Wednesday, July 17, 2002
|
Wednesday, July 17, 2002 |
|
Rapson 'admonished' by PTC Ethics Board By MONROE ROARK
The Peachtree City Board of Ethics ruled Thursday night that City Councilman Steve Rapson violated the city's ethics ordinance, but no further action was taken and the matter will likely be swept away upon appeal. The board voted 3-2 on the ethics violation, but elected unanimously to issue no formal reprimand and simply admonish Rapson not to commit another violation. That was the least severe penalty allowed under the ordinance after a violation has been determined. Other possible penalties included a formal reprimand, censure and recommendation of removal from office. The hearing was in response to an ethics charge filed by former mayor Bob Lenox, after Rapson participated in a vote to authorize a special counsel to study the legality of contracts entered into last year by the City Council, the Development Authority and Airport Authority. Lenox alleged that Rapson could not vote on anything pertaining to the Development Authority since his wife, Kristi, was suing that body over her pay as director of the Frederick Brown Jr. Amphitheater. Steve Rapson and his attorney, Harvey Gray, indicated after the four-hour hearing that they would consider an appeal to the City Council. If they choose that route, it is a strong possibility that the ethics board's ruling could be overturned, since Mayor Steve Brown and Councilman Dan Tennant testified during Thursday night's hearing that they did not believe Rapson did anything unethical. Lenox, who acted as his own attorney, said after the hearing that he was satisfied with the outcome and would not pursue the matter further. Gray spent most of the evening alleging that the contracts Lenox signed last year, which address funding for the two authorities, were illegal and Rapson had no choice but to vote the way he did to approve the special counsel. Rapson had moved to authorize Lenox to sign the contracts, but then said that the documents Lenox actually signed were not the ones he voted for and the council approved. Brown and Tennant also expressed concerns about the changes in the contracts. As Gray went into great detail concerning the contracts, Lenox repeatedly objected to the ethics board, saying that the discussion was not related to the actual ethics violation being considered. Ethics board chairman Robert Williams admonished Gray several times to move along, and Gray said that all of this information was vital to show why Rapson had to do what he did. Rapson said during his own testimony that he felt compelled by the ethics ordinance and his oath of office to pursue the legality of the contracts, and it would have been just as wrong to sit back and do nothing. "I thought I was violating the ethics ordinance either way," he said. One of the major players in the hearing turned out to be city attorney Rick Lindsey, who was not even present due to his family's vacation. Gray, who had placed Lindsey on his witness list, said that he felt Lindsey's testimony was crucial and asked the ethics board to continue the hearing until it could be obtained. When the board voted to close the matter and resolve it Thursday night, Gray stated his objection for the record. Lindsey gave a legal opinion to Rapson last year in which he recommended the councilman not vote on any matters pertaining to the Development Authority. Lenox used that opinion, and the fact that Rapson ignored it, as the foundation of his case. Rapson testified that he disagreed with Lindsey's opinion, and Brown testified that he questioned Lindsey's ability to render an opinion, given his firm's relationship with the Development Authority. Gray said on several occasions during the hearing that Lindsey had a conflict of interest in this matter which brought his opinion into question. Lenox expressed his displeasure in Gray's line of questioning throughout the night, saying that it appeared he was the one on trial due to Gray's continual reference to Lenox's actions in signing the contracts as illegal. Lenox said during his own testimony, and in interviews after the hearing, that he understood the testimony in the hearing to be constitutionally protected speech, but if some of the same statements were made outside the hearing, he would consider filing suit for slander. After one of Williams' repeated pleas to move along and establish relevance, Gray said that the ethics complaint was filed in an attempt to steer attention away from Lenox's own actions, and to silence Rapson and anyone else who might speak out about the contracts. Gray emphasized a particular portion of one of the contracts, in which the original version showed the City Council having an escape clause and the amended version without that language. The amended contract could only be voided with the permission of the authority. Brown testified that after this was discovered, he tried to work out a compromise between the city and the authorities, but to no avail. Rapson, who moved to approve the contracts, became concerned that they had been changed without his knowledge after he originally saw them in the packet provided to council members the Friday before each Thursday night meeting. Lenox said that updated material was e-mailed to all of the council members in the days leading up to the council meeting, and all of the council members should have been knowledgeable about the changes. He also said that there was no way he could have made these changes by himself, and wondered if a conspiracy of some type was being alleged involving himself, Lindsey, city manager Jim Basinger, the attorneys for the authorities and possibly the chairpersons of those bodies. Rapson testified that he thought such a change could be made with only Lenox and Lindsey knowing about it. When asked if Basinger would be in the loop, Rapson said that during his tenure on city staff, he knew that Lenox often did such business "in a vacuum" without letting everyone else know about it. Lenox called that statement "a blatant lie." Paul Salvatore, the city's current finance director, was also called as a witness, and questioned mainly about financial information such as the city's hotel-motel tax revenues. Lenox produced no witness list, a fact that Gray pointed out prior to Lenox's opening statement. Gray said that he believed Lenox could be barred from testifying under the ethics ordinance's rules, but he would not press the matter further. Weed said Friday morning that he thought the ethics board did a "noble" job, but he feels there are problems with a conflict in the ordinance itself, as Rapson testified. "It's not Steve Rapson's fault," said Weed. "It's not the ethics board's fault, either." Weed said that the ethics ordinance likely needed to be tested once, as it was at the hearing, for kinks to be identified and worked out. "You don't always know how the machine will work until you try it out," he said. Former councilwoman Carol Fritz echoed that sentiment, calling the ordinance a "working document." But she had no doubts about what she felt the outcome of the hearing should have been. "They wouldn't address the issue," she said, referring to Rapson and his counsel. "They spent four hours arguing the contracts. He [Rapson] either violated the ethics ordinance or he didn't. He should have been guilty, it should have been 5-0, and it should have been done in an hour." Fritz, who served on the council until January after losing to Weed in last November's election, was on board when the contracts were approved. She said she is amazed that during the past few months when Rapson, Brown and Tennant reconsidered the contracts, she was never contacted. She was not called as a witness for the hearing. Annie McMenamin, who was not present at the hearing, abstained from the votes concerning the special counsel because her daughter is a member of the same law firm as Lindsey. Rapson had no second thoughts about his conduct during the entire affair. "Would I do anything differently? Absolutely not," he said. As for the possibility of an appeal to the City Council, Rapson remarked that he would abstain from that vote, adding wryly, "It's the ethical thing to do."
|
||