The

State Ethics Commission voted 3-0 Monday to

dismiss a complaint filed against the Fayette

County Board of Education regarding a perceived

donation to a political action committee

supporting passage of the special purpose local

option sales tax.

"They

dismissed the complaint, the way I understand

it," said Dr. John DeCotis, Fayette County

school superintendent. "We felt like we

followed the advice of our attorneys... and

followed the ethics commission rulings... we are

not in violation of anything."

The

complaint was filed by Claude Paquin of

Fayetteville. It stated that the board indirectly

contributed to the PAC called Fayette Citizens

for Continued Excellence in Education by allowing

a representative from A.G. Edwards, one of the

firms engaged to handle bond sales in conjunction

with the sales tax, to act as advisor to the PAC.

If the SPLOST had passed, the firm would have

benefitted financially from the sale of bonds.

Ethics

Commission spokesmen were not available at press

time to reveal their reasons for ruling the

complaint invalid.

In

a related matter, the commission determined that

there is probable cause to further investigate a

complaint filed by PAC Chairman Janet Smola

against Carl Avrit of Fayetteville. Avrit opposed

the SPLOST and launched a last-minute campaign to

defeat the referendum via the telephone.

"My

contention is that Mr. Avrit violated the Georgia

Ethics in Government Act, Article 2, section

21-5-34," said Smola. "That article

states that all advertising pertaining to a

referendum must be identified by the principle

officer of the campaign committee by listing or

stating the name and title of the principle

officer," Smola said. Telephone calls are

viewed as advertizing, according to the

commission, and the SPLOST was a referendum, not

simply a one-ballot issue, as argued by Avrit's

attorney Don Johnson.

The

phone calls received by citizens did not identify

their source and, according to Smola, contained

erroneous information.

Two

other complaints filed by Smola were dismissed.

One of the two issues involved signs believed to

be placed by Avrit opposing the SPLOST before he

was officially registered as a PAC. The other

involved the alleged failure to set up a separate

campaign account to handle contributions.

Smola

said she believes Avrit used subversive campaign

tactics to defeat the SPLOST, which is "not

fair to anybody."

<!--

-----------