Villa Rica delays Board of Ethics appointments after council cites process, ordinance gaps
Loading...
Summary
Mayor named three Ethics Board candidates but councilmembers expressed concern about missing application packets, inconsistent notice and an unresolved complaint under the current ethics ordinance. Council agreed to withdraw one recommendation and table appointments until April.
The Villa Rica City Council on March 11 postponed finalizing appointments to the newly reconstituted Board of Ethics after councilmembers said they had not received full application materials and raised questions about the ethics ordinance.
Mayor Leslie McPherson announced three nominations for the board, including Herschel Barth (Mayor’s appointment), Luz Morales (council appointment) and Connie Flowers (mayoral recommendation for council approval). Several councilmembers said they had not seen application materials until late in the day; staff confirmed an application for one candidate was emailed to council at about 3:30 p.m. the afternoon of the meeting. Council members requested more time to interview candidates and review applications.
Council also flagged substantive gaps in the city’s ethics ordinance: the ordinance lacks specified term lengths for members, has no clear background‑check requirement for board service and had not been updated or used in many years. Councilmember comments referenced a pending ethics complaint that must be processed under the current ordinance, limiting how retroactive changes could apply.
To ensure a majority on the board and permit completion of the pending complaint process, the council voted unanimously to table the remaining appointment(s) and asked the mayor to withdraw the recommendation for one slot and resubmit it at the April meeting after members have had time to review applications. Staff told council that applications had been received earlier but, by practice, were sent to council when a formal referral was made; staff also said the city previously attached applications to agenda packets but has since changed that practice for privacy reasons.
Councilmembers suggested changes to the ordinance ahead of future appointments, including specifying terms (several members recommended a one‑year, calendar‑year term to finish 2025), and adding a background‑check provision for ethics board members. Staff and the city attorney noted that any ordinance changes would apply prospectively and would not alter the processing of an already filed complaint.
Council directed staff to return in April with candidate materials, clarified procedures for distributing applications, and to place the ethics‑ordinance review on a future work session so council can refine language and process before additional appointments are confirmed.
