IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FORSYTH COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

0 0 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FORSYTH COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD of ETHICS, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CASE NO: 0CV-00 ) TERENCE SWEENEY, ) Defendant. ) MOTION FOR COMPLAINT HEARD BEFORE HONORABLE ROBERT B. STRUBLE, JUDGE ON APRIL, 0 APPEARANCES: EDWARD L. BUTLER, IV, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY AT LAW FOR THE PLAINTIFF TERENCE SWEENEY PRO SE FOR THE DEFENDANT MELISSA J. LEE, CCR APPALACHIAN COURT REPORTING POST OFFICE BOX BLAIRSVILLE, GA 0 (0) - INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS

0 0 TESTIMONY BOB CHARLES Direct Examination by Mr. Butler 0 Cross-Examination by Mr. Sweeney TERENCE SWEENEY Cross-Examination by Mr. Butler -Exhibits Identified Appears Plaintiff's Exhibit P R O C E E D I N G S PAGE

0 0 THE COURT: This is a case brought by the Forsyth County Board of Ethics and, therefore, they have the right to proceed first in the scheme of things. And I would expect to hear -- if you would like to make an opening statement -- would either one of you like to make an opening statement? I've read all of the pleadings two or three times. I've got eight pages of notes, by the way. MR. BUTLER: I'm sure. Judge, if I could, just try to make a brief clarification. I think the substantive issue before the Court today is Mr. Sweeney's complaints against the individual board members. The Board filed a declaratory judgment styled, Board of Ethics versus Mr. Sweeney in order to get guidance on who was going to hear Mr. Sweeney's complaints. And your ruling was that this Court would hear the complaints. THE COURT: Right. MR. BUTLER: So, with that being said, procedurally, I would say it is Mr. Sweeney's complaints against the individual board members and that Mr. Sweeney should probably go first and act as plaintiff procedurally speaking. But that's just an option, Judge. We will proceed however the Court directs us. But, procedurally, it is a little tricky because it is the Board of Ethics bringing the declaratory judgment to figure out who would hear Mr. Sweeney's complaints, and however you direct us

0 0 to proceed, Judge, we will. THE COURT: What do you say, Mr. Sweeney? MR. SWEENEY: Can I think about that for one second, Judge? THE COURT: Sure. MR. SWEENEY: The one issue that I'm having is the -- Mr. Butler is the hearing officer for the Board of Ethics and -- THE COURT: The hearing officer? He's the attorney for them, not the hearing officer. MR. SWEENEY: Well, the problem is is that Mr. Butler could possibly be called as a witness. THE COURT: Well, we will deal with that, if that occurs. MR. SWEENEY: Okay. And I don't have a problem with their opening statement. This way, I could follow up on what they say. THE COURT: All right. So you understand you go first? MR. SWEENEY: Well, I would like to go second, if that's okay. THE COURT: All right. We will do that. That will be fine. We will let you go second. Okay. You can have a seat. I have been doing this for -- this in my th year

0 0 to be a lawyer and my 0th year to be a superior court judge. And I require respect for each other, and that's what we will have. But as far as formality, I'm not much for formality. I remember I had a big big case in Heard County and two law firms in Atlanta were involved on both sides and we had a big pretrial in Al Goldstein's law firm's office in Atlanta. And when it was all over, one of the lawyers said, Judge, you know, everybody has their idiosyncrasies. Can you tell us what yours are? And I said, the only one I know is I don't like noise. And if there's any shouting or yelling or carrying on, I quit listening. But other than that, I believe everybody has a right to be heard and I will certainly hear from everyone. Now, Mr. Sweeney, I understand you're not a member of the bar. The way the case will proceed, of course, is that the Forsyth County Board of Ethics will present their case. They will call witnesses. The witnesses will be sworn to tell the truth. They will take the witness stand. Mr. Butler will ask them questions and then you have the right to ask them questions after Mr. Butler is finished. And then if he asks more, you have a right to ask more. It's not the purpose when you examine witnesses for you to testify or for you to make statements. The purpose of the witness, for your examination of the

0 0 witness, is to ask them questions so I can get the information from them. After Mr. Butler and the Board has completed their presentation of evidence, then you will have the right, if you so desire, to take the witness stand, be put under oath, and say anything to me you want to say. And then Mr. Butler will have a right to ask you questions. And, of course, you can call witnesses as well, and these witnesses will be put under oath and we will follow the same procedure. Any witnesses that you call, you have the right to ask them questions first, and then Mr. Butler will have the right to ask them question next. Again, when you ask questions, it's not the time for you to make statements. You will have the opportunity, I promise that, to say whatever you want to say. All right. Do we have any other questions? Anybody want sequestration of the witnesses? MR. BUTLER: Judge, if I could clarify one other issue, and I know you're not going to be overly formal with the procedure and I'm fine with that. But since, I guess, the substance is the Sweeney complaint against the board members, Mr. Robert Charles is here. He is the current chair of the Board and, technically, he's representing himself today, Judge. I'm not acting as his attorney. I'm the attorney for the Board of Ethics, so I

