There were two last minute additions to the Monday Night City Council Agenda as shown below and the two links immediately below documents the only information provided to Council for the December 9th meeting..
Discussion of Request for Reimbursement of Legal Fees for September 12, 2013 Board of Ethics Hearing. (Dr. Adrian Bonser)
Review of the Final Report from the Hearing Officer Dennis Still and the Board of Ethics Recommendations. (Steven Blaske)
Very similar items were listed on the October 14th meeting agenda but at the start of that meeting Councilwoman Bonser deferred the items pulling them from the agenda and is just now bringing back the reimbursement item and Ethics Chairman Steven Blaske is now bringing back the review of the final report. The Oct 14th agenda item includes a receipt for legal expenses whereby no receipts were submitted for the December 9th meeting.
Request by Council Member Adrian Bonser for City Council Review of Ethics Board Recommendation Regarding Stephen Chipka Ethics Complaint Against Council Member Bonser Dated 5-21-13. (Adrian Bonser)Councilmember Bonser has a $3,000 expense account for City expenses but defending yourself in an ethics hearing could easily be deemed outside the typical expense, especially whereby the decision of the hearing officer stated that the complaint was a frivolous, unjustified, derogatory and brought to be a nuisance to Councilmember Bonser.
Ethics hearing officer findings in Bonser / Chipka complaint.
Minutes of Ethics Hearing on 09122013 in favor of Councilwoman Bonser
ACTION ITEM: Request by Council Member Adrian Bonser for Reimbursement of Legal Fees Associated with Ethics Complaint Filed by Stephen Chipka Against Council Member Adrian Bonser Dated 5-21-13. (Adrian Bonser)
Legal expenses of Councilwoman Bonser defending Chipka Complaint.
That being said, the annual expense account as outlined in the Charter states that ...
The mayor shall be provided an annual expense allowance of $5,000.00 and each councilmember shall be provided an annual expense allowance of $3,000.00 for the reimbursement of expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the mayor and councilmembers in carrying out their duties as elected officials of the city.I wish a memo was provided by Councilmember Bonser outlining the basis of her request as well as a full accounting of the reimbursement being requested. There is no other language in the charter or otherwise that allows reimbursing expenses in excess of the $3,000 amount prescribed. But that being said, it could be a fair request for the city to cover the charges of defending a frivolous complaint that probably should have been squashed on the front end of the process.
I believe Council has the power to expend the funds to cover the expense if it decides to do so.
I believe that Council would be well served on Monday night to flip these two items whereby Mr. Blaske reviews the final report before Councilmember Bonser discusses possible reimbursement.
In the final paragraph of the report, the recommendation of the ethics board was that Mr. Steven Chipka should be forced to pay the reasonable costs of processing his frivolous complaint. That raises the issue, can the city legally charge Mr. Chipka with the expenses of the process and hearing and if so, does that include Councilmember Bonser's legal expenses in excess of her allowed $3,000 expense account?
Section 2-262 of Dunwoody code says yes but I question; Mr. Chipka is not a "public servant" therefore I do not see applicability of the Article (Article VIII - Ethics in Chapter 2 Administration of City Code) as outlined in Sec 2-209 Declaration of policy, Sec 2-210 Purposes of article, Sec 2-211 Applicability of article or furthermore an allowance to collect such sanctions against Mr. Chipka in Sec 2-213 Penalties.
I look forward to the discussion and questioning all parties involved.
10 comments:
"hat being said, the annual expense account as outlined in the Charter states that ...
The mayor shall be provided an annual expense allowance of $5,000.00 and each councilmember shall be provided an annual expense allowance of $3,000.00 for the reimbursement of expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the mayor and councilmembers in carrying out their duties as elected officials of the city"
These legal fees she is requesting are to cover cost of an ethics charge for behavior not for something she did in her official role as a council person
The fact that the Ethics Board felt the charge was worth hearing in the first place nullifies and frivolous claims.
The case is close and Mr. Blake can add no testimony or opinion to the closed case
Any action by this council to pay her personal legal fees is nothing more than further enabling her bad behavior and conduct.
Oh yeah , then let's give her a huge proclamation for all the good she has done foe the city
It is, unfortunately, easy to get distracted by the smoke and mirrors. The fact is that councilmember Bonser helped write and approve the ethics procedure, and has a couple of the board members who seem to have a biased empathy toward her. So if she had faith in the people on the ethics board and the process that she helped define, why did she feel the need to hire a lawyer? HER CHOICE.
As to the claim of "frivolous" charges, I am pretty sure that Mr. Chipka did not set out to intentionally file "frivolous" claims, nor have I seen any evidence that was his intent. I believe HE felt his claims were justified. So the outcome should not be the deciding factor - truly frivolous or unwarranted, invalid claims should not get past the smell test, and there is a smell test in place. But these 3 did, and he had a right to be heard. Who would in their right mind ever file a claim, knowing that the outcome could later be deemed "frivolous"? Ridiculous.
City Council is being gracious with the proclamation, given her antics - too bad Adrian can't accept that and move on as graciously with HER life.
Hey gentlemen, I'm down here in Mexico doing a photo shoot for my submission of the "The Crier Travels to Mexican Border Town - Los Algodones with the CopperHead Hunter - Gary Ray Betz" for that respective periodical's feature, but I'm willingly taking time out to say - Ya's got's to pay the lady, boys!
You ain't paying these council folks enough for them to be hiring an attorney for every frivolous little ethics complaint. And this one was indefensibly trivial, not arguably petty and ludicrous, but factually actually was insignificant and captious! The councilwoman was much more civil in her replies than I would have been.
Continuing to beat a drum against the lady regarding this non-incident only makes your other allegations against her look suspect. Be encouraged by the change to cooler air and just chill, boys, just chill.
Gary Ray - if the charges were truly that frivolous, why do you think she felt the need for a lawyer?? If you want to reimburse her, pull out your own checkbook, but don't expect ME to pay for something that was done of her own volition.
I agree with dpgroupie. Why would she feel the need for an attorney if this was frivolous? I suspect since she publially admitted guilt of breaching the Executive Session, along with the fact that she was found guilty by the Ethics Board in the first Chipka complaint, she must have felt her past 2 strikes weren't going to get ignored.
Gary Ray - who do you think you are insulting us like that because we don't agree with you? Your bias is clear, and the whole bottle of Patron and the dime bag won't give YOU the much needed epiphany, so why don't you just stop reading the comments on this story if you can't handle it??
There is no fine with an ethics judgement. It would be ones prerogative of their own to hire an attorney. This matter tonight will be setting precedence.
Post a Comment