A lack of specifics led a Waycross Ethics Board to recommend dismissal of a complaint last week against the city for a lack of diligence in oversight of spending on city-issued credit cards.
The panel rejected the validity of allegations by citizen Glenn “Martin” Gray at a meeting Wednesday, January 15 in City Hall by a 4-1 vote. The board said Gray’s complaint failed to detail specific instances of possible ethics violations by the city or those in a position of responsibility for oversight.
Ethics Board Chairman Rev. Fer-Rell Malone was to present the board’s recommendation to the Waycross City Commission at its meeting Tuesday, January 21.
It was the second ethics complaint recommended to commissioners for dismissal. Commissioners accepted a recommendation for dismissal of a complaint by citizen Shawn Sanders charging ethical violations against Commissioners Diane Hopkins and Katrena Felder in December.
A third complaint, charging Felder with misuse of her city-issued credit card and attending a partisan event while on city business, remains active. Commissioners accepted the board’s December 13 recommendation earlier this month of prosecution in Waycross Municipal Court.
The commission also recommended the Georgia Bureau of Investigation look at Felder’s card use during her previous three years in office to validate and determine if any criminal actions have occurred.
Gray’s complaint was filed December 5 while citizen Clayton Nelson’s complaint against Felder was still being discussed. Testimony in the case fueled Gray’s allegations.
The decision on Gray’s complaint came after a board training session. Discussion of the complaint followed, leading to an executive session and finally the decision.
In his summary of the grievance, Interim City Attorney Huey Spearman said the city’s “lack of diligence (in oversight of credit card use) raises serious ethical concerns and poses significant risks to the integrity of the city’s financial management.”
The complaint’s detailed observations included: • absence of established policies and oversight protocols; • failure to conduct regular audits;
• inadequate reporting and transparency;
• potential for abuse;
• impact on the ethics of leadership.
These observations were presented to the board composed of Ossie Andrews, Dr. Earl Martin, Tim Peacock, and Dr. Jené Walker and Malone.
After Spearman’s explaination, Malone contended the complaint was “an overview” lacking “exact factual” documentation showing this has been a problem with the city.
Dr. Martin asked, “Where is the violation and who did it?” He said everything he saw was very general and vague.
Spearman referenced the timing of Gray’s filing (December 5) and the recommendation on Felder’s (December 13) in responding. He said upon receipt of a complaint in its proper form, the board reviews the complaint to determine whether it’s justified, frivolous, patently unfounded, or fails to state facts sufficient to invoke disciplinary jurisdiction.
“Were there enough or any facts alleged at the time (the complaint) was received that would support violations?” Spearman asked. “Keep in mind, this complaint was dated December 5, before any finding of facts were made in the other case.”
He said a complaint can’t be filed while waiting for a development to occur later and then claim the development relates to the new complaint.
“You have to decide whether you see any facts in this complaint, not just broad allegations,” Spearman said. “Who did what and where and when was it done?”
Peacock asked why Gray couldn’t come before the board to present any specifics he might have through open records requests, etc. He referenced Nelson’s appearance before the board in the Felder case to elaborate on his complaint.
Spearman said the difference was specific dates, instances and actions were included in the Nelson complaint.
Nelson was called to provide support to the enumerated allegations, he said.
“Mr. Nelson initially alleged something specific,” Spearman said.
Dr. Martin moved for an executive session. Upon reconvening, Dr. Walker moved the complaint be dismissed as frivolous “because it lacks facts and specificity.” Dr. Martin offered a second.
Walker, Martin, Andrews, and Malone voted in favor of dismissal while Peacock voted against.
