Ethics Committee Meets on Mysterious County Violation
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
Ethics Committee Meets on Mysterious County Violation
By Shane Gilreath
SCN Contributing Editor
[email protected]
County Attorney John Beaty
A mysterious meeting of the County Ethics Committee on Monday raised more questions than answers, as county officials declined to release details about an alleged ethics violation by a county employee that may now rise to the level of a criminal case. County Attorney John Beaty addressed the committee and a small group of attendees, emphasizing the limits on what could and could not be shared publicly.
“I can’t give any specifics on details or names,” Beaty said. “It is under criminal investigation now.” He added that the District Attorney’s office has advised that the issue could soon be presented to a Scott County Grand Jury, and that his office was instructed to withhold further comment.
Commissioner Kelley Posey-Chitwood, who serves on the Ehtics Committee, acknowledged widespread misunderstanding in the community about the role of the county ethics committee. “We have very little authority other than to screen the complaints,” she said, before explaining that complaints must be submitted in writing and signed by the person filing them. “It has been handled and proper channels have been followed,” she added of the current investigation.
Under Tennessee law, the General Assembly authorizes counties to establish ethics committees primarily to adopt ethics policies and receive complaints, but grants them limited enforcement power. County Mayor Jerried Jeffers noted that participation itself is non-compulsory. “When they created an Ethics Committee, the General Assembly left it optional for the county to participate,” he said.
While no specifics were disclosed, Beaty acknowledged that the allegations could be construed as criminal in nature. “Because of the nature of the complaints, we went ahead and sent them to the DA’s office,” he said, conceding the Ethics Committee should have been briefed earlier.
