We publish, as received, the complaint filed by Manchester resident Michael Olszta against aldermen Ron Ludwig (D-Ward 2), Barbara Shaw (D-Ward 9) and Normand Gamache (D-Ward 11).  Despite advice from City Solicitor Thomas Clark, the three aldermen voted to approve and override the veto of the proposed contract with the Manchester Education Association despite clearly defined prohibitions in the city’s charter.  Ludwig’s wife and Shaw’s and Gamache’s daughters are teachers covered by the contract.

The charter defines “immediate family” and excludes elected members of either the Board of Mayor and Aldermen or the Board of School Committee from participation on any matter in which they have a direct personal or financial interest, terms which are also defined.  The charter considers spouses and children “immediate family” and says the public official “shall have a financial interest in the affairs of immediate family” and bars participation on the grounds it’s a conflict of interest.  ~Publis

Monday, September 07, 2015

City of Manchester

ATTENTION: Mayor Ted Gatsas

Mayor’s Office

One City Hall Plaza

Manchester, NH 03101

(603) 624-6500

Dear Mayor Gatsas,

I hereby allege the following elected officials violated their oaths by violating the Charter Provision Section 9.03 Standards of Conduct, Letter (e):

Ward 9 Alderman Barbara Shaw

Ward 2 Alderman Ron Ludwig

because said Aldermen believe they have immediate family with a direct personal or financial interest in this decision making process as defined by the City Charter and voted on by the said Aldermen and said belief is a conflict of interest:

(c)   Immediate family.  Spouse, children and spouses of children, step-children and spouses of stepchildren.

Ludwig’s wife is a teacher, Shaw’s daughter is a teacher. They were publicly advised by City Solicitor Thomas R. Clark not to take part in the voting process of the Teachers’ Contract which they initially followed. Both of them then changed their minds by taking part in the voting process even though one of them, Alderman Ludwig, acknowledged that any and all advice he could receive for FREE from other attorneys, was the same advice he received from the City Solicitor, namely to not take part in the voting process. I believe it goes even further than just voting, that they should not take part in any of the process when they have immediate family with direct personal or financial interest.

The City Charter also states it is your, the Mayor’s responsibility to begin the process of reviewing the allegation with the official or officials involved (paragraph (b) below). It further states that if there is no resolution to the matter of the allegation, the Mayor shall refer the allegation to the chief legal officer of the city who shall report findings on the allegation to the mayor and board of aldermen within ninety (90) days. If a violation is found to have occurred, “the mayor and aldermen shall direct such action or changes in procedure as shall ensure compliance with this charter…” [Paragraph (e) below].

I would like to go over why I personally allege that Alderman Shaw and Alderman Ludwig violated the provisions of the City Charter. First, the clause I allege they violated (whether willingly or unwillingly, it is not a matter here because we are not dealing with criminal law…): 

“No city official shall participate in the decision-making process of any matter in which the official or a member of the official’s immediate family has a direct personal or financial interest.”

Do their family members have a direct personal or financial interest? Of course they do! The wording is so black and white that the two aldermen’s refusal to follow the advice of the City Solicitor and in the words of Alderman Ludwig, all the other lawyers he consulted, shows how their own ability to interpret the law is influenced by their own belief that this contract is good for the city. Aldermen Shaw and Ludwig should ask themselves this question:

  • If I was put on the witness stand in a court of law, would I be able to sware that the testimony I was giving would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me God, if I was asked whether or not I believe my immediate family members have a direct personal or financial interest in the matter I am voting on?

This is exactly what their belief comes down to. It doesn’t come down to whether or not they can vote with impartiality. No one in this world can know that but that person and God! And it is for this reason that the wording is made so black and white in the Charter so that a reasonable person can understand what the law is. So let’s ask the question of Aldermen Shaw and Ludwig:

  • Do your immediate family members have a direct personal or financial interest in the matter you are voting on?
  • YES or NO? 

Well, that would depend on what the words immediate family mean. The Charter defines immediate family: 

  • (c)   Immediate family.  Spouse, children and spouses of children, step-children and spouses of stepchildren.

The Charter then says:

  • “No city official shall participate in the decision-making process of any matter in which the official or a member of the official’s immediate family has a direct personal or financial interest.”

