A complaint was recently filed with Nashua’s Ethics Review Committee (ERC) accusing Mayor Jim Donchess of unethical conduct. At issue: his decision to use taxpayer funds to cover legal fees for Alderman Melbourne Moran, who was sued for defamation over statements a court later ruled were made in a personal—not official—capacity.
Rather than question the use of public funds for a private legal matter, the ERC—appointed by the very mayor under review—held a biased hearing and cleared him of wrongdoing. What unfolded was not a fair process but a staged proceeding that undermined public trust in local government.
Nashua’s ethics ordinance allows the ERC to establish its own rules, yet the current committee—made up of three attorneys—has failed to implement fair or consistent procedures. Chairman Attorney Tim Bush, who has led the committee since 2017, has allowed politics and partiality to take priority over process. Critics have likened the committee to a “Kangaroo Court.”
Though rules require a hearing to be held within 30 days of a complaint being accepted, there is no timeframe for acceptance itself. In this case, the ERC took 38 days just to accept the complaint, followed by a 42-day delay in scheduling the hearing. Bush later changed the hearing date unilaterally, despite rules requiring agreement by all parties.
Witness availability was also ignored. The complainants requested testimony from Alderman Moran—whose actions were at the heart of the matter—but he did not attend. There is no subpoena power to compel attendance, and the Mayor avoided accountability by giving roughly seventeen non-responsive answers. Post-hearing, Bush granted the Complainants to file a post-hearing memorandum (PHM), but later retracted permission without justification.
Although ERC rules provide 30 days for a decision, the committee issued its findings in 20, indicating there was plenty of time for the Complainants to submit a PHM. While the complainants were told decisions would be sent by certified mail, the Mayor’s copy was hand-delivered on April 8. He immediately publicized the favorable outcome through media while the complainants had yet to receive their notice and were caught off guard when contacted for comment.
The committee rejected a motion for reconsideration, despite accepting such a motion in a previous case involving Mayor Donchess and his use of the public TV station for political advocacy. The timing of the ERC’s actions, just ahead of complainant Laurie Ortolano’s federal trial against city attorneys, raises questions about a City coordination intended to discredit her publicly on the eve of her Trial.
Throughout the hearing, Attorney Bush frequently interrupted the complainants while allowing the Mayor to speak freely—even off-topic. Bush’s line of questioning revealed a pre-judged position, suggesting the hearing’s outcome was predetermined.
Most troubling was the committee’s dismissal of a key ethics rule violation—Rule F—which prohibits conduct that raises public suspicion or undermines trust. Using taxpayer money to defend a personal lawsuit against an alderman is precisely the kind of action that violates the public’s trust.
Nashua’s Board of Aldermen must act. The city needs clearly defined administrative hearing rules to ensure due process and impartiality. Ethics committee members should be qualified, independent, and free from conflicts of interest. Without reform, the ERC will remain a political shield and propaganda tool rather than a public safeguard.
Taxpayers deserve ethical oversight that serves the public interest—not the political elite.
