Category: Ethics

Council Member Thurman, District 1 Redistricting Scandal, Ethics, Good Governance, Milton City Council

What if an Election District Got Changed and No One Knew About It? Read on . . .

Posted on by Milton Coalition

July 12, 2017

Following is an explanation of the change in the boundaries of Milton’s Election District 1.  This explanation is based on an exhaustive, months-long investigation.  Over the coming days, I will provide all of my research for you to read, so that you can come to your own independent conclusions about how and why this change in district boundaries was accomplished without voters knowing about it.  I believe that this matter speaks to non-transparency, arrogance, abuse of power, lack of integrity, and so many other elements of poor governance.

(At the blog, click on the menu icon in upper left-hand corner to subscribe to the blog.  Enter your email address and click the follow button.  You will receive e-mails of blog posts as they are published.)

****************************************************

Explanation of Change in Milton’s Election District 1 Boundaries

A change in Election District 1’s boundaries was effected in the first half of 2015.  Only a handful of Milton’s voters seem to know about this change.  This is not surprising as it never appeared on any Milton City Council agenda.  The change was never discussed nor debated at City Council.  No resolution was passed by City Council to approve this change to the City’s Charter.  At no point was public input sought; even from affected voters.  And citizens were never even notified of the change.  The change was not accomplished through either Home Rule or through the Charter Commission–the two accepted methods of changing Milton’s charter.  Rather the change was effected through state legislative fiat with almost no documented support from Council.  Mechanisms and practices of good governance were bypassed.  The apparent (but unstated) reason for this change in District 1’s boundaries appears to have been the future move by Council Member Thurman to The Estates at Atlanta National (EAN), which was just outside of the District 1’s boundaries.  Moving outside of District 1 would have required Ms. Thurman to relinquish her seat; changing the district boundaries allowed her to keep her seat.

Through a series of Open Records Requests and other research, the Milton Coalition has been able to piece together the story behind the change in the boundaries of Election District 1 in Milton.  This change to the District 1 boundaries was proposed and finessed by Council Member Karen Thurman.  It seems that Council Member Thurman lobbied Representative Jan Jones to expand District 1 (through legislation) to include The Estates at Atlanta National, a subdivision across the road from where Ms. Thurman was living in 2015 and which was then part of District 2.  This request to Representative Jones to change the boundaries seems to have been made in early January 2015 and was coincident with Ms. Thurman’s purchase (December 18, 2014) of a lot in The Estates at Atlanta National (EAN).  Ms. Thurman subsequently built a home in The Estates at Atlanta National to which she moved in August 2016.  If District 1’s boundaries had not been changed, Council Member Thurman’s move to the Estates at Atlanta National would have required her to relinquish her seat, as she would have no longer resided in her district.  Changing the boundaries of District 1 allowed Ms. Thurman to keep her seat on Council.  The documents that we reviewed indicate that Ms. Thurman never revealed her purchase of the lot at The Estates at Atlanta National or an intent to build a home there to which she would then move.  (However, some Council Members seem to have known about the move and its connection to the district change, presumably through conversations with Ms. Thurman.)  Furthermore, in responses to inquiries about this matter, neither Ms. Thurman nor Ms. Jones ever mentioned Ms. Thurman’s purchase of a lot in EAN and plans to move there.  Instead, Ms. Thurman asserted the following in a letter (sent March 9, 2015) to Jan Jones as justification for changing the district’s boundaries:

The Estates at Atlanta National and my subdivision Providence at Atlanta National are closely aligned with many of the residents of both subdivisions members of Atlanta National Golf Club.  Over the years I have worked with the residents of the Estates of Atlanta National on various issues related to zonings, setbacks and construction within the subdivision. The residents of the Estates of Atlanta National also are closely tied to the Crabapple community which is a large part of District 1.

No evidence is provided for any of these assertions.  Furthermore, these reasons for changing the district boundaries seem contrived.  Membership in a golf club is an obviously poor reason for redrawing our election districts.  EAN is several miles from Crabapple; we doubt residents would affirm Ms. Thurman’s assertion that EAN is closely tied to Crabapple.  No letters of support from EAN residents were sought or provided by Ms. Thurman to justify the change.

