Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Ethics topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners reject proposal to require internal review before filing ethics complaints

Fulton County Board of Commissioners · November 19, 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

After a heated debate, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners voted down an ordinance that would have required commissioners to attempt informal resolution or seek internal review before filing ethics complaints against colleagues. Opponents said it would politicize an independent process.

The Fulton County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 19 defeated an ordinance that would have changed the county’s ethics process by requiring commissioners to meet among themselves and attempt informal resolution before filing a formal ethics complaint.

Commissioner Bridget Thorne sponsored the proposal, saying it was intended to reduce frivolous filings and the county expense of litigated complaints. "Before you file a complaint that you actually talk to the Commissioner and see if you can reconcile it before you make the County pay for litigation," a sponsor said during debate.

Opponents, including Commissioner Mo Ivory, argued the change would insert the board into an independent process and allow a voting majority to block complaints. "If a ethics process is supposed to be independent of us, why would we then need to rule on whether an ethics complaint moves forward?" Ivory asked, adding that such a change risks eroding public trust.

Commissioner Dana Barrett warned the board not to become "the arbiters of what is frivolous and baseless," saying the ethics board — not other commissioners — should determine whether a matter proceeds. Points of order and repeated interruptions marked a lengthy debate that focused on due process, costs to taxpayers and the risk of political gatekeeping.

After calls for the question and procedural votes, the main motion failed (meeting transcript records the motion as failing with 1 yay, 3 nays and 1 abstention).