Ethics Board Dismisses Charges Against Councilors [VIDEO]

The cleared the mayor and two city councilors of ethics complaints on July 11, stating that the complaints against officials were subjective, without merit, and lacking evidence, while at the same time barring the complainants from submitting evidence about their charges.

The board took about an hour to nominate and elect a chairman, talk about the process, and go through all the complaints individually.

John Sullivan, the chairman of the , said it was his belief that there “was confusion” over the ordinances and stated that he believed the committee, as an advisory board to the council, “had a very limited jurisdiction.” He added that the board could make a recommendation to the council, “and they don’t have to accept it.” In going through the cases, Sullivan said “it got clearer to me that we’re not like the zoning board … we don’t have jurisdiction that is completely independent of the city council.”

In going through the cases, Sullivan said his conclusion made it easier to go through the cases, and while not offering motions, he quickly guided the other board members through the process and recommended reasons to dismiss each complaint.

In the case against Ward 2 Councilor , which raised the issue of whether or not it was appropriate for her to vote for funding for a former employer, Sullivan pointed to the minutes of a finance subcommittee meeting on June 4, where Kretovic raised the issue before the subcommittee. The minutes, he said, reflected that the mayor and councilors believed there was no conflict.

“She took the step and received a vote clearing that there was no conflict,” he said. “It seems like a cruel (head fake) if she could ask for a vote, get it, and still be subject to an ethical complaint.”

However, Daniel Feltes, another board member, questioned whether it was correct to assume that an approval by the council made something ethical when it might not be. He said a citizen could raise that issue.

But Sullivan said it was “tough enough” to be a city councilor that he didn’t think they were appointed to come in “once a month and second guess their decisions.”

Tenley Callaghan, another board member, said a councilor could hide the fact that there might be a conflict. But when a councilor comes forward with a potential conflict and then gets the OK that it isn’t a conflict, it should not be raised before the Board of Ethics as being a conflict.

“It would be a second guess of a vote and that’s not what we’re here to do,” she said.

Before the vote to dismiss, , a former city council candidate who filed the complaint against Kretovic, requested to speak to correct some of the facts in the case, but was told by Sullivan he would not be allowed to speak.

Herschlag later stated that Sullivan was incorrect when he said that there was a vote of the council clearing Kretovic. It was Mayor who cleared her, he said, after asking if she had a financial interest in the line item for .

After clearing Kretovic, the board analyzed the complaints against Bouley and At-Large City Councilor , and cleared them of all the charges.

In the first complaint against St. Hilaire, on whether he should have voted on the nominations to the Board of Ethics, it was dismissed as moot.

On the complaint about whether it was appropriate for Bouley to have nominated board members who would then analyze the conflict complaints against him. Sullivan said the ordinance didn’t provide an alternative option for the council so he had no choice but to make the recommendations to the board. He said it becomes “a triple level conflict” since Bouley’s vote was a conflict, the members who he seated would be a conflict, looking over the issue of whether he should have nominated the members in the first place.

“It becomes, at that point, very speculative to me,” he said.

“Perhaps just you and I should vote then,” Callaghan joked, since she and Sullivan were nominated by the city manager.

Scott Daniels, another member, said in a city of 40,000 people, there were a lot of folks who were connected. But in order to find a conflict, there would need to be “something mischievous” going on “and I don’t see that here … I don’t see any evidence where we could make a judgment on that whatsoever.”

The board then looked at the first two complaints against Bouley and St. Hilaire, each with four elements, Sullivan said.

The board first looked at the complaints against both for not holding public hearings in the Ward 8 City Council , a place Sullivan said he didn’t think the board should go.

“These aren’t ethical complaints,” he said, “these are squabbles with the procedure.”

Sullivan also stated that since Patten hadn’t raised any complaints, admitted he acted inappropriately, and was censured, he questioned whether anyone else should be allowed to raise the issue of process. Some board members agreed that there could have been other choices made in the hearing process but that wasn’t an ethical problem. However, other board members said the issue of who raises potential conflicts, whether they are involved or not, shouldn’t matter.

On the financial conflicts, the board did not believe that the complaints had merit and were speculative, noting that there was no evidence presented showing that either Bouley or St. Hilaire had a conflict.

The board also looked at testimony from St. Hilaire stating that because he was in a four-year term, he was exempted from the ethics ordinance for at least one year. Since the ethics ordinance was approved in September 2011, it wouldn’t apply to him until 2012. Since the mayor was re-elected in 2011, he would be under the purview of the new ordinance.

Before the end of the second to the last motion, state Rep. , D-Concord, asked to raise a question about process, but was told by Sullivan he would not be allowed to speak. When Watrous asked why the board was not allowing him to offer evidence while questioning the lack of evidence with the complaints, Sullivan snapped at Watrous and ordered him to “sit down,” and then scoffed while shaking his head.

Officials relieved; complainants not pleased

When asked about the outcome, Bouley said he was relieved by the board’s verdict.

“I’m pleased with today’s outcome,” Bouley said. “I think it’s important for the community that I, as well as all of these folks, take our ethics and our obligations as councilors extremely seriously and that I was particularly pleased that the charges were dismissed not as jurisdictional issues but on actual merit.”

St. Hilaire stated that the “allegations filed lacked any merit and I am pleased the ethics board has dismissed all complaints.”

Kretovic said she was “happy with the outcome.”

Herschlag called the process “frustrating” because the ordinance required the complaints to be “specific and to the point” and that didn’t allow for much evidence to be presented. At the same time, the board complained about not having any evidence towards the complaints. Board members stating they had no jurisdiction over the council’s actions when they were supposed to be watching over the council’s actions also puzzled Herschlag.

“I find it interesting that a board that is supposed to be independent claims that they don’t have jurisdiction over the body that appointed them,” he said. “If they don’t have jurisdiction and they aren’t willing to comment over complaints or make recommendations, what’s the point of having this board?”

Herschlag said in the board’s first meeting, they set a high standard for complaints, and then in the second meeting, lowered the standard and “went out of their way to find reasons not to accept the complaints and not gather additional information regarding these complaints.”

Watrous, who filed the complaints against Bouley and St. Hilaire, was a bit more direct with his comments: “It’s a sham.”

“It was a rubberstamp for the mayor and the council, appointed by the mayor and the city manger,” Watrous said. “It was a totally unfair process.”

At the end of the hearing, Bouley was asked whether or not the Board of Ethic’s requiring overwhelming amounts of evidence to be submitted but then not allowing the citizens who brought the complaints to submit that evidence might be of some concern, he admitted that the process might need to be looked at.

“Prior to me being mayor, there was no opportunity to do this,” he said. “I’m pleased that when I became mayor, I said I would bring forth an ethics ordinance and I’m glad (we did) and I think the community is better off … after experiencing the process, could things be tweaked? Could things change? I think that is a fair question and will be considered by the council and the community as well as insight, I think, from our city solicitor, and, I think, the ethics committee themselves.”