IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FORSYTH COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

§

FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF ETHICS §

§ CIVIL ACTION

Plaintiff, §

§ FILE NO. 12CV-0027

v. §

§

TERENCE SWEENEY, § SENIOR JUDGE

§ ROBERT B. STRUBLE

Defendant. §

§

AFFIDAVIT

NOW COMES TERENCE SWEENEY who after being duly sworn, states as follows:

The undersigned is over the age of majority, laboring under no disabilities and is legally

competent to sign this affidavit.

The undersigned is a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of Forsyth

County, Georgia.

BRIEF TO THE COURT CONTAINING APPLICABLE

LAW AND CLOSING ARGUMENT

The Forsyth County Board of Ethics serves to oversee compliance with the Forsyth

County Code of Ethics which governs the actions of Forsyth County’s officials and employees.

2

Forsyth County Ordinance Number 77-B is the Ordinance by The Board of

Commissioners of Forsyth County and furthers and incorporates the policies and laws of the

State of Georgia relating to ethical standards; providing for investigation of ethics complaints

and enforcement of ethical standards. Ordinance Number 77-B is included herein by reference.

On February 3, 2011, Citizen Sweeney caught a quorum of Forsyth County

Commissioners gathered in Cumming City Hall to conduct the public’s business without notice

to the public. Sweeney filed a complaint against the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners

for violating the Open Meetings Act O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 with Georgia Attorney General and

three complaints against individual commissioners Brian Tam, Patrick Bell and Ralph (Pete)

Amos for violating Forsyth County Ethics Ordinance with the Forsyth County Board of Ethics.

On July 12, 2011, the Forsyth County Board of Ethics dismissed the matter without

holding a hearing; however, in a letter dated July 28, 2011, the Attorney General’s office ruled

that the Board of Commissioners indeed violated the Open Meetings Act. Thus, the Ethics

Board decision was appealed to Superior Court on August 11, 2011, but was dismissed on

November 22, 2011 — not for lack of merit — but due the failure to obtain a necessary sanction

by pro se litigant Sweeney.

The ethics board missed what the Attorney General’s office caught. Months went by with

several changes to the ethical standards by the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners which

seemed to accommodate the habitual failures by the ethics board. Many of the changes seem to

be created to insulate the county commissioners from further complaints as aresult of the initial

Sweeney complaint. Then corrections were made to alleviate the most recent concerns with the

Ethics board.

3

In preparation for the appeal before the Forsyth County Superior Court Case No. 11CV-

1650, Sweeney became aware of multiple violations of the Ethics Ordinance by the Forsyth

County Board of Ethics.

As a conscientious citizen desiring to hold government accountable to the letter of the

law, Sweeney filed six ethics complaints against five plus one former, alternate members of the

Forsyth County Board of Ethics: Robert Bryan Charles, David Michael Van Sant, Timothy M.

Perry, Rushton S. Ricketson, Richard John Lorne Twiner and Ernest Vasco Turner III on

December 16, 2011. Complainant’s sole reason for reporting and filing complaints was to

ensure better ethical behavior in government.

These six individuals (“Respondents”) violated the rules of the Forsyth County Ethics

Ordinance by holding meetings at unauthorized days, times and places. Each individual member

recused himself due to a conflict of interest in hearing a complaint filed against him.

On December 28, 2011, the Forsyth County Board of Ethics held a meeting to discuss the

Sweeney complaints. As respondent to an ethics complaint while an alternate member, now non-

member Turner took a seat at the table with the board, seconded motions and voted to enter into

an attorney-client-privileged, executive session. A complaint was filed with Georgia Attorney

General for violating the Open Meetings Act for this illegal executive session. (See Exhibit A.)

After more than an hour in an illegal executive session, the board voted publicly to

authorize its attorney, Logan Butler, to file an answer to the Sweeney complaints with its clerk

and file for declaratory judgment with the Forsyth County Superior Court.

