AJC WATCHDOG
As part of our work to hold government officials accountable to the public, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has closely followed activities at the state ethics commission. Today’s story deals with the state auditor’s announcement that he will conduct a performance review of the agency instead of the full independent investigation that the commission voted earlier to seek.
Georgia’s chief auditor on Wednesday said his office will conduct a performance review of the state ethics commission, leaving the agency’s critics wondering what happened to the full investigation originally promised by its leaders.
Tuesday, the commission announced that instead of asking Attorney General Sam Olens to appoint an outside attorney to investigate the agency, it was asking the state Department of Audits and Accounts to look into accusations about how the commission handled a case involving Gov. Nathan Deal. The move immediately raised questions about whether the commission circumvented Georgia’s open meetings law by taking an approach that differs from what it agreed to do in a vote Sept. 30.
It also raised new doubts about how thorough the agency charged with holding public officials accountable will be vetted, given allegations of misconduct by top commission officials.
Auditor Greg Griffin, who was appointed by Deal, said in a statement that his review of the agency “will focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission’s operations and make recommendations for changes to the operations and/or structure of the commission.”
That’s quite different from a full investigation, said William Perry, executive director of Common Cause Georgia, a government watchdog group.
“The statement from the state auditor doesn’t instill great confidence in this process,” Perry said. “The governor and the commission need to show they are serious about responding to these accusations, if not to restore public trust, to at least have a credible source and process that clears them of any perceived wrongdoing.”
There is precedent, however, for state audits leading to further investigations. In 2009, a former Georgia Tech employee was sentenced to 10 years in prison following an audit that questioned the use of state purchasing cards. In 2001, the manager of a state cafeteria and her husband pleaded guilty to stealing $1 million following a state audit.
Ethics commission Chairman Kevin Abernethy, in an Oct. 10 letter, seemed to ask for more than Griffin said he would provide. Abernethy asked that the auditor “evaluate each of the agency employees, their employment responsibilities and whether or not each employee is performing those responsibilities.”
The commission, Abernethy wrote, wanted the auditor to “evaluate any other matter it deems fit to investigate. The commissioners want to insure the agency operates in the most effective, appropriate and credible manner possible.”
Finally, Abernethy vowed that every employee will be “instructed to fully cooperate.”
But on Monday, 11 days after Abernethy’s letter to Griffin, the commission told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that it was still vetting “candidates to conduct an internal investigation of the agency, as well as reviewing and determining the scope and nature of the investigation.”
The original decision to seek a special investigator came after the AJC reported that current and former commission employees said in sworn testimony that executive director Holly LaBerge ordered documents removed from the case file of the commission’s investigation into Deal’s 2010 campaign for governor. They also claim LaBerge bragged that Deal “owed” her for scuttling the case against him.
Deal, who was accused of misusing campaign cash and accepting contributions over the legal limit, was cleared of major charges in 2012 and ordered to pay $3,350 in administrative fees for “technical defects.” The commission’s staff attorney had recommended a fine of $70,000.
The governor has said he received no special treatment in the handling of the case, and LaBerge has testified that she did not interfere in it.
On Wednesday, Deal spokesman Brian Robinson said the governor had nothing to do with the ethics commission’s decision to seek an audit, rather than a special assistant attorney general.
“We have not talked on the phone, we have not met with nor have we sent an email, a letter, a text, a direct Twitter message, a wink, a smoke signal or any other form of communication to anyone involved in this decision,” Robinson said. “This has nothing to do with the governor’s office.”
Still, Democrats questioned the way the entire saga has unfolded.
“We do not feel the state auditor is the appropriate agency,” said state Senate Minority Leader Steve Henson, D-Tucker. “We don’t think that a performance audit is what is needed. What is needed is a restoration of public trust.”
State Sen. Vincent Fort, D-Atlanta, said an explanation is needed for how the commission went from asking for an outside investigation to requesting the auditor’s involvement.
“I’m at a loss as to understand how the state auditor got involved,” Fort said. “It seems to me there had to have been secret meetings and secret discussions going on about this. By virtue of this secret decision-making, the state auditor’s investigation may have been tainted already even before it’s begun.”
Questions remain as to how, legally, the commission switched from asking Olens for a special investigator to requesting the state audit. At its Sept. 30 meeting, Abernethy made a motion to “request a special assistant attorney general be appointed for the purposes of an independent investigation.”
In a statement to the AJC, Abernethy said Wednesday that “the Sept. 30 vote was a call for an independent investigation. Out of an abundance of caution, it is my intention to request that the commission vote to ratify the specific course chosen at its next meeting (likely in the next several weeks).”
Hollie Manheimer, executive director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, and an expert on the state’s open meeting laws, said if the “commission voted on Sept. 30 to appoint the attorney general’s office, a change of course would have required a vote.”
Abernethy said the decision to request the audit was largely financial.
After “looking at the cost associated with a (special assistant attorney general), our very limited available funds … the best, most effective course of action was requesting the Department of Audits and Accounts perform its statutory responsibilities,” he said.
While Olens ultimately appoints and pays outside attorneys, those costs are passed on to the requesting agency.
About the Author