Rather, the evidence seems to show that Ms. Thurman made a case for changing District 1’s boundaries based on false pretenses.  On January 27, 2015, an e-mail to Representative Jones from Gina Wright, the Georgia Legislature’s Executive Director of Reapportionment, states “To take in that address, this is as minimal change as we could go.”  The implication is that changing of the district lines is being driven by the inclusion of a single address, presumably the address of the lot where Ms. Thurman eventually built her home and moved.  And in a later e-mail exchange with Representative Jones on March 22, 2015, Ms. Thurman states “We are still hoping to be able to build another house. The soil is not good on the lot so we are waiting to see if we can get another plan drawn up that will include bringing in soil that will perc,” referencing the building of a home on a specific lot, again presumably the lot in EAN where Ms. Thurman eventually built her new home.  Clearly, Ms. Thurman and Ms. Jones had previously discussed the building of this home.

Our assertion that the district change was based on false pretenses is further supported by the clandestine manner in which Ms. Thurman pursued the change in district lines.  Ms. Thurman directly lobbied Milton’s representative to the Georgia House, Jan Jones, to introduce a bill in the Georgia legislature (HB 570) to change District 1’s boundaries.  In so doing, Ms. Thurman bypassed the normal means for changing Milton’s charter:  1) through the Charter Commission, which meets every five years or 2) through Home Rule, whereby Milton’s City Council would pass a resolution to change the district lines.  Instead, the changing of Milton’s District 1 boundaries was accomplished through state legislative action.  This ensured there would be no discussion, debate, or vote at Council.  The district change was never included on any City Council agenda.  Milton citizens, including residents of The Estates at Atlanta National, were not given any opportunity to provide input.  In fact, citizens were never even notified (not even the residents of EAN) of the change—before or after it was made.  To this day, only a handful of citizens know about district change.

The process for changing the district boundaries was non-transparent.  After being lobbied by Council Member Thurman, Representative Jones worked with the legislature’s Executive Director for Reapportionment to draft a bill to change District 1’s lines.  This work began in January 2015. No City staff were ever involved in this work.  Furthermore, it seems that the City Manager and City Council Members were only apprised of the district change right around the time that the bill was introduced.  There is no documentation of support from other Council members for the district change in advance of Representative Jones introducing HB 570 into the Georgia House on March 9, 2015.  In a March 4, 2015 e-mail to Jan Jones, Ms. Thurman does assert that she has “spoken with all of the council members and there was no objection.”  The City Manager is not mentioned.  However, it was only on March 9, 2015—the same day HB 570 was introduced–that an e-mail was sent to the City Manager informing him (and copying Council) that HB 570 had been introduced.  Ms. Thurman states “I wanted to make sure you were aware of my request in case you received any questions.”  It is only on March 10th—one day after the bill was introduced–that Ms. Thurman sent an e-mail to Council members seeking letters of support (to be forwarded to Ms. Jones) for the district change, providing a form letter for Council Members to customize.  It seems that only one Council Member, Bill Lusk, actually wrote a letter of support for the district change.  And of course, no public input was sought, and citizens were not even notified of the change in district boundaries.

The e-mail correspondence further seems to show that not including the district change on a Council agenda for discussion, debate, and approval (including opportunity for public input) was intentional.  In one e-mail exchange between Ms. Jones office and Ms. Thurman, the need for an official City Council resolution is discussed.  Initially, Ms. Jones office requests a letter of approval from City Council.  Ms. Thurman responds that such a letter would require that the district change be put on a City Council agenda.  Ms. Thurman suggests an alternative “If something from individual council members would suffice, all that I have spoken to have no objection and I believe they would be happy to send something to Jan.”  (Note the lack of specificity about which and how many Council members were “spoken to.”)  Ms. Jones office responds that Ms. Jones “doesn’t need an official resolution from the city but letters from individual council members would be fine.”  Ms. Thurman responds “I will get at least a couple of the other council members to get her a letter also.”  And thus, with this conversation, Ms. Thurman and Ms. Jones decided that an important change to Milton’s Charter (akin to a city’s constitution) would be accomplished without any discussion or debate at Council; without a majority vote in Council; and without any public input or any public notification.  In fact, the bill was introduced with not one letter of support, not even from Ms. Thurman, who submitted her formal request for the district change only on the day that the bill was introduced into the Georgia Legislature.

