Still No Ethics in Nashua: A Closer Look at a Broken Process

In my ongoing look at “Ethics without Ethics in Nashua,” let’s examine how the Ethics Review Committee (ERC) flagrantly disregards its own rules, and the law. The Committee is bound by the City Ordinance, section 12-31, specifically:

  B1: Robert’s Rules of Order;

·      B2: New Hampshire RSA 91-A, the Right-to-Know Law;

·      B15: The Chair must prohibit badgering, disruption, and profanity;

·      B16: Committee members may ask clarifying questions but must remain impartial and not accusatory.

What we see in practice is the opposite.

Chairman Tim Bush either doesn’t understand Robert’s Rules or deliberately ignores them. He mishandles motions, discussions, and votes, showing no interest in engaging his committee. The meetings are not conducted democratically; they are autocratically controlled and manipulatively steered. Despite having outside legal counsel present to guide proceedings, Chairman Bush routinely disregards that advice and runs the meetings according to his own preferences, consolidating power instead of facilitating fair process.

The ERC shows no grasp of RSA 91-A. Minutes go uncorrected and unapproved. Audio records are deleted in violation of Committee rules. Hearings are held without proper notice. Complaints are sealed indefinitely, even when discussed in public session. The Committee has adopted blanket exemptions to shield entire categories of complaints and evidence, despite clear legal precedent requiring case-by-case review. In 2023, Deputy City Attorney Dory Clarke routinely gave the Committee legally flawed advice. Nashua’s correct to this, was to bring in Portsmouth City Solicitor Robert Sullivan. But the Chair and committee routinely reject his advice which only serves to deepen the ERC’s bias.

The culture of retaliation has grown. At a May 2025 meeting, Chairman Bush badgered and publicly threatened me with criminal prosecution for assisting a complainant with documents, a role allowed under Rule B6 – this was not a hearing and therefore I could assist. He accused me, in open session, of unauthorized practice of law under RSA 311:7, without notice, without process, and without evidence. It went beyond a accusation to a threatened possibility to seeking prosecution through the AG’s office and recorded warning by Bush stating, “I think your conduct is a problem, if you’re advising him, if you look at that rule.” “Listen, no one's going to charge you probably, but I'm cautioning you as well as him.” This was not a neutral act, it was intimidation.

Then came the March 13 hearing on an ethics complaint filed against Mayor Donchess. Instead of serving as a neutral adjudicator, Chairman Bush became the Mayor’s de facto defense attorney. The Mayor brought no evidence, only verbal testimony. Rebuttal was blocked or unheard. Bush emphasized and repeated the Mayor’s unsubstantiated claims and then accused us, citizens exercising our rights, of “bullying” city officials. Bush even defended the idea that taxpayers should foot the legal bills for officials sued personally, without any supporting law or ordinance. He emphasized the Mayor hyperbole and misrepresentation, “you sue everyone” alleging “many criminal complaints”.  Our evidence showed otherwise.

The imbalance was glaring. We identified a witness, Mr. Moran, but he refused to appear. Without subpoena power, we couldn’t compel his presence. Yet the Mayor brought in Director Cummings as a surprise witness, never disclosed in advance, stripping us of any opportunity to prepare.

And once again, Chairman Bush violated the rules. Under Rule B16, questioning must be impartial, but Bush was openly biased. He accused us of having a political agenda, dismissed our evidence without consideration, and seemed more interested in protecting reputations than uncovering the truth. During Mr. Teeboom’s hearing, Bush went even further, publicly accusing attendees of being part of Mr. Teeboom’s “little group” with a shared political motive. In all the court hearings I’ve attended, I have never witnessed a judge attack members of the public simply for observing the proceedings. Spectating a hearing is a constitutional right, yet in Nashua’s ERC, exercising that right invites personal attacks from the Chair himself.

Chairman Bush is not a neutral, fair-minded chair. He behaves more like a City political enforcer, using ethics hearings to protect insiders and punish dissent. The four committee members under him act as silent followers, failing to assert their independence or uphold the rules.

Municipal ethics hearings carry serious weight. They demand the same level of fairness and integrity expected in any state or judicial process. In Nashua, we are seeing the opposite. The ERC has become a closed system run by ethically compromised attorneys handpicked by the Mayor, men more concerned with control than justice.

The rot starts at the bottom. Until this corruption is called out and confronted, Nashua will remain a city where transparency is just a slogan, and accountability doesn't stand a chance.