Former mayor owns key piece of downtown Avondale

Posted by Dan Whisenhunt October 19, 2014
Ed Rieker

Ed Rieker

Ed Rieker, who resigned as Avondale Estates mayor on Oct. 2, will continue to be a major player in the city’s redevelopment plans because of his purchase of an acre of the city’s downtown in June 2013.

He acquired the property behind the Tudor Village from a creditor in a bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy was the result of a failed development known as Century AG/Avondale that held up progress in the city for years. Six months after the former mayor made his purchase, the city of Avondale Estates bought four more acres from a different creditor in the bankruptcy case.

Rieker recently answered several questions from Decaturish about his purchase. He says it was transparent and didn’t violate the city’s ethics rules.

But behind the scenes two commissioners were asking questions about it. There were concerns that the purchases created a conflict of interest for Rieker.

We uncovered a few other things in the course of our investigation, which began in May:

– One of the buildings Rieker purchased in 2013 was one he had tried to buy from the city’s Downtown Development Authority before he ran for his first term as mayor in 2007.

– Rieker participated in closed-door executive sessions related to the city’s purchase of the four acres that were a part of the same failed development as the property Rieker bought. Rieker said he did not use or benefit from confidential information gleaned in these sessions in the negotiations for his property.

– Rieker bought his property for about $540,000 in 2013. In 2012, the county appraised all four acres at $1.3 million. He says the county’s appraisal is not reliable for determining the property’s true value to a buyer. He said the seller appraised the building at $$626,985.

On June 28, 2013, Rieker sent an email to residents about his purchase.  He said it was “an additional investment” in Avondale Estates.

“Several of the buildings are in really rough shape and have not had any maintenance or infrastructure improvements since before 2007,” the email said. “Despite the condition of the buildings, I am a big believer in the potential of our City and I have been investing and building businesses in Avondale Estates for many years now. I am really excited about bringing these buildings back into usable condition and creating a new asset for the community.”

RiekerEmail

Ed Rieker’s email, dated June 28, 2013.

He soon began leasing his properties, and each new tenant was announced by the city of Avondale via email. While the leases brought business into the city, they also created more potential conflicts for the Rieker.

Commissioner concerns

Commissioner John Quinn investigated the deal after residents came to him with concerns that Rieker’s purchase was a conflict of interest.

“I talked to other members of city government. I talked to people who were involved in commercial real estate. I talked to people who had examined the documents themselves and was given assurances that everything seemed to be on the up and up,” Quinn said. “I had no reason to believe otherwise, but some of the citizens had asked me about it.”

Commissioner Randy Beebe, who was elected after Rieker bought the property, said he started “keeping an eye out” for when the former mayor should recuse himself from voting on matters where he may have a financial interest.

As the economy began to heat up this year, the city commission began considering more items related to its downtown. For instance, commissioners changed city code to allow one of Rieker’s tenants to operate a whiskey distillery. During the Jan. 27 meeting, Rieker left the dais to go sit in the audience to watch as commissioners voted to approve the code changes.

Beebe said Rieker’s ownership of the property made navigating potential conflicts more difficult.

“It was always cumbersome, him owning the property,” Beebe said. “I understood why he did it. I think it was legal the way he did it. I think it was cumbersome the way he did it. You had to be careful that none of it affected his properties. It was something you had to keep somewhere in the back of your mind.”

Mayor Pro Tem Terry Giager said he had no concerns about Rieker’s purchase.

“No, not at all,” Giager said. “That was the catalyst for the growth and development of downtown. That’s what got everything started. When the leader of our city spends his own money to invest in our downtown development, I think we all were applauding him.”

Decaturish asked Giager, who will become mayor once the commission accepts Rieker’s resignation, if he would buy property while serving as an elected official.

“If I had the money he put into it, yeah probably,” Giager said. “As long as I didn’t feel bad ethically.”

12 North Clarendon

Rieker purchased four buildings in all: 10 N. Clarendon Avenue, the Thumbs Up space, 12 North Clarendon Avenue, the Tomahawk Printing/Academy Theater space, 121 Center Street and 127 Center Street, the Global Exports buildings.