Inquiries were sent to both to both Council Member Thurman and Representative Jones requesting their perspectives on how and why District 1’s boundaries were changed.  Ms. Thurman’s response was mostly a recitation of her previous rationale (provided earlier) for changing the district lines.  Ms. Jones response is nearly 3,000 words long and covers a lot of different topics–many not directly germane to core issues, including good governance.  However, neither Ms. Thurman nor Representative Jones make any reference to Ms. Thurman’s purchase of a lot in EAN, the building of a home on that lot, or Ms. Thurman’s subsequent move to that home.  Representative Jones was asked to provide all correspondence relating to the changes to District 1, but did not provide any such correspondence.  The length, tone, and comprehensiveness of Representative Jones’s response is interesting.  Ms. Jones is the second ranking member of the Georgia House of Representatives.  Her investment of so much time in a response to a constituent’s inquiry about possible wrongdoing is telling and perhaps indicative of concern about a non-transparent change being made to Milton’s Charter based on false pretenses.

The Milton Coalition has made every effort to gather as much information as possible, including:

  • Making 8 open records requests.
  • Speaking with Gina Wright, the Executive Director of the Georgia Legislature’s Reapportionment office. She provided before and after district maps for Milton.
  • Inquiry of Council Member Thurman, to which she provided 2 responses.
  • Inquiry of Representative Jones, to which she responded.
  • Searching property records for real estate sales transactions.
  • Searching the Georgia Secretary of State’s database of LLCs.
  • Downloading HB 570 and conducting research on the progress of the bill.
  • Researching the subcommittee proceedings for HB 570, including correspondence with the legislative liaisons for both committees.
  • Researching Milton’s charter and the process for making charter changes.
  • Attending all three Milton Charter Commission meetings, including providing public comment in 2 meetings.
  • Researching good governance best practices.

It should be noted that the Open Records Request (ORR) process, by its nature, often does not yield good results.  It might aptly be described as looking for a needle in a haystack . . . pulling out one straw at a time.  You submit a request with search terms that may or may not yield the e-mails you want.  Sometimes, the search is too narrow and you get nothing.  And sometimes, the search is too broad and you get too much information—much of it irrelevant.  Turnaround time is 3 days, so iterations can take some time.

Further complicating our research was Ms. Thurman’s use of non-City email accounts.  In reviewing the responses to our ORRs, we noted that Council Member Thurman regularly uses her company and personal e-mails to conduct city business—the only Council Member who seems to regularly do so.  This is in violation of practices of good governance.  Ms. Thurman should only use her City e-mail account for city business.  Ms. Thurman’s use of personal and company e-mail is problematic because the City cannot search these e-mail accounts when it processes an ORR.  In the case of personal and company e-mail, in processing an ORR, the City relies on a Council Member to perform a thorough and honest search of their e-mails.  Of course, the potential for deleting or withholding e-mails exists, particularly if unethical or illegal behavior might be an issue.

It is important to know that Milton’s Charter provides the foundation and structure for Milton’s city government.  A city’s charter is like a municipal constitution.  Changes to the Charter, including modifying the description of election districts, are a serious matter requiring a rigorous, deliberative, democratic, transparent, and fair process that allows ample opportunity for citizen input.  Changes to Milton’s Charter are supposed to occur either 1) through the Charter Commission, which meets every five years, or 2) through Home Rule (i.e., passage of an official council resolution).  Some Charter changes (e.g., revisions to the description of election districts) are so important that require additional approval by the state legislature.  However, such legislative approval should not supplant initial legislative action by the City.

