Windmills or Conflicts

So the question I have to ask myself; am I chasing after invisible windmills? Once again it seems to me that there’s something rotten in Denmark. Am I seeing conflicts where none exist or is there something fishy going on here?

First an op-ed piece from our mayor (in the Concord Monitor) promoting nuclear power. So who is he speaking for. The city, his lobbying firm or as an individual. He is identified as the mayor and in the article he identifies himself as a mayor. Yet our city’s charter is very clear, the mayor (or any councilor) cannot act without the consent of the full council. 

Yet Bouley clearly appears to be setting the stage for the city to sign on in support of nuclear power. Is he acting in the role of a lobbyist? If so why no mention of his firm or clients that would benefit from his position of supporting nuclear power. And if he was just giving his opinion as an individual, why does Bouley identify himself as a mayor. And in addition to all this he is identified as a member of an organization that supports the building of new reactors.

If the city wants a mayor who can go out and use the bully pulpit to express his personal views for the city (without the city council’s consent) than we should change our city charter to allow for a strong mayor form of government. 

Here’s what our city’s charter says about the mayors role:

13...The Mayor shall be the official head of the City for all ceremonial purposes, shall preside at all meetings of the City Council and may speak and vote in such meetings. All other duties of the Mayor prescribed by law shall be exercised by the City Manager provided for in this Charter. 

 And here’s what the charter has to say about a councilor acting apart from the council:

27. Noninterference by the City Council. The City Council shall act in all matters as a body...

Next up is a public notice in the August 9, Concord Monitor. The Public Utility Commission (PUC) has found that Concord Steam did not file the appropriate paper work when they offered a rate reduction for D. McLeod Florists, a Concord business owned by city councilor Fred Keach and his wife. 

So here’s what I find interesting. At about the same time Concord Steam made the rate adjustment for McLeod’s they also negotiated a rate plan for the YMCA. The appropriate paper work to request a rate adjustment for the Y was filed with the PUC. 

Here’s part of what the PUC had to say about the rate adjustment for McLeod’s:

The Special Contract was signed in 2010 yet Concord Steam did not seek approval until the Commission ordered it to do so this year. Concord Steam's explanation that it "forgot" to file the petition is not acceptable. 

While the PUC approved the special contract, they didn’t find Concord Steams explanation for not filing credible. So while Concord Steam remembered to file for the Y rate changes, they forget to file for McLeod’s?

Let’s remember what was going on at this time. Concord Steam was looking for approval from the city to build a new plant and to enter into a contract with the city to sell excess power to the city that would be generated from their new plant. 

Was Concord Steam desperate to do anything they could not to lose customers?

Or was Concord Steam looking to garner support for their new plant and a contract to sell power to the city, by offering a reduced rate to a city councilor’s business? 

Was Keach just looking to get the best deal he could as a Concord Steam customer?

Or was he aware that Concord Steam needed the support of the city council to move forward with their new plant and used that information to negotiate a better deal for his business?

We see that when not for profits board members have business arrangements with the organizations they represent, that special notice must be given to insure that board members don’t profit because of their special relationship with the non profit. Yet here in Concord, we have seen time and time again instances where those who represent us have special interests that are not made public. We have seen all too often (in my opinion) times where our city councilors have not informed us they have a real or potential conflict. 

It is my opinion that this city council does not understand (or just doesn’t care) the damage they do to the reputation of our city’s government when they ignore how the public perceives them and their relationships to issues that come before the council.

And even though we have a newly appointed Board of Ethics, it was made clear by the chairman of this board that it is not their job to second guess the decisions of the city council. So with no oversight from a Board of Ethics and the councilors themselves clearly not up to the task, who is there to insure that conflicts of interest aren’t impacting policies our councilors are approving.

Just one more note here. Dennehy & Bouley (our mayors lobbying firm) lists Concord Hospital as a client represented by our mayor. One of the city councils top ten goals for the past few years is to build the final leg of the Langley Parkway. This is a project that will clearly benefit the hospital. Should Bouley make public his business connection with the hospital? Should the city council vote to force Bouley to recuse himself from any discussion or votes on this project?

Years ago I needed to hire a lawyer. The first firm I approached wouldn’t take my case because another lawyer in their firm had represented the company I had a complaint against. Shouldn’t we at least expect the same level of ethical behavior from those we elect to represent us?