Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Compliance Order topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ethics commission accepts compliance order after Macon‑Bibb authority gave $50,000 to SPLOST committee

State Ethics Commission · June 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The State Ethics Commission found that the Macon‑Bibb County Industrial Authority violated the prohibition on government entities funding campaigns when it gave $50,000 to a SPLOST ballot committee, but accepted a compliance order without a monetary penalty after staff said the authority believed the gift was for educational purposes and no tax funds were used.

The State Ethics Commission on June 12 accepted a compliance order finding the Macon‑Bibb County Industrial Authority violated state law by giving $50,000 to a committee backing a SPLOST ballot measure.

Jermaine, the staff presenter, told commissioners that the authority routinely donates roughly $50,000 each cycle to an educational initiative but that the prior recipient dissolved and the authority subsequently selected a new committee. Staff found email correspondence and invoices indicating the money was intended to "educate the public on SPLOST," and later discovered some of the funds were used for advocacy.

"The industrial authority gave $50,000 in violation of that statute to a ballot initiative in favor of a SPLOST referendum," Jermaine said, summarizing the investigative findings. He added that no tax dollars were spent and that the authority had relied on counsel advice when it made the contribution.

Commission staff recommended a compliance order rather than a monetary penalty, saying the authority’s conduct appeared to stem from a good‑faith mistake about the recipient organization and the funds were private, not public, under the agency’s authority to raise private funds.

Commissioners debated whether compliance orders appropriately signal the commission’s view of a violation while avoiding a fine when mitigation exists. One commissioner framed the compliance order as a middle course between dismissal and a monetary sanction: it recognizes the violation but accounts for extenuating circumstances.

The commission voted to accept the compliance order as presented. Staff said a related case involving another donor to the same campaign remains active and could result in a separate monetary penalty.

The commission’s action places a formal finding on the public record and directs staff to follow up where other related enforcement actions are pending.