GilfordGrok

2. Comply with the Law

Members shall comply with Federal and State laws, as well as the Town of Gilford’s Ordinances and Policies in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and New Hampshire constitutions; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and Town ordinances and policies. 

This seems to be a circular item.  Sure, all elected  and appointed officials need to follow the law.  However, these RSAs should be enumerated here - much of this is may not be pluggable here - remember, this Code of Ethics is from Sunnyvale.  What laws govern our elections?  Determine what financial disclosures are needed at our Town level?  And what is the law or ordinances governing employer responsibilities here in Gilford, and how the heck does it apply here? 

Is some of this not even applicable?  Sound good, but does it work?

And if this Code of Ethics is approved, or if one signs it, does this Article make it enforceble ? 
 

3. Conduct of Members

The professional and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of Boards and commissions, the staff or public.

Just like during the campaign for the Budget Committee, the major question is "who is the arbiter"?  While all of us may feel we know what "abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks" may be, who is the final authority?  What I may feel is merely heated debate is uncivility and I could be brought up on charges.  All it takes a difference of opinion on civility.  Or a difference in political philosophy.  I hate to put it this way, but in the "wrong hands", this becomes a political club.  As this campaign season proved (again, if someone signed Mr. Dormody's Code of Ethics and got elected, they have now promised to act with civility at all times....no matter what).

In some circles, "divisiveness" is worse than a four letter word and can shut down an argument whether or not that discussion should be shut down.  Too often, political correctness demanding behavior can ruin a needed discourse.
 

4. Respect for Process
Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the Selectmen and board and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the Selectmen by Town staff.

I'm ok with process - too a point.  I've worked in large organizations where process overtook the real issues (let's have a meeting to talk about an upcoming meeting that discusses the bigger meeting).  Protocol becomes king, and the real issues that keep an organization vibrant and that have to be dealt with get left in a ditch.

The primary question - does the Selectmen have jurisdiction over the Budget Committee (no) or the School Board (again, no)?  If my info here is wrong, the Code of Ethics should state the RSAs that govern this and allow for it. 

The Selectmen do, and should, for all boards or commissions that fall under their aegis, but those should be explicitly listed.

But no others.  For example, how could the Budget Committee truely review the Town budget without fear of recriminations if it was not an independent Committee?  Again, take the the worst case scenario and run with it.

5. Conduct of Public Meetings

Members shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; making personal comments not germane to the business of the body; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings.

Scenario - orderly conduct.  There is a heated debate going on....and all it would take would be a warning that the "limit" has been reached....stop.  Or suffer the consequences.

I also have a problem not being able to interrupt someone that is blatantly wrong - or is going off the deep end themselves.  There are times when people should be stopped - this could disallow it.

The problem is that a consensus has not been reached but that a decision has not been made.  I'm not of the opinion that a consensus among members of a board has to be the end all of all situations.  It may be, but that should never be the ultimate aim - a firm decision should be that goal.

6. Decisions Based on Merit

Members shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations. 

Bogus....if what I know, if what I have researched, has not been able to reach the discussion, I have no intention of giving up that in the face of an argument.  Unrelated considerations means...what?  If I go to someone that I believe is an expert and others don't go with me, I should not be able to bring that discussion to the table?  This also may have the effect of mico-discussion - trying hard to "stay on topic" to the detriment of the 'big picture".

I think not.

7. Communication

Members shall publicly share substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by a Board, Commission, or Committee, which they may have received from sources outside of the public decision-making process.

Again, this Code of Ethics can be seen as a play for the "how" a decision can be derived - setting up standards for process.

8. Conflict of Interest

In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, members shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a material financial interest, or where they have an organizational responsibility or personal relationship, which may give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

If this Article stopped here, it would have been a good thing.  Instead, like many good things, on the idea of "more is better", it kept on going. 

In accordance with the law, members shall disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income, and gifts; and they shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision-making where conflicts may exist.

Which law?  It should be enumerated so that no clarification would be needed.  I asked, and the intent was for a full financial disclosure....I think NOT.  I have no intentions of giving this information to any one with it being legally necessary - and I doubt that the Selectmen will find it an easy time obtaining such from all of the volunteers in Town.

WHY do I need to disclose my assets?  Go to both extremes - if I am rich, or if I am poor.  Why would I want to tell someone know how well I have done (or not)?

Consider too - things get leaked - on purpose or by accident.  It happens in politics all the time...why give it a chance to take root here?

