Atlanta Schools Ethics Controversy Decimates Ethics Commission
An ethics controversy involving the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) has
led to the resignation of four of the seven members of the APS ethics
commission, a failure to replace them, and a threat to the schools'
accreditation status.<br>
<br>
The story starts in 2010, when ethics complaints were filed against
school board members for misuse of credit cards. According to <a href="http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/08/18/state-school-board-me…; target="”_blank”">a
post in the Atlanta <i>Journal-Constitution</i> Get Schooled blog last August</a>,
a state school board member said that serious infighting on the APS
school board was an attempt to protect one school board member from the
ethics charges (the following month, the APS school board elected a new
chair and vice-chair). The state school board member also criticized
the ethics commission chair, whom he felt was not capable of handling
the ethics proceeding.<br>
<br>
According to the <a href="http://www.atlantapublicschools.us/186110117213326290/lib/1861101172133…; target="”_blank”">Report
of the Special Review Team for Atlanta Public Schools</a> (the review
was done last December), the APS school board member was fined $2,500,
had his charge card revoked, and faced having a school board reprimand
read into the minutes. But, due to a 4–4 vote, the reprimand was not
read into the record.<br>
<br>
Then sometime this year, a complaint was filed against four APS school
board members, charging that they had taken free services from a public
relations firm before granting it a contract. According to <a href="http://buckheadview.blogspot.com/2011/04/aps-ethics-commission-is-rende…; target="”_blank”">John
Schaffner's Buckhead View blog</a>, in April of this year, three of the
seven EC members resigned before the EC could meet to begin an
investigation. Five members are needed to investigate, so the
investigation was halted. A fourth member resigned this week, according
to <a href="http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/interspire/news/2011/06/14/aps-et…; target="”_blank”">an
article from Atlanta <i>Progressive News<i></a>.<br>
<br>
<b>Selecting New EC Members</b><br>
There has been a controversy over replacement of the EC members, since
at least two of those who, according to the ordinance, are to select
the replacements are respondents in proceedings before the EC. No
action has been taken to replace the EC members and, therefore, no
action has been taken on the complaints.<br>
<br>
One school board member told Atlanta Progressive News that the board
was reconsidering its
nomination process, but a policy change is not necessary. That is, the school
board members who, under law, must individually appoint replacements (and must do so within 90 days) do
not need to actually select those replacements themselves or wait for the selection process to be changed. Each school board member obliged to appoint a new EC member could
ask one or more community organizations, with whom they have no ties
(e.g., a bar association), to make the selection. Any delay causes the public to believe that the school board does not want the investigation to proceed.<br>
<br>
<b>One EC Member's Resignation Letter</b><br>
One of the most fascinating things about this mess is what the fourth
EC member to resign wrote in his resignation letter:<ul>
Those sworn to apply written law may encounter a case in which being
faithful to their duty will require them to commit a grave individual
injustice. But to circumvent explicit law under any pretext is a
greater attack on the rule of law than such an anomaly. There is,
however, another appropriate response in a case where either decision
has grave consequences for society as a whole. It may be legally
proper, ethically necessary, and socially constructive for an
adjudicator to resign rather than render a judgment, declaring the
principle at stake.<br>
<br>
... At the time the Board member recommended approval of a proposal for
public relations efforts in support of official Board policies, [he]
was receiving pro bono services from the same company for the same
purpose. Thus in the process of fulfilling his responsibilities, he
made a technical mistake, i.e., he failed to recuse himself from making
a recommendation regarding a proposal before the Board. The intent as
well as the result was in pursuit of his responsibility for the benefit
of the Atlanta Public Schools and without any personal benefit. Indeed,
as soon as an issue was raised, he sought a judgment on impropriety
from the Ethics Commission. It is my conviction that there was no
possible intentional conflict of interest.<br>
<br>
Nevertheless, I refuse to violate the letter of the law by voting to
exonerate the accused. If holding the accused responsible
entailed only a serious injustice to one whose actions were honorable,
I would consider it a necessary consequence in defense of Law. But I
will not commit this injustice to an individual when either decision
would also have profoundly deleterious consequences for many critically
important issues which the Board of Education now faces.</ul>
What seems like a very honorable position in the face of a serious
conflict between doing justice and following the law seems questionable
for three reasons. One, the investigation of this issue is not
proceeding, so there is no reason to believe that, any time in the near
future, the EC will be making a decision involving any school board
member. Two, there is no reason to believe that what he wrote about the
respondent will not be considered mitigating circumstances that will allow
the EC to both do justice and follow the law.<br>
<br>
And three, it is not clear that what the EC member wrote is actually
the case. According to <a href="http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/local_news/ethics-complaints-comin…; target="”_blank”">an
article on the Fox 5 Atlanta website yesterday</a>, the public
relations company that is at the center of the ethics complaint gave
Fox 5 a written statement saying that it "provided pro-bono services to
individual elected officials and never to the Board of Education." In
other words, the services were not, according to the company, for the
benefit of the schools, but for the benefit of the officials.<br>
<br>
What is clear is that now the EC does not have a quorum, and therefore
cannot have a meeting, not to mention investigate complaints. In
effect, there is no APS ethics commission anymore.<br>
<br>
Since the accreditation agency required the school system to follow its own
rules of conduct, it is unlikely that the effective dissolution of the EC and the school
board's failure to replace the members in the shadow of an
investigation will be taken lightly. This very unusual and irresponsible handling of an ethics controversy will instead likely jeopardize the school system's accreditation status.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---