On January 4, 2012, after further consideration, conflicted board counsel Logan Butler

explains why he cannot file a response on behalf of individual board members. Board Chairman

Bob Charles asks for a motion “to rescind the vote to have the board counsel file a response.”

4

After an awkward moment of silence form the board, Chairman Charles announced, “That item

dies for lack of a motion.” After recessing for another executive session — in which Turner was

not allowed to participate — the board returns to immediately vote to revisit the agenda item to

consider rescinding their vote to instruct board counsel Butler to file a response (time = 29

minutes). The instant motion by the Board of Ethics to handle one item only specific to the

defense of the individual board members creates yet another violation. The board voted

unanimously to rescind the vote to have Butler file a response to the six Sweeney complaints.

In spite of Butler’s stated conflict of interest in representing individual respondents

Charles, Van Sant, Perry, Ricketson, Twiner and Turner — at the Court’s request, Butler

questioned witnesses at the hearing on April 27, 2012 and filed a brief on behalf of respondents

on May 4, 2012. Statements from the hearing on April 27, 2012:

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 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?

5

Likewise, Butler filed a response to complainant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File

Brief on May 16, 2012. Butler had no instruction from the six pro se litigants or from the Court

to file said response which is clearly a conflict of interest as counsel to the Forsyth County Board

of Ethics.

This unauthorized, unsolicited, conflicted, legal counsel provided by Esquire Logan

Butler violates the Georgia Bar Code of Ethics and has placed pro se complainant Sweeney at an

unfair disadvantage. Butler’s conflicted actions have tipped the playing field to favor the six

respondents. Complainant did not “lawyer up” because he expected a level playing field. Also,

a citizen has a right to redress his government for grievances.

Butler without exception accepted and did not controvert Sweeney’s reading into the

record of Failures of Respondent to follow the Forsyth County Ethics Ordinance in responding to

the Sweeney Complaint document that was previously submitted to the court.

Butler’s single question focused on a claim about complainant seeking attention but

failed to provide any admissible evidence to support his claim. Citizen Sweeney did not seek out

an interview as claimed by Mr. Butler. Butler seems intent on finding some grounds to take

retaliatory action against me.

Four respondents — Van Sant, Perry, Ricketson and Twiner — failed to even attend the

hearing before the Court on April 27, 2012. The failure of the litigants to arrive in the courtroom

seems to be a slap in the face for the entire procedure. Ricketson’s response filed January 13,

2012 lacks a necessary notary seal. (See Exhibit B). Additionally, Turner’s response was never

filed with the Forsyth County Board of Ethics as required. Furthermore, Butler’s brief filed

May 4, 2012 did not arrive at complainant’s address because of insufficient postage due.

6

Sweeney sought out the response from the Forsyth County Clerk of Court. Sweeney obtained an

electronic copy of said brief on May 8, 2012 via email.

Butler’s response includes an improper date of May 30, 2012 referencing our hearing

which actually took place on April 30, 2012. The Court identified and allowed less formal

proceedings.

The issue before the court is whether there were ethical violations of Ethics rules for

Forsyth County. Mr. Butler argues a compelling case about the Open Meetings Act; however

that is not the subject of this complaint before the Court.

The local rules compound with the State Laws when not in conflict with State Law.

Local jurisdictions often create additional rules that are more restrictive as was the case in

Forsyth County. If this were not the case, then why have local rules at all?

Throughout the entire process it has become abundantly clear that rules, especially small

ones, simply don’t matter to the Forsyth County Board of Ethics.

The responses by the Forsyth County Board of Ethics individual members failed to

follow the rules for providing a response which were detailed in the filing: Failures of

Respondent to follow the Forsyth County Ethics Ordinance in responding to the Sweeney

Complaint.

Mr. Butler seems to agree that rules were not followed, but only provides excuses as why

the rules were too difficult to be followed. He offers no explanation as to why the Forsyth

County Ethics Board failed to adopt rules, regulations and procedures to avoid the excuses

presented as a defense before the court.

