Here's That Ethics Thing Again

Once again, an individual entrusted to serve the public is caught in a compromising position.

The latest version involves . He decides it is okay to lie about his course work to the UNH Law School, use a fellow state representative to perpetuate that lie, and then lie on the bio of his newly hired place of employment. 

Unfortunately, we see this type of questionable behavior all too often. Whether it is an individual from a business promising to do work for you and absconding with your money or someone in the public domain promising to represent your best interests while looking out for theirs, it is wrong.

Revisiting the hearing there was testimony that brought to light the questionable behavior of one of their board members. Senator Wheeler (who was an LGC Board Member at the time) submitted a bill that would have impacted one of LGC’s competitors. When asked by the committee Chairman Sen. Clegg if he was on the board of the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) Wheeler responds no. Accurate, but deceptive, as it appears Clegg may not have made the distinction between the LGC and NHMA.

But more troubling is a state senator who sits on a board while proposing legislation to help his company and hurt a competitor. Could a company representative from LGC have made this request without it being an ethical issue. Of course. But when you have the dual position of representing a company and then being able to vote on that bill it is called a conflict of interest. And while there is no compensation for LGC board members the conflict is apparent.

Main Street Concord is up next.

Should a city councilor who wrote the report for the that was accepted by the council, worked for Main Street Concord Inc., and was paid by Concord 20/20 to generate the report, be permitted to vote on issues relating to the downtown street scape revitalization? Should that councilor be permitted to be involved in any discussions or votes relating to this project or the funding of Intown Concord, the successor to Main Street Concord Inc.? 

What about a past city councilor who while serving as a councilor was also the executive director of CCTV? Two city councilors sat on the board of CCTV and those two city councilors then voted for funding for CCTV. No, I don’t believe so. But I do see a conflict when the organization you are funding is headed by a fellow councilor.

As a councilor how do you say no to a fellow member of the council? Particularly when you might want to solicit that councilors vote for a favorite project of yours in the future. Clearly a conflict. I believe in this situation there was no other way to resolve this conflict then for the councilor to either resign the CCTV position or resign from the council.

And what about a city employee who hides correspondence from a city board? Regardless of motivation there can never be a case made for not allowing our city’s boards to rule on applications without all the information necessary to allow them to come to a fair and legal determination.

All the examples above are ways in which the publics trust is undermined by those purporting to represent us. These are all issues of ethics and personal integrity. And I believe none of the examples I have cited above are even a close call.

In the first instance relating to Bettnecourt, Guida demanded that Bettencourt resign from the House and state that it was for inappropriate actions. If Bettencourt had followed the demands of Guida and not tried to cover his behind, would we now have all the details of Bettencourts deceptions?

What would have been an appropriate rebuke for Sen. Wheeler when his involvement with the LGC became known to the Senate?

Should the mayor have taken a more active role in resolving the conflict between the dual role of councilor and CCTV executive director?

Should the city council’s ethics board rule on the extent of the conflict of the current councilor with financial ties to the city’s Main Street revitalization project and Intown Concord?

And what action should our have pursued in a case where the lack of disclosure by an employee could have effected a boards determination of a project before them?