0 0 wanted to clarify that, Judge. And, Mr. Turner is here. He was an alternate member for some hearings that took place this past summer. I had recused from those hearings, so I don't know much about them. He has a doctor's appointment. He showed up. He's filed his answer, Judge, and he just basically wants to rest on the pleadings. He wanted to come in but then he's going to have to leave for a pre-scheduled doctor's appointment. So when it comes to, I guess, my responsibility, I don't think I should be, I guess, questioning Mr. Charles as I'm not his attorney. But I will follow the Court's guidance on how you want us to proceed, Judge. THE COURT: I would ask that you question him based upon the fact that it's easier for me to get the facts when someone asks the questions and I listen to the answers. How about the sequestration of witness, does either side desire that? MR. BUTLER: Yes. We well invoke the rule of sequestration, Judge. THE COURT: All right. Well, that requires that all the witnesses who are to be called to testify will have to remain outside the hearing room or the courtroom until such time as they are called to testify. And that the rule of sequestration requires that once a witness has

0 0 testified, that witness cannot discuss their testimony with any other witness. Do you have any witnesses, Mr. Sweeney? MR. SWEENEY: No, sir. THE COURT: You don't either? MR. BUTLER: No, Judge. Both of these are respondents so they have a right to be in here. We don't have any witnesses other than the parties, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you proceed. MR. BUTLER: All right. Judge, just in way of opening, briefly, as to outline for the Court what I think the pertinent issues are in the complaint is about Board of Ethics meetings that were held, I guess, not on a date or time as outlined in the previous ordinance or not at a location as outlined in the previous ordinance. However, they were published and the public attended and they were open meetings, Judge. I think the evidence you're going to hear is going to show that the previous ordinance was impossible to follow for the Board to conduct their business. So they did what they had to do, and the ordinance has since been modified to fix that issue, Judge. So I think those are the issues that are before the Court and those would be the issues I would ask the Court to pay attention to. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sweeney, do you desire

0 to make an opening statement? MR. SWEENEY: Yes, Judge. The chairman -- let me just ask one other question to you, Judge. THE COURT: Sure. MR. SWEENEY: Since I thought I wasn't going to be calling any witnesses, would I be able to call Mr. Charles as a witness at this time? THE COURT: Yeah, but probably he will already be called by Mr. Butler's side and then you can examine him, yes. Certainly, you're going to be able to ask him questions, yes. MR. SWEENEY: I would rather just -- I will wait for the witnesses. THE COURT: Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. You may proceed. MR. BUTLER: Charles, will you take the witness stand, please. ROBERT CHARLES 0 having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BUTLER:

0 0 0 Q. Mr. Charles, will you, please, introduce yourself to the judge? A. Yes. Judge, I'm Bob Charles. I'm the current Chairman of the Board of Ethics. I was acting chairman at some points during the time period of the complaint. I've been a member of the Board for, I believe, it's been roughly four years now. Q. And can you briefly describe for the judge what the Board of Ethics does in Forsyth County? A. Sure. The Board of Ethics is basically there to hear and look at evidence that might be presented when a complaint is brought by any member of the public against any of the elected officials, employees, public servant-type folks of the County. We are there solely to look at information that is brought in light of the ordinance in Forsyth County, the ethics rules, and how they're written. So our job is, essentially, to determine if there's been a violation of the ethics rules, you know, per what we're dealing with in the ordinance. Q. So what is the controlling law or document that you have to base all of your decisions on? A. All the decisions have to be based on the ethics ordinance in the County, which is updated from time to time. We basically have to go by that information which does reference some other ethics rules that the state of Georgia has as well. But we are bound by those rules that are within those documents.

0 0 MR. BUTLER: And, Judge, to perfect the record, at the last hearing we introduced into evidence a certified copy of the ethics ordinance. THE COURT: Does the court reporter have that? MR. BUTLER: Excuse me, Judge? THE COURT: Does the court reporter have that? MR. BUTLER: It was a different court reporter. I handed it to you, Judge. I don't know if you have that. THE COURT: Is this it (indicating) right here? MR. BUTLER: My I approach, Judge? THE COURT: Yeah, sure. MR. BUTLER: That is, Judge. THE COURT: It's Plaintiff's Exhibit Number. I have that and -- here. I'm going to get you to type up this record and mail to me so that I can have it when I write the judgment. I'll get the information from you and then I'll mail it to you. Go ahead. MR. BUTLER: Judge, if I may see Plaintiff's Exhibit, briefly. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Mr. Charles, will you please thumb through Plaintiff's Exhibit Number -- THE COURT: Show it to Mr. Sweeney, first. MR. BUTLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Sweeney. MR. SWEENEY: Oh, this is the ordinance.

