would work.

Herschlag and myself, following the instructions in the ordinance, filed succinct one or two-page complaints, fully expecting at some point we would be allowed to provide detailed evidence or at least to discuss the complaints. Even though we attended all three ethics board meetings, we were never given an opportunity to speak—or even ask a question. In fact, when we each attempted to raise a point of order at the final meeting, we were told by ethics Chairman John Sullivan, an attorney, to sit down and be quiet.

Paradoxically, the ethics board complained that there was insufficient evidence while denying us the chance to submit evidence.         

Meanwhile, Bouley, St. Hilaire and Ward 2 City Councilor Jennifer Kretovic (the subject of Herschlag's complaint) were able to offer written testimony in their defense to the ethics board. Attorney and former mayor provided 17 pages of evidence and exhibits on behalf of Bouley alone—documents which were not available to the public at the meeting and which even I didn’t receive a copy of until after the board had ruled. How could a citizen rebut testimony when he is neither provided it nor permitted to speak?  

It’s already a major challenge for any citizen to "fight city hall," but when all the procedures are slanted in the city official’s favor it makes a mockery out of any sense of fairness or ethics.

One of the charges against St. Hilaire was dropped as “moot” by the ethics board. My complaint stated that on May 14 to the ethics board. Because of my May 25 complaint, St. Hilaire moved to suspend the rules so the council could reconsider that vote on May 31; St. Hilaire then abstained and the board used that factor to dismiss my complaint. This is like dismissing a speeding ticket because even though the violator drove 90 m.p.h. two weeks ago, this week he obeyed the law because of the ticket—and therefore the original offense doesn’t matter.  

Twisted logic, unfairness and conflicts of interest made a sham out of the ethic’s board’s proceedings. Concord’s ethics program needs to be made ethical. Citizens and the media should urge the council to revamp the program—this time with citizen involvement.

I’ll leave you with the beginning words of the preamble to the ethics ordinance:

The citizens of Concord are entitled to a fair, ethical, and accountable City government. The effective functioning of democratic government requires that all of its officials, whether elected or appointed, comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws and be independent, impartial, and fair in the judgment and actions.

I couldn’t agree more. The mayor, councilors and the ethics board itself must live up to these words.