Advocating for Citizens,

Tim Becker

The Milton Coalition – Advocating for clean, competent, courageous and citizen-centric government

1
Council Member Thurman, District 1 Redistricting Scandal, Ethics, Good Governance, Milton City Council

Milton Herald Article on Clandestine Redistricting Effected Under False Pretenses

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Scandal stamp

July 12, 2017

Citizens:

Following is a link to a Milton Herald article on the redrawing of Milton’s election District 1’s boundaries.  This district change is unethical and violates basic standards of good governance.  It is just plain wrong.

Milton Herald Article on Nontransparent Change to District 1’s Boundaries

First, thanks to the Milton Herald for covering this important story.

The basic story here is simple.  Ms. Thurman was moving outside of her district.  Within a month of buying a lot in The Estates at Atlanta National (EAN), Ms. Thurman lobbied Representative Jan Jones to change the boundaries of District 1 to include EAN.   This change allowed Ms. Thurman to keep her seat on Council.  To avoid scrutiny–both from Council and voters–this change was effected in a clandestine fashion.  It never appeared on any City Council agenda.  It was never discussed or debated at Council.  No resolution of support was ever passed by Council.  Citizens were afforded no opportunity to provide input or even notified of the change.  There was no documented support from Council members in advance of the bill’s introduction into the Georgia General Assembly.  To this day, very few citizens know about this changes, including those citizens added to District 1.

Later today, I will provide a detailed description of the District 1 change.  Over the coming days, I will provide all of my research–one exhibit at at time–to the public.  You can draw your own conclusions based on that evidence.  We are confident that you will come to the same conclusion that we came to:  The district change was effected under false pretenses and in a clandestine manner.

Thank you for your continuing engagement and your support.

Advocating For Citizens,

Tim Becker

The Milton Coalition–Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government

(Postscript:  Citizens, with the breaking of this story, it should be clear why Council Member Thurman addressed Council on Monday night.  She was aware of this article.  Her speech was a transparent attempt to insulate herself from the coming backlash by disparaging her critics.  It was all political theater.  If you don’t like the message . . . then discredit the messenger.)

Ethics, Good Governance

Council Members are Public Trustees with a Fiduciary Responsibility to Citizens

Posted on by Milton Coalition

palace_holder_why_us

June 29, 2017

The Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) emphasizes the importance of ethics in the proper functioning of local government.  In fact, the GMA devotes an entire chapter of its Handbook for Mayors and City Council Members to ethics, conflicts of interest, and abuse of office.  The introduction to the ethics chapter provides an outstanding explanation of the public trusteeship of elected officials.  The first word of this chapter is trust, because the key element in good governance is trust between elected officials and their constituents.  Milton’s own City Attorney has emphasized that trust in government is much more important than government efficiency.  Unfortunately, here in Milton, we have seen the public trust broken on many occasions and in many ways.  I have written extensively about these violations of the public trust.  I believe that Milton’s elected officials need to engage in some serious self-reflection on the issue of ethics and its importance in establishing trust with citizens.  A good first step might be to read the introduction to the chapter on Ethics in GMA’s Handbook for Mayors and City Council Members.  It is provided here in its entirety.  I believe this excerpt should be taped on the City Council dais before each Council Member.  And I believe all informed citizens should read this passage to remind us that we need to set high standards for our elected officials and hold them accountable if they do not meet those high standards.

Trust is the key word that describes the appropriate relationship between a local government’s elected officials, other public officials, and their constituency. An elected official serves only as a result of the trust which the majority of the electorate have exhibited by electing that individual to office. The Georgia Constitution stresses the standards applicable to public officers in this way:

All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Public officers are trustees and servants of the people and are at all times amenable to them.

Two roles for public officers are established by this constitutional language. First the public officer is a trustee of the people. Trusteeship is perhaps the highest calling that one can be granted under the law. As trustees, public officers have a fiduciary relationship with their constituents. A fiduciary holds something of value, which he or she does not own, and is charged with managing the valuable item for the sole purpose of benefiting the beneficiary of the trust. Elected officers are entrusted with the power to govern and to manage public property, with the public as beneficiaries of that trust.  A public officer’s goal should be to further the public good, not to improve the standing of the public officer, except that the officer may share in the benefit as a member of the public at large.

