Ethics rules to be reworked; citizen right to reply approved in principle

By MONROE ROARK
mroark@thecitizennews.com

Citizens should be allowed to speak at City Council meetings in Peachtree City if they are referred to by name in council discussions, council members decided Friday.

During its annual planning retreat over the weekend, council dug into the city's ethics ordinance, and also studied council meeting procedures, in an effort to reduce the rancor that has erupted at recent meetings, and to improve decorum. The group came up with a number of proposed changes, but decided the next course of action should be a review of the ordinance by the city's ethics board.

Though council members have squabbled over many of the same issues in the past, last weekend's discussions were congenial.

In the wake of two recent ethics complaints against city attorney Jim Webb and Councilman Dan Tennant, a number of issues have been raised regarding the ethics ordinance. The ethics board looking into the Webb case meets tonight at 7 p.m. at City Hall. The complaint against Tennant has been withdrawn.

Council members agreed that the terms of the ethics ordinance, whatever they become, should apply equally to all groups contracted with the city as well as city staff, elected officials and commission and authority members.

This issue came up after Tennant commented on a previous statement by Webb that he was not certain the ethics ordinance applied to the city attorney. Tennant said that he felt the city attorney most certainly should fall under the ordinance, and Councilman Robert Brooks added that whatever applied to the city attorney would have to apply to everyone under contract to the city.

City attorney Rick Lindsey pointed out that all attorneys in Georgia, no matter whom they represent, are subject to an ethics code considerably more detailed than what Peachtree City or any other city is using.

After tonight's public hearing, the ethics board will forward any recommendations for enhancements to the ethics ordinance to the City Council.

Issues raised for discussion by various council members, citizens, staff and the city attorney include the following:

” Statute of limitations on a complaint.

” Right of confrontation by the respondent.

” Right of the complainant to address the ethics board.

” Investigation procedures used by the ethics board.

” Pre-clearance of claims by an independent attorney or the city attorney regarding applicability of the ethics ordinance and legal questions, but not factual determinations.

” A time limit to conduct an investigation and make a recommendation to the City Council.

” A written report from the ethics board to reflect the final vote and recommendations.

” Procedures for ethics board hearings, including guidelines for witness testimony, documentary evidence, rules of evidence, rules of procedure, fair disclosure of evidence to the opposing side, preservation of the record for appeals, subpoena power of the ethics board, and discovery rights of the respondent.

” Handling the withdrawal of a complaint.

” Deleting from the ethics board pool the appointments of any council member alleging a violation against another council member.

Also at the retreat, council members agreed in principle to a series of proposed changes to the city's ordinance covering City Council meeting procedures.

An amendment in development would give citizens the right to address the council when publicly referred to by name during a meeting. This was proposed by Tennant last month and tabled so it could be covered during the retreat.

The ordinance currently allows those other than council members to speak only upon specific agenda items. The proposed change will allow one opportunity for citizen rebuttal.

Another suggested change to the ordinance maintains that Robert's Rules of Order will be used for any matters not specifically covered by the ordinance itself.

“The majority of situations which will arise at the council meetings will be handled by our local ordinance,” Lindsey wrote in his recommendation. “However, there surely will be situations which will arise in the future that we cannot possibly anticipate. Having Robert's Rules of Order as the `backstop' will ensure fairness and consistency in the meetings, as well as protect the dignity and decorum of the meetings.”

Another issue raised in recent weeks is the use of e-mail and other forms of communication by council members.

Tennant was charged with an ethics violation by Council member Annie McMenamin after sending an e-mail to fellow council members requesting input on his proposal to allow citizen rebuttal at meetings. That complaint has since been withdrawal before any hearings were held.

A letter to The Citizen by Mayor Bob Lenox also raised some citizens' ire when he stated that it would be posted on the city's web site. That idea provoked complaints that the web site should not be available for his own personal use.

Council members agreed that the city's administrative regulations be amended to contain a provision allowing only relevant factual information on the city's web site.

As for e-mail, Tennant suggested broadening the proposed guidelines to include all forms of “electronic correspondence,” which would cover conference calls and chat rooms, among other things.

Lenox concurred, saying that while a one-on-one conversation between two council members is obviously appropriate, anything that could constitute a “meeting” of more than two, such as the examples listed above, would not be appropriate.