Cedartown City Commissioners hear new round of ethics complaints
Mar 10, 2010 | 1093 views | 8 
| 9 
| 
| 
| 9 | |
Anderson filed a complaint late last year prior to the city election. One of those commissioners targeted last year was Scotty Tillery, who is also the subject of the newest complaint.
Tillery was cleared of any wrongdoing by a newly-seated Ethics Panel composed of appointed city residents last year. He was re-elected to the commission in November.
The new complaint will also be sent to the ethics panel for review.
Anderson’s newest complaint takes aim at a property purchase made by Tillery. Anderson claims the purchase violates ethics policies because the property lies within a new enterprise zone, which provides for tax incentives for business development. Tillery, as a commissioner, voted in favor of creating the enterprise zone.
In a brief response after the meeting, Tillery noted that the enterprise zone covers about two-thirds of the downtown area. “It even includes my house,” he said.
Tillery denied any conflict of interest and said Anderson’s complaint is factually wrong. He said Anderson has improperly cited codes in his complaint that do not apply in this case.
Anderson, Tillery said, “is attempting to make a complaint under the Redevelopment Powers Act. That legislation relates to tax allocation districts and similar public financing tools. In order to use those powers, a local government must request and the General Assembly must grant specific authorization to do so. Then, the proposal must pass in a public referendum. None of that has been done and no use of the Redevelopment Powers Act is planned at this time.”
Tillery adds, “We are actually using the powers of the Urban Redevelopment Act in a limited manner. The ethics clause in that legislation requires members of the City Commission and others involved in decision making to refrain from voluntarily acquiring property in a redevelopment project. The city’s Redevelopment Plan contains no proposals for redevelopment projects and this Commission has approved none.”
Tillery said he was confident the ethics panel would again find that no wrongdoing has occurred.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.
§ 36-61-2. Definitions
(22) "Urban redevelopment project" may include undertakings or activities of a municipality or county in an urban redevelopment area for the elimination and for the prevention of the development or spread of slums and may involve slum clearance and redevelopment in an urban redevelopment area, rehabilitation or conservation in an urban redevelopment area, or any combination or part thereof, in accordance with an urban redevelopment plan. Although the power of eminent domain may not be exercised for such purposes, such undertakings or activities may include: (not must)
(A) Acquisition, without regard to any requirement that the area be a slum or blighted area, of air rights in an area consisting of lands and highways, railway or subway tracks, bridge or tunnel entrances, or other similar facilities which have a blighting influence on the surrounding area and over which air rights sites are to be developed for the elimination of such blighting influences and for the provision of housing and related facilities and uses designed for, and limited primarily to, families and individuals of low or moderate income; and
(B) Construction of foundations and platforms necessary for the provision of air rights sites of housing and related facilities and uses designed for, and limited primarily to, families and individuals of low or moderate income or construction of foundations necessary for the provision of air rights sites for development of nonresidential facilities.
I'd thought pretty much all politicians were crooks, till ol' Richard straightened me out.
Thanks Mipoco for the info on the Committee members. I know three of the four and have no problem with them. Since we don't know their authority or the charge that was given to them at the time, it is hard to draw much of a conclusion as to what "unanimously agreed that Anderson failed to prove his case" really meant. Was it just a matter of semantics or was it "doublespeak" or was it CYA or something more sinister.
At best, an Ethics Committee appointed by the Commission leaves something to be desired.
http://www.thepolkfishwrap.com/view/full_story/4104311/article-Ethics-panel-dismisses-complaints-against-Cedartown-commissioners?
Mr Anderson does good work. There should be a million more like him. Committee members are a different story. Note that their attitude was NOT "we will investigate" but "unanimously agreed that Anderson failed to prove his case". Not much of a committee IMO that faces down allegations rather than doing their own investigation. It sounds as if they handle things the way they are either told or are expected.
Who appointed the Ethics Panel who will "review" this matter?
Who are the Panel members?
What is their term length?
What are their duties?
What are their powers?