Image: Gwinnett Daily Post

Ethics board sustains two of six points in complaint against Gwinnett commissioner Marlene Fosque; warning recommended

January 27, 2020

The complaint was in response to remarks Fosque made about Sheriff Butch Conway inviting King to participate in a 287(g) forum that the commissioner hosted in July. Conway was tasked with providing three pro-287(g) panelists for the event. More here.

Gwinnett County Commissioner Marlene Fosque. Image Gwinnett County website

Gwinnett County Commissioner Marlene Fosque. Image Gwinnett County website

Click on page to read full Ethics Board Decision.

Gov Brian Kemp – photo, Facebook

Brunswick News
January 25, 2020

Letters to the editor

Kemp has yet to take action on illegal aliens

I still recall days of old when bold politicians called for reforms to protect the people of Georgia from illegal aliens. Unfortunately, as I repeatedly read stories in the press about rapes of women and children, murders and robbery, my memory brings back then candidate Gov. Brian Kemp’s promise to “track and deport” criminal aliens in Georgia.

I suppose the governor hasn’t had the time or the inclination to follow through on his promise, or was it just a politician pandering to his base? Perhaps the governor’s staff isn’t keeping him apprised of the seriousness of the current situation?

I didn’t have to look too hard to find some recent statistics for criminal aliens lodged in Georgia’s prisons. Here are the numbers and crimes for November 2019, compliments of the Georgia Department of Corrections:

• Child molestation, 234.

• Murder, 162.

• Rape, 127.

• Aggravated assault, 116.

• Armed robbery, 110.

• Statutory rape, 63.

• Kidnapping, 63.

• Trafficking meth, 137.

• Racketeering, 12.

I imagine the heads up at the governor’s office will roll when he finds out just how bad things have become in regard to criminal illegal aliens. Or will they?

The governor certainly has it within his authority to implement the plan he ran on.

Robert M. Trent

St. Marys

Here.

Gwinnett County Commissioner Marlene Fosque. Image Gwinnett County website

(January 29, 2020)
Mr. King,

Attached are the minutes of the January 27th meeting, which are also posted on the Ethics Board website. I will timely respond to your request for the transcript in a separate email.

Thanks,
Julie

Julie Mims | Legal Manager, Law Department | Gwinnett County Government
770.822.8716 | 75 Langley Drive, Lawrenceville, GA 30046 | www.gwinnettcounty.com

—–Original Message—–
From: D.A. King Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 5:33 PM
To: Mims, Julie <Julie.Mims@gwinnettcounty. com>
Subject: OPEN RECORDS REQUEST Transcripts of Ethics Board hearing and meeting

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Gwinnett County Government. Maintain caution when opening external links/attachments.

Ms. Mims,

Please regard this note as my official open records request for a copy of the transcripts of the January 23, 2020 Ethics Board hearing as well as the January 27, 2010 meeting in which the decision on my complaints was announced.

Thank you,

D.A. King
404-

Gwinnett County Commissioner Marlene Fosque. Image Gwinnett County website

AJC
January 27, 2020

The Gwinnett County ethics board delivered a split decision in the case of Commissioner Marlene Fosque, sustaining two of six allegations brought against her and recommending she receive a written warning.

Fosque’s colleagues on the Board of Commissioners will have the final say on any punishment tied to the ethics complaint, which was filed last fall by anti-illegal immigration activist D.A. King.King accused Fosque of defamation and several other ethical violations in connection with statements she made about him in a public meeting.

King participated in a panel discussion Fosque organized last July on a federal immigration enforcement program known as 287(g). During a commission meeting a few days later, Fosque called King “someone known for spewing hatred and bigotry and racism” and said she regretted that he had participated.The ethics board heard the case last week and issued its recommendation on Monday.

The panel rejected King’s defamation claims but upheld other counts based on sections of the county’s ethics ordinance that urge officials to give their duties “earnest effort and best thought” and to “never engage in conduct which is unbecoming” to their office.“While the commissioner testified that her comments were not intended to reflect her personal beliefs regarding Mr. King … her choice of words and the manner in which she delivered them at [the subsequent commission meeting] can reasonably be interpreted otherwise,” the ethics board wrote in its findings.

In a statement issued Monday afternoon, Fosque thanked the ethics board for its time and said she would continue striving to represent her constituents with “grace, dignity and wisdom.”King said Fosque’s recommended punishment did not go far enough, comparing this result to the only other time Gwinnett’s ethics board convened.

