Sandy Springs’ Board of Ethics on Dec. 1 decided to dismiss a complaint against City Councilwoman Dianne Fries, saying the facts
did not support a formal hearing. Patty Berkovitz, a Sandy Springs resident and member of the Watershed Alliance of Sandy Springs and Sandy Springs Council of Neighborhoods, filed the complaint.
On Sept. 20, the council voted to change its sign ordinance to allow 6-square-foot signs, which Fries said corrected an earlier ordinance that capped signs at 4 square feet.
Berkovitz’s complaint asked whether Fries, who is a listed Realtor with Dorsey Alston, lobbied for changes to the city’s sign ordinance for personal benefit, Berkovitz and Fries said. The ordinance would also impact real estate signs.
Fries said it would not have benefited her because most real estate agents do not buy their own signs.
The Board of Ethics met for nearly two hours behind closed doors Dec.1 to discuss the facts of the case. When they reconvened, members said they were not convinced Fries’ background in real estate posed a conflict of interest.
“In reading the information we’ve been provided, I don’t think there’s any direct benefit to the councilwoman in exchange for her pushing this resolution forward,” ethics board Chairman Ted Sandler said. “I think appearances are another issue. It may have looked from the audience that this was being pushed forward for the benefit of one group or another.”
The board cited a conflict between the ethics code and the city’s charter when coming up with its decision. Part of the ethics code reads: “It is the responsibility of each public servant to act in a manner which contributes to cultivating public trust in the integrity of government and avoiding even lawful activity when the appearance of impropriety would lessen the public’s confidence.”
The city’s charter reads: “ No member of the City Council shall abstain from voting on any matter properly brought before the council for official action except when such member of council has a conflict of interest which is disclosed in writing prior to or at the meeting and made a part of the minutes. Any member of the City Council present and eligible to vote on a matter and refusing to do so for any reason other than a properly disclosed and recorded conflict of interest shall be deemed to have acquiesced or concurred with the members of the majority who did vote on the question involved.”
Board member Stuart Steinmark said he felt the city’s charter provision carried greater weight than the ethics code.
“What I see here is a potential conflict between the two governing rules – one of which describes the appearance of impropriety and the other which describes a clear conflict and the question is which of those two provisions takes precedent and I think it’s the voting provision,” Steinmark said. “I think Councilmember Fries was obliged to vote because there was no clear conflict, only an appearance of a conflict.”
Sandler said the complaint did not meet the standard for a hearing by the ethics board.
“Maybe it could’ve been handled differently, but given the facts as we see them, I don’t know there’s a violation that is actionable here,” Sandler said.
Berkovitz said the board gave her a fair consideration, but she does not agree with the ruling.
“I’m disappointed,” she said. “I think the appearance of impropriety is just as important as the responsibility to vote and they need to be mindful of that.”
Fries was happy with the board’s decision.
“We’ve got a process and I’m glad we do,” Fries said. “We went through the process. I was pleased with the way it turned out.”