The building at 12 North Clarendon was once owned by the city’s Downtown Development Authority.

This is a screen shot of a DeKalb County database showing thie history of ownership of 12 North Clarendon Avenue. We have framed the relevant information with a red box.

This is a screen shot of a DeKalb County database showing thie history of ownership of 12 North Clarendon Avenue. We have framed the relevant information with a red box.

Property records indicate the DDA purchased it for $465,000 in 2004.

We have cross referenced two documents here. The one to the left is the county tax record on 12 North Clarendon. It shows a sale in 2004 with the condition of "public utility or government." The document to the right is attached to property records for 12 North Clarendon. It shows the date the City's Downtown Development Authority Authorized the purchase and sale of the property.

We have cross referenced two documents here. The one to the left is the county tax record on 12 North Clarendon. It shows a sale in 2004 with the condition of “public utility or government.” The document to the right is attached to property records for 12 North Clarendon. It shows the date the City’s Downtown Development Authority Authorized the purchase and sale of the property. Click this image to enlarge.

Warren Hutmacher was the city manager at the time and said that 12 North Clarendon was important to the city’s downtown redevelopment plans, which included extending and realigning Franklin Street so it connects directly with North Clarendon.

“At the time, it was an important piece of the puzzle,” Hutmacher said.

City manager Clai Brown said the city no longer plans to extend Franklin, saying it was tied to the Century AG deal.

This is a slide from the city of Avondale Estates' 2004 Master Plan. It shows the proposed extension of Franklin Street.

This is a slide from the city of Avondale Estates’ 2004 Master Plan. It shows the proposed extension of Franklin Street.

The DDA then sold the building. Hutmacher said the DDA entertained proposals from two interested buyers: one from AG Armstrong, the company that later became Century, and Rieker, before he was elected as mayor in 2007.

Rieker proposed turning the parcel into a business incubator.

“The development authority selected to work with Armstrong, because it was part of a larger plan and Ed’s proposal was to turn the building into an incubator,” Hutmacher said.

Rieker said he wasn’t sure why the DDA rejected his proposal.

“The Downtown Development Authority … wasn’t obligated to give me a reason for not choosing my proposal nor do I recall them providing one,” Rieker said.

He successfully ran for mayor in 2007, unseating incumbent Jerry McCumber.

During the first few years of Rieker’s first term, the economy collapsed, taking AG’s mixed-use development down with it. The developer filed for bankruptcy in 2010.

Bankruptcy1

Rieker won a second term in November 2011, narrowly defeating challenger David Milliron.

In 2012, the bankruptcy ended and the property was distributed to Century’s creditors, providing opportunities for the city and its reelected, entrepreneurial mayor.

Thaw

In September 2012, Century bankruptcy case was resolved. As part of the settlement, some of the property went to creditor Flagstar Bank, which sold four acres to the city of Avondale Estates for $1 million. Cleveland Construction, another creditor, received four parcels that Rieker purchased.

OrderConfirming Chapt 11

Public records show that Avondale Estates City Commissioners held at least six closed-door executive sessions in 2013 to discuss the purchase of real estate.

The records show that Rieker participated in each one. Here are the affidavits he signed for each closed meeting.

He sent an email to other commissioners on Sept. 20, 2013, letting them know that the real estate purchase agreement would be on an upcoming meeting agenda. The email contains a number of details about the Flagstar property.

“Thanks again for your hard work and efforts on this project,” Rieker wrote at the end of the email. “Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can help in any way.”

This is Rieker's letter to commissioners dated Sept. 20.

This is Rieker’s letter to commissioners dated Sept. 20, 2013

City attorneys said four of the executive sessions – held in February, April, June and August of 2013 – were to discuss the purchase of the four acres from Flagstar and the potential purchase of the old Avondale High School. The attorneys declined to clarify which purchases were discussed in which sessions, and declined to release minutes from the executive session, saying the city isn’t legally required to.