Recuse your self? Absolutely!  But on one interpretation being that a full financial disclosure must be handed over will have the very quick result of many in Town refusing to serve.  Depending on who that might be, some might think that would be a good thing (and yes, this past year has made me a tad more cynical than I used to be), and with others, a crying shame.

9. Gifts and Favors

Members shall not take any special advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office that is not available to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits which might compromise their independence of judgment or action or give the appearance of being compromised.

Again, accepting gifts and favors is not "doing the right thing".  I fully agree with this.

10. Confidential Information

Members shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning the property, personnel or affairs of the Town. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests.

I agree with most of this.  The part that I don't is obvious - First Amendment Rights.  There are some in Town that believe what Doug and I do on the 'Groks and on Meet The New Press should not be done.  Others laud what we do.

My take is this - more turned on flashlights can only be a good thing for the Town as a whole.  RE: BudComm - we have not discussed anything in Town in the way of budgets BEFORE it has become public knowledge at a public meeting.  However, once that has happened (with reporters in attendence), anything then is fair game.  Any thing less is an abridgement of rights.

11. Use of Public Resources

Members shall not use public resources not available to the public in general, such as Town staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for private gain or personal purposes.

Agreed.  The only part (which has been granted in the past) is being able to use the Town network for Internet access during official meetings to be able to obtain Internet based resources / information during Town oriented discussions.  Even though I would be using my personal laptop in that case, I do not believe that this is the same thing as, say, taking a ream of paper or using the Town copier and use it for "my" purposes.

12. Representation of Private Interests

In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, Public Officials shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before any Board, Commission, Committee or proceeding of the Town.

This does not affect me personally. However, being a small Town, I could see this as a problem in the real estate industry.  There are only so many people to go around, and this could present a real problem, for this example, for bankers, brokers, and lawyers.

As long as it is stated up front what the relationships and outcomes might be, this could be handled well....but again, it does mean that everyone takes the phrases "obey the laws" and "do the right thing" seriously and always.  This should not automatically lock someone out of a situation of serving and trying to make a living.

13. Advocacy

Members shall represent the official policies or positions of the Town to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the Town of Gilford nor will they allow the inference that they do.

No problems here.....

14. Policy Role of Members

 

Members shall respect and adhere to the Board of Selectmen structure of Gilford Town government. In this structure, the Board of Selectmen determines the policies of the Town with the advice, information and analysis provided by the public, other boards and commissions, and Town staff.

Day to day policies - yes.  Just as the School Board determines the same for the SAU.  The BudComm has its own fiscal policies (e.g., the right and responsibility to add or remove money from both budgets).

A blurb here concerning the separateness and independence of and from the Board of Selectmen may be a good thing to put in somewhere concerning the BudComm and the School Board.  After all, most of my "complaining" is about a proper separation of powers.

Public Officials therefore shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the Town or the professional duties of Town staff; nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement policy decisions.

I have no problem with the above paragraph in so much that requests filed via the proper methods by members of independent boards and commissions are not stalled by the professional staff.  It is a two way street.

15. Independence of Boards and Commissions

Because of the value of the independent advice of boards and commissions to the public decision-making process, Public officials shall refrain from using their position to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of board and commission proceedings.

Again, see Article 12.  In a large city, this may be more of an issue.  Here in Gilford, there is such or can be such an overlap, it may be hard not to be serving on board and then be coming before another.

Again, stating conflicts of interest up front and publicly (doing the right thing) is the right way of going about this.

16. Positive Work Place Environment

Members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for Town employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the Town. Members shall recognize their special role in dealings with Town employees to in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.

Good intentions?  Yes.

For the most part, practical?  Yes

In all situations?  No.

All one has to do is go back to the discussions over the cost of health benefits to the SAU support staff.  While I objected to the 257% rise in cost to the taxpayer, the hue and cry was over "now setting policy" - a turf battle.  I consider anything with a dollar number attached to it as within the domain of the BudComm as long as RSAs are followed.

Yet, this was hammered as being divisive (there's that PC word again), setting policy, and creating a hostile or poor work environment.  Which would go against this Article if taken to the max.  Frankly, one anyone decided that the line was crossed, the attempts to squelch debate might start.

Now, the part of giving "appropriate direction"?  That is the domain, in day to day stuff, of the Selectmen and the School Board within their areas.  Other boards and commissions should stay out of the day to day stuff....

