The Peachtree City Council has approved and accepted the findings of the hearing officer who ruled that an ethics complaint by John Dufresne against City Councilman Mike King was unjustified, frivolous and patently unfounded.
The findings were approved and accepted unanimously at the Aug. 4 council meeting. King was not in the room when the matter was discussed.
Carrollton attorney Thomas Greer heard the complaint filed by Dufresne in May and pertaining to a January 2015 public hearing.
The complaint alleged that King violated the city’s code of ethics by failing to “assure input was complete before ending the public hearing as required by when he failed to ensure that the hearers (council members) asked their questions before ending the public hearing as required by (public hearing procedure). The Complainant goes on to contend that the minutes of the meeting reflect that Mayer Pro Tem King closed the public hearing, then allowed council members to ask questions, and then proceeded to… ‘lose control of the meeting when the public and city staff engaged in a more detailed discussion with council after the public hearing ended.’”
Greer in one of the findings said the complaint was not filed in a timely manner since Dufresne had until August 2015 to file the complaint.
In a second finding, Greer said, “The complaint is unjustified, frivolous and patently unfounded within the meaning of (the Peachtree City Code of Ethics). Again proof of this proposition is provided by the Complaint itself and the documents attached thereto. While the Complainant alleged a violation only on January 15, 2015, a reading of Exhibit B to the Complaint makes it abundantly clear that he morphed into complaints about the meeting of October 15, 2015. Placing aside for the moment that Mr. Dufresne does not complain of any ethics violation in the October 15, 2015 meeting, and for the sake of argument, taking into consideration, the position taken by Complainant with regard to that meeting, the Complaint and the arguments contained therein still fail as unjustified, frivolous and patently unfounded within the meaning of the (Code of Ethics).
“It is apparent and conceded by Councilman King in the Response filed on this behalf that the sequence with regard to (the public hearing) involved public comments and questions by Council members after the closing of that meeting. It would be a massive triumph of form over substance to conclude that that could, under any circumstances, be considered an ethical violation.”
