Members of

Peachtree City's Ethics Board want to convince the City Council that the

board should deliberate privately before ruling on ethics complaints filed

against city officials.

Deliberating

in a closed session would allow the board members to speak freely on the

matter before a vote is taken, board members argued. Under the proposal,

the board would still vote in public on the matter, and theoretically

any board member could make any public comments after the vote.

But councilman

Murray Weed, who has assisted the board in crafting a revamped ethics

ordinance, said Georgia's open meetings statute requires the board to

deliberate in public. Weed, who is a municipal attorney for the city of

Hapeville, said he was "99 percent" confident that City Attorney

Ted Meeker would agree with his interpretation of the law.

Weed cited

two Georgia cases that indicate the ethics board must deliberate in public.

He agreed that it would be ideal if the board deliberated in private,

but courts have ruled groups such as the board should hash out the issues

in public.

"A jury

can deliberate in private. Why can't we do it?" said board member

Iola Snow.

Weed said he

would prefer for the city not to be dragged into court for allowing the

board to deliberate in closed session.

"I don't

personally want Peachtree City to be the test case," Weed said, noting

the city will need to fight more important battles in court.

Board member

Frances Meaders said deliberating in private would allow board members

to "really talk among ourselves" instead of "slanting"

their views to the public.

At the same

time, board members also indicated they felt it was important to explain

at the public meeting how they reached their decision.

"I think

we owe it to the public to explain how we came to the conclusion,"

said board member Terry Garlock.

"I'd want

to know, by golly, why they found me guilty," said board member Iola

Snow, as she viewed the issue from the side of someone accused of violating

the ethics ordinance.

Weed reminded

the board members that they were not required to explain their votes at

the meeting, even under the current version of the ethics ordinance.

"Your

vote speaks louder than anything you can say," Weed said.

The board agreed

to have member Rob Williams, who is also an attorney, present its case

to the City Council at the annual council retreat scheduled for March

7-8. Williams agreed to do that, even though he was the lone holdout wanting

the board to continue the process of deliberating ethics cases in public.

The ethics

board convened twice last year, both times hearing ethics complaints about

council members. The board admonished councilman Steve Rapson for violating

the ordinance by disobeying an opinion from then-city attorney Rick Lindsey.

Lindsey had previously said Rapson shouldn't vote on matters pertaining

to the Development Authority because his wife was suing the authority

for salary-related issues. The complaint was filed by former mayor Bob

Lenox. Rapson contended he felt he was required to vote on the matter.

The other board

hearing was on a self-complaint filed by Mayor Steve Brown for allowing

a city employee to drive one of his daughters to a golf camp while he

was at a meeting in Fayetteville. Brown also was admonished by the board

and he was ordered to repay the city for the employee's time. Brown indicated

he thought the employee was going to perform the favor on her break time.

At the time,

several ethics board members chided Brown for wasting the board's time

when he could have just repaid the money owed to the city, which was less

than $9.

The board is

also recommending other changes to the ethics ordinance which would:

Allow the

board to dismiss an ethics complaint as "frivolous" upon reading

the complaint without requiring a formal hearing to receive evidence.

If the board chooses to dismiss a case, it must be announced at a public

meeting. The goal is to keep the board from getting bogged down with unnecessary

complaints.

Require criminal

background checks of any person selected to serve on the ethics board.

Each council member including the mayor selects two citizens each to encompass

the board's pool although only five serve at one time for a particular

case and their names are drawn at random.

The complainant

may withdraw the complaint at any time. Currently, a hearing must be held

on all complaints that are filed unless the ethics board votes to allow

the complaint to be dismissed. This requirement was originally designed

to stop persons from filing complaints for political reasons and then

dropping the issue without giving the accused person a chance to clear

his or her name.

The board

must submit a written order on each complaint to the mayor and council

that details its decision.

Back

to News Home Page | Back

to the top of the page