0 0 MR. BUTLER: It is. It's a certified copy. THE COURT: I think there's a bunch of them in there. There's ordinance -C, -B, and -F. MR. BUTLER: That's correct, Judge. The original ordinance was and the letters represent certain amendments that have occurred over time. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Mr. Charles, when you're thumbing through that, look at it and tell the Court if you can recognize the document, what that document is. A. Yes. This appears to be the ethics ordinance. Q. Is that the ordinance that you're required to follow when you conduct Board of Ethics business? A. Yes, it is. Q. Thank you. Mr. Charles, can you also briefly describe for the Court who makes up the Forsyth County Board of Ethics? A. Well, the Board of Ethics is made of appointees by various constituencies within the county. For example, I am appointed by the Board of Commissioners. We have another appointee from the Bar Association. We have an appointee from elected officials in the county other than the commissioners. We have an appointee from the employees of the County. So these are folks who are appointed by a vote of their particular constituency in the County to provide a balanced representation

0 0 on the Board of Ethics. Q. Do you have the ability to accept or reject that appointment? A. We as a board do not have the ability to do that, no. We have only the ability to potentially appoint an alternate in the case that someone is not available. Q. Do any of the members of the Board of Ethics receive any form of compensation for their service to the county? A. They do not. It is purely voluntary. There is no compensation nor is there any expense reimbursement of any kind. Q. Do you work anywhere, Mr. Charles? A. I do. Q. Where do you work? A. I'm employed by Intel Corporation. I have been there for 0 years. Q. Do other members of the Board of Ethics have regular full-time jobs, to the best of your knowledge? A. They do. The other members have regular jobs and other responsibilities outside of this and this is something that they have volunteered to do on their own time as a way to service their county. MR. BUTLER: Mr. Sweeney, I just want to show this to Mr. Charles. MR. SWEENEY: It's -B. Okay. BY MR. BUTLER:

0 0 Q. Mr. Charles, I'm showing you what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit for identification purposes. Will you take a look at that document and tell me if you know what that is? A. Yes. I believe this is one of the more recent amendments to the ordinance that was put in place to correct some of the technical language of meeting setting that was in the previous ordinance that, actually, kind of created a circular situation where we were unable to follow exactly what the letter of the ordinance was. Q. And what is the title of that particular amendment to the ordinance, - A. - B. MR. SWEENEY: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. SWEENEY: That amended ordinance is not in question today. THE COURT: I understand. It was adopted after your complaint. I understand that. Go ahead, Mr. Butler. But I understand that it was adopted subsequent to the filing of your complaint. MR. BUTLER: It was, Judge. THE COURT: I understand. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Mr. Charles, can you describe for the Court prior to

0 0 amendment -B, what was the guidelines in the ethics ordinance for the Board to set meetings and hold meetings? A. The guidelines in the ethics Ordinance were such that the Board had to set meetings by a majority vote of the Board. THE COURT: I don't think that's right. As I understand it, it's either by the majority of the Board or the Chairman. Is that right? THE WITNESS: Yes, Judge, and the issue comes down to the last line of that section of the ordinance which is that the time for the meeting has to be established. THE COURT: The time, yes. But the call of the meeting is either the majority of the Board or the call of the Chairman. THE WITNESS: Correct. MR. BUTLER: That part is correct, Judge. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Under this previous version of the ordinance, which is the one at issue here today, what problems did that cause for the Board of Ethics in scheduling and setting meeting times? A. There were really two things that have taken place over time. Actually, not having the date right in front of me but if my memory serves me, one of them was corrected mid-last year. The other is corrected by this document you have showed

0 0 me. But the first one had to do with when the ordinance, I believe, was originally established. There were some specific dates that were picked or specific days of a week of a particular month of the year were picked for what would be the two regular meetings that would need to be scheduled by the Board of Ethics. And those are really just procedural meetings. Often times, they were very short and nothing of particular substance was generally done. It was a meeting to establish the Board and keep it operating. First of all, let's deal with the days. That particular thing created some problems in that we have five members of the Board, all of whom are volunteers with other jobs. We also have our counsel, in many cases yourself, and some case alternate counsel. We also have our clerk and we also have the need for a meeting room as well. So we have a situation where it was not always possible to get enough of the members available on one day or even a room available on any given day. And so what we would endeavor always to do was have all members present if at all possible. One thing, the ordinance is such that we can't really take any action without, at least, three of the five members, and we can't take any action on an ethics complaint without four of the five. So, as you can imagine, having the most folks available is important. We certainly think it is. In addition, the fact that each of the five appointees comes from a different area, a different side of the

0 0 constituencies, we always wanted to try and have everybody represented so nobody can claim that we were taking action without, you know, the person who they had voted, that person on the Board not being present. So we always made a real effort to try to have everybody available whenever possible but, certainly, four of the fire. So that certainly was one of the things that presented a problem. We would simply run into times where people were not available or even a room was not available. The other thing in question was the room that we met in. It actually was written in the original ordinance, I believe, that we needed to meet in a commissioner's meeting room, which would be the large meeting room where the commissioners actually have their public meeting. This is something that even, I believe, predates my service on the Board. The Board is, obviously, a pretty small group of people even with the handful of public participants we normally have unless there something very unusual. And so we would generally try to meet in the large conference room which was, obviously, a little bit more of a conducive environment for that small of a group to meet. It also did it require us to get availability and fire up all the lighting and the like. So that had just become practice. We discovered that -- I don't recall exactly who discovered it. It may have been our counsel or the county attorney and that was fixed. I believe the meeting room location part was fixed the