“From the outset, many of us were anxious to see who is the most equal in Gwinnett County politics,” King wrote in an email to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “We have our answer.”

In a 2017 case, Gwinnett Commissioner Tommy Hunter was publicly reprimanded after writing Facebook posts that, among other things, called U.S. Rep. John Lewis a “racist pig.”

The ethics board found that Fosque, a Democrat, violated the same behavior-regulating tenets that Hunter, a Republican, did in his case. But the written warning recommended for Fosque would be a lesser punishment than the reprimand Hunter received.

The ethics board wrote that it “relied on various mitigating factors” in recommending the lighter punishment for Fosque, “including what it believes were the commissioner’s good intentions in holding the [original immigration] forum.”Gwinnett’s ethics ordinance was established in 2011 in the wake of a bribery scandal and was intended to target corruption and conflicts of interest. Ethics experts have questioned the portions of the law that were used in the Fosque and Hunter cases, which can be interpreted to police other behavior.

Under the ordinance, the Board of Commissioners must consider the recommendation and hold a final vote on the case within 30 days.

Here.

Gwinnett Sheriff Butch Conway – CSPAN

Press Release

January 28, 2020

Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office
2900 University Parkway Lawrenceville, GA 30043
Sheriff Butch Conway

January 28, 2020
Media Release #20200128
Deputy Shannon Volkodav – Public Information Officer
E-mail shannon.volkodav@gwinnettcounty.   com
Phone 770-822-384

Statement from Sheriff Butch Conway:

It has been an honor to serve the citizens of Gwinnett County as their sheriff for 24 years. My office employs the finest staff in the state of Georgia and I’m proud of the many accomplishments we’ve achieved together.

My decision to not seek re-election was not made easily, but I have reached a point in my life where I desire to pursue other opportunities which will afford me more time with my family, who recently suffered a great loss.

I hired Chief Deputy Lou Solis two years ago with the intention of preparing him to succeed me. Chief Deputy Solis has worked exhaustively over the past two years to familiarize himself with our operations. His work ethic is unparalleled and his contributions to our office are great. He has demonstrated outstanding leadership time and time again.

I am certain that Lou Solis will continue to make the Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office a standout. We routinely receive visitors from other agencies across the country who seek to implement our programs in their jurisdictions. Programs like Operation Second Chance (Jail Dogs) the Gwinnett Re-entry Intervention Program (GRIP), the 287(g) program and the new veteran’s therapeutic program (The Barracks) are sprouting across the nation because we started them right here in Gwinnett. The benefits to our county are immeasurable and we take great pride in seeing similar programs benefit other communities nationwide.

I thank the many faithful supporters who placed their trust in me election after election over the past two decades. I will always be thankful for the opportunity you provided me to serve as your sheriff and hope the positive contributions we’ve made together will continue to benefit our community for many years to come.

Rep John Lewis. Image: HuffPost

Tommy Hunter complaint 2017      

Gwinnett County Commissioner Marlene Fosque. Image Gwinnett County website

Section 54-24-(2) – Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to the county above loyalty to persons, party, or a county government department.”
SUSTAINED

SECTION 54-24-(11) – Requires that all County Commissioners shall “…never engage in conduct which is unbecoming to a member or which constitutes a breach of public trust.”
SUSTAINED

SECTION 54-24-(16) – Requires all County Commissioners shall …uphold these principles (of the Ethics Code), ever conscious that public office is a public trust and is an honor, not a right.”
NOT SUSTAINED

OCGA 45-11-4 and requested referral to the Solicitor or any criminal authority under section 54-38-(b)(5)
WITHDRAWN and NOT SUSTAINED

2017 ETHICS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS (for both of the sustained violations): “ The Ethics Board recommends that the Board of Commissioners issue a written reprimand to Commissioner Hunter pursuant to Section 54-38-(d)(1) of the Ethics Code. The Ethics Board further recommends that the written reprimand be publically delivered to Commissioner Hunter, that it be posted on the County legal organ, and that it be publically posted in the County Courthouse.
–

The Board of Commissioners with Charlotte J. Nash as Chairman voted 4-0 (unanimous) to sanction and reprimand Commissioner Tommy Hunter.

A RESOLUTION TO PUBLICLY REPRIMAND COMMISSIONER TOMMY HUNTER FOR VIOLATING THE GWINNETT COUNTY CODE OF ETHICS As adopted by the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners June 20, 2017. Here.

AJC “timeline” coverage here.

