Rome votes to adopt new ethics ordinance
Ƈ A code of conduct and City of Civility resolution also passed.
Rome City Commissioners approved a revised ethics ordinance unanimously Monday after fatal flaws in the city’s ethics complaint process were revealed in 2023.
In its 20-plus year history the ordinance hadn’t been used once, that is until 2023 when four ethics complaints were filed — and later dismissed. Three of those were filed by political opponents of commissioners who were seeking reelection.
The first complaint, filed against Commissioner Mark Cochran, exposed the flaws in the system at a significant financial cost to both the city and the commissioner. Cochran was the only board member not present Monday, due to a death in the family.
The revised ordinance, alongside added resolutions concerning civility and a code of conduct, were reviewed prior to the vote.
The new ethics ordinance specifically contains several key provisions to correct issues in the previous one — like an initial review and a block on complaints filed during the election season.
The previous ethics ordinance had no review measure, which meant any complaint immediately went to a quasi-indictment hearing. In that case, a board of appointed regional mayors would look at presented evidence and determine if the complaint should move forward to what essentially amounts to a trial.
A review process by an attorney has been added to the new ordinance. Any complaint filed in the City Clerk’s office will be reviewed with the burden of proof on the complainant. The charged city official will have 15 days to file a response, but is not obligated to do so.
Once that 15 day answer period is over, the attorney will review the complaint to see if the accusations made are within the scope of the ordinance, and if the evidence provided is sufficient to move forward.
If the complaint moves forward, there will be a hearing where evidence may be
presented in a quasi-trial. There is also a time limit in which the complaint must be heard. Investigations must be completed within 45 days of the filing of the complaint, and within 10 days there must be a recommendation report presented to the mayor and remainder of the city commission.
At that point, a person violating the ordinance is subject to public or private reprimand by the commission, a request for resignation by the commission or removal from office in accordance with state laws.
Similar to the previous ordinance, it appears that a commissioner who violates the ordinance — but not the law — could choose to ignore a request for resignation.
Also, the new ordinance more specifically defines who is governed by it and what constitutes an ethical violation. The ordinance applies to city commissioners, the city attorney and municipal judges.
What constitutes an ethical violation is a bit more nuanced. Essentially, a commissioner should not vote on any measure in which they, or a family member, have a significant financial interest — approximately $5,000 or more. There are also additional guidelines concerning service on various boards, what constitutes a conflict of interest or the acceptance of gifts or favors, and the disclosure thereof.
The ordinance also defines what constitutes the misuse of city property or unauthorized use of city staff. Essentially, if a member of the general public cannot do something, neither can a commissioner.
It also sets up a statute of limitations for a complaint. No action can be taken on a complaint filed later than one year from the incident or six months from the date the complainant knew of the violation.
To stave off the filing of complaints for political purposes, no complaints will be accepted against commissioners from the date qualifying opens to the date that election is certified.