0 0 middle of last year. And this particular one right here (indicating) fixed the other problem of the specific dates and allowed some flexibility such that, you know, we could try to ensure the maximum number of members could participate in any board meeting whether it was a regular board meeting or a called board meeting. Q. Okay. Does the Board of Ethics in any way publish the meeting dates, times, and locations to the public? A. Absolutely. Not only are we required to do so under the Open Meetings Act, but we also -- I would say, in my term, anyway, on the Board, we have gone out of our way to make sure that we maximize the amount of notice that we are able to give based on the schedule. So, in fact, we have -- when it comes to special meetings, we have actually pushed out scheduling of a meeting because we didn't think there was enough time even though we wee technically in compliance with the notification requirements of open meetings. But we've always tried to give as much notice as we can unless it's an unusual situation. Q. What sort of the importance does the Ethics Board put on having an open meeting and giving as much notice to the public as possible? A. I mean, we think it's critical especially in light of the fact of the type of board that we are. We are the Ethics Board, so we try to make sure everything we do is as transparent as it can be. We're trying to make sure if anybody is

0 0 interested, they can attend, especially, when there's an actual ethics complaint that has been alleged. We want to make sure the parties involved have an opportunity to attend if they so choose. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. We want to make sure the press has a chance to be there. Certainly, you know, public confidence in the Board of Ethics is very important and we want to make sure that, you know, we're meeting in such a way that people have notice and can attend. Q. To the best of your knowledge, do you know if the Ethics Board has ever done that without complying with the public notice requirements? A. No, we have not. Q. I want to draw your attention, specifically, to some of the issues raised in Mr. Sweeney's complaint against you and other members of the Board. And without going tick by tick on each one, one of the issues is that during some times in the summer of 0 and into the fall of 0, the Ethics Board did not meet in the correct room as dictated by the ordinance in place at the time -- THE COURT: I think it was one date. Wasn't it, Mr. Sweeney, and that's July th? MR. SWEENEY: July th or the th. THE COURT: It was the th. That's the one time they did not meet in the commissioner's meetings room but met at the public safety --

0 0 0 MR. SWEENEY: Complex. THE COURT: -- complex, yeah. Okay. Go ahead. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. All right. With that specification, Mr. Charles, what can you tell the Court about what happened that day and why it happened? A. The public safety complex has generally been a back-up location so not only does that happen when we have people scheduling problems, but it happens sometimes when we have room scheduling problems. So if we're not able to get another room, we will use that because there's a conference room of adequate size over there to hold the Board as well as members of the public that would come in. So that's why that would take place over there. Q. Was that meeting published for the public? A. Oh, absolutely, along with its location and everything well in advance. Q. Did members of the public attend that meeting, to the best of your knowledge? A. I believe they did, yes. I think we've had, at least, some members of the public at virtually every meeting I can remember where, at least, we had a member of the press there. Q. Another complaint is that on July th, 0, the meeting time was not established by a majority vote. What can

0 0 you tell the Court about that particular incident and why it happened? A. It was established based upon availability of the members. And, frankly, the way that we will generally do that is over e-mail or the clerk will call individual members if the e-mail is not prudent and find out what their availability is. We also cross-coordinate that with the appropriate counsel for that meeting as well as the clerk's availability and, finally, the groups availability. Once we establish a time and date when that all aligns, we will then establish the meeting that way and call the Chairman. Q. These meetings that are alleged in the complaint on July th and July th, what sort of business was the Ethics Board conducting at these meetings? A. Without having notes in front of me, I don't want to speculate. There were -- basically, we have two types of meetings. There is either a standard meeting, which is required two times a year. Some of those meetings, we also try to incorporate in the agenda if we have a current ethics complaint in front of us, we'll try to run that through the meeting. And the rest of the meetings would be based upon an ethics complaint. So the ones in July should have been based upon the ethics complaint at the time. Q. What two months do you normally have your regular meetings with the Ethics Board?

0 0 A. Normally, we try to target May/November as those are the originally ones stipulated in the ordinance. Q. Now, these July dates that you testified to would've been a complete meeting or the Board was somehow investigating or reviewing a complaint. Do you recall who filed that complaint? A. I believe that complaint was filed by Mr. Sweeney. Q. Do you recall who that complaint was against? A. I believe that was a complaint against three of the sitting board of commission members. Q. Do you recall what the outcome -- THE COURT: County commissioners or city commissioners? THE WITNESS: My apologies, county commissioners. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Do you recall what the outcome of the Ethics Board investigation into Mr. Sweeney's complaints against the county commissioners was? A. Yes. Ultimately those complaints were dismissed. Q. Okay. There's another complaint or particular complaint in here that on July th, you and the Ethics Board failed to have that meeting established by a majority vote of the Board of Ethics. Do you recall anything about that particular incident? A. Yes. It's, you know, identical to the previous one.