Gwinnett County Commissioner Marlene Fosque. Image Gwinnett County website

Gwinnett Daily Post
January 24, 2020

‘Tentative’ decision reached in Fosque ethics case, announcement expected Monday

The ethics board is expected to finalize a decision it has tentatively reached in Dustin Inman Society founder D.A. King’s ethics complaint against Gwinnett Commissioner Marlene Fosque on Monday, the board’s chairman has confirmed.

The decision was reached Friday morning after a couple of hours of deliberation by the ethics panel. The panel spent Thursday listening to testimony from witnesses presented by King and Steve Reilly, who is Fosque’s attorney.

The board is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. Monday at the Gwinnett Justice and Administration Center to go over its decision before taking a vote on it.

“We have reached a tentative or preliminary decision,” ethics board chairman David Will said. “We’ve asked our attorneys to prepare a written decision to incorporate our findings and conclusions.

“On Monday, we plan to review and revise, if necessary, the written opinion and then make our official decision.”

King filed the complaint against Fosque last fall after she publicly criticized Sheriff Butch Conway’s decision to invite King to participate in a 287(g) the commissioner hosted in late July.

Although Fosque hosted the forum, it was up to the sheriff’s office to chose the pro-287(g) panelists who participated in the event.

Conway testified on Thursday that he has considered King an adviser to him on immigration matters for several years. Meanwhile Fosque told King, as he questioned her on the witness stand, that she had no feelings of malice toward him.

When Fosque made the comments criticizing King’s participation in the forum during a commission meeting in August, she cited the Southern Poverty Law Center’s assessment of the Dustin Inman Society as an anti-immigrant hate group. King and his supporters have called the SPLC a discredited organization.

Here.

Gwinnett County Commissioner Marlene Fosque. Image Gwinnett County website

 

“I would have to say D.A. King has done work in Gwinnett,” Conway said. “He’s been an adviser to me for a dozen years now (in regard to) 287(g) and immigration matters.”

Gwinnett Daily Post

Immigration debate looms over Commissioner Marlene Fosque ethics hearing

Curt Yeomans
January 20, 2020

Although the ethics hearing held against Gwinnett Commissione Marlene Fosque was intended to determine whether she acted unethically by publicly criticizing Dustin Inman Society founder D.A. King’s participation in a 287(g) forum, the elephant in the room kept raising its head.

That elephant was the debate over U.S. immigration policy and the role of race in that debate.

“They were trying to make that case on some things that we don’t think are relative to our determination,” ethics board chairman David Will said after the hearing. “It’s not a public forum where we’re having a discussion on that. We’re trying to decide, based on (King’s) complaint, did it violate the code of ethics.”

Although testimony and closing arguments in the ethics hearing wrapped up Thursday, the panel that conducted the hearing is scheduled to reconvene for one more day this week to deliberate and try to reach a decision on whether Fosque’s comments about King violated the county’s ethics policy.

At the Aug. 6 county commission meeting, Fosque cited a Southern Poverty Law Center assessment of the Dustin Inman Society as an anti-immigrant hate group as she denounced King’s participation in the forum.

Fosque hosted the forum, but left the selection of pro-287(g) panelists up to the Gwinnett Sheriff’s Office.

“I have no malice toward you, I don’t know you,” Fosque told King as she testified Thursday. “What my intentions were was to talk to the great citizens of Gwinnett County and tell them who we were not, and also to be able to express to the citizens, my constituents who I represent, that I didn’t invite you.”

Time and again on Thursday, Will had to reign in King and Fosque’s attorney, Steve Reilly, during the questioning of witnesses as queries kept drifting back to the topic of U.S. immigration policy and the immigration movement.

Several statements made by King over the years were brought up during the hearing…. More here.

Image: GoldenAgeofGaia

§ 50-36-1. Verification requirements, procedures, and conditions; exceptions; regulations; criminal and other penalties for violations

(a) As used in this Code section, the term:
(1) “Agency head” means a director, commissioner, chairperson, mayor, councilmember, board member, sheriff, or other executive official, whether appointed or elected, responsible for establishing policy for a public employer.
(2) “Agency or political subdivision” means any department, agency, authority, commission, or government entity of this state or any subdivision of this state.
(3) “Applicant” means any natural person, 18 years of age or older, who has made application for access to public benefits on behalf of an individual, business, corporation, partnership, or other private entity.

