ANNUAL SENATE BILL 2 SESSIONSARTICLE 18. By Petition <strong>of</strong> Marc Sneider and others To see if the <strong>Town</strong> will vote to adopt the followingordinance:The purpose <strong>of</strong> this ordinance is to insure that town <strong>of</strong>ficials and town employees are dedicated solely to theservice <strong>of</strong> the residents <strong>of</strong> the town and are not motivated or appear to be motivated in his or her actions foranything other than service to the town. Moreover, this ordinance is to promote transparency in townadministration and to prohibit town <strong>of</strong>ficials and town employees from improperly using their position withthe town for their advantage or the advantage <strong>of</strong> their friends, relations, employers or business associates.Prohibition Against Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest.<strong>Town</strong> shall be defined as the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Windham</strong>.Covered Person shall be defined to include an elected <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial, a non-elected <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial, a <strong>Town</strong>employee, and any person or business (including the principals, partners, employees and owners <strong>of</strong> thebusiness) that have performed or are performing services pursuant to a contract or arrangement with or onbehalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> whether or not the services were or are performed for compensation.A Covered Person shall not participate in any action or decision if the action or decision concerns a matterthat may provide a direct or indirect benefit, create a material gain or provide an advantage to relations,friends, employers, groups, businesses or associations to which the Covered Person has an affiliation orconnection. A Covered Person with such an affiliation or connection must make that affiliation or connectionpublic, must refrain from participating, voting or taking any action on the matter and must recuse himself orherself from involvement with respect to the action or decision. Further, the Covered Person shall not discussthe matter privately or otherwise communicate directly or indirectly with any other Covered Person regardingthe matter.The provisions set forth above shall not prohibit a Covered Person from applying for or appearing before a<strong>Town</strong> board for purposes <strong>of</strong> obtaining a permit, permission, license, variance, grant, consideration orapproval from the <strong>Town</strong> with respect to the Covered Person’s primary residence but it shall prohibit suchconduct with respect to any business or entity in which the Covered Person has a legal and/or pecuniaryinterest that is not the Covered Person’s primary residence. The provisions set forth above shall not prohibit aCovered Person from appearing before a <strong>Town</strong> board to voice their support in favor <strong>of</strong> or against a matterbefore said board as long as it is made clear on the record <strong>of</strong> the proceedings that the Covered Person is notacting in his or her <strong>of</strong>ficial capacity but is acting solely in his or her capacity as a resident <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.A violation <strong>of</strong> this ordinance by a Covered Person shall be deemed a violation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Code <strong>of</strong> Ethicsand shall be grounds for removal from <strong>of</strong>fice or employment with the <strong>Town</strong>.Any permit, permission, license, variance, grant, consideration, approval or action obtained from the <strong>Town</strong>through the direct or indirect actions <strong>of</strong> a Covered Person during the Covered Period shall be void.The provisions contained in this ordinance shall be in addition to and shall supplement any and all other laws,ordinances, codes, rules or regulations now or hereinafter in force and effect.The provisions contained herein cannot be waived, suspended or overridden.Covered Persons who are now in <strong>of</strong>fice, employed by, or who are under contract or arrangement with or onbehalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> at the time <strong>of</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong> this ordinance shall be exempt from the provisions here<strong>of</strong> for aperiod <strong>of</strong> 180 days following the date <strong>of</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong> this ordinance.Petitioner Marc Sneider presented that every citizen is entitled for the confidence and integrity in their <strong>Town</strong>Government. To ensure this confidence, the petitioners put forth these two petitions. These petitions arebeing submitted pursuant to NH Law RSA31 section 39 which states the following: The legislative body <strong>of</strong> atown or city may adopt an ordinance defining and regulating conflicts <strong>of</strong> interest for local <strong>of</strong>ficers andemployees, whether elected or appointed. Any such ordinance may include provisions requiring disclosure <strong>of</strong>2012 ANNUAL REPORTS 18 TOWN OF WINDHAM, NH
