DIGGING DEEPER
The ethics complaint filed against Cobb Commission Chairman Tim Lee is based largely on stories in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that detailed the chairman’s off-the-books hiring of attorney Dan McRae to negotiate a preliminary agreement with the Braves. The newspaper first questioned Lee about McRae’s role in the negotiations after reviewing dozens of drafts of the agreement that were passed between McRae and the Braves.
(insert myAJC.com logo here)
How local governments spend taxpayer money is a hallmark of The AJC’s investigative journalism. Dig deeper with exclusive documents and videos that explain the deal Cobb County struck with the Braves, only at MyAJC.com.
The private attorney for Cobb Commission Chairman Tim Lee on Tuesday filed a request that the county’s ethics board reconsider its decision to proceed with a full-blown hearing in a complaint filed against him in August.
West Cobb software salesman Tom Cheek’s complaint alleges Lee improperly hired an off-the-books attorney to negotiate a preliminary agreement with the Atlanta Braves to build the team a new stadium, was not responsive to requests for documents under Georgia’s Open Records Act and used private email accounts to skirt the open records law.
The complaint mirrors an Atlanta Journal-Constitution investigation that showed Lee secretly hired attorney Dan McRae to negotiate the initial Braves agreement with $400 million of public money — and to issue up to $397 million in debt for stadium construction.
Lee made the hire without the knowledge or consent of his fellow commissioners, or the county attorney, who is the only person authorized to hire outside legal counsel. County County attorney Deborah Dance eventually hired other law firms to perform the legal work.
The ethics board ruled Oct. 21 that they would proceed with a full hearing because Lee had failed to avoid “the appearance of impropriety” with those actions.
The motion was filed by Lee’s attorney, David Cole, and it says the “appearance of impropriety” is not the basis for potential disciplinary action because the county’s code of ethics says only that elected officials “should” avoid such appearances, not that they “shall” or “must” avoid it.
The motion, which is backed by an affidavit by Patrick Longan, an expert in ethics and professionalism in the practice of law at Mercer University, says:
- The ethics board applied the wrong legal standard in its finding, using the appearance of impropriety standard "as opposed to one limited to conduct involving partiality in decision making."
- The term appearance of impropriety is "unconstitutionally vague because it … does not clearly define the conduct that it prohibits.
- The ethics board has not provided Lee with due process because it failed to identify the facts upon which it relied.
“Chairman Lee wants the board to know that he respects the board’s decision, the work it does, and the process it must follow to review complaints,” the motion says. “He will fully cooperate in all matters related (to) this complaint and looks forward to its resolution.”
About the Author
