Wednesday, March 5, 2003
|
Wednesday, March 5, 2003 |
PTC ethics board decides to deliberate in public after allBy JOHN
MUNFORD
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.
|
||