In the wake of a grand jury investigation, Gwinnett's Board of Commissioners will consider a new ethics ordinance Tuesday that says anyone trying to sell land to the county would be required to disclose financial relationships with elected officials.
The proposal also would require anyone seeking a county contract to disclose financial ties to elected officials. And it would require anyone who does business with Gwinnett or tries to influence a commission decision to report spending on public officials.
Tuesday’s vote comes a year after a special grand jury indicted a commissioner on a felony count of bribery and blasted Gwinnett officials for paying too much for land in deals that benefited political cronies at the expense of taxpayers.
Chairwoman Charlotte Nash said the proposal is “not just a response to what might have happened in the past, but an acknowledgment that we owe an obligation to the public to handle ourselves appropriately.” She expects the measure will pass.
In 2009, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution uncovered a series of land deals in which Gwinnett commissioners bought property based on inflated appraisals. In each case, commissioners advocating the deal had ties to developers or others involved.
A special grand jury later investigated five Gwinnett land deals and confirmed the newspaper’s findings. In a report released last October, jurors said commissioners paid millions of dollars too much for parkland in a series of deals that used taxpayer money to bail out commissioners’ friends and associates.
The jury indicted then-Commissioner Kevin Kenerly on charges of bribery and failing to disclose financial interests in two properties the county rezoned. It considered indicting then-Chairman Charles Bannister for perjury but allowed him to resign instead.
The jury also recommended a review of Gwinnett’s ethics ordinance.
The ordinance, enacted in 1993, prohibits employees and elected officials from having a financial interest in county contracts. It also requires them to disclose any personal interest in proposed legislation and prohibits them from accepting gifts worth $100 or more.
A 2007 study by the University of Georgia’s Carl Vinson Institute of Government found Gwinnett’s ethics ordinance was similar to those in Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton and 18 other counties studied in Georgia and across the country.
Nash said Gwinnett’s proposed new rules would still be in line with those in other local jurisdictions. She said they will clarify reporting requirements for public officials and extend them to companies that do business with Gwinnett.
Beth Brown, communications director for the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, said attorneys for the organization are not aware of other counties that require private companies and individuals to file disclosure statements.
"Typically, the burden is on the local elected official and not the person seeking a contract," Brown said.
Debbie Dooley, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots and a frequent critic of county government, welcomed Gwinnett's proposed ethics changes. She called them “an essential step in helping restore the confidence of Gwinnett County residents in the Board of Commissioners.”
The Gwinnett proposal would:
- Require anyone selling land to the county to disclose any direct or indirect financial interest in the property held by any elected official. The disclosure would be a mandatory precondition to closing on the deal.
- Require anyone seeking a county contract to disclose the names of elected officials they employ or who have a financial interest in the business, its affiliates or subcontractors. A business that hires or develops a financial relationship with an elected official after receiving a contract would have to disclose it within five days.
- Require any person or business that spends more than $100 a year on any county official to disclose the expenses. The rule applies to anyone who has or seeks a county contract, is regulated by the county or seeks to influence a commission action.
- Establish a revised ethics board to hear complaints of violations. Currently, an ethics panel consisting of two members of the current grand jury reviews complaints filed with the district attorney.
Under the new proposal, a hearing officer would ensure complaints meet technical requirements before they are reviewed by an ethics board. The board would consist of one member appointed by commissioners, another by the district attorney from among current grand jurors and a third by the president of the Gwinnett County Bar Association.
The proposed ethics rules are Gwinnett’s latest response to the grand jury report. In July, commissioners approved new rules for buying land that -- among other things -- require employees to report any contact with someone advocating a land purchase.
The story so far
Beginning in 2009, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on a series of questionable Gwinnett County land deals. As a result of that investigation:
A special grand jury spent 10 months investigating Gwinnett land purchases. Jurors concluded county commissioners paid millions of dollars too much for land in deals that benefited associates at the expense of taxpayers.
The jury indicted then-Commissioner Kevin Kenerly on a felony count of bribery. The Georgia Court of Appeals has ruled the jury did not have the power to indict Kenerly. District Attorney Danny Porter has appealed the issue to the Georgia Supreme Court. Meanwhile, a second grand jury has indicted Kenerly on the same charge.
Commission Chairman Charles Bannister resigned rather than face a perjury charge from the grand jury.
In July, Gwinnett commissioners approved new land-acquisition rules.
On Tuesday, commissioners will consider new ethics rules.
About the Author