The second idea suggested by the constitutional provision is that the public officer is a servant of the people. A servant cannot exist without a master. The constitution establishes the public as masters and public officers as servants who are charged with responding to the needs and wishes of the master. 

To read the entire chapter on ethics in GMA’s Handbook for Mayors and City Council Members, click the following link.

GMA Handbook Chapter on Ethics

Tim Becker

Ethics, Good Governance

Mr. Kunz, Time to Get Off the Bench and Really Debate Ethics

Posted on by Milton Coalition

867364_original-600x350

June 27, 2017

First, a big thank you to Council Member Matt Kunz for visiting our blog.  In a seeming response to our most recent blog postings about Milton’s anti-citizen, unconstitutional Ethics Ordinance, Mr. Kunz sent out the following tweet:

Kunz Tweet

As we have written in our previous posts, the bar is not set real high for obtaining this ethics certification:  1) City Council passes a resolution pledging to follow a set of 5 ethics principles and 2) City Council enacts an ethics ordinance that meets a set of minimal standards.  This all falls in the category of “Talk Is cheap.”  The truth is that through their actions, one or more council members have violated all five of the ethics principles they have pledged to uphold.  And by adding a wrongful use section to the Ethics Ordinance, Council turned a tool for holding Council Members accountable into a tool for Council Members to stop ethics complaints and to suppress exercise of free speech and other political rights.  Mr. Kunz is hoping you won’t invest the time to understand the facts, but he underestimates the intelligence and civic pride of Milton’s citizens.  Engaged citizens understand that some council members routinely misbehave.  Consider the following.

  • Several council members, including Mr. Kunz, have been caught using personal and company e-mail for City business.
  • Three council members pushed successfully to grant a developer a second hearing on a final platting and then reversed their earlier votes on the platting to allow a one-acre lot on a gravel road, violating Milton’s 3-acre minimum. Kunz is tied to developers through large campaign contributions.
  • Kunz actively promoted a developer’s project, thereby violating his duty of judicial impartiality in a rezoning hearing, which is a judicial proceeding. This is akin to a judge advocating for a defendant in advance of that defendant coming before him in court.
  • Kunz has called out and attacked a citizen from the council dais during a City Council meeting. This was in direct violation of a letter sent out to all city staff and government officials prescribing appropriate conduct when interacting with citizens and which Mr. Kunz voted for.
  • In revising a cluster housing ordinance, Mr. Kunz circumvented staff and the City Manager, in violation of Milton’s City Code requiring Council members to work through the City Manager.

istock_000000874744small

So it is fair to say the Mr. Kunz does not care about ethics.  We call upon Mr. Kunz to stop hiding behind certifications and to justify his serial ethics infractions.  We would welcome the opportunity to publish more from Mr. Kunz than a tweet on ethics.  Mr. Kunz, instead of warming the bench, we challenge you to debate us on this topic.  In a public setting and in the presence of ordinary citizens, let’s have an open and honest debate on ethics in the City.  Mr. Kunz, this is your opportunity to finally get in the game.  In the words of the great Lou Holtz:  “So many times people are afraid of competition, when it should bring out the best in us.”

notre-dame-fail 1

Ethics, Good Governance

Milton’s Ethics Rules: A Tool Against Citizens and A License for Council Misbehavior

Posted on by Milton Coalition

ethics2

June 25, 2017

(This is a long, but critically important post that gets to the heart of good governance and why some Council Members act with such disregard for citizens and ethics.)

Milton’s ethics rules for Council Members are written 1) to deter complaints, and 2) to provide a tool for Council Members to prosecute Milton’s citizens and suppress dissent.  In so doing, Milton’s Ethics Ordinance gives Council Members a license to misbehave.  Got your attention?  Well, it is true.  Milton has an ethics ordinance that strongly favors protection of Council Members (Is anyone surprised?) over the submission of legitimate ethics complaints.  Milton’s Ethics Ordinance is written to scare off even the most courageous citizen from making an ethics complaint.  And Milton has included provisions that allow a Council Member to sue a citizen through the ethics panel for misuse of the ordinance.  And because the City’s sole mechanism for enforcing Council Members’ ethics are citizens’ complaints, the result is that ethics are an extinct notion in Milton.  Council Members can do as they please . . . and some do.  You think we are exaggerating?  Read on.

