Wednesday, October 8, 2003

What about the law, what about ethics in PTC tennis scandal?

By CAL BEVERLY
Publisher

For Brutus is an honourable man;

So are they all, all honourable men

... I will not do them wrong; I rather choose

To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,

Than I will wrong such honourable men.

Mark Antony's speech from Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2

The Development Authority of Peachtree City wants a do-over. Voting with a bare quorum of four members, the DAPC last week took back their management contract resignation.

"However, after much consideration, we believe that the management of these two now significant facilities is beyond the scope of a part-time, volunteer authority and that the expertise of the city's full-time employees is required to continue the ongoing operation and success of these venues," wrote Chairman Tate Godfrey in the resignation letter of Sept. 25, a week before the do-over.

Many of us could not agree more. So why did the DAPC take the tennis center and amphitheater back after only a week?

"Cooler heads," is what Peachtree City Councilman Dan Tennant says he is after, playing a power broker's role in the city-DAPC dispute. There's some exquisite irony in that role reversal, but whatever that says of politicians running for reelection, a few questions must be asked.

Here's the problem. DAPC Chairman J. Tate Godfrey is senior vice president, business development, for Group VI, a Peachtree City-based construction and real estate development company.

Group VI built the most recent expansion to the tennis center, for which it received only partial payment. DAPC still owes a large unpaid bill to Group VI, well over $200,000 in unpaid construction debt.

Godfrey voted at least twice in the past two weeks on issues that directly affect the debt repayment ability of the DAPC. Those votes directly affect the collection of an unpaid $200,000-plus debt owed by DAPC to Godfrey's employer, Group VI.

So far as I can determine, in neither of those two votes did Godfrey make a public disclosure of his potential conflict of interest. In neither of those two important votes did he abstain from voting.

His actions, or lack thereof, raise issues of law and ethics.

You can find the "Development Authorities Law" online as part of the Georgia code of laws. Refer to code section 36-62-5. In part (e)(1)(B) it requires the following of any DAPC member who is employed by any company doing business with the DAPC:

"... [T]he authority may purchase from, sell to, borrow from, loan to, contract with, or otherwise deal with any director or any organization or person with which any director of the authority is in any way interested or involved, provided (1) that any interest or involvement by such director is disclosed in advance to the directors of the authority and is recorded in the minutes of the authority, (2) that no director having a substantial interest or involvement may be present at that portion of an authority meeting during which discussion of any matter is conducted involving any such organization or person, and (3) that no director having a substantial interest or involvement may participate in any decision of the authority relating to any matter involving such organization or person."

Did Godfrey's two votes, one to resign the contract and the one to renege on the resignation, violate the code section quoted above? You be the judge.

Then there's the matter of ethics, specifically the Peachtree City Code of Ethics adopted as the law in the city most recently this past April.

The city code sections specifically apply to the DAPC and say this: "Sec. 62-83.Abstention. An official or employee who has an interest that he has reason to believe may be affected by his official acts or actions or by the official acts or actions of the city shall disclose that interest. Such official or employee shall abstain from participating in any such discussion, voting or otherwise participating in any official acts or actions affected by such interest. That interest shall be disclosed by such official or employee prior to there being taken any official act or actions. (Ord. No. 802, 4-17-03)."

Did the DAPC chairman and Group VI officer disclose his potential conflict of interest? Did he abstain from voting? Were his votes, absent disclosure, valid and binding?

Another problem area is Section 62-81, incompatible employment: "No official or employee shall engage in or accept employment with or render services for any private business or professional activity when such is adverse to and incompatible with the proper discharge of his official duties or would tend to impair his independence of judgment or action in the performance of his official duties. (Ord. No. 802, 4-17-03)."

Do you think that a $200,000 debt owed by DAPC to Godfrey's employer might "impair" Godfrey's objectivity on DAPC's financial affairs?

And this one: "Sec. 62-89.Disclosure of relationships.

"(a)Each party subject to this article shall disclose to the city council, either orally or in writing, the following information:

"(1)Any current business interests between or among any parties subject to this article, with a description of such involvement;

"(2)Any business interests between or among any parties subject to this article which have been terminated within the past six months; and

"(3)Any business interests between or among any parties subject to this article anticipated in the next six-month period.

"(b)Additionally, each party subject to this article shall inform the city council, either orally or in writing, of any business relationship entered into with another party subject to this article, within ten days of such contractual or implied relationship.

"(c)Failure on the part of any party subject to this article to comply with the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be a violation of this article. (Ord. No. 802, 4-17-03)."

Was this done? If not, why not?

If the chairman should have recused himself from voting on the management contract, what effect does that have on the bare-quorum 4-0 vote to rescind the management contract resignation? If only three could vote on the matter under the city code, is the resignation still in effect and unrescinded?

These are questions of law and ethics, involving a public official. Whatever you think should happen to the tennis center and amphitheater, no one, including public official Dan Tennant, should imagine that these questions can any longer be ducked.