Commissioners to consider changes to ethics ordinance

Limits on who can make complaints, and for what, eyed.

After two county commissioners were subject to hear- ings following complaints about their speech, Gwinnett County is proposing changes to its ethics ordinance.

Broadly, the changes would limit who can make an ethics complaint and narrow the issues subject to a complaint. The revised ordinance also ends the ability to file a com- plaint against someone who has left county employment. The changes are being con-

sidered after two instances in which people who lived outside Gwinnett County pursued ethics complaints against county commission- ers for their speech — Tommy Hunter’s derogatory Face- book posts about Democrats and U.S. Rep. John Lewis; and Marlene Fosque’s com- ments about an anti-illegal immigration activist in a pub

lic meeting.

Hunter was reprimanded in 2017, while county com- missioners in 2020 dropped the complaint against Fosque after the ethics board recom- mended she receive a written warning.

David Will, an attorney who chaired the ethics board for

both those cases, said he is glad to see the county proposing changes. He had suggested limits on who can file a complaint, he said.

Will said he thought Gwinnett officials had seen the effects of having a broad ordi- nance, and it made sense to ensure it was enforceable. “You want whatever ordi-

nance is there to work and work well,” he said. “If it’s not working to accommo- date what you hope to do, then tweak it.”

The new ordinance, which county commissioners are scheduled to consider today, limits those who can make a complaint to any county resident, county employee or business with a presence in the county or that transacts business with the county. It also separates aspirational

language about how county officials comport themselves from actionable areas, labeling the latter as Standards Enforceable by Complaint.

And it says complaints can’t be processed or filed once someone is out of office or no longer employed by the county. That change was con- cerning to Will, who said com- plaints should still be able to be made so issues come to light.

Dwight Thomas, an attorney who is representing Hunter in a federal lawsuit against the county, said he thought the changes were “a reasonable thing to do to avoid further litigation.”

An ordinance that allows people to police political speech is not sustainable, Thomas said.

Other experts said the changes Gwinnett was proposing were beneficial, but said the ordinance was in some ways still problematic.

Carla Miller, the president of Cityethics, said she supported the separation of enforce- able ethics provisions — like not using confidential information obtained from the county to benefit oneself — from aspirational behavior.

The previous ordinance mixed the two, she said, which led to complaints about elected officials’ speech.

But she said she worries that no one from outside the county can file a complaint, even if they have knowledge of an ethical lapse, and there’s no way to make a complaint anonymously.

“It’s an overreaction to having a poorly drafted ethics code to begin with,” Miller said. “It’s an overreaction to a painful time period.”

Miller also expressed concerns about existing parts of the ordinance, like the county attorney’s role in disseminat

ing the complaint and the fact that the ethics board is newly created for each complaint instead of being a standing body. She also said there weren’t adequate whis- tleblower protections.

“There’s many areas here where the process can be manipulated and favoritism can enter into it,” Miller said.