More from Atlanta: The Usefulness of Advisories and of Seeking Comments on Draft Advisory Opinions

According to the Atlanta ethics office's fall newsletter, the Atlanta Board of Ethics reached a settlement with a council member who sought reimbursement from the city for costs related to her campaign newsletter, including payments to campaign workers who distributed it door-to-door in her district just before the 2009 election. She agreed to a fine of $1,500, plus restitution of $5,200 for city funds used to pay campaign expenses. In addition, the council member publicly apologized for her actions.

It so happens that an ethics advisory had been mailed in 2009 to all municipal candidates, telling them not to hand out city-funded newsletters while soliciting votes.

The advisory also includes other uses of city property during political campaigns, including city staff. This sort of advisory should be sent to all candidates around the time campaigns get started, because this sort of conduct is probably the most common ethics violation there is. Not only does the advisory provide clear guidelines to candidates but, by posting the guidelines online, the ethics board also lets the public and the news media know what the rules are, so that they can help provide oversight (in this case, a citizen filed a complaint the day after the election).

In addition, the fall newsletter asks for comments on a proposed advisory opinion regarding what personal interests require elected officials to disclose and recuse themselves from voting on a matter. Comments are welcome now, to be considered by the ethics board at its November 18 meeting. I intend to study the opinion and, if I make a comment, I'll include it in a blog post. Here's the conclusion part of the draft advisory opinion which, by the way, cites the City Ethics Model Code as one of several different approaches to this issue.

Disqualification is more likely to occur when the matter affects the official directly, involves a reasonably foreseeable financial interest, and will result in a clear and certain personal benefit or loss; the benefit accrues to a small identifiable group; and the vote is on a specific contract or grant. On the other hand, disqualification is less likely to be required when the official is not directly affected; there is no reasonably foreseeable financial interest of the official, a family member, or a business associate; any potential benefit is uncertain and contingent on other acts; and the matter affects a large segment of the public or is part of the annual budget.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---