Concord Council Rules Committee Tweaks Conflict Of Interest Ordinance

CONCORD, NH — The Concord City Council’s Rules Committee is eyeing another round of changes to city councilors' ethics and conflict ordinances after a recently elected ward city councilor was accused of conflict of interest for voting on a grant proposal made by her employer.

At its March meeting, the city council eyed proposed revisions to the ethics and conflict ordinances. The changes were requested after a meeting in January when Stacey Brown, the new Ward 5 Concord city councilor, refused to recuse herself from a vote concerning an $11,741.37 donation to the city made by the Concord Public Library Foundation. Since she did not directly benefit from the grant, Brown said, she was not in conflict. Other councilors disagreed, and after the vote to approve the grant, with Brown voting for it, Mayor Jim Bouley requested the city’s legal department look at the issue. Brown, during a debate while running in November 2021, told viewers and voters she would recuse herself from anything she would benefit from and would clarify whether she would have to recuse herself from activities involving the foundation as well as the police department, where her husband is employed as a detective.

After extensive discussion during the March council meeting, proposed changes were tabled for a month.

The Rules Committee, the body that would eye changes and consider actions against councilors or city officials, met on March 29 for about 90 minutes to eye another round of changes made by the city’s legal department.

James Kennedy, the city solicitor, offered a revised draft that he said reflected some of the comments during the March meeting, alleviating confusion that may have arisen from the previous version. He also suggested members and appointees undergo training about conflicts, the open meeting and right-to-know laws. Rule 6, Kennedy said, allowed any city councilor to raise accusations against any councilor or officials for potential conflicts.

Kennedy said the draft “takes it back a bit,” including sections that had required councilors to recuse themselves from all collective bargaining of all departments.

There was also some discussion ensuring councilors with family members employed by the city do not have a role in deciding the city manager's compensation — who is, essentially, the family member’s boss. But that section was removed from the revision.

Changes included definitions of officer and elected official and family members as employees of the organization or governing body members. A conflict exists when any officials take action or decisions that would affect their financial interest, the interest of any organization, or the interest of an employee who is a family member.

Kennedy added in a new section called “Employee of an Organization” which is defined as, “An officer or elected official or the officer or elected official’s family member employed by a public or private organization and such individual receives compensation as a part of the employment.” This change, if approved, would require Brown or anyone from voting on a proposal before the council that was forwarded by an employer.

When it comes to recusals, a section was added to allow an applicant or an abutter in a quasi-judicial matter to participate in a meeting but otherwise would be required to recuse themselves.

Another section added to the provision would require any city councilor to remove themselves from participating in “non-meetings,” outside of 91-A, the state’s open meeting law, where the council was considering strategy or negotiations about collective bargaining or non-public sessions when considering the compensation of any employee. This would allow the councilor to vote on the compensation and review of the city manager but not participate in the negotiation.

The last change banned officers from appearing on behalf of another person’s private interest before any city body of which they are a member — which would require one of the Conservation Commission members who raised issues about the ordinance to either quit the board or quit his business.

Several questions were raised about whether a city councilor with a family member working for the city should be allowed to be involved with the city manager’s review and negotiations and whether a family member, who was in one of the city’s six unions, could not participate since they could indirectly benefit from decisions made.

Jennifer Kretovic, the Ward 3 city councilor, said the purpose of the changes was to provide clarity since there was some confusion about the original ordinance and suggested that the removal of some sections made the proposal subjective again.

Kennedy agreed but said that the addition of the family member definition had helped. The addition of the provision banning councilors and officers from voting on proposals made by their employers would also resolve the issue. Was it good enough, he asked, to clarify?

That is the big question, Candace Bouchard, of Ward 9, who was leading the meeting, added.

Toward the end of the meeting, Bouley, who is a partner at Dennehy & Bouley, one of the most connected and profitable lobbying firms in the state, said it might be time to follow the lead of the Legislature, as well as the transparency he has to file with the state for his business, for all councilors and officers.

“If we really want to be transparent,” he said, “let’s talk about where everyone’s source of revenue comes from. The truth is, I don’t know some of your employers; I rely on you to tell me.”

Bouley said councilors have been attorneys, worked for organizations, relied on grants for employment, and the entire income of any councilor’s family is unknown. How far do you want to go?, he asked. Bouley likened it to political contributions which have to be filed with the city during election season.

Bouchard said she had always been in favor of transparency and financial disclosures, and it could be done with a simple form, too. Kretovic, too, thought it was a great idea. It might also be good to disclose what boards councilors sit on and whether they receive compensation.

The Rules Committee voted by voice vote to approve the changes with a caveat that the changes would be brought back to them for one final review.

The city council meets again on April 11. The Rules Committee meets again on May 2.

Got a news tip? Send it to tony.schinella@patch.com. View videos on Tony Schinella's YouTube.com channel or Rumble.com channel.