As stated in Friday’s blog post, the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) has designated Milton as a “Certified City of Ethics.”  To receive this designation, the City must 1) annually pass a resolution pledging to abide by five ethics principles and 2) enact an ordinance that meets GMA’s minimal ethics standards.  The GMA even provides a sample ethics ordinance for use by cities.  The GMA sample ordinance suggests language for various sections of an ethics ordinance.

The GMA does mention that some municipalities have concerns about misuse of ethics complaints for political purposes.  The GMA states:

Some elected officials raised concerns about potential misuse of the ethics complaint process for political purposes. The governing authority may elect to remain silent on this issue and allow local ethics complaints to be filed and processed at any time or the governing authority may consider Alternative A or B below or draft another suitable alternative.

Following are the two alternatives suggested by the GMA:

Alternative A:  To discourage the filing of ethics complaints solely for political purposes, complaints will not be accepted against a person seeking election as a city official, whether currently serving as a city official or not, from the date qualifying opens for the elected office at issue through the date the election results for that office are certified. The time for filing complaints will not run during this period. Properly filed complaints will be accepted and processed after the election results have been certified.

Alternative B:  To discourage the filing of ethics complaints solely for political purposes, ethics complaints against a person seeking election as a city official, whether currently serving as a city official or not, which are filed between the date of qualifying for municipal office and the date of certification of the election results will be held and will not be processed until the election results for that office have been certified.

Notice that the language simply prohibits complaints from being filed in a narrow time frame in the run-up to an election.  Did Milton choose either of these options?  No.  Rather, Milton ran amok and chose to craft a section entitled Wrongful use of this article, designed to ensure no reasonable citizen would ever file an ethics complaint.  Six reasons are cited for wrongful use of the Ethics Ordinance.  These cited reasons for “wrongful use” are both vague and broad, including:  “complainant’s motives” and “publicity surrounding the filing of the ethics complaint.”  And the list of reasons is potentially infinite as the Ordinance states the list is “without limitation,” meaning an ethics panel is free to formulate and select any number of other reasons that a complaint might be wrongful.

I assert that ethics charges should be judged on their own merits.  Factors such as complainant’s motives and publicity about an ethics infraction are irrelevant.  Milton’s ethics ordinance forces a citizen to essentially choose between writing a letter to the editor and filing an ethics complaint; apparently, a citizen cannot do both.  Not only does Milton’s Ethics Ordinance strongly discourage ethics complaints, it also abridges free speech and exercise of other political rights.  And to add insult to injury, should Milton’s Ethics Panel find that you did violate any of the items on the list “without limitation” of causes for determining a complaint is “wrongful,” penalties are listed that include criminal prosecution and payment of costs and attorney’s fees associated with processing the ethics complaint.  And guess who ultimately determines guilt and penalties to be assessed?  City Council is ultimately the prosecutor, judge, and jury for counter-complaints from fellow Council Members!  And if that were not enough, in November 2016, City Council amended the Ethics Ordinance to grant Council Members an allowance of $5,000 per ethics violation for legal representation . . . 

201008LDD002
City Council: Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury for Counter-complaints

 . . . So rather than being a tool for citizens and for good governance, Milton’s Ethics Ordinance has been turned into a tool for Council Members (who possess many advantages) to prosecute and suppress citizens.  Does anyone believe that a reasonable citizen would ever submit an ethics complaint?  And if no one will ever submit such a complaint, isn’t it fair to conclude that Council Members are not accountable for their actions?  Does the flagrant bad behavior we see from certain council members now start to make sense?  Our Ethics Ordinance essentially provides Council Members a free pass to misbehave.  Our Ethics Ordinance effectively cuts off the one avenue (between elections) for ensuring our elected officials are held accountable for misdeeds.

