TITLE 45 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

Section 10. Codes of Ethics and Conflicts of Interest, 45-10-1 through 45-10-92.

ARTICLE 1 CODES OF ETHICS

45-10-4. Code of ethics for members of boards, commissions, and authorities - Hearing; notice; removal of member from office; filling vacancies; judicial review.

Upon formal charges being filed with the Governor relative to a violation of Code Section 45-10-3 on the part of a member of any such board, commission, or authority, the Governor or his designated agent shall conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence relative to the merits of such charges. The member so charged shall be given at least 30 days' notice prior to such hearing. If such charges are found to be true, the Governor shall forthwith remove such member from office and the vacancy shall be filled as provided by law. Such hearing shall be held in accordance with Chapter 13 of Title 50, the "Georgia Administrative Procedure Act," and judicial review of any such decision shall be in accordance with such chapter.

(Ga. L. 1976, p. 344, § 3.)

Law reviews.

- For article, "Conflicts of Interests of Public Officers and Employees," see 13 Ga. St. B.J. 64 (1976).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Laches.

- Appeal by county board of education members of a judgment denying the members' request to reverse the Governor's order removing the members from office under O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 for violating O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3 was not dismissed due to the doctrine of laches; the members were required by § 45-10-4 to proceed under the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-13-1 et seq., and no delay warranted the imposition of the doctrine of laches; the Governor's order was signed on August 6, 2010, and the members filed the members' petition for judicial review on August 12, 2010. Roberts v. Deal, 290 Ga. 705, 723 S.E.2d 901 (2012).

Appeal dismissed as moot.

- County board of education member's appeal of a judgment denying a request to reverse the Governor's order removing the member from office under O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 for violating O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3 was dismissed because the term to which the member had originally been elected expired. Roberts v. Deal, 290 Ga. 705, 723 S.E.2d 901 (2012).

Removal of county board of education members.

- Superior court erred in denying county board of education members' request to reverse the Governor's order removing the members from office under O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 for violating O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3; § 45-10-3 does not embrace entities created by the Constitution of Georgia, and county school boards are creations of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VIII, Sec. V, Para. II. Roberts v. Deal, 290 Ga. 705, 723 S.E.2d 901 (2012).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Act containing adverse matters constitutionally defective.

- Ga. Const. 1976, Art. III, Sec. VII, Para. IV (see now Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. III), was designed for the prevention of surreptitious legislation, and the prevention of "omnibus" bills containing many adverse matters; although it is not required that the title of an act contain an exact synopsis of the law itself, it is required that the matter following the enacting clause be definitely related to what is expressed in the title, and have a natural connection to the main object of the legislation; therefore, the courts could rule the Act comprised of O.C.G.A. §§ 45-10-3 through45-10-5, which Act imposes a general code of ethics on members of the Board of Human Resources and purports to take away the rule making authority of all boards, commissions, and authorities of state government, constitutionally defective (but other interpretations may militate against such construction). 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-43.1.

State Transportation Board member.

- No conflict of interest exists under current state law if the firm of a member of the State Transportation Board performs work for another governmental entity unless the work is directly or indirectly for the benefit of the Georgia Department of Transportation. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U91-13.

Lobbying.

- So long as a member of the State Ethics Commission who is an attorney refrains from lobbying, lawyers and others affiliated with the member's law firm may, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case, engage in lobbying without affecting the member's service. 2002 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2002-4.

There is no general prohibition against the practice of administrative law and the representation of clients before state agencies by an attorney member of the State Ethics Commission and other members of his or her law firm. 2002 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2002-4.

Representation of local governments by members of commission.

- An attorney member of the State Ethics Commission and other members of his or her law firm may generally represent local governments so long as the representation does not involve taking an action adverse to the commission itself. 2002 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 2002-4.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Power to remove public officer without notice and hearing, 99 A.L.R. 336.

Pardon as preventing disbarment of attorney or removal of officer or as nullifying disbarment or removal, 143 A.L.R. 172; 70 A.L.R.2d 268.

Inefficiency or misconduct of deputy or subordinate as ground for removal of public officer, 143 A.L.R. 517.

Removal of public officers for misconduct during previous term, 42 A.L.R.3d 691.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4

Total Results: 2 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

Roberts v. Deal, 723 S.E.2d 901 (Ga. 2012).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 19, 2012 | 290 Ga. 705, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 952

...he matter, and an Administrative Law Judge found that certain acts of the Appellants constituted ethical violations under OCGA § 45-10-3, and recommended to the Governor that Appellants be removed from office. Proceeding under the authority of OCGA § 45-10-4, [2] then-Governor Perdue [3] found that: Roberts violated OCGA § 45-10-3(1) and (8); Brown violated OCGA § 45-10-3(8); and Culver violated OCGA § 45-10-3(8). On August 6, 2010, the Governor ordered that Roberts, Brown, and Culver be removed from office. As set forth in OCGA § 45-10-4 and the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, see OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq., Appellants appealed the Governor's order to the Superior Court of Fulton County, and the court allowed Cosby and the other original complainants to intervene as third-party defendants (collectively with the Governor, "Appellees")....

...[4] Although a case challenging the removal of elected officers has some of the same policy considerations which mandate that election contest cases be addressed with dispatch, see McCreary v. Martin, 281 Ga. 668, 669, 642 S.E.2d 80 (2007), the Appellants were required by OCGA § 45-10-4 to proceed under the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, and no delay seen here warrants the imposition of the doctrine of laches....

...ot apply to those sitting on the WCBE, as that board, and all county boards of education, are created by constitutional provision, rather than by general statute. Consequently, they argue, the Governor was without authority to remove them under OCGA § 45-10-4, which provides the method by which the Governor can remove "a member of any such board" for a violation of OCGA § 45-10-3....

...by law" presumably authorizes the General Assembly to establish a mechanism for the administrative removal of board members for violation of the duties listed in OCGA § 45-10-3, the question remains whether the General Assembly has done so in OCGA § 45-10-4....

...9, 12(1), 644 S.E.2d 814 (2007); State v. Mulkey, 252 Ga. 201, 204(2), 312 S.E.2d 601 (1984). And, contrary to the expansive construction of the term "general statute" advocated by Appellees, we must construe the Code sections strictly. OCGA §§ 45-10-3 and 45-10-4 operate so as to remove public officers from their positions, and accordingly, "we apply a narrow construction ....

...onstitutionally-created boards, commissions, and authorities is a wise policy that is consistent with our Constitution, the wisdom of such a policy is not the issue. The General Assembly has simply not pursued such an avenue in OCGA §§ 45-10-3 and 45-10-4....

...Never take any official action with regard to any matter under circumstances in which he knows or should know that he has a direct or indirect monetary interest in the subject matter of such matter or in the outcome of such official action. [2] OCGA § 45-10-4 reads: Upon formal charges being filed with the Governor relative to a violation of Code Section 45-10-3 on the part of a member of any such board, commission, or authority, the Governor or his designated agent shall conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence relative to the merits of such charges....

...arding taxation of certain property and transfer to government entities). [8] Nothing in Stokes v. Edwards, 272 Ga. 98, 526 S.E.2d 853 (2000), which involved the removal of a member of a county board of education under the supposed authority of OCGA § 45-10-4 suggests otherwise; in that case, a writ of prohibition was dismissed by the superior court and in that posture, no question of whether OCGA § 45-10-4 operated against a member of a school board was placed before this Court....