Power Without Ideology - Nashua’s Selective Enforcement of “Shall”

There’s a phrase often attributed, loosely and somewhat inaccurately, to Karl Marx: power without ideology. Whether or not Marx ever said it in those exact words, the concept is unmistakable: power exercised without consistent principle, without accountability, and without any obligation to apply rules evenly.

That idea is playing out in real time in Nashua.

The Meaning of “Shall”—When It Matters

The City of Nashua adopted an ordinance creating an Ethics Review Committee (ERC). That ordinance is not casual. It is not aspirational. It is filled, repeatedly with the word “shall.”

In law, “shall” is not a suggestion. It is not guidance. It is not discretionary. It is a command. It creates a mandatory duty.

Yet on Monday, the City will argue, in Superior Court, that these “shall” provisions are optional and that the City has no obligation to maintain a functioning ethics committee. Those deadlines requiring action, like holding hearings, can simply be ignored.

This is not a minor disagreement over interpretation. This is an attempt to rewrite the law after the fact.

The Reality on the Ground

On September 14, I filed an ethics complaint. The ordinance requires that a hearing shall be scheduled within 30 days. As of today, over six months later, no hearing has been scheduled. No explanation has been provided. Multiple attempts to obtain a date have been ignored.

That is when I turned to the courts as a last resort, I was met with a Motion to Dismiss labeling my claim “frivolous” and seeking attorney’s fees against me.

Let’s be clear: asking a court to enforce mandatory language in a city ordinance is not frivolous. It is the very purpose of judicial review.

When “Shall” Applies to Citizens

Now compare that to what happened on February 10, 2026.

During public comment before the Board of Aldermen, a citizen stood to speak on a controversial issue involving flags and transgender policy. The speaker gave their name but declined to provide their address, citing safety concerns and advice from their security team.

Initially, President Wilshire permitted the comment to continue. Quickly, Corporation Counsel Bolton pipes up, “it’s an ordinance”. Attorney Bolton saw no need for exceptions, flexibility or discretion.

The speaker was told they could not proceed without providing their address. Faced with that ultimatum, the citizen chose silence over risk.

On March 23, 2026, The Institute for Free Speech filed a federal lawsuit to represent that Citizen in a First Amendment Claim for chilling speech.

Two Standards. One Word.

So here is the question:

Why does “shall” mean mandatory when applied to the public, but optional when applied to the City?

• When a citizen speaks → “shall” is absolute.

• When the City acts → “shall” is negotiable.

This is not statutory interpretation. This is selective enforcement. It is the application of law as a tool of control, rather than a framework of accountability.

Power Without Principle

This is where the idea of power without ideology becomes more than just a phrase, it becomes a diagnosis.

Because what we are seeing is not a disagreement over legal meaning. It is something far more troubling:

• Rules enforced rigidly against the public

• Rules relaxed or ignored for the government

• Legal arguments shifting depending on who benefits

The City Attorney tasked with protecting the City is doing so with power untethered from principle.

The Court Will Decide

On Monday, I will be in Superior Court asking for a declaratory judgment that the City must follow its own laws.

I will also ask the Court to address something equally serious: the City’s attempt to weaponize litigation by labeling legitimate claims as “frivolous” and seeking sanctions against a citizen for demanding compliance with the law.

Because if enforcing “shall” is frivolous, then the law itself has no meaning.

Final Thought

The issue before the Court is not just about an ethics committee enforcing its own laws.

It is about whether the law applies equally to those who write it and those who are governed by it. If “shall” does not bind the City, then it binds no one. And when that happens, we are left with exactly what that old idea warns about:

Power without ideology. Power without principle. Power without limits.