Mr. R. Jonathan Duhamel
January 24, 2020
res | 3
DRA Certified Personnel shall not engage in any activities ir in
which they have, or may reasonably be considered by the public
as having, a conflict of interest.
i tt ee re on le eee
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.
1. Dereliction of Duty. During the fall of 2018 you served asthe chief assessor
for the City of Nashua. In that capacity you supervised the City assessing staff, including
DRA certified propesty assessor supervisor Greg Turgiss and his brother, DRA certified
property assessor Gary Turgiss. At the time, the City was working through a full statistical
revaluation of the property in Nashua under a contract with KRT. As past-of that revaluation
process, the City undertook an active role in performing the informal reviews of the
valuations of individual properties. In January 2014, Gary Turgiss assessed 41 Berkeley
Street. During the 2018 revaluation informal review process, the owner of that property, Ms.
Laurie Ortolano asked that the property be reviewed by KRT. Instead, you assigned Greg
Turgiss to review the assessment originally done by his brother Gary. Under Asb 304.04(f)
one of your duties was to “supervise informal reviews of property assessments with the
property owner.” In performing that duty, you assigned Greg Turgiss to review the work of
his brother Gary, and Greg visited the property on October 8, 2018. You were derelict in
your duty when you did that because your assignment created a conflict of interest or the
appearance of a conflict of interest. Your responsibility was to make work assignments in
conformity with standards of conduct and law applicable to the circumstances and the
persons involved. Assigning Greg Turgiss to review the work of 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 made a work assignment that
required Greg Turgiss to violate the Asb Code of Ethics. The sanction for these violations
under Asb 308.05 is decertification for up to 5 years.
2. Derelicti y — Violation of RSA 91-A. In’‘September and October
2018 you received a series of emailed requests for government records from a taxpayer. Jt
was your responsibility as the recipient of these requests to ensure that they were responded