That is so clear that it begs the question of why anyone would think otherwise. And so, here is the phrase:

  • (e)   Conflict of interest. No city official shall participate in the decision-making process of any matter in which the official or a member of the official’s immediate family has a direct personal or financial interest. Any official who believes such an interest exists shall disclose such interest and shall not participate in the matter further. red italic emphasis added 

Conflict of interest has been defined for Aldermen Ludwig and Shaw. There is no ambiguity in it except what they have created. No one can ever know whether or not Aldermen Shaw and Ludwig have what they themselves interpret is a conflict of interest because that is a personal conviction they have, not one that is written in law. The only matter here is this:

  • Alderman Shaw, do you believe you have an immediate family member that has a direct personal or financial interest in this matter that you are participating in and voting on?
  • Alderman Ludwig, do you believe you have an immediate family member that has a direct personal or financial interest in this matter that you are participating in and voting on?

You either have an immediate family member affected by this matter personally or financially or you don’t. It has nothing to do with whether or not you think your vote is in itself a conflict of interest because you might think you are helping your immediate family members. The only conflict of interest is do you believe you have immediate family members that have a direct personal or financial interest in this matter that you are participating in and voting on no matter which way you vote? YES or NO. And we all know the answer to that because you have admitted the answer on any number of occasions and these are in the record. You were advised by legal minds not to vote and you voted anyway.

I stand by my allegation, Mr. Mayor. If we can’t trust our elected officials to keep the oath they took when they became aldermen, then we the public have nothing to stand on but the whims and fancies of men and women who will do whatever they think is right, the law be damned. That’s not a Constitutional Republic, that’s a democracy ONLY and when you have democracy ONLY without a Constitution (Charter), you have the mob rule mentality.

It is my opinion that Alderman Shaw and Alderman Ludwig violated the provision of the City Charter alluded to. As a tax paying resident of the City of Manchester, I respectfully demand the matter be rectified per the procedures set forth in the Charter. Let the vote be lawful in all phases. I, as a resident and Citizen, will then be satisfied no matter which way the vote goes, agree or disagree with it. But making the decision in accordance with the principles of the Charter and our Constitutional Republic are all the more important.

Sincerely, 

 

Michael Sigurd Olszta

MSO:mso

Charter Enforcement

SECTION 8.15  CHARTER ENFORCEMENT PROVISION.

(a)   It shall be the responsibility of all elected officials to ensure the enforcement of and compliance with this charter.

(b)   In the event there is an allegation of a violation of the charter or failure to follow its provisions, such allegation shall be referred to the mayor who shall review the allegation with the official or officials involved.

(c)   In the event such review shall not resolve the matter, the mayor shall refer the allegation to the chief legal officer of the city who shall report findings on the allegation to the mayor and board of aldermen within ninety (90) days.

(d)   If the violation or failure is alleged to involve the mayor, the chairman of the aldermen shall receive the allegation and refer it to the chief legal officer of the city.

(e)   If a violation is found to have occurred, the mayor and aldermen shall direct such action or changes in procedure as shall ensure compliance with this charter. This provision shall comprise administrative procedure and remedy for alleged violations of this charter.

(f)   The board of mayor and aldermen shall provide for any procedures necessary in order to address violations of this charter.

SECTION 9.03  STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.

(e)   Conflict of interest. No city official shall participate in the decision-making process of any matter in which the official or a member of the official’s immediate family has a direct personal or financial interest. Any official who believes such an interest exists shall disclose such interest and shall not participate in the matter further. In the event any other official believes an official has a conflict, such conflict shall be disclosed to the city clerk who shall make a record of it. If the official does not believe such a conflict exists, the board of mayor and alderman, or school committee if the official is a member of the school committee, shall make a determination and if it finds a conflict exists, the official shall not participate in the matter further, or the appropriate board may refer the matter to the Conduct Board.

City of Manchester

ATTENTION: Mayor Ted Gatsas

Mayor’s Office

One City Hall Plaza

Manchester, NH 03101

(603) 624-6500

Re: Addition of Alderman Normand Camache to My Allegation Letter of September 07, 2015

Dear Mayor Gatsas,

The name of Alderman Normand Gamache from Ward 11 was inadvertently left out of my initial letter of September 07, 2015 and received by your office yesterday, September 08, 2015. Please add Alderman Normand Gamache to my list of alleged Oath-breakers, namely the  elected officials whom I allege violated their oaths by violating the Charter Provision Section 9.03 Standards of Conduct, Letter (e). The arguments I used as the basis for my allegation are to be applied to Alderman Normand Gamache as well.

Sincerely,

 

Michael Sigurd Olszta

MSO:mso