Integrity

Section 2-42 of the Cobb County Code reads, “In furtherance of its responsibility to protect the integrity of government and administration of the county and recognizing that its system of representative government is dependent upon the people maintaining the highest trust in their public officials, the board of commissioners finds and declares that the people have a right to be assured that the impartiality and independent judgment of public officials will be maintained. Public interest requires that the county protect against improper influence or the appearance of improper influence by establishing appropriate ethical standards with respect to the conduct of public officials.”

In November, the Chairman of the BoC announced that he had been meeting with a private corporation about a move to Cobb County. The corporation had several stipulations. It wanted the county to pay $300 million towards building their facility, and spend up to $35 million on maintenance over the next 30 years. The deal needed to be done in private, and without public input. The corporation indicated that it would build an additional $400 million complex adjacent to the building, but would not put anything in writing.

Since the law states that the commissioners publicly announce any meeting that involves a quorum and in order to meet privately, the other commissioners found out about the deal less than a week before through a legal maneuver called a ‘rolling quorum’. One commissioner met with the Chairman and corporate officials while the other commissioners waited in the lobby. The commissioners were sworn to secrecy and not allowed to discuss this deal with their constituents or even their families. The commissioners met in the same fashion with the Chamber of Commerce two days after the announcement.

The Board announced that it would vote on a Memo of Understanding on this deal about two weeks after this announcement. After a public outcry, the commissioners hastily threw together some Town Hall Meetings. Most of the meetings were on the same night, the night before the vote, and some at the same time. The meetings generally were stuffed with business supporters in a move to keep out the detractors. One person asked if there could be a public referendum on this deal; the Chairman stated, “No.”

Requests were made to postpone the vote on the MOU by civic groups and sitting Commissioners. Polls said that 81% of the public supported a delay. The requests were denied. The Chairman insisted that timing of the deal was of the utmost importance, and delaying it even two weeks would jeopardize it.

On November 26th, the BoC held its regular meeting with the MOU vote on the agenda. The Public Comment portions of the meetings allow twelve people to speak. The Chairman, who is in the position to run the meetings, allowed twenty people to speak.  The MOU was approved by a 4-1 vote.

In May of this year, the Chairman announced that the Board would vote on the finalized deal at the regular held the day after Memorial Day. The County released the copies of the deal, which was several hundred pages, after business hours on the Friday before Memorial Day. On May 27th during the Public Comments portion, the Chairman only allowed the normal twelve speakers. In this case, the speakers, all supporters organized by a Chamber executive, lined up five hours before the meeting. Others wishing to speak were denied and removed from the meeting over the objections of other commissioners. The Board approved the deal.

No laws were broken during this process. The Chairman has the legal ability to privately negotiate deals to bring economic stimulus to the county. (That Code section was reviewed several years ago with the suggestion that the district commissioner be included in the process. The suggestion was not taken. The Chairman stated that this is normally the process.) With the creative financial plans, a Public Referendum was not legally required. The GA Open Meetings Act was not violated- the Board often uses a ‘rolling quorum’ to iron out details on county issues. The Chairman followed the law in only allowing twelve to speak at the last meeting, and removing the people who were disrupting the meeting.

There is a large gap between doing the legal thing and doing the right thing. Integrity, as mentioned in the Code section above, is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. Section 2-46 of the same Code states, “Officers by their conduct should avoid the appearance of impropriety, and the impression that any person could/can improperly influence them or unduly enjoy their favor in the performance of their official acts or duties.” Although allowed by law, the Chairman clearly did not avoid any appearance of impropriety by meeting in private. The corporate leaders influenced the Chairman and received favors throughout this whole process. The commissioners violated the essence of the GA Open Meetings Act through the use of their ‘rolling quorum’- it certainly did not avoid the appearance of impropriety. When the commissioners agreed to a confidentiality agreement, they agreed to keep secrets from their constituents. The Chairman did not allow opponents equal time during the Public Comments portion because, as he said, he had heard enough.

This deal may be the best thing for Cobb County since sliced bread- time will tell- but when you remove the emotional factors surrounding the nature of the business of the corporate entity, you are left with an ugly truth- the BOC betrayed the people of Cobb County in pursuit of big business. Local government has the responsibility to keep the county safe and running smoothly. A good relationship between the local government and the business community is required- but not at the cost of trust and integrity.