Mr. Greg B. Turgiss
January 24, 2020
Page |3
— -
ER 1-1 It is unethical for DRA Certified Personnel to conduct
their professional duties in a manner that could reasonably be
expected to create the appearance of impropriety.
Canon 3: (Conflict of Interest Ethical Rule)
DRA Certified Personnel shall not engage in any activities in
which they have, or may reasonably be considered by the public
as having, a conflict of interest.
ER 3-1 It is unethical for DRA Certified Personnel to accept an
appraisal or assessment related assignment that can reasonably
be construed as being in conflict with their responsibility to their
jurisdiction, employer, or client, or in which they have an
unrevealed personal interest or bias. ER 3-2 It is unethical to
accept an assignment or responsibility in which there is a
personal interest without full disclosure of that interest and
showing mitigation of the conflict.
ER 3-3 It is unethical to accept an assignment or participate in
an activity where a conflict of interest exists and could be
perceived as a bias, or impair objectivity.
ite Dereliction of Dutv — Breach of Ethics Rules. During the fall of 2018 you
served as an assessor for the City of Nashua. At the time, the City was working through a full
statistical revaluation of the property in Nashua under a contract with KRT. As part of that
revaluation process, the City undertook an active role in performing the informal reviews of
the valuations of individual properties. In January 2014, your brother Gary Turgiss assessed
41 Berkeley Street. During the 2018 revaluation informa! review process, the owner of that
property, Ms. Laurie Ortolano asked that the property be reviewed by KRT. Instead, Jon
Duhamel assigned you to review the assessment originally done by your brother Gary. Under
Asb 304.04 one of your duties was to “supervise informal reviews of property assessments
with the property owner.” In performing that duty, you took the assignment to review the
work of your brother Gary, and visited the property on October 8, 2018. You were derelict in
your duty when you did that because your review created a conflict of interest or the
appearance of a conflict of interest. Your responsibility was to perform your work
assignments in conformity with standards of conduct and Jaw applicable to the circumstances
and the persons involved. Reviewing the work of your brother Gary Turgiss resulted in a
situation where a taxpayer reasonably questioned and doubted the objectivity and fairness of
the City’s assessing process and the assessment of their property. You did not perform your
duty in accordance with Asb 304.04 and Rev 603.05, when you performed a work
assignment that violated the Asb Code of Ethics. The sanction for these violations under Asb
308.05 is decertification for up to 5 years.
