PART 2 - Guarding the Gatekeepers. When Ethics Committees Protect Power
An ethics system reveals its true character when it investigates those at the top.
Anyone can enforce rules against minor officials or low-level employees. The real test comes when allegations involve political leadership. I can assure you that the test has not inspired much confidence.
Over the past several years, the Ethics Review Committee has repeatedly dismissed complaints involving city leadership, even when the AG’s office later confirmed that misconduct occurred. Unsurprisingly, the Mayor didn’t own up to the finding, he blamed everyone around him. Wasn’t me!
The Electioneering Case
In early 2023, a joint ethics complaint was filed against Nashua’s mayor concerning the use of the city’s public television station.
The issue was straightforward. After the Board of Aldermen rejected the mayor’s proposal to restructure the Police Commission, the mayor used the public access television station to promote his position directly to the public.
The complaint argued that using a government resource for political advocacy violated both city standards of conduct and public broadcasting policies. The Ethics Review Committee dismissed the complaint during the screening stage, finding that it lacked merit.
But the story did not end there.
After a complaint was filed with the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, the AG’s Civil Bureau conducted its own investigation. The result was a Cease and Desist Order issued against the mayor and three aldermen for violating electioneering laws by using government resources for political advocacy.
In other words, conduct that Nashua’s Ethics Review Committee dismissed as meritless was later confirmed by the state’s chief law enforcement authority.
The Taxpayer-Funded Defamation Defense
Another ethics complaint involved the city’s decision to fund the legal defense of an alderman in a defamation lawsuit.
Defamation claims are considered intentional torts, a category that many municipalities do not cover with public funds or municipal insurance. Some cities have even adopted ordinances specifically prohibiting taxpayer funding for intentional misconduct.
Nashua has not. When the complaint challenged the use of taxpayer funds for the defense, the ERC again sided with the mayor’s decision.
Public Sessions for Citizens, Privacy for Officials
Perhaps the most troubling pattern has been how the committee treats the people who file complaints. When the reputation of city officials is at issue, the committee frequently enters non-public session to avoid reputational harm.
But during public meetings, members of the committee have openly questioned my credibility and trustworthiness rather than focusing on the evidence presented in the complaint. Ethics proceedings are supposed to evaluate conduct, not attack the character of the citizen bringing forward allegations.
When that line is crossed, it sends a clear message to the public. Filing an ethics complaint carries reputational consequences.
Transparency laws and ethics ordinances are designed to encourage civic participation. They exist so citizens can raise concerns without fear of retaliation or ridicule. But when complainants are publicly disparaged while officials are shielded from scrutiny, the system begins to produce the opposite effect. Instead of encouraging accountability, it discourages citizens from speaking up.
And when the internal ethics system fails to function as intended, there is only one remaining venue for accountability. The courts.
That is where the story now moves in Part Three.