Reversing its

previous stance, Peachtree City's Ethics Board has agreed to always deliberate

in open session on ethics complaints against city officials.

The board,

which is compiling recommended changes to the city's ethics ordinance,

had originally planned to suggest to the City Council that it be allowed

to deliberate in private before voting on a matter in public. The theory

at the time was that board members would feel able to speak more candidly

in private than if the discussion took place in front of the public.

At the board's

last meeting, however, board member Rob Williams convinced his cohorts

that debating the matter in public is best for all involved.

"People

want it done out in the open; anything less is unacceptable," said

Williams, who is an attorney in private practice. "It's the impression

it makes to the public, that there are never going to be any back door

deals .... I know it's uncomfortable, but that's what we signed up for."

Board member

Iola Snow said she changed her mind after hearing Williams' take on the

matter. While Snow thinks keeping the deliberations public will still

stifle some board members from speaking freely, she agreed taking the

discussion behind closed doors might create the wrong impression with

the public.

"Ethics

should be up front and out in front," Snow said.

Ethics board

members are not required to comment during the deliberation process.

"I'm a

little bit disappointed that we won't be deliberating in private,"

said board member Frances Meaders. "You can get more things in the

open and get more on the table that way."

Board member

Terry Garlock agreed that while deliberating in private could lead to

discussion that might "help us individually come to a vote we believe

in after challenging our own thoughts," the board unanimously agreed

to "deliberate in public even if the law permits otherwise and even

if it is uncomfortable."

The ethics

board's powers are limited since it can only administer a reprimand, publicly

censure the officials or recommend the person resign or be recalled or

be prosecuted in city court for a possible criminal violation.

Georgia law

allows certain government entities to deliberate in private for specific

reasons such as potential real estate matters and legal matters.

Agencies may

also deliberate in private (closed) session to consider the appointment,

compensation, hiring, disciplinary action, dismissal or periodic rating

of a public officer or employee. All evidence or argument for disciplinary

actions or dismissal of a public employee must be heard in public and

the vote on said matter must also be conducted in public, according to

the law.

Meaders said

she thought the law supported the board going into private deliberations.

Although an

opinion from City Attorney Ted Meeker argued that the board might be allowed

to legally deliberate in private, Meeker determined the ethics board "may

not deliberate in executive, or closed session after hearing evidence,

and prior to voting, in a case. It is paramount that in order to uphold

the 'public's confidence in its officials,' erring to the side of 'openness'

is preferred, particularly when the city's ethics ordinance is at issue."

Meaders said

she wants the city council to petition state legislators for a new law

on the matter or a clarified stance on the existing open meetings statute.