The June 5, 2013 executive session occurred just days before Rieker closed on the property he purchased from Cleveland Construction. Records filed with the Secretary of State showed that Rieker formed AR Holdings Two, the company he used to buy the Cleveland Parcels, in May of 2013. He closed on the properties on June 12, 2013. Decaturish could not find a property listing for the parcels that Cleveland sold to Rieker. Attempts to reach Cleveland officials for comment have so far been unsuccessful.

This PT-61 filing shows the date that Ed Rieker purchased property from Cleveland Construction, as well as the purchase price.

This PT-61 filing shows the date that Ed Rieker purchased property from Cleveland Construction, as well as the purchase price.

LLCDomesticInitialFiling

The city’s appraisal for the four acres it purchased from Flagstar shows that the city’s appraiser used Rieker’s property purchase as a comparable sale to determine the value of Flagstar’s property.

Rieker said he learned about the availability of the properties at the end of April 2013. He said he called Cleveland’s home office and learned that the properties were for sale. The company told him there were two other bidders, Rieker said.

He said he didn’t have any inside knowledge about the availability of these properties.

“Cleveland Construction was one of several parties (creditors) to the very public and ongoing bankruptcy proceedings of Century/AG Avondale, LLC since it was announced several years earlier and finally resolved towards the end of 2012,” he said. “The resolution of the bankruptcy and the distribution of the remaining assets to creditors was public information available to all. At no time during this transaction was any confidential city information used, or disclosed that would have advanced or affected the financial outcome of this transaction.”

The public information Rieker’s referring to is contained in bankruptcy records. But people attending Avondale Estates meetings in late 2012 and early 2013 would’ve known about the settlement of the bankruptcy. Records show that Rieker mentioned it on more than one occasion.

Meeting minutes show that Rieker discussed the property during a September 2012 work session. He noted that “Cleveland Construction has title to certain properties.” He discussed Cleveland Construction again during his March 2013 State of the City address.

According to the transcript of that speech, Rieker said, “As you may know, we have been stalled in our efforts for downtown redevelopment during the last four years by the bankruptcy of the developer who owned a large portion of our central business district. Last September the bankruptcy case was settled and Flagstar Bank and Cleveland Construction became the new owners of the property. Flagstar is now marketing the properties to developers.”

Resignation

The announcement on Oct. 2 that Rieker would resign as mayor to take a university teaching job next semester took many by surprise. Rieker had weathered a tense meeting about annexation on Oct. 1. He’d apologized for how he’d handled the annexation issue and gave no hint that he might be ready to move on.

Commissioners will consider voting to accept his resignation letter on Monday, but it’s more of a formality. Rieker has made clear that he has no intention of coming back.

While Rieker and the Mayor Pro Tem didn’t see any problem with Rieker’s purchase, other residents weren’t so sure.

Hoyt Young said he’s “not a fan” of Rieker and his purchase of property didn’t improve Young’s opinion.

“It certainly seemed conflicting,” Young said. “I don’t know who else might’ve been bidding on it, but it seems like it would be a conflict of interest while he was affecting so much of the city’s actions.”

Jonathan Goodson, another Avondale Estates resident, said the former mayor’s purchase and sudden resignation are “very weird.”

He said it would’ve been more appropriate for Rieker to resign after he’d purchased the property to avoid any appearance of a conflict.

“I’m not a big conspiracy theorist, but just seems a little fishy to me,” Goodson said. “ … It seems like things were falling into place in a pretty remarkable manner. If he wanted to be involved in the redevelopment as a private investor, that’s perfectly fine, but I think as the mayor he should’ve made a better choice.”

Not everyone sees it that way. After his resignation, some of Rieker’s supporters started a campaign to convince commissioners to vote against accepting his resignation letter. Some of these letters cited the city’s progress as a reason to keep Rieker around.

“We are ‘new’ here with less than two years as residents, but have been neighbors since 2007, and know he is amazing and has propelled this city forward like no one else has or could,” the email says. “We can’t afford this now!”

About Dan Whisenhunt

Dan Whisenhunt is editor and publisher of Decaturish.com. https://www.linkedin.com/in/danwhisenhunt

View all posts by Dan Whisenhunt

  • docgresh

    I agree that the mayor should have resigned when he decided to become an owner in the project that he oversees as a city official. Clear conflict of interest. Whether he did something illegal is not the same issue as doing something unethical.