From Forsyth County Ethics Rules 2-117 Duties and Powers: The board of ethics shall

have the following duties and powers: (1) Establish any procedures, rules and regulations

7

governing its internal organization and conduct of its affairs, provided that such procedures, rules

and regulations do not conflict with any provision contained in this article.

Basic organization never took place. Simply put, the Forsyth County Board of Ethics

doesn’t take their job seriously and cares not to follow its own rules. The Board of Ethics could

have established the meeting time for all of its meetings or changed the rule, but they never cared

to look at that rule.

The Court has the ultimate authority in these matters. Prior to the Courts involvement,

several procedural issues existed which were outlined in documents submitted to the Court. As

Mr. Butler noted in the first sentence of his brief “at the express direction of the Court” which

begins to identify the failure to properly disclose a conflict to the Court in which a motion was

unanimously passed to expressly prohibit Mr. Butler from serving as the attorney for the

individual Forsyth County Ethics Board members. See attached Ethics Board minutes from

January 4, 2012. (See Exhibit C). Mr. Butler had an obligation to make the Court aware and to

respectfully object to the Courts request to serve as the individual attorney for the six ethics

board members.

Also, all of the complaint responses are styled almost identically. And in the brief filed

by Butler there is the line “The members of Ethics Board through their filed Answers to the

Complaints….” Not a complete sentence and possibly quite telling as to the concerted effort to

illegally use county funds and go against the vote of the board to use a county paid attorney. This

is another indication of the unauthorized use of the ethics board attorney to handle their personal

case. I expected a level playing field with pro se litigants and found myself defending against

the power and might of a county paid attorney. Mr. Butler has access to court cases to support his

8

positions. Sweeney does not have these resources at his disposal. Would the ethics board

members have mounted such a defense in a pro se litigant fashion?

Butler claims no harm to Sweeney; however, complainant hoped to have the proceeding

recorded to review, but the videographer went to the wrong location.

The board could have reviewed their rules and understood them. The request to disband

wasn’t a request to eliminate the board, but a request to replace the board with members who

agree to read the rules, to understand the rules, to train regarding the rules.

Just recently, the Board of Ethics was asked to provide an advisory opinion regarding a

conflict of interest. It was the first advisory opinion issued by the Board of Ethics, but it was

discovered that no procedures existed for the board to follow upon receipt of this type of request.

The statements contained herein are true to the best of Complainant’s knowledge and

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Exhibit A

May 14, 2012 Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens Senior Assistant Attorney General Stefan Ritter Special Assistant Shiela Guider Department of Law 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, GA 30334-1300 Dear Attorney General, et al.: Please click link to view the "Nydeo" of the meeting Forsyth County Board of Ethics 12/28/11. On December 28, 2011, the Forsyth County Board of Ethics entered into executive session [time = 3:15] with former, alternate member Ernest Turner who previously served for the recused ethics board member Timothy Perry in July 2011. Mr. Turner's temporary service on the board had expired when he participated in said meeting. Non-member Turner took a seat at the table with the board, seconded motions and voted to enter into executive session. Non-member Turner participated in an attorney-client privileged, executive session. I allege that the executive session with non-member Turner in attendance was a violation of the Open Meetings Act O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2 (1):

The attorney-client privilege recognized by state law to the extent that a meeting otherwise required to be open to the public under this chapter may be closed in order to consult and meet with legal counsel pertaining to pending or potential litigation, settlement, claims, administrative proceedings, or other judicial actions brought or to be brought by or against the agency or any officer or employee or in which the agency or any officer or employee may be directly involved; provided, however, the meeting may not be closed for advice or consultation on whether to close a meeting.

I respectfully request that the Georgia Attorney General's office investigate my allegation against the Forsyth County Board of Ethics. Kind regards, Nydia Tisdale nydiatisdale@hotmail.com YouTube.com/nydiatisdale AboutForsyth.com 1240 Oakhaven Drive Roswell, GA 30075 770-594-2300 phone 404-316-8888 cell

Exhibit B

Exhibit C