(4) “Public benefit”‘ means a federal, a state, or local benefit which shall include the following:

(A) Adult education;
(B) Authorization to conduct a commercial enterprise or business;
(C) Business certificate, license, or registration;
(D) Business loan;
(E) Cash allowance;
(F) Disability assistance or insurance;
(G) Down payment assistance;
(H) Energy assistance;
(I) Food stamps;
(J) Gaming license;
(K) Grants;
(L) Health benefits;
(M) Housing allowance, grant, guarantee, or loan;
(N) Loan guarantee;
(O) Medicaid;
(P) Occupational license;
(Q) Professional license;
(R) Public and assisted housing;
(S) Registration of a regulated business;
(T) Rent assistance or subsidy;
(U) Retirement benefits;
(V) State grant or loan;
(W) State issued driver’s license and identification card;
(X) Tax certificate required to conduct a commercial business;
(Y) Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF);
(Z) Unemployment insurance; and
(AA) Welfare to work.

(5) “SAVE program” means the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security or a successor program designated by the United States Department of Homeland Security for the same purpose.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this Code section or where exempted by federal law, every agency or political subdivision shall verify the lawful presence in the United States under federal immigration law of any applicant for public benefits.(c) This Code section shall be enforced without regard to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or national origin.
(d) Verification of lawful presence in the United States under federal immigration law under this Code section shall not be required:
(1) For any purpose for which lawful presence in the United States under federal immigration law is not required by law, ordinance, or regulation;
(2) For assistance for health care items and services that are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition, as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1396b(v) (3), of the alien involved and are not related to an organ transplant procedure;
(3) For short-term, noncash, in-kind emergency disaster relief;
(4) For public health assistance for immunizations with respect to immunizable diseases and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases whether or not such symptoms are caused by a communicable disease;
(5) For programs, services, or assistance such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter specified by the United States Attorney General, in the United States Attorney General’s sole and unreviewable discretion after consultation with appropriate federal agencies and departments, which:
(A) Deliver in-kind services at the community level, including through public or private nonprofit agencies;
(B) Do not condition the provision of assistance, the amount of assistance provided, or the cost of assistance provided on the individual recipient’s income or resources; and
(C) Are necessary for the protection of life or safety;
(6) For prenatal care; or
(7) For postsecondary education, whereby the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the State Board of the Technical College System of Georgia, the board of commissioners of the Georgia Student Finance Commission, and the board of directors of the Georgia Student Finance Authority shall set forth, or cause to be set forth, policies or regulations, or both, regarding postsecondary benefits that comply with all federal law including but not limited to public benefits as described in 8 U.S.C. Section 1611, 1621, or 1623.
(e) All policies of agencies or political subdivisions regarding public benefits for postsecondary education shall comply with federal law as provided in 8 U.S.C. Section 1623.
(f) (1) Except as provided in subsection (g) of this Code section, an agency or political subdivision providing or administering a public benefit shall require every applicant for such benefit to:
(A) Provide at least one secure and verifiable document, as defined in Code Section 50-36-2, or a copy or facsimile of such document. Any document required by this subparagraph may be submitted by or on behalf of the applicant at any time within nine months prior to the date of application so long as the document remains valid through the licensing or approval period or such other period for which the applicant is applying to receive a public benefit; and
(B) Execute a signed and sworn affidavit verifying the applicant’s lawful presence in the United States under federal immigration law; provided, however, that if the applicant is younger than 18 years of age at the time of the application, he or she shall execute the affidavit required by this subparagraph within 30 days after his or her eighteenth birthday. Such affidavit shall affirm that:
(i) The applicant is a United States citizen or legal permanent resident 18 years of age or older; or
(ii) The applicant is a qualified alien or nonimmigrant under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S.C., 18 years of age or older lawfully present in the United States and provide the applicant’s alien number issued by the Department of Homeland Security or other federal immigration agency.
(2) The state auditor shall create affidavits for use under this subsection and shall keep a current version of such affidavits on the Department of Audits and Accounts’ official website.
(3) Documents and copies of documents required by this subsection may be submitted in person, by mail, or electronically, provided the submission complies with Chapter 12 of Title 10. Copies of documents submitted in person, by mail, or electronically shall satisfy the requirements of this Code section. For purposes of this paragraph, electronic submission shall include a submission via facsimile, Internet, electronic texting, or any other electronically assisted transmitted method approved by the agency or political subdivision.