But what happens during conflicts?  If a board reports up through the Selectmen, the answer is clear.  If not, then what?

17. Implementation

As an expression of the standards of conduct for members expected by the Town, the Gilford Code of Ethics is intended to be self-enforcing. It therefore becomes most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions.

When one disagrees with the wording, the vagueness, and the perhaps illegality of such a document, it is hard to "embrace its provisions".

And you look like a curmudgeon if you protest.

Now, to be fair, this is a draft, at least to Gilford (and in force, in Sunnyvale - sorry, I just think it is just too funny - cannot help myself....is this abusive or uncivil to keep pointing this out?).

For this reason, ethical standards shall be included in the regular orientations for candidates for all Town positions, applicants to boards, committees, and commissions, and newly elected and appointed officials.

 Here's a case of screen scraping can get one into trouble....I didn't know that we even had regular orientations for candidates and applicantes!  I only know of the "here's the paper, please fill it out" bit.  Is this something new, or (once again) did I not get the memo?

Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they read and understood the Town of Gilford code of ethics. In addition, all Public Officials shall annually review the Code of Ethics, and the Board of Selectmen shall consider recommendations to update it as necessary.

18. Compliance and Enforcement

The Gilford Code of Ethics expresses standards of ethical conduct expected for all Public Officials.

The Selectmen and the Town Administration can expect anything they want - the real power, however, lies with the voters.  And I will pick on the example of Doug in this last election.  Other than Bill Philips (whom everyone one promoted), he came in with a large vote total that tells me that the issue of civility was a non-starter.  The voters said "nope, not a problem".

Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government.

Agreed 

The chairs of boards and commissions have the additional responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics are brought to their attention.

For those boards and commissions that are under the Selectmen, find and dandy.  For those that do not, a sense of decorum is already assumed, but cannot be mandated by the Selectmen.  Sure, there may be grumbling from time to time, but on the whole, there is no wholesale problems with the independent boards (BudComm and SB) that I am aware of.\

And if the respective chairs are not doing the right thing, then the Committee or Board should replace them. 

The Board of Selectmen may impose sanctions on members whose conduct does not comply with the Town's ethical standards, such as reprimand, formal censure, loss of seniority or committee assignment, or budget restriction. The Board of Selectmen also may remove members of boards, committees, and commissions as authorized.

And the Selectmen cannot.

In NH, Codes of Ethics are adopted by the legislative body, i.e., town meeting, by approving a warrant article.  This is what RSA31:39-a says:

CHAPTER 31
POWERS AND DUTIES OF TOWNS

Power to Make Bylaws

Section 31:39-a

    31:39-a Conflict of Interest Ordinances. – The legislative body of a town or city may adopt an ordinance defining and regulating conflicts of interest for local officers and employees, whether elected or appointed. Any such ordinance may include provisions requiring disclosure of financial interests for specified officers and employees, establishing incompatibility of office requirements stricter than those specified by state law or establishing conditions under which prohibited conflicts of interest shall require removal from office. Any such ordinance shall include provisions to exempt affected officers and employees who are in office or employed at the time the ordinance is adopted for a period not to exceed one year from the date of adoption. The superior court shall have jurisdiction over any removal proceedings instituted under an ordinance adopted under this section.

Source. 1981, 221:1, eff. Aug. 10, 1981.

A violation of this code of ethics shall not be considered a basis for challenging the validity of a board, committee, or commission decision.

Dandy

Now for the actual Oath that an elected / public official should sign.

As a member of a Gilford board, committee, or commission, I agree to uphold the Code of Ethics for Public Officials adopted by the Town and conduct myself by the following model of excellence. I will:

Recognize the worth of individual members and appreciate their individual talents, perspectives and contributions;

Help create an atmosphere of respect and civility where individual members, Town staff and the public are free to express their ideas and work to their full potential;

Conduct my personal and public affairs with honesty, integrity, fairness and respect for others;

Respect the dignity and privacy of individuals and organizations;

Keep the common good as my highest purpose and focus on achieving constructive solutions for the public benefit;

Avoid and discourage conduct which is divisive or harmful to the best interests of Sunnyvale;

If you are going to screen scrape, or copy from a boilerplate document, at least to a REPLACE ALL correctly?  Again, it goes back to the statement 'quite a while" when the T's and I's are left uncrossed or un-dotted..... 

Treat all people with whom I come in contact in the way I wish to be treated;

I affirm that I have read and understood the Town of Gilford Code of Ethics.

Signature Date

Name Office