2008-02-28 TOP STORIES
New Milton ordinance calls for abolition of ethics board
by Jason Wright	write the author
March 03, 2008 MILTON – The city's Ethics Board got its first look Feb. 25 at a new law governing behavior in and out of City Hall and were surprised to find it could abolish the board itself. Under the new law up for consideration — which is a draft document according to the city — a number of alternate boards are considered, including one with members chosen by an impartial third party, not council. Another option is that Milton wouldn't have an Ethics Board, sending all cases to the state level. "I don't like to be too suspicious of motives, but I think to put something like this into the ethics ordinance is begging the question and someone is in favor of this," said chairman Clint Johnson. "If they are in favor of it, why not just speak out and abolish us?" City Attorney Ken Jarrard, who brought the new ordinance to the Ethics Board for their recommendations, said the abolition was an informal idea brought about during multiple discussions. Johnson said he "hates being played for a sucker." "And I know when I'm being played right here," he said. Though it cannot pass or deny any ordinance, the board can make recommendations to the new law, Jarrard said. If City Council likes the board's recommendations, it can repeal the current law and institute the new one. "If you don't like the language, don't recommend it. This is not some back-door attempt to make you all adopt something you don't like," said Jarrard. "I don't believe the council intended to insult this board," he said. In a later interview Mayor Joe Lockwood said there was no intention from council to disrespect the Ethics Board with the new ordinance. Instead, he said the idea of dissolving the current board and electing new members came from worries council appointees might be too political, a concern of public perception mentioned in the resignation letter of former Ethics Board member Susan Campbell. However, he thought the steps toward membership would proceed as current members' terms expired. "Those people have put a lot of volunteer hours in," he said. "This whole thing has been misconstrued." Jarrard agreed, saying the ordinance was simply a draft document — though at the meeting it did not have the word "draft" on it — and that council was simply being presented with different ideas, none of them concrete. The issue of crafting a new ordinance just months after September's ethics law revisions surfaced over questions whether the ordinance, as it stands, unconstitutionally restricts elected officials' free speech. In addition, the onslaught of ethics complaints and allegations were a concern. "Here's the problem," said Todd Ashley. "Every complaint we heard last year had some taint of politics to it and it's touched virtually everybody on City Council and two members of this council. So the question becomes, who is advancing this agenda? This is not by accident. "Whoever is wasting my time with this, I'd like to know. Anyone else?" asked Ashley. Carol Lane said she did not feel council was trying to get rid of the board. "If we don't want to recommend it, we don't have to. It's just different ideas," she said. Johnson countered her statement. "But if we cross [it] out, the council's going to go right ahead and put it right back in. Why are we wasting our time here?" he said. Johnson even went so far as to say he believes the document is illegal. The Ethics Board voted unanimously to table discussion on the law. In addition, the board will ask council to clarify their intent in regards to the abolition at the March 10 City Council work session. In other business • The Ethics Board voted unanimously to disregard the election conduct issues brought up in mid-February by Councilwoman Karen Thurman and later Councilwoman Tina D'Aversa. The rationale it gave was the complaints were not actually filed, just alleged publicly. - www.northfulton.com

Alert! The allowed time limit for adding new feedback to this item has expired.