Peachtree City fine-tunes ethics ordinance

By JOHN MUNFORD
jmunford@TheCitizenNews.com

Peachtree City’s ethics ordinance has officially been updated.
The changes might not be complete, however, since the new regulations don’t address whether the city attorney should be required to abide by the ordinance also.

City Attorney Rick Lindsey said he felt the city attorney should be required to meet the guidelines of the ethics ordinance. That stance differs from the position taken by a Griffin attorney earlier this year that the city attorney is only a “contract employee” and therefore not subject to the ethics code.

That opinion from Griffin attorney Andrew Whalen III came at the conclusion of the investigation of an alleged ethics violation on behalf of former city attorney Jim Webb. The complaint was dismissed unanimously after Whalen determined that Webb should not be required to comply with the ethics ordinance.
At last week’s council meeting, Lindsey said two other cities’ ethics ordinances clearly make the city attorney accountable to following the guidelines. He also indicated that he was willing to meet the financial disclosure guidelines.

But city clerk Nancy Faulkner expressed concern over making Lindsey and other contract employees such as the city auditor accountable to the ethics ordinance.

Faulkner told council that she has sent out a survey to other cities with ethics ordinances to determine how they handle relating the ordinance to their city attorneys. She later agreed to send out a similar survey regarding city auditors.
Faulkner said she expected to have the surveys back in within the next two council meetings.

Council adopted the changes to the ordinance with the stipulation that the city attorney portion of the ordinance be revisited by the end of this year.

Copies of the ethics ordinance will be supplied to each person expected to abide by it, Lindsey said. Those persons will sign the document, which helps limit any argument for an individual claiming they do not fall under the ethics regulations, Lindsey added.

The new provisions of the ordinance prevents any person who files an ethics complaint from withdrawing it unless the ethics board approves such an action by majority vote.
Another new feature is limiting the time frame within ethics charges can be filed. All ethics complaints must be filed no later than 90 days after the alleged act took place, except when the complainant didn’t discover the alleged violation until after that 90-day period.

In no case shall an ethical charge be filed if the alleged violation is more than two years old, the new ordinance states.
Council slightly changed some language in the ordinance before adopting it. One of those changes addressed that city employees cannot take part in any political activity “while that employee is expected to perform work or receive compensation from the city.”

Councilwoman Annie McMenamin said the ethics ordinance is clear and easy to understand. Lindsey said he thought the ordinance was the best he has read.
“I’d put it up against any of them,” Lindsey added.