0 0 You know, we try to establish the meetings as quickly as we can based upon availability of the members and the counsel and the clerk as well as the room, and we also try to do it in such a way that we can provide maximum notice for public posting of the meeting. It should be noted that in a situation of a complaint, we are under some time constraint as well. We need to meet about the complaint within a timely manner and balance that with giving notice to appropriate parties and notifying the general public. So scheduling is not a trivial matter in a lot of these cases. Q. Okay. Further complaints against you and the Board are that on November 0th, 0, that being the th Wednesday of the month, there was an allegedly unlawfully meeting time. Do you recall anything about this November 0th meeting, Mr. Charles? A. I believe the November 0th meeting was a regular meeting of the Board of Ethics as per required by the ordinance the we were to meet twice a year in a regular meeting format, regardless of whether there's a complaint or not. Q. And the ordinance in effect at that time would've required y'all to meet on, I believe, the second Tuesday of November, is that correct? A. That's correct, yes. Q. Why couldn't y'all meet on the second Tuesday of November?

A. Again, it was availability of the Board. I don't recall whether it was also a room conflict at that time or not. We've had, you know, a variety of those come up whether it's been for a regular meeting or a called meeting. But, certainly, it's typically availability of all five members of the Board getting involved together. At one time, we had folks that do travel, including myself, for their normal course of business and so it's not always possible to rely on that prescribed date. 0 0 Q. To the best of your knowledge, has the Ethics Board ever held one of these meetings not on the appropriate day or time in an effort to not be public? A. No, absolutely not. That is the last thing we would do. Again, we go out of our way to make sure there is public notice for those. Q. The new ordinance that has been amended, the -B ordinance that we have as part of Plaintiff's, I have in front of you as Plaintiff's just for identification purposes, what has that done to correct this issue of scheduling? Because that's what I'm hearing you talk about. What has that done? A. It has basically given more flexibility to the date. Instead of putting it on a very specific date, it has given us more flexibility around that. It has also, I believe, removed the majority vote to schedule the time, which became an impossibility for obvious reasons. And so it allows us to

0 0 schedule a meeting -- either allow the Chairman to schedule the meeting or allows the officer of the Board who scheduled the meeting, who happened to be scheduling it during one of our regular meetings. THE COURT: Let me ask you something. Were there four members of the Board at that time? There was a vacancy, right? THE WITNESS: We have situations, Judge, where maybe a member will have to recuse themselves based on a particular thing in front of us and we appoint an alternate at that time. We did have a period of time where, actually, the previous chairman elected not to continue his service on the Board so we had, if I recall, some alternate membership at the time. But we've always tried to have a full five members. THE COURT: But when you had these meetings that were called, were there any board members absent because either they didn't have notice or they couldn't be there? THE WITNESS: Oh, no. THE COURT: Everybody was present? THE WITNESS: Yeah. I mean, nobody -- if there was an absence, it would have been because somebody either had a scheduling issue or maybe we didn't have -- but I'm trying to recall. I believe we had everybody there at most of these meetings. Nobody was ever absent because

0 0 they didn't have notice. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. And the amendment to the ordinance -B, has that done anything to assist the Board with scheduling a meeting location as well? A. It has. In fact, I almost think we have that in a previous amendment as well. But at any rate, it has allowed the Board to schedule meetings in a room provided by the Board of Commissioners, so that certainly allowed the use of the large conference room, it would allow the use of the public safety conference room, if need be. So it gives us the flexibility of being able to pick from at least, you know, three or four rooms, potentially, that would be workable for the Board size as well as the power to adapt. Q. Are all of the meetings that were brought into question by this complaint, were they held in a public building in a public room? A. Yes, they were. In fact, when it hasn't been held over in public safety, it's been held in a large conference room which is probably, you know, no more than 00 feet away from the main commissioners meeting room in the same building, same floor. Q. Mr. Charles, is there anything else you would like to tell the judge about these incidents that I have neglected to

0 0 ask about that you feel is important for the Court to hear? A. I think most of it has been covered in the questioning. I would just say that, you know, this is an all volunteer board of folks trying to do the right thing for the county. We had, obviously, some language in the ordinance that, you know, if followed to a "T" would actually preclude us from ever scheduling anything based on the majority vote required to set a time for a meeting. We think it's important to have, you know, as many members present, if not all of them, as possible during any of our meetings so that the people who have appointed them have their representation. At no time during any of the meetings in question was there any damage to the ability of folks to attend or to have notice. It all complied with the Open Meetings Act. So, certainly, in the spirit of what was intended when the ordinance was set up, I believe we've met all of that. THE COURT: All right. As far as you know, did any member of the Board of Ethics get any benefit whatsoever because of the change in the meeting location or in the time of the meeting? THE WITNESS: The only benefit would be the ability for someone to attend who otherwise might not have been able to. You know, it's very similar to the situation we faced with Mr. Sweeney's current complaint where it was against every member of the Board of Ethics. There was no