  • michael

    Avoiding the appearance of impropriety should be the goal of elected officials. The article is exhaustive in detail of the time line of purchases and meetings. My question is, what does the law say about conflicts and does Avondale have a written ethics policy? Or is it up to individuals to DECIDE what is ethical or not?

    • Mike, here is the City’s Code of Ethics:

      ARTICLE VII. – CODE OF ETHICS FOR CITY OFFICIALS

      FOOTNOTE(S):

      — (4) —

      Editor’s note— Ord. No. 0304, § 1, adopted July 28, 2003, amended art. VII in its entirety to read as herein set out. Formerly, said article pertained to similar subject matter as enacted by Ord. No. 0203, §§ 5.1—5.10, adopted Oct. 28, 2002. See the Code Comparative Table for a detailed analysis of inclusion.

      Sec. 2-91. – Preamble.

      In accordance with O.C.G.A. § 45-10-1, any person in government service should:

      (1)

      Put loyalty to the highest moral principle and to country above loyalty to persons, party or government department.

      (2)

      Uphold the Constitution, laws and legal regulations of the United States, the State of Georgia and all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

      (3)

      Give a full day’s labor for a full day’s pay and give to the performance of his duties his earnest and best thought.

      (4)

      Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

      (5)

      Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not, and never accept, for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.

      (6)

      Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

      (7)

      Engage in no business with the government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.

      (8)

      Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.

      (9)

      Expose corruption wherever discovered.

      (10)

      Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-92. – Ethics for government service.

      In addition, the board of mayor and commissioners establishes the following “Code of Ethics”:

      (1)

      The public judges its government by the way public officials and employees conduct themselves in the posts to which they are elected or appointed.

      (2)

      All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded upon their will only; and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Public officers are the trustees and servants of the people and are at all times amenable to them. Ga. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 2, Paragraph 1.

      (3)

      The people of this state have the inherent right of regulating their internal government. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and at all times they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. Ga. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 2, Paragraph 2.

      (4)

      The people have a right to expect that every public official will conduct himself in a manner that will tend to preserve public confidence in and respect for the government he represents.

      (5)

      Such confidence and respect can best be promoted if every public official, whether paid or unpaid, and whether elected or appointed, will uniformly: (a) treat all citizens with courtesy, impartiality, fairness and equality under the law; and (b) avoid conflicts between their private self-interest and the public interest.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-93. – Declaration of policy.

      (a)

      It is the policy of the city that the proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials be independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that governmental decisions and policy be made in proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office is not used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government. In recognition of these goals, a Code of Ethics for all city officials is adopted.

      (b)

      This code has the following purposes: (1) to encourage high ethical standards in official conduct by city officials; (2) to establish guidelines for ethical standards of conduct for all such officials by setting forth those acts and actions that are incompatible with the best interest of the city; (3) to require disclosure by such officials of private financial or other interests in manners that affect the city; and (4) to serve as a basis for disciplining those who refuse to abide by its terms.

      (c)

      The provisions of this article shall not apply to political contributions, loans, expenditures, reports of regulation of political campaigns or the conduct of candidates in such campaigns.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-94. – Scope of persons covered.

      The provisions of this code of ethics shall be applicable to all members of the board of mayor and commissioners, planning and zoning board, zoning board of appeals, all advisory commissions and committee members.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-95. – Definitions.

      As used in this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates that a different meaning is intended:

      City official or official, unless otherwise expressly defined, means the mayor, members of the commission, municipal court judges (including substitute judges), city manager, assistant city managers, city clerk, deputy city clerks, whether such person is salaried, hired or elected, and all other persons holding positions designated by the City Charter, as it may be amended from time to time. City official unless otherwise expressly defined, includes individuals appointed by the board of mayor and commissioners to all city commissions, committees, boards, task forces or other city bodies unless specifically exempted from this article by the board of mayor and commissioners.

      Entity means a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited partnership, firm, corporation, professional corporation, holding company, joint stock company, receivership, trust or any other entity recognized by law through which business may be conducted.

