When a Judge Tells You to Go Be Political: What Happened in a Nashua Courtroom on March 30th

Seven months. That is how long a single ethics complaint has been waiting to be heard by the City of Nashua's Ethics Review Committee. Not decided. Not ruled on. Not even screened to determine whether it qualifies for a hearing. Just sitting. Waiting. While the committee was allowed to fall apart, get reconstituted, and then do nothing again.

On March 30th, I stood before Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Andrew Schulman and tried to explain why a court should provide a solution. What happened over the next 30 minutes was one of the most revealing conversations I have witnessed about how government accountability actually works, or doesn't, in a city like Nashua.

The Background

I filed an ethics complaint on September 14, 2025, against an alderman who I believe released confidential information from a sealed nonpublic meeting into his public newsletter information that specifically targeted me. This falls squarely within the ethics ordinance. The city's own ordinance, written with the word "shall" over fifty times, requires that a complaint be screened within 30 days and heard within 30 days after that.

What happened instead: the October screening meeting was canceled. Then the December meeting. Then a January meeting was promised and never held. Committee members resigned or let terms expire without the city replacing them. By the time I filed in court, the committee had no quorum to function.

The city's response to my lawsuit? They appointed four new members February 10th and told the court the complaint would be handled soon. Case closed, they argued. Dismiss her.

What Happened in the Courtroom

At the hearing, City Corporation Counsel Attorney Bolton told Judge Schulman that before the board could screen my complaint, the only complaint the Committee have had in six months, they would need to hold an orientation session. He said it would take a single session. The last orientation conducted by Nashua Counsel took approximately 35 minutes, after which the committee screened a complaint the same day. The entire meeting lasted about an hour and a half. This is not a heavy lift.

The judge noted that it had been about six weeks since the new members were appointed and said, essentially, that six weeks of inaction didn't constitute “foot dragging”. What the judge overlooked is that the clock on my complaint started running in September 2025 not in February 2026. By March 30th it had been waiting over six months for a screening, and it remains the only complaint they have. A board with nothing else on its docket, unable to schedule a single session in six months, is not a busy board. It is an unaccountable one.

To his credit, the judge did say from the bench: "Don't call me to a meeting if you want it in the trash." He saw the problem clearly. He just decided to do nothing about it.

The Moment That Stopped Me Cold

Near the end of the hearing, the judge ruled against me on standing and told me that if the ethics board treats my complaint like a dead letter, my remedy is "not through the courts" but rather "through the political process."

Let that sink in for a moment.

A citizen files an ethics complaint under a city ordinance that uses the word "shall" fifty times. The committee collapses. Meetings are canceled. Promises are broken. The complaint sits untouched for seven months. And a Superior Court judge says: go be political about it.

The City Knows Exactly What It Needs to Do

 I am not asking for a ruling in my favor. I am not asking the committee to find the alderman guilty of anything. I am asking for what the ordinance requires: schedule an orientation, convene a meeting, and screen the complaint. That is it. One session. Ninety minutes. The city has known how to do this since 2017, except for my complaints.

Attorney Bolton told the court the orientation would be accomplished in a single session and that screening could begin the same day. The committee has been reconstituted now for two months,  nothing has been scheduled. No orientation. No screening. No communication to me about when either will happen.

The committee currently has only four members and no alternates. One recusal eliminates the quorum. The ordinance requires alternates. The city has not filled those seats. This is not an oversight, it is a pattern. Every time this committee gets close to hearing my complaint, something collapses. Members resign. Quorums disappear. Meetings are canceled.
Attorney Bolton represents this committee. They have the authority, the staff, and the obligation to move this forward. The ordinance they chose to write and wrote with mandatory language requires them to act. The court has now declined to compel them. That means the only remaining question is whether they will do it voluntarily, or whether the public record of their inaction will continue to grow.

 What This Ruling Gets Wrong — and Why I Am Appealing

The judge's legal reasoning rested on comparing the Ethics Review Committee to the Professional Conduct Committee for attorneys, concluding that a complainant has no legally cognizable stake in professional discipline proceedings. But that comparison breaks down here. The case he cited, Petition of Lath, involved a complainant who had already received a hearing and was challenging the findings. I have no findings to challenge. I cannot get through the door at all. The committee has never once looked at my complaint.

The ordinance was written with mandatory language precisely to prevent institutional paralysis. If a complainant has no right to have a complaint even screened, what is the purpose of a mandatory 30-day screening deadline? Why write "shall" fifty times if none of it is enforceable? These are questions the New Hampshire Supreme Court has not yet answered in this specific context, and they deserve an answer.

I disagree with Judge Schulman's ruling. I am appealing. And the city should understand that every week this complaint sits unaddressed is another week of public documentation that the Ethics Review Committee exists in name only or for a select few.

The ordinance says "shall." I am holding them to it.