particular language that described how we should handle that because, obviously, we would all be recusing ourselves. In fact, I guess, if you think about it, if somebody ever bought a complaint against any more than two members of the Board at one time, we couldn't -- there wouldn't be enough of a board to appoint alternates. So 0 0 it's just one of those, you know, unusual things I think maybe wasn't thought of in the language when it was originally written. But, certainly, none of this has been done with any ill-intent, with any attempt to evade anything, and certainly not with intent to persuade the public or press attendance. THE COURT: All right. Anything further? MR. BUTLER: No, Judge. I don't have any further questions. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sweeney, you may ask him any questions you would like to ask him. MR. SWEENEY: Thank you. Good morning, Judge, Mr. Charles. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Charles, you seem to be a very nice guy. With your -- THE COURT: Nice guys get sued too, you know. MR. SWEENEY: I agree. THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. SWEENEY: I have Mr. Charles' response to my complaint here. I would like to ask him a few questions about it. THE COURT: Certainly. CROSS-EXAMINATION 0 0 BY MR. SWEENEY: Q. Does this look familiar? A. Yes, sir, it does. It appears to be my response to your complaint. Q. Thank you. Did you discuss or were you coached at all regarding that affidavit that you have there? A. I did have assistance from counsel, yes. Q. The other's responses were exactly the same. Did you have the same counsel as then or were you coached earlier before you got to this hearing? A. I can't speak for what the others may have filed. I can only speak for myself. Q. So were you coached before you got here to explain how everything was supposed to come down here? A. At this particular meeting? No, sir. Q. So you're saying you didn't discuss this with anybody? A. Are we talking about the response or -- I'm not clear on what you're asking.

0 0 0 Q. No, today's hearing, just in general. A. Mr. Butler and I spoke about whether I needed to attend today's hearing or not because of the unusual situation of it or the complaint being filed with the Ethics Board and, obviously, the Ethics Board couldn't hear the complaint. Q. Well, Mr. Butler is not your counsel? A. He is not. Q. In your response to my complaint, there are no specific dates noticed here as far as the times and the dates I have made the complaint about. Can you tell me why there were no specific dates noted in your affidavit, specifically, ordinance -B? A. I'm not sure I understand the question, Mr. Sweeney. Q. Well, it says under ordinance -B, the responses must be supported by affidavits based on personal knowledge as required by ethics ordinance -, and no such affidavits of personal knowledge are attached. A. Okay. Yes. I basically signed the response and also provided a notarized verification noting, in fact, my response. MR. SWEENEY: Give me a second, Judge. THE COURT: Certainly. Take all the time you need, Mr. Sweeney. We are not here to rush through anything. MR. SWEENEY: Thank you. BY MR. SWEENEY:

0 Q. Mr. Charles, my complaint is basically based on not having the meeting at the right place at the right time and not having any postings in the right place. How did that happen? MR. BUTLER: Judge, I don't want to be too formal, but that's kind of a compound question. If Mr. Charles could just break it down, I think that will help everyone understand his answer. THE COURT: Also, Mr. Sweeney, you anticipated that he would answer, yes, it was done incorrectly and why was it done incorrectly. You ask him first whether -- how it was done and then you can decide -- we can decide whether or not it was done incorrectly. I'm interested in facts. That's what I'm interested in. MR. SWEENEY: Can I take a ten-minute recess? THE COURT: You certainly can. We will be in recess now until ten minutes of ten. MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Judge. MR. SWEENEY: Thank you. 0 (Whereupon, a short break was taken) MR. SWEENEY: All right. Your Honor, I'm going to respond to Mr. Charles' answers to Mr. -- THE COURT: When you get your chance to testify, you make all the responses you -- I've been doing this so

0 0 long, I got to have things in sequence and in order. Your purpose now, Mr. Sweeney, is to ask him questions. Now, you're going to be given the opportunity to tell me anything you wanted to make. You can tell me about going fishing this past weekend -- that's what these guys were telling me about -- anything you want to tell me about. But right now, you ask him questions. MR. SWEENEY: All right. Thank you. I don't think I have any questions. THE COURT: All right. That's fine. Anything further, Mr. Butler? MR. BUTLER: No, sir. THE COURT: All right. You can come down. Anything further? MR. BUTLER: No, Judge. THE COURT: Do you want to testify, Mr. Sweeney? MR. SWEENEY: No, thank you. THE COURT: You don't want to testify at all? MR. SWEENEY: Well, I would like to rebut everything that was said earlier. THE COURT: Okay. Well, take the witness stand. TERENCE SWEENEY having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as

follows: 0 0 THE COURT: All right. Sit down and tell me what you want to tell me and I'm taking notes as you go. MR. SWEENEY: Okay. Thank you very much, Judge. Failures of respondent to follow the Forsyth County Ethics Ordinance in responding to the Sweeney -- MR. BUTLER: Judge, if I could just know what he's reading from, I would appreciate it. MR. SWEENEY: I'm sorry. This is my updated affidavit. I e-mailed it to you yesterday or the day before. THE COURT: Yeah, he's got it. MR. BUTLER: All right. I got a copy. I just didn't know what it was. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. SWEENEY: Thank you. (Reading) The respondent fails to follow many of the requirements of the Forsyth County Ethics Ordinance -B as amended, also known as the "Ordinance" in the response to the complaint filed by me, Terence Joseph Sweeney. The respondent must be supported -- the responses must be supported by affidavits based on personal knowledge as required by ethics Ordinance -. No such affidavits of personal knowledge are attached.