      Decision means any ordinance, resolution, contract, franchise, formal action or other matter voted on by the board of mayor and commissioners or other city boards or commissioners, as well as the discussions or deliberations of the board of mayor and commissioners, board or commission which can or may lead to a vote or formal action by that body.

      Discretionary authority means the power to exercise any judgment in a decision or action.

      Immediate family means spouse, mother, father, brother, sister, son, or daughter of any city official.

      Remote interest means an interest of a person or entity, including a city official, who would be affected in the same way as the general public. The interest of a commission member in the property tax rate, general city fees, city utility charges, or a comprehensive zoning ordinance or similar decisions is incidental to the extent that the commissioner would be affected in common with the general public.

      Incidental interest means an interest in a person, entity or property which is not a substantial interest and which has insignificant value.

      Substantial interest means a known interest, either directly or through a member of the immediate family, in another person or entity:

      (1)

      The interest is ownership of five percent or more of the voting stock, shares or equity of the entity or ownership of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more of the equity or market value of the entity; or

      (2)

      Funds received by the person from the other person or entity either during the previous twelve (12) months or the previous calendar year equaled or exceeded five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in salary, bonuses, commissions or professional fees or five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in payment for goods, products or nonprofessional services, or ten (10) percent of the recipient’s gross income during that period, whichever is less;

      (3)

      The person serves as a corporate officer or member of the board of directors or other governing board of the for-profit entity other than a corporate entity owned or created by the board of mayor and commissioners; or

      (4)

      The person is a creditor, debtor or guarantor of the other person or entity in an amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more. Substantial interest in real property means interest in real property which is an equitable or legal ownership with a market value of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or more.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-96. – Standards of conduct.

      (a)

      No commissioner or member of any board or commission shall use such position to secure special privileges or exemptions for such persons or others, or to secure confidential information for any purpose other than official responsibilities.

      (b)

      No commissioner or member of a board or commission, in any matter before the board of mayor and commissioners, board or commission in which he has a substantial interest, shall fail to disclose for the common good for the record such interest prior to any discussion or vote.

      (c)

      No commission member or member of a board or commission shall act as an agent or attorney for another in any matter before the board of mayor and commissioners or any board or commission.

      (d)

      No commission member or commissioner shall directly or indirectly receive, or agree to receive, any compensation, gift, reward or gratuity in any matter or proceeding connected with, or related to, the duties of his office except as may be provided by law.

      (e)

      No commission member or member of any board or commission shall enter into any contract with the city except as specifically authorized by state statutes. Any commission member or member of a board or commission who has a proprietary interest in an agency doing business with the city shall make known that interest in writing to the board of mayor and commissioners and the city clerk.

      (f)

      All public funds shall be used for the general welfare of the people and not for personal economic gain.

      (g)

      Public property shall be disposed of in accordance with Georgia law.

      (h)

      No city official shall solicit or accept other employment to be performed or compensation to be received while still a city official or employee if the employment or compensation could reasonably be expected to impair judgment or performance of city duties.

      (i)

      If a city official accepts or is soliciting a promise of future employment from any person or entity who has a substantial interest in a person, entity or property which would be affected by any decision upon which the official might reasonably be expected to act, investigate, advise or make a recommendation, the official shall disclose the fact to the board or commission on which he serves or to his supervisor and shall take no further action on matters regarding the potential future employer.

      (j)

      No city official shall use city facilities, personnel, equipment or supplies for private purposes, except to the extent such are lawfully available to the public.

      (k)

      No city official or employee shall grant or make available to any person any consideration, treatment, advantage or favor beyond that which it is the general practice to grant or make available to the public at large.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-97. – Conflict of interest.

      A city official may not participate in a vote or decision on a matter affecting a person, entity or property in which the official or employee has a substantial interest; in addition, a city official or employee who serves as a corporate officer or member of the board of directors of a nonprofit entity may not participate in a vote or decision regarding funding by or through the city of the entity. Where the interest of a city official or employee in the subject matter of a vote or decision is remote or incidental, the city official or employee may participate in the vote or decision and need not disclose the interest.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-98. – Board of ethics created.

