NASHUA – While Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire acknowledged she had come “maybe close to the line” regarding a conflict of interest issue during the most recent round of budget deliberations, she insisted that she never overstepped it.

At issue is whether Wilshire should have recused herself from discussion about the Review and Comment Commission, a process that determines how almost $520,000 in public funds is distributed among 30 local social service agencies.

One of the agencies directly affected by that process is the Nashua Children’s Home, for which Wilshire is the budget manager. Funding for the home was an area of contention during the budget approval process.

Wilshire consistently abstained from votes pertaining to funding for her employer. However, she was a vocal critic of the method used for determining how priorities are set to determine which agencies receive how much money.

On Thursday, the Board of Aldermen finally approved the $230.68 million city budget. Immediately after the meeting adjourned, Wilshire was asked if she had crossed an ethical line in joining debate about the Review and Comment Commission’s methodology in selecting how to divvy up grants and in criticizing the commission’s priorities.

“Over my 121?2 years as an alderman, I’ve continuously advocated for the less fortunate,” Wilshire said. “If I stopped doing that, I shouldn’t be on this board.”

As aldermen struggled to pass the city’s fiscal 2013 budget, one sticking point was how funding for nonprofit agencies would be divvied up. Some aldermen objected not only to funding priorities, set by the volunteer Review and Comment Commission, but also to the method used to vet the grant request.

Not everyone agrees that Wilshire stayed within the boundaries of ethics.

Kevin Moriarty, a member of the Review and Comment Commission, said that as an official from the Nashua Children’s Home, Wilshire should have recused herself from every discussion involving the funding for nonprofit agencies recommended by the commission.

Even though Wilshire never directly addressed funding for the Nashua Children’s Home, “it’s a chain reaction” because all the agencies are competing for the same pool of money, Moriarty said.

“I’m not saying her agency didn’t deserve more money,” Moriarty said. “All the agencies do good work. That’s not the point.”

There is a definite perception in the public that Wilshire had a conflict of interest, Moriarty said.

Moriarty said he’s disappointed in the board for not calling out Wilshire for participating in discussions.

Under Chapter 5, Section 98-C of the revised city ordinances, no member of a city board or commission “may vote or participate in discussion on a question in which the member has a direct personal and pecuniary interest.”

According to that definition, Wilshire, as an employee of the Nashua Children’s Home, has a direct personal and pecuniary interest.

The ordinance further holds that in “matters in which the board or committee acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, no member may vote or participate in discussion if the member has a personal bias or has prejudged the facts of the matter.”

Stephen Bennett, who, as the city’s deputy corporation counsel advises the Board of Aldermen, declined comment on whether he thought Wilshire breached board ethics.

Wilshire served on the Review and Comment Commission for 10 years. Only recently was her membership on the board challenged as having a conflict of interest, she said.

During her time on the commission, Wilshire said, she never served on a subcommittee that evaluated funding for her employer, and she never voted on funding for the Nashua Children’s Home.

The commission chairs, when making subcommittee assignments, were careful to avoid putting Wilshire in a position where she would vet the Children’s Home.

However, by setting priorities, the commission weighs funding requests of competing agencies, and having an employee of one of the agencies serving on the commission is itself a conflict, some feel.

“I definitely think there was a conflict of interest,” Moriarty said. “Specifically, there was a conflict of roles.”

Alderman-at-Large Brian McCarthy, the board president, said that while Wilshire’s actions could be perceived as a conflict of interest, he said she never crossed the line.

“I think it’s a very close issue,” McCarthy said.

The question comes down to whether Wilshire engaged in discussion for a self-serving motive or whether her comments intended to improve a process for the good of the city, McCarthy said.

He believes it was the latter in Wilshire’s case.

There was a small amount of money involved pertaining to the Nashua Children’s Home, but Wilshire focused on improving a flawed process in which meeting minutes weren’t produced, among other problems, McCarthy said.

Wilshire contributed suggestions that will help improve the process for awarding grants in the future, McCarthy said.

“I had warned her to be very careful with how she approached anything to do with the Children’s Home,” McCarthy said, adding that he felt Wilshire heeded that advice.

In truth, many aldermen have associations in the city beyond their roles as elected officials, McCarthy said.

For example, McCarthy’s wife is a paraprofessional. When her employee group’s contract came up for approval, McCarthy abstained from voting. He did preside over the contract vote at the full board level, but stepped down as chairman of the Budget Review Committee when the contract came before that group to be discussed.

During aldermen’s discussions, Wilshire never voted to fund the Nashua Children’s Home. She did advocate and vote for increasing funding to other agencies, such as the Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter and Adult Learning Center.

During a July 10 board meeting, Wilshire’s motions to restore $16,700 to the Adult Learning Center and $5,000 to the Nashua Soup Kitchen, which had been lost during the Review and Comment Commission process, each passed by a single vote.

However, Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess’ motion to restore $5,000 to the Nashua Children’s Home failed, with six votes for and eight against.

Wilshire abstained from voting, although later she again voiced criticism for the Review and Comment Commission process.

During recent meetings, Wilshire was particularly critical of Alderman-at-Large Mark Cookson, the board’s liaison to Review and Comment. Wilshire in part argued that Cookson shirked his duties by failing to produce reports from a subcommittee he chaired.

Cookson wasn’t at the meeting in which Wilshire voiced her strongest criticism of him. As board president, McCarthy later apologized for allowing the personal comments without Cookson present to defend himself.

“I don’t know. I wouldn’t comment,” Cookson told The Telegraph when asked if he thought Wilshire had a conflict of interest. “I think that’s Brian’s perspective, and if we disagree with Brian, we can always challenge it.”

Patrick Meighan can be reached at 594-6518 or pmeighan@nashuatelegraph.com. Also, follow Meighan on Twitter (@Telegraph_PatM).

Newsletter