Legislation scheduled to be debated Monday would allow Atlanta's City Council to rein in some of the power of three independent city agencies tasked with enforcing ethics rules, investigating complaints against police officers and auditing the performance and finances of city programs and contractors.
Some ethics enforcers say the changes -- which would give the City Council the power to name the city's ethics officer, internal auditor and director of the Citizen Review Board, a police oversight group -- would inject politics into the appointment process.
"We think the revisions that have been proposed are not revisions that would be in the best interests of ethics in the city of Atlanta," said Caroline Johnson Tanner, the chairwoman of the Board of Ethics. "The code provisions call for an independent ethics office. We feel that is fundamental to ethics in this city."
But Councilman H. Lamar Willis, who is sponsoring the legislation, said fears that the ethics officer's authority or independence would be eroded are overblown.
The City Council would still have no control over ethics rulings, he said. But the council deserves more input on these important positions, he said.
"It is really about council making sure that we are exercising oversight," he said. "It's a reasonable amount of oversight, without being overbearing or interfering with the process. As it stands today, the council has no ability to stop a bad process."
Willis said Atlanta's ethics officer is more powerful than almost any city staffer, with subpoena power and the authority to recommend censure or removal. The Board of Ethics has a $341,000 budget.
"I'm not against having an ethics officer," Willis said. "I voted for it. But the power that the ethics office has is power we delegated to them."
Willis was fined $3,500 last year after the Ethics Board ruled that he accepted money for his foundation from companies and individuals doing business with the city. Willis said the ethics investigation, and his experience with then-ethics officer Ginny Looney, was not the motivation for the proposed changes.
Soon after becoming mayor in 2002, Shirley Franklin pushed for ethics legislation that would create an independent ethics office. That came after City Hall had been rocked by allegations of rampant misconduct in the administration of Franklin's predecessor, Bill Campbell.
The current city code allows the Ethics Board to appoint an ethics officer, subject to confirmation by the City Council and mayor.
Willis' revision would require the board to send the names of the top three finalists, along with "all materials relied upon by the board in making the selections." A City Council subcommittee would then decide on a finalist, who would then have to be approved by the full City Council.
Emmet Bondurant, a board member of the watchdog group Common Cause Georgia, said the proposal threatens to undermine the independence of the Ethics Board. He called it "a really bad idea."
The power struggle over nominations surfaced earlier this month during a meeting in which members of the council debated the nomination of Stacey Kalberman as Atlanta's new ethics officer. Kalberman worked as executive director of Georgia's ethics commission before resigning last year.
Councilman C.T. Martin indicated he would be interested in reeling in the power of the Ethics Board.
"The people elect us," Martin said this month. "At least three commissions we've set up ... have more authority than we have."
About the Author
