Allan Herschlag lives in Concord.

Recently, Concord’s Board of Ethics determined no violation occurred when the chairperson of the city’s Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) spoke to an agenda item (their company is contracted with the city) for a bridge park feasibility study over I-93. The chairperson is the project manager for the bridge park study.

The Board of Ethics ruled the chairperson did not have a conflict of interest because he had no financial interest in the project or influence over the project to provide a financial benefit for himself or his employer.

As the person who filed the complaint, it has been my understanding committee members do not need to have a financial interest to have a conflict. The conflict occurs by being an employee or a member of the governing body of the organization that has an interest before the city.

City ordinance 1-6-3 defines a conflict of interest as: “A conflict of interest exists when an officer or elected official takes an action or makes a decision that would affect his or her financial interest, the financial interests of the officer or elected official’s family member or the interests of any organization in which the officer or elected official or the officer or elected official’s family member is an employee of the organization or a member of its governing body…”

By removing the word ‘financial’ in the italicized clause, employment or being a member of the governing body creates a conflict, without the need of a financial interest.

The Board of Ethics determined the clause I have italicized did not have a verb. To complete this clause the Board of Ethics chair referenced the verb (affect) from the previous clause. That would change the clause to read: “or affect the interests of any organization…”

Adding ‘affect’ to the clause, a member of a city committee would be allowed to participate in presenting, speaking to and voting on issues when their employer has items before the city, as long as it’s perceived their participation won’t affect the interests of the organization.

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

The current definition of a conflict of interest enacted on February 13, 2023, defines both being employed or being a member of the governing organization as creating a conflict without a financial interest. The previous version of the ordinance enacted on August 10, 2025, excluded employment as a conflict.

While I believe there’s clarity in the city’s code of ethics to determine when a conflict occurs and that the intent of the ordinance supports my position that a conflict occurred, the Board of Ethics determined otherwise.

The NH Supreme Court ruled in a 1968 case, Atherton vs. Concord, that no conflict had occurred. But it is Justice Grimes’ dissent that resonates today: “In taking the position that aldermen Branch and McLane were therefore, disqualified by reason of conflict of interest, I am by no means suggesting that their votes were in fact influenced by improper considerations, for in my view it is the existence of the relationship itself which disqualifies regardless of the good faith or proper motives of the official.”

The time is past due we have clarity in our ethics ordinance. We must ensure the language in the ordinance reflects its intent. The Board of Ethics should determine its rules without needing approval from the city council. And the Board of Ethics should be allowed to provide advisory opinions to councilors and board members who seek their advice.

Taking these actions will go further in restoring the public’s confidence that those serving in elected and appointed positions are looking out for the best interests of our city, rather than any meaningless platitudes from our mayor.