(4) The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to any applicant applying for or renewing an application for a public benefit within the same agency or political subdivision if the applicant has previously complied with the requirements of this subsection by submission of a secure and verifiable document, as defined in Code Section 50-36-2, and a signed and sworn affidavit affirming that such applicant is a United States citizen.
(g)
(1) The Department of Driver Services shall require every applicant for a state issued driver’s license or state identification card to submit, in person, an original secure and verifiable document, as defined in Code Section 50-36-2, and execute a signed and sworn affidavit verifying the applicant’s lawful presence in the United States under federal immigration law.
(2) The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to any applicant renewing a state issued driver’s license or state identification card when such applicant has previously complied with the requirements of this subsection by submission of a secure and verifiable document, as defined in Code Section 50-36-2, and a signed and sworn affidavit affirming that such applicant is a United States citizen.
(h) For any applicant who has executed an affidavit that he or she is an alien lawfully present in the United States, eligibility for public benefits shall be made through the SAVE program. Until such eligibility verification is made, the affidavit may be presumed to be proof of lawful presence in the United States under federal immigration law for the purposes of this Code section.
(i) Any person who knowingly and willfully makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement of representation in an affidavit executed pursuant to this Code section shall be guilty of a violation of Code Section 16-10-20.
(j) Verification of citizenship through means required by federal law shall satisfy the requirements of this Code section.
(k) It shall be unlawful for any agency or political subdivision to provide or administer any public benefit in violation of this Code section. Agencies and political subdivisions subject to the requirements of this subsection shall provide an annual report to the Department of Audits and Accounts pursuant to Code Section 50-36-4 as proof of compliance with this subsection. Any agency or political subdivision failing to provide a report as required by this subsection shall not be entitled to any financial assistance, funds, or grants from the Department of Community Affairs.
(l) Any and all errors and significant delays by the SAVE program shall be reported to the United States Department of Homeland Security.
(m) Notwithstanding subsection (i) of this Code section, any applicant for public benefits shall not be guilty of any crime for executing an affidavit attesting to his or her lawful presence in the United States under federal immigration law that contains a false statement if such affidavit is not required by this Code section.
(n) In the event a legal action is filed against any agency or political subdivision alleging improper denial of a public benefit arising out of an effort to comply with this Code section, the Attorney General shall be served with a copy of the proceeding and shall be entitled to be heard.
(o) Compliance with this Code section by an agency or political subdivision shall include taking all reasonable, necessary steps required by a federal agency to receive authorization to utilize the SAVE program or any successor program designated by the United States Department of Homeland Security or other federal agency, including providing copies of statutory authorization for the agency or political subdivision to provide public benefits and other affidavits, letters of memorandum of understanding, or other required documents or information needed to receive authority to utilize the SAVE program or any successor program for each public benefit provided by such agency or political subdivision. An agency or political subdivision that takes all reasonable, necessary steps and submits all requested documents and information as required in this subsection but either has not been given access to use such programs by such federal agencies or has not completed the process of obtaining access to use such programs shall not be liable for failing to use the SAVE program or any such successor program to verify eligibility for public benefits.
(p) In the case of noncompliance with the provisions of this Code section by an agency or political subdivision, the appropriations committee of each house of the General Assembly may consider such noncompliance in setting the budget and appropriations.
(q) No employer, agency, or political subdivision shall be subject to lawsuit or liability arising from any act to comply with the requirements of this chapter; provided, however, that the intentional and knowing failure of any agency head to abide by the provisions of this chapter shall:
(1) Be a violation of the code of ethics for government service established in Code Section 45-10-1 and subject such agency head to the penalties provided for in Code Section 45-10-28, including removal from office and a fine not to exceed $10,000.00; and
(2) Be a high and aggravated misdemeanor offense where such agency head acts to willfully violate the provisions of this Code section or acts so as to intentionally and deliberately interfere with the implementation of the requirements of this Code section.
The Attorney General shall have the authority to conduct a criminal and civil investigation of an alleged violation of this chapter by an agency or agency head and to bring a prosecution or civil action against an agency or agency head for all cases of violations under this chapter. In the event that an order is entered against an employer, the state shall be awarded attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation incurred in bringing such an action and investigating such violation.

History

Code 1981, § 50-36-1, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 105, § 9/SB 529; Ga. L. 2009, p. 8, § 50/SB 46; Ga. L. 2009, p. 970, § 3/HB 2; Ga. L. 2011, p. 632, § 3/HB 49; Ga. L. 2011, p. 794, §§ 16, 17, 18/HB 87; Ga. L. 2012, p. 775, § 50/HB 942; Ga. L. 2013, p. 111, § 6/SB 160; Ga. L. 2013, p. 125, § 1/HB 324.