0 0 The response fails to set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence since there isn't any evidence attached as required by Ordinance -. The respondent must show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated, but respondent failed to attach or make any such statements with response as required -- with a response as required by the Ordinance -. The respondent failed to attach supporting documents referred to in the response as required by Ordinance -. Missing substantiating documents include, but not limited to, ordinance, complaint, previous complaints, Georgia Open Meetings Act, seeking out publicity and quoted in the paper. Article III -() reads: Upon a receipt of a complaint alleging misconduct, the county official or employee against whom the complaint was filed may reply to the complaint within 0 days, unless such time is extended by the Board of Ethics upon good cause showing. The response of the county official or employee must be supported by affidavits based on personal knowledge, must set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and must show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated herein. All the documents referred to in an affidavit should be attached

0 0 to the affidavit. The failures described herein display in an abundantly clear fashion that the respondent who has serve in the capacity of an ethics board member does not know the rules he was entrusted to enforce. In respondent's first defense, it is stated that the complainant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Forsyth County ethics rules do not require the complainant to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Clearly, the relief or disciplinary action is defined as the responsibility of the Ethics Board under - of the Ordinance. Also, in the event there was a need for a claim upon which relief may be granted then as described in the Ordinance, this would be viewed as a technical deficiency and, therefore, would be returned to the complainant for a seven-day opportunity to correct deficiency as described in the Ordinance - (): If the Ethics Board makes an initial determination that the complaint is technically deficient, the Board of Ethics shall submit a list of the deficiencies to the complainant and offer the complainant an opportunity to correct the deficiencies within seven days prior to the complaint being dismissed for technical deficiencies. The first defense pretends to advise Sweeney on the

0 0 way to file an ethics complaint. However, in the Ordinance -, the Ordinance anticipates a violation of an employee or a county official. A complaint against a board is not identified in the ethics Ordinance. Further, individual participation in alleged unlawful meetings is an alleged violation. Turner seems to suggest an unanticipated method for filing ethics complaints. The votes, no votes, or participation in the meeting are individual actions at an alleged, unlawful event. Respondent's second and third defenses identify the failure of respondent in his capacity as a Forsyth County ethics member to recommend the adoption of rules that are problematic or vague. The respondent identifies these failures of the rules after being alleged to be guilty of following -- of failing to follow the rules. But, apparently, never identified the flaws of the ethics Ordinance prior to the complaint. Can I get another glass of water? THE COURT: You certainly can. MR. SWEENEY: Thank you very much. Respondent's fourth defense fails to identify Ordinance and or attach same referenced and as required by ethics Ordinance -(), therefore, no response can be made to response. Complainant is unsure what the respondent is referring to. However, to the

0 0 extent of the words "substantial compliance" are mentioned, it would be noted that the failure to meet on the designated times or locations are complete, total, and substantiated compliance failures. Respondent's fifth defense states that the meetings were held in accordance with the Open Meetings Act O.C.G.A. 0--. The Ordinance requires all documents referenced in the response by attached. No such documents for the Open Meetings Act O.C.G.A. 0-- is attached. No complaint was made about a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Participation in the unlawful meeting dates and times failed to meet the Ordinance (c) requirements and the Ordinance shall -- the Ordinance uses the word "shall" which is synonymous with "must". It should be noted that the meeting required on the second Tuesday of November failed to provide the -hour cancellation notice and did the meeting -- as did the meeting that did or did not occur on the third Thursday and, therefore, failed to comply with the Georgia Open Meetings Act for cancellation procedures. Also, the instant motion to have the Ethics Board attorney represent each member individually immediately after coming out of an executive session is another alleged violation of the Georgia Open Meetings Act since the purpose stated in the video/audio before and after the executive session is

0 0 contrary to the executive session affidavits stated purpose. The defense of the board members individually is not a matter of the Ethics Board to discuss in executive session and, therefore, fails the requirements of executive session under the Georgia Open Meetings Act. Two requirements of the ordinance -(c) at the time that the Ethics Board met in the wrong place states that the meeting should be held in a public hearing room of the Board of Commissioners and be duly publicized and otherwise in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. Why would the two requirements for meeting location be placed in writing if otherwise you can change the set location and requirement for time to be set by majority vote of the Ethics Board? The Ordinance is saying to do these two items and other than these things, do everything in accordance with the Georgia Open Meetings Act. Also, see Ken Jarrard's letter dated December, 0, to the Ethics Board regarding meeting violations reveals these concerns also. Respondent's sixth defense states that the complaint must be within six months of the alleged misconduct or ethical violation. The alleged violation listed in the complaint occurred in July of 0 and November of 0. The complaint was filed in December, 0. The evidence attached by Sweeney indicated the complaints were filed in