Following is Milton’s wrongful use section of the Ethics Ordinance.  The language is chilling and certainly meant to deter citizens from making ethics complaints.  And keep in mind that the GMA suggests none of this language.  Milton’s Council came up with this language on their own.

Sec. 2-896. – Wrongful use of this article.

(a)  The purpose of this article is to endeavor to maintain a high standard of ethical behavior by city officials and employees. This will be most effective when city officials, employees, and citizens work together to set and maintain high ethical standards.

(b)  In order to accomplish this purpose, ethics complaints shall be based on fact and have the intent to improve the ethical climate of the city.

(c) A wrongful use of this article shall occur if and when a frivolous, false, or politically motivated ethics complaint is filed in a negligent, reckless, or purposeful manner without a basis in law or fact and for purpose other than reporting a violation of this article.

(d)  An ethics complaint is not frivolous if the complainant reasonably believes that facts exist to support the claim and either reasonably believes that under those facts the ethics complaint is valid under this article or acts upon the advice of counsel sought in good faith and given after full disclosure of all relevant facts within his/her knowledge and information.

(e)  In deciding if an ethics complaint is a wrongful use of this article, the ethics panel shall consider the following, without limitation:

(1)  The timing of the ethics complaint with respect to when the facts supporting the alleged violation became known or should have become known to the complainant, when the ethics complaint was filed, and the date of any pending election in which the respondent is a candidate or is involved with a candidacy, if any;

(2)  The nature and type of publicity surrounding the filing of the ethics complaint, and the degree of participation by the complainant in publicizing the fact that an ethics complaint was filed;

(3)  The existence and nature of any relationship between the respondent and the complainant before the ethics complaint was filed;

(4)  If respondent is a candidate for election to office, the existence and nature of any relationship between the complainant and any candidate or group opposing the respondent;

(5)  Whether the complainant knew or reasonably should have known that the allegations in the ethics complaint were groundless; and

(6)  The complainant’s motives in filing the complaint.

(f)  Allegations of a violation of this section shall be raised by the respondent as part of the respondent’s response to an ethics complaint.

(g)  Allegations of a violation of this section shall be considered by the ethics panel considering the ethics complaint that is alleged to be a violation of this section. Evidence supporting and opposing the allegations of a violation of this section shall be presented at the same ethics hearing conducted with respect to the ethics complaint that is alleged to be a violation of this section.

(h)  Upon a finding by the ethics panel that clear and convincing evidence of a violation of this section was presented at the ethics hearing, the ethics panel shall recommend to the mayor and the city council that the city impose any combination of the following penalties and actions:

(1)  Public reprimand;

(2)  Criminal prosecution for perjury; and

(3)  Payment of costs and attorney’s fees associated with the handling and processing of the ethics complaint. For purposes of this subsection, the term “costs” shall include the staff time dedicated to processing the ethics complaint as well as copy costs and other directly attributable administrative expenses. For purposes of this subsection, the phrase “attorney’s fees” shall include the reasonable fees of the attorney retained, if any, by the subject of the ethics complaint as well as any fees necessary to be paid to the ethics panel attorneys.

I researched ethics ordinances in nearby cities:  Johns Creek, Roswell, Alpharetta, and Sandy Springs.  Only Johns Creek places any restrictions on citizens’ ethics complaints; Johns Creek adopted the language of GMA’s Alternative A (provided above).  None of our sister cities has a Wrongful Use section in their code; Milton is unique in its attempts to stifle ethics complaints.  City Council’s taking of such an adversarial stance toward citizens is just plain wrong.

(Note:  It is also the case that no other sister cities provides compensation to their Council Members that Milton provides for “lawyering up” in preparing for and defending against an ethics complaint.  This is based on a review of their ethics ordinances.)

Finally, consider this.  Milton has crafted an ethics law that not only deters ethics complaints, but actually allows City Council Members to turn the tables on complainants and sue them in the same hearing for “wrongful use” of the article based on vague and broad definitions of misuse that include publicity around the ethic complaints or the complainant’s motives.  The inherent advantages afforded Council Members almost assures a Council Member will beat an ethics charge, but also that the complainant will be convicted and punished.  Through the “wrongful use” section of the Ethics Ordinance, City Council has turned a tool for citizens and good governance into a tool for prosecuting citizens and stifling dissent.  It is yet another example of City Council putting citizens outside of government instead of at the center of government.

