Ethics without Ethics in Nashua

In April 2025, a citizen, Fred Teeboom, filed an ethics complaint against Nashua Board of Aldermen President Lori Wilshire. The concern centered on her decision to appoint herself to the Pennichuck Corporation Board of Directors, a city-owned utility subject to Aldermanic oversight, without disclosing she would be paid $12,000 annually, discussing the inherent conflict of interest, and in violation of the City’s legislative statutes.

City Attorney Steve Bolton, who attends Aldermanic meetings to offer counsel to the Board, offered no written opinion or explanation regarding the legality of Wilshire’s appointment. Instead, he allowed the placement to stand unchallenged and unexplained.

The complaint was referred to the Ethics Review Committee (ERC) for a "screening meeting" on May 15, 2025. This meeting is intended only to determine whether the complaint meets jurisdictional and procedural filing requirements, not to evaluate the substance. Yet, the process devolved into something far more troubling.

Two days before the meeting, Wilshire submitted communications claiming she had received legal advice from Attorney Bolton justifying her self-appointment. That evidence was provided to ERC members, but the complainant did not receive it until the morning of the meeting, hardly a fair or transparent process.

Worse, the ERC’s chairman, Attorney Tim Bush, has a disturbing pattern of receiving and introducing evidence in secret. Under Section 5-102 of the City’s Revised Ordinances, Attorney Bolton was required to issue any ethics-related legal advice in writing and file it with the City Clerk as a matter of public record. His failure to do so, despite repeatedly advising President Wilshire on the propriety of her paid appointment, violated the transparency obligations built into the ordinance and deprived the public of critical information needed to assess the legality and ethics of her actions.

At the May 15 meeting, Chairman Bush unilaterally converted the screening into a quasi-hearing, without proper notice or due process. Witness testimony was introduced, including direct questioning of Attorney Bolton primarily by Bush. Mr. Teeboom was permitted to cross-examine. Roughly 20 of the 68 verbatim transcript pages detail this unauthorized evidentiary process.

Bush further disparaged the complainant and members of the public who attended, referring to them as a “little group” and making baseless claims about personal animus. He chastised the complainant for disparaging Attorney Bolton’s and Wilshire’s good names. He ignored advice from the ERC’s independent counsel, Attorney Robert Sullivan, to address “rule” questions brought forth by the Complainant before the hearing, As a quasi-judicial committee, Bush’s actions were hardly neutral or unbiased.

In a shocking turn, Chairman Bush accused me, without notice or opportunity to respond, of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law violating RSA 311:7, simply because I had assisted Mr. Teeboom (who requested the Board permit the assistance) with exhibits he was trying to locate in a “ambush” hearing for which he was not prepared. Bush leveled these allegations in public session, based on vague and irrelevant statements, without ever moving to a non-public discussion as required by law to protect reputations. Most troubling, Chairman Bush is a seasoned criminal defense attorney who knows full well that failing to investigate and verify facts before making public accusations in a judicial setting is a serious breach of professional ethics and may constitute sanctionable misconduct.

These abuses reflect a broader trend. The ERC is increasingly used not as a neutral, quasi-judicial body, but as a tool for retaliation. Citizens who exercise their rights to speak out and question government decisions are being ambushed, silenced, and smeared.

Chairman Bush’s failure to enforce the ordinance, and his pattern of unilateral control, secrecy, and public targeting, exemplify a system that has lost its ethical moorings.

Nashua’s Ethics Review Committee, as currently operated, is not protecting the public interest. It is protecting political insiders and punishing dissent. That is not ethics, it’s abuse masquerading as governance.