This time around, notice to the public was provided.
Chairman Joe Swann stated that the re-do meeting was in response to a recent lawsuit "challenging the adequacy of the notice provided to the public of its December 15, 2008, meeting."
He didn't state that he was put on notice of the violation of Tennessee's Open Meetings Act on January 22, but simply ignored the violation and did nothing until AFTER the lawsuit was filed on February 17. More on the lawsuit here.
Ethics Chair Joe Swann noted that this corrective meeting was to "re-visit" the December meeting concerning the county's disciplinary actions involving county employees Paul King and Frank Parker.
Joe outlined the procedure for yesterday's meeting by saying that (1) he was going to read the minutes of the December 15 meeting into the record, (2) open the meeting for public comment on the disciplinary actions involving Frank Parker and Paul King, (3) take further comments, if any, from the Committee, and (4) then he "would ask for a motion that we approve, affirm, and ratify by its entirety the actions taken at the prior committee meeting."
The Ethics Committee is composed of Chair Joe Swann, Stancil Ford, Bill Brittain, James Harrison, and Jack Cartwright. Bill Brittain was not at the December 15 meeting. Bill was at yesterday's meeting but recused himself from voting after I pointed out a conflict of interest on his part.
During public comments, I presented information and documents concerning the Parker and King situations. I asked the Committee to not only consider the Victim Albert Walker this time around but to recognize that their recommendation in regard to Paul King and Frank Parker will set a standard for ethical conduct of employees and will have a far-reaching impact on future ethics concerns.
Gwen Holden stated her concern for honesty in county employees and mentioned that this was not King's first criminal violation.
Not surprisingly, the Committee then took a vote and unanimously approved, affirmed, and ratified the same actions it had taken in December.
Ethics?In its very first vote of consequence, the "Ethics" Committee set a very low standard for county employees.
The Ethics Committee decided to recommend and approve the transfer of county employees who lie and steal to other taxpayer-funded county jobs--with a pay reduction in the process.
Should the Ethics Committee be faced with future ethics violation, its endorsement on March 11 of continued employment for those who lie and steal in the course of their county employment will be the standard against which all other ethics violations are measured.
Prior to the vote, I asked Trustee Bill Brittain to recuse himself from any discussion or vote because of his inclusion as reference #2 on Frank's initial diversion request. I suggested that Brittain's recusal would remove any appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest on his part.
After being asked, Brittain did recuse himself, stating that he agreed that it would be "proper" for him to step aside. Brittain then added that he had supplied "a letter."
Mayor David Purkey, who was listed as reference #1 on court documents filed by Frank and Paul, had earlier asked that the record reflect that "neither was I asked nor would I have provided a reference in a court of law for either of these employees."
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for Frank and Paul from their supervisor.
Purkey would not provide a "reference" for either employee? Purkey provided the ultimate reference for Frank and Paul in continuing to provide a taxpayer-funded job for each of them. Purkey's reference may not have been in a court of law, but it was the "reference" that Frank and Paul were most concerned with.
No comments:
Post a Comment