Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council opts to revise ethics ordinance; city attorney outlines options including filing fee and time limits
Summary
After debate, the Villa Rica City Council directed staff and the ethics committee to work on revisions to the city's ethics ordinance rather than repeal it. City Attorney Kevin Drummond outlined options such as changing appointment procedures, adding a six‑month filing deadline and a filing fee refundable if a complaint is upheld.
The Villa Rica City Council on Aug. 12 directed city staff and the local ethics committee to work on revisions to the city's ethics ordinance rather than moving forward with a repeal, city officials said during a council meeting and subsequent discussion.
City Attorney Kevin Drummond told the council the item has been on the agenda several times and described two main options: repeal the local ordinance or revise it. Drummond said repeal would not remove ethics provisions in the city charter, and that other remedies — including court actions such as declaratory judgments or mandamus — remain available if someone believes an official acted beyond authority.
Drummond and council members discussed practical problems with the current ordinance, including optics around appointment of ethics committee members by the officials who may be the subject of complaints; the ordinance’s lack of a statute‑of‑limitations, which allows complaints about conduct that occurred many years earlier; and the ordinance’s limited remedies, which currently include an admonition or public reprimand but not removal from office.
As possible fixes, Drummond described: (1) altering how committee members are appointed to improve perceived independence; (2) adopting a time limit for filing complaints (he cited six months as common); and (3) imposing a filing fee to deter frivolous complaints — he noted one county uses a $100 filing fee that is refunded if the complaint is sustained. The ethics committee has discussed potential changes and could work with counsel and the public in a workshop setting, he said.
Council members who spoke — including Councilman McCoy and Councilman Warmoth — said they preferred improving the current ordinance via a workshop rather than repealing it. One council member reiterated past support for repeal and said the ordinance can be costly to process if complaints are numerous or frivolous; that council member emphasized that some remedies may be more effective in court.
No repeal motion was made. The council did not adopt specific ordinance language on Aug. 12 and instead asked staff and the ethics committee to draft revisions and to meet in a workshop for detailed discussion.
