Under Old Business at the 5\/4\/2026 Town Council meeting the Council will discuss and schedule a Public Hearing to adopt a revised ethics code. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Discuss and schedule a public hearing for May 18, 2026 regarding the proposed revision to the Municipal Code, repealing Title I, Chapter XXIX, and adopting Chapter 20 Code of Ethics. (Kirsten Hildonen, Administrative Services Director) Below is ChatGPT’s analysis of the current and proposed codes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yes \u2014 I compared the two documents. The newer document is not just a light edit. It substantially reorganizes and expands the ethics code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new code adds formal definitions for:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This makes the new document more explicit and easier to administer. The old version relied more on general narrative language rather than defined terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is probably the biggest substantive addition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new policy creates detailed restrictions on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It also specifically states that the Town Manager may authorize town employees to advocate on behalf of the town<\/strong> when consistent with Town Council legislative policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old code did not<\/strong> contain this level of lobbying regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Practical effect:<\/strong> the new version regulates political advocacy and use of municipal resources much more directly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new document explicitly says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This appears in Section 20.5(D), tied to NH RSA 98-E<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old document did not contain this explicit speech-protection language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Old version:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n New version:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bottom line:<\/strong> more formal and broader gift regulation, with a higher dollar threshold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new policy creates a dedicated section for elected and appointed town officials<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It specifies:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old code required recusal and disclosure but did not spell out this formal meeting procedure in this detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new code adds explicit rules that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is considerably more precise than the old document.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old code had a dedicated Town Nepotism Policy<\/strong> covering:<\/p>\n\n\n\n That dedicated nepotism section does not appear<\/strong> in the new Chapter 20.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That does not necessarily mean the town eliminated nepotism rules entirely \u2014 but the old standalone ethics-code nepotism section was removed from this chapter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old code had a more differentiated reporting structure:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new code says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is a more centralized structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new policy expressly allows officials and employees to seek written advisory opinions from the Town Manager<\/strong>, and those may serve as precedent for future guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old document did not include that mechanism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old code included a formal complaint form as an appendix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new chapter does not include one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new 2026 version appears to move the ethics code toward a more administrative-governance model<\/strong> rather than a simple statement of ethical expectations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It especially strengthens:<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, it removes the old standalone nepotism section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you want, I can also give you a \u201cwhat changed politically and why this may matter for Londonderry town officials\u201d<\/strong> analysis \u2014 including which provisions are likely to matter most for councilors, boards, and public comment disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Politically, the biggest shift is that the new ethics chapter moves from a fairly traditional \u201cdon\u2019t misuse office\u201d code toward a more explicit set of rules about how public officials, employees, and boards communicate, advocate, and use municipal resources<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old code focused mainly on conflicts, recusal, gifts, and misuse of office. The new code adds a substantial lobbying and electioneering framework. It regulates employee lobbying during work hours, use of town email\/websites\/social media, and use of facilities, equipment, and employee time for political advocacy. It also ties those rules to federal and state grant restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Political meaning:<\/strong> this creates clearer boundaries around when municipal infrastructure can and cannot be used to influence public policy or political outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new chapter states that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Political meaning:<\/strong> this narrows the ability of individual officeholders to present personal views as institutional positions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That matters most during:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new code gives a clearer process when someone believes an official has a conflict:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Political meaning:<\/strong> conflict disputes are more likely to become visible parts of public meetings and meeting records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That can matter because it creates a formal public mechanism for raising objections in real time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new chapter gives the Town Manager<\/strong> a larger role:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Political meaning:<\/strong> ethics administration becomes more centralized and managerial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In practice, that can make interpretation of the code more structured\u2014but it also means administrative judgment becomes more important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new code also says public employees may publicly discuss government matters as individuals and that no person shall interfere with that right, subject to confidentiality law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Political meaning:<\/strong> while the chapter restricts official use of municipal resources, it simultaneously preserves personal speech rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That creates a deliberate distinction between:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The old chapter contained a dedicated nepotism section governing family hiring, supervision, appointments, and contract participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That dedicated section does not appear in the new chapter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Political significance:<\/strong> a formerly explicit topic became less prominent in this ethics chapter. Whether those rules now live elsewhere would require checking other town policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new code looks less like a simple ethics statement and more like a response to modern local-government friction points<\/strong>, especially:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, it appears designed partly for governance disputes about speech, advocacy, and authority<\/strong>, not just classic corruption issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The provisions most likely to affect real-world local politics are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those are the parts most likely to surface during contentious public debates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Documents:<\/em>
2026-05-04 Code of Ethics Cover Sheet.pdf<\/a>
2026-05-04 Chapter 20 Ethics Final Draft.pdf<\/a>
2026-05-04 Title I Chapter XXIX Code of Ethics.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
Major differences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. Much broader definitions section in the new version<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n2. Lobbying and electioneering are a major new focus<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n3. Freedom-of-expression language is new<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n4. Gift rules changed materially<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n\n\n\n5. Conflict-of-interest procedures are much more detailed<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n6. Improper use of office section is new and more specific<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nImportant removal: nepotism section disappeared<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nReporting process changed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Old version<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
New version<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nAdvisory opinions are new<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nComplaint form removed from the chapter<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nMy short read of the practical meaning<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nWhat changed politically<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Lobbying became a central issue<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\u201cWho speaks for the Town\u201d is much more explicit<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n\n\n\nConflict-of-interest challenges are more formalized<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nGreater administrative role for the Town Manager<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nPublic employee speech was expressly protected<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nOne especially notable removal: nepotism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nMy candid read<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nWhat may matter most in Londonderry<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n