ANNUAL SENATE BILL 2 SESSIONSfinancial interests for specified <strong>of</strong>ficers and employees, establishing incompatibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice requirementsstricter than those specified by state law or establishing conditions under which prohibited conflicts <strong>of</strong> interestshall require removal from <strong>of</strong>fice.M. Sneider added that these petitions that are being submitted are stricter than the State laws but are beingpresented pursuant to State law. These petitions are also prohibiting any favoritism, insider dealings, and tomaintain the integrity in the <strong>Town</strong> government. M. Sneider proceeded by vocalizing his awareness <strong>of</strong> the<strong>Town</strong> Council’s opinion <strong>of</strong> these presented petitions, and he disagrees entirely with his position. He notedthat 40 out <strong>of</strong> 50 states in the United States have Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest laws that follow this similar structure. 26<strong>of</strong> states attached criminal penalty to their Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest laws. In a recent case from the Supreme Courtthey upheld Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest laws that follow with these parameters. Factually, they referred to a NH casein 1841 that states that NH has had a long history <strong>of</strong> common law prohibitions against conflict <strong>of</strong> interest.The power <strong>of</strong> the legislature belongs to the people, in the court’s words. These laws set forth place <strong>Town</strong><strong>of</strong>ficials as not individuals but representatives <strong>of</strong> the people who hold public trust as fiduciaries. M. Sneideralluded that these laws aren’t unusual, and that in 2010 and that the SCC in active conflict <strong>of</strong> interest laws g<strong>of</strong>ar beyond in what these petitions describe. They even regulated and put specific caps on donations topoliticians. He specified that even people that have any conduct with the <strong>Town</strong>, sit on a board, or even makea contribution have certain regulations. In reference to the <strong>Town</strong> Attorney’s opinion M. Sneider summarizedthat constitutional principles are not restricted.Attorney Campbell reviewed Articles 18 & 19 along with every other Article that gets presented to him by theBoard, he then comments on such Articles and with regards to 18 & 19, State law does specially grant <strong>Town</strong>sto adopt Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest ordinances under RSA 31:39a. Attorney Campbell stated that there are severalproblems with these Articles. New Hampshire is not a home ruled state. A town can only exercise certainauthorities that are granted by State law. The problem with this particular Article, that it defines a coveredperson. Not only does it state elected <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials and non-elected town <strong>of</strong>ficials, but principals, partners,employees, and owners <strong>of</strong> a business that have performed or are performing businesses through a contract oran arrangement through the <strong>Town</strong>, whether or not the services were or not performed for compensation.Attorney Campbell stated that the State law doesn’t require the <strong>Town</strong> to regulate covered persons andtherefore the ordinance goes well beyond that authority that the State grants a municipality. Some issues thatAttorney Campbell had were from which the scope goes well beyond what the <strong>Town</strong> can regulate. Secondly,Article 18 uses the term “the covered persons shall not participate in any action or decision; if the action ordecision, directs any benefit or indirect benefits <strong>of</strong> gain <strong>of</strong> relations, friends, businesses, associations, orconnection.” Campbell found that there was an exception which allowed the covered person to apply forlicenses, variances, grants, permits, or approvals. With the respect <strong>of</strong> the person’s primary residence but itshall prohibit such conduct with any respect <strong>of</strong> any business or entity which the covered person has legalinterest in. Attorney Campbell feels that the problem lies in that it seeks to prohibit for example, people whoown a business coming forth before the <strong>Town</strong> and having a competitive bid with other bidders. NH State lawcovers that people (even a Selectman, if be) have the opportunity to do so. These ordinances would prohibitany person if they are a business owner and a <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial to go before any board or even asking for taxabatement if their assessment was incorrect. Attorney Campbell’s legal opinion was that these Articles wentover and beyond the authority that was granted to the <strong>Town</strong> to regulate the conduct <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>ficers. He feltthat it would deny equal protection, where it would allow an individual to advocate for their own personalinterest, but if the person had a business that they ran in <strong>Town</strong> that they would be barred from applying to dobusiness with the <strong>Town</strong>. Attorney Campbell remembers that the <strong>Town</strong> has had services from architects,landscapers, and designers which have been volunteered for no compensation. If these Articles pass, if thesame people were to come before any board they cannot represent their business clients. Campbell’s renderedopinion that if these should pass, then they shouldn’t be enforced, because it surpasses NH Law.Selectman DiFruscia thanked petitioner Sneider for making the proposals, and that there are certainly somequestions from the public questioning the integrity in <strong>Windham</strong>’s local government and employees. As aSelectman and as an attorney, she carefully reviewed RSA’s that are applicable to conflict <strong>of</strong> interest andlooked at Attorney Campbell’s opinion. She concurs with Attorney Campbell with seeing that Articles18 &2012 ANNUAL REPORTS 19 TOWN OF WINDHAM, NH