Friday, February 14, 2003
|
Friday, February 14, 2003 |
|
PTC ethics board wants to confer in private before ruling on cases By JOHN MUNFORD 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.
|
||