Citizens, it might be time to file an ethics complaint that presents a legal challenge to the City’s heavy-handed and unlawful Ethics Ordinance.  I am confident that Milton’s Ethics Ordinance would not stand up to a legal challenge.

Lastly, thank you for staying engaged in the cause for good governance.  Only through citizen engagement can we achieve the government we deserve.

wooden gavel and books on wooden table,on brown background

Tim Becker

Ethics, Good Governance

Ethics: Council, Walk the Talk!

Posted on by Milton Coalition

8334738_f496

June 23, 2017

Proper functioning of our government, including our local government, requires ethical conduct by our government officials.  This especially applies to our elected officials–our City Council–as they are our leaders.  And as our leaders, through their words and more importantly, through their actions, City Council members establish the ethics culture for the city.  Unfortunately, ethics for some council members is nothing more than a word.  It is not a value that guides their everyday actions on behalf of citizens.  (We will have much more to say about this in future posts.)

Ethics does get a lot of lip service from some Council members.  They like to tout that Milton is a “Certified City of Ethics.”  The Georgia Municipal Association grants this certification.  To obtain GMA’s ethics certification, a city must fulfill two requirements.

ethics-trans(PNG)

First, the city must pass an annual ethics resolution espousing the GMA’s 5 ethics principles:

  • Serve others, not ourselves
  • Use resources with efficiency and economy
  • Treat all people fairly
  • Use the power of our position for the well being of our constituents
  • Create an environment of honesty, openness and integrity

Interestingly, over the past 19 months, citizens have been witness to violations of each of these principles.  For example:

  • Can we really say that Council Members are not serving themselves when Council Members do not recuse themselves from matters where a developer with business before Council has provided large campaign contributions to the City Council Members?  Isn’t the purpose of such contributions to curry favor with certain Council Members?  To sway their votes?
  • Can we really say that all people are treated fairly when Council Members provide citizens’ private contact information to developers, so that those developers can lobby those citizens to support their projects?  Or when Council Members attack private citizens from the council dais and in the newspaper, comparing citizens that oppose their views to non-patriots and to protesters that spit upon returning Vietnam veterans?
  • Can we really say that Council Members that shamelessly promote a developer’s project really promote the well-being of our constituents?
  • Can we really say that Council Members are creating an environment of honesty, openness, and integrity when Council Members flagrantly use personal and company e-mail to conduct City business, rather than their city-issued e-mail accounts?  Or when Council Members intentionally circumvent staff and government processes to achieve their objectives?

Of course, these are rhetorical questions.  We know that several Council Members act unethically without even the slightest bit of concern.

Second, the GMA requires that a city adopt an ethics ordinance that at least meets GMA’s minimal standards.  Milton has adopted such an ordinance.  It is 20 pages long and detailed.  And we suppose that it does, in fact, meet GMA’s standards.  However, does GMA certification mean Milton City Council members act ethically?  No, it does not, and even the GMA would concede this point.

Passing an ethics resolution means very little.  More important is that Milton has crafted an ordinance that meets GMA standards.  However, ultimately the ethics ordinance must be enforced.  And to be enforced, a citizen must make a complaint.  The City of Milton will not (or certainly does not seem inclined to) investigate ethics violations.  Ethics enforcement is left to citizens.  Since the City overhauled its ethics ordinance, there have been no substantive ethics complaints.

We believe the time is right to test whether the City is truly serious about ethics.  There is too much bad behavior from certain Council members to continue to ignore ethics violations.  Ignoring the misdeeds of Council Members has only served to embolden those Council Members and prompt them to double down on their misbehavior.  The Milton Coalition is committed to filing an ethics complaint, when appropriate, to ensure our City Council Members actually comply with GMA ethical standards.  Council needs to walk the Ethics talk.  And when they do not, citizens need to challenge them.

action_speaks-louder-than-words1

Tim Becker