      The ethics board shall consist of three (3) persons, one appointed by the mayor, one appointed by a majority vote of the board of mayor and commissioners, and the third appointed by the two above named subject to approval by a majority of the board of mayor and commissioners. The third member of the ethics committee shall be a member in good standing of the State Bar of Georgia. All members shall be residents of the City of Avondale Estates and shall serve five (5) year terms.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-99. – Receipt of complaints.

      (a)

      Any person having a complaint against any member of the board of mayor and commissioners, planning and zoning board, zoning board of appeals, all advisory commissions and committees for an alleged ethics violation shall file in writing a complaint setting forth the particular facts and circumstances which constitute the alleged violation. The complaint shall be filed with the city clerk. The ethics board shall be notified of the alleged violation and shall hold a probable cause hearing within thirty (30) days of being notified of the alleged violation.

      (b)

      In the event the written claim does not set forth sufficient facts to constitute an alleged violation and is found unjustified, frivolous or patently unfounded, it shall be dismissed by the ethics board and the complainant, and the alleged violator notified immediately. In the event the complaint is found to state sufficient facts to warrant a hearing before the ethicsboard, a formal hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days of the probably cause hearing.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-100. – Ethics board; powers.

      The ethics board shall have the power to:

      (1)

      Establish procedures, rules and regulations governing its internal organization and conduct of its affairs;

      (2)

      Receive and hear complaints of violations of the standards required by this article;

      (3)

      Adopt forms for formal complaints, subpoenas, notices, or any other forms the ethics board deems appropriate;

      (4)

      Report its findings to the board of mayor and commissioners for such action as the board of mayor and commissioners deems appropriate.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-101. – Member rights.

      At any hearing held by the ethics board, the member of the board of mayor and commissioners, planning and zoning board, zoning board of appeals, all advisory commissions and committees who is the subject of inquiry shall have the right to

      (1)

      Written notice of the allegations at least ten (10) business days before a hearing;

      (2)

      Be represented by counsel, at their own expense;

      (3)

      To hear and examine the evidence and witnesses;

      (4)

      Present evidence and witnesses in opposition or in extenuation.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-102. – Exemptions.

      This code shall not be construed to require the filing of any information relating to any person’s connection with, or interest in, any professional society or any charitable, religious, social, fraternal, educational, recreational, public service, civil or political organization or any similar organization not conducted as a business enterprise or governmental agency and which is not engaged in the ownership or conduct of a business enterprise or governmental agency.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-103. – Severability.

      The provisions of this article are severable. If any provision of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this article which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-104. – Penalty.

      Any persons violating any provisions of this policy are subject to:

      (1)

      Written and oral reprimand by the board of mayor and commissioners, board, commission or committee of which said violator is a member.

      (2)

      A fine greater than one hundred dollars ($100.00) but less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) to be imposed by the board of mayor and commissioners, board, commission or committee of which the violator is a member.

      (3)

      Request for resignation by the board of mayor and commissioner, board, commission or committee of which the violator is a member.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      Sec. 2-105. – Appeals.

      (a)

      Any member of the board of mayor and commissioners, planning and zoning board, zoning board of appeals, all advisory commissions and committees or the complainant adversely affected by the findings of the board of ethics or the board of mayor and commissioners may obtain judicial review of such decision by filing an application for a writ of certiorari in the Superior Court of DeKalb County within thirty (30) days after the decision of the ethics board or the board of mayor and commissioners.

      (b)

      Provided however, no action of the board of mayor and commissioners refusing or failing to take action pursuant to this code of ethics shall be reviewable by the superior court.

      (Ord. No. 0304, § 1, 7-28-03)

      • Frankly

        Caesar’s wife. If you don’t understand, Google it.

  • Gina Hill

    I personally think Ed Rieker’s goal in purchasing the property was to make sure the only businesses occupying it would be businesses that enriched our city and fit in with our goals. I was actually relieved when I found out he bought it because I felt he had the neighborhood’s best interest at heart. I still do.

Receive the Daily Email DIgest

* = required field