0 a timely manner within six months. The violations didn't occur until the meetings referenced in the complaint occurred. Other dates referenced supply evidence as to the failure of the alleged meeting violations in July and November. The requirements for a proper meeting could have met -- could have been met hours before the meeting or at the previous meeting. The previous meeting information provided reveals that the respondent failed to ensure compliance with the rules anytime before the meeting violations. Individually, respondent fails to ensure compliance with the ethics meetings rules once the meeting was conducted in November -- in July and November. 0 Respondent's eighth defense alleges Sweeney had knowledge of the violations at the time that they allegedly occurred. Sweeney became aware of the violations from a report on a local blog and a report by an individual made to Sweeney in December. Further, it is stated that Sweeney is seeking publicity and is quoted in the paper, but no evidence is attached as required by ethics Ordinance -. Sweeney has not sought publicity and did not seek an interview. Also, it's stated that Sweeney is doing everything he can do to make the Board look bad. Sweeney has not blogged or sought to publicize this event and no evidence is supplied to support the

0 0 0 claims of everything -- support the claims of everything is being done to make the Board look bad. The individuals of the Ethics Board have made the Ethics Board look bad. Respondent also desires to recover fees, but fails to recognize the rules of Ordinance - that requires a public hearing. According to the Ordinance -, the only way to obtain fees and expenses is from an ethics hearing. The only way to enter an ethics hearing is to find a reasonable belief that there has been a violation of this section by a county official or employee. Fees and expense recovery after respondents request for dismissal is not provided for in the ordinance. The statement in respondent's response eight is illogical. Clearly, Sweeney had knowledge of these alleged procedural violations at the time they allegedly occurred but did not file the instant complaint until months later. No evidence is provided to prove that Sweeney clearly had knowledge of the alleged violations at the time the violations occurred. Lorne Twiner's response in defense references dates that were months earlier when no such complaints were made when Twiner was not yet a member of the Ethics Board. It should be noted that former alternate member Turner participated in the ethics meeting on December

0 th, 0, where Turner seconded motions and voted in the same meeting as Tim Perry. Perry is the very person Turner placed in the July meetings for the limited purpose as stated in the meeting minutes. In the subsequent meeting of the Board of Ethics, the Board took corrective action for the unlawful participation of Turner. In the first paragraph, the response identifies Terence Joseph Sweeney as "Sweeney". However, later in the response it identifies "Sweeney" on multiple occasions. The Earnest Vasco Turner III response failed to be filed with the clerk of the Ethics Board in a timely manner within 0 days as required by the Ordinance - and, therefore, the Turner complaint should be considered without Turner's response. And that's about it. Thank you. THE COURT: Anything else you want to say? THE WITNESS: No, sir. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Butler? 0 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Mr. Sweeney, you were actually quoted in the paper talking about your complaints, weren't you? A. I don't really recall at this time. Can you show me

0 0 a copy? Q. I'm asking you a question, Mr. Sweeney. Do you not recall being specifically quoted in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding these issues? A. What was the verbiage? Q. Do you recall? I'm asking you a question. Do you recall? A. No. I don't recall at this time. MR. BUTLER: All right. Thank you. I don't have anything else, Judge. THE COURT: All right. Anything else you want to say? THE WITNESS: The ultimate findings, I believe, should be, if I may, to disband the Ethics Board, overturn all the actions at unlawful meetings, a reprimand letter, and that's about it. THE COURT: Anything further Mr. Butler? MR. BUTLER: No, sir. THE COURT: All right. You can go back and have a seat, Mr. Sweeney. Thank you. Anything in rebuttal, Mr. Butler? MR. BUTLER: No, sir. THE COURT: All right. Why don't we do this, gentlemen. Of course, you have the right to make a closing argument, if you wish. It would help me even more

0 if, Mr. Butler, you have ten days from today to file any kind of brief that you want to file with any applicable law that's involved and, also, any comment you wish to make on the evidence. And after you've had your ten days, then, Mr. Sweeney, you will have an additional ten days to respond to whatever he says. MR. BUTLER: That's fine. If that's how the Court wishes to proceed, I'm fine with it. THE COURT: Just keep your seat. All right. Is there anything else we need to do? MR. BUTLER: No, sir. MR. SWEENEY: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. We will recess or adjourn or whatever you do. Thank you. MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Judge. MR. SWEENEY: Thank you. MR. BUTLER: Do you need this, Judge? THE COURT: No, just leave it with her. Thank you. MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Judge. 0 (The proceedings concluded)

0 (PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NUMBER ) (ORIGINAL EXHIBIT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COURT REPORTER) 0

0 CERTIFICATE STATE OF GEORGIA ) COUNTY OF HALL ) I hereby certify that the foregoing hearing was taken down by me; that the foregoing pages represent a true, correct, and complete transcript; that I am not a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties; that I have no contract with either party nor am I financially interested in the action. 0 This, the day of 0.

Melissa J. Lee, CCR Certified Court Reporter Certificate B- 0 (SEAL) 0