Atlanta City Council - Regular Meeting

Bye. so so Bye. Good evening.

I call to order the September 17, 2026 meeting of the City of Atlanta Ethics Board. The Ethics Board is an independent five-member body established to support the independence of the Ethics Office and to hear appeals from adverse decisions issued by the Ethics Office. Board members are Atlanta residents nominated by community, civic, and legal organizations and appointed by the mayor and city council to three-year terms. Members serve without compensation. The current members of the Ethics Board are Gabriella Cole, nominated by the American Bar Association, sorry, the Atlanta Bar Association, Keith A. Lamar, Jr., nominated by the Gate City Bar Association, Nkoyone F. Young-Lewis, nominated by the League of Women Voters of Atlanta-Fulton County, and Drew Williamson, nominated by the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. The seat nominated by the Atlanta Planning Advisory Board will soon be filled. My name is Nkoyo Effiong-Lewis, Chair of the Ethics Board, and I will preside over tonight's meeting and appeal hearing. Also present are Ethics Officer Jabu M. Sengova, Deputy Ethics Officer Carlos Santiago, Ethics Advisor Kevin Shuckle, I apologize if I mispronounced that, and Zeva Kushner from the Department of Law, who is available to advise the board on procedural matters. The appellant, Keisha Waits, present. And counsel for appellant Jeremy Berry and Joseph Siegelman are also present tonight. So make sure we have a quorum is present. I will proceed with the first order of business. The first item of is adoption of the agenda. Is there a motion to adopt the agenda? I move to adopt the agenda.

Seconded.

Any discussion? Let's go ahead and vote. All in favor of adopting the agenda, say aye.

Aye.

The agenda is adopted. We will proceed with the preliminary matters. Before beginning the appeal hearing, the board will address the appellant's request. Counsel for appellant, you may address the board.

Good evening, Chair Lewis and members of the board. I have an entire presentation to give to start the substantive remarks. But before we do that, I think the first order of business, frankly, should be to address our email about Mr. Williamson and his involvement, because I think that drives sort of where we go from here, if I may. I've put forward in the email sent to the board on September 16th yesterday at 1 22 p.m that mr williamson is a senior associate at the kilpatrick townsend and stockton law firm he has worked there for several years according to the city's checkbook records which are publicly available the city of atlanta has paid the kilpatrick law firm 1.139 million dollars over 186 transactions from july 2016 through most recently june 18th 2026. I believe and understand that work is still ongoing, though I may not know for sure. Let me be clear, we are not suggesting that this payment history reflects any bias, but this board, to do its job effectively, must, absolutely must be independent. We have a board member who is imminently qualified. We have that same board member, however, who works for a city contractor who has been paid $1.13 million. That is not a small sum of money. We believe that Mr. Williamson needs to recuse himself from this matter given that he works for a city of Atlanta vendor and a contractor and a current city contractor. This board must be objective, this board must be independent, and to have someone as a city contractor serve on this board, If not questions the objectivity, there is at least an appearance of impartiality, of not being impartial. Again, this is no way assassination or having anything to do with Mr. Williamson's character, with his qualifications, with his ability to serve. I am sure he is a wonderful and smart attorney, and the firm is an outstanding firm. This has to do with objectivity and the fact that a city vendor is on this board. As a board charged with objectivity, as a board charged with independence, it is imperative that he recuse himself from this matter.

If I could, just to respond to Mr. Berry, thank you, obviously, for raising the issue. I and my law firm take conflicts of interest seriously and appreciate the opportunity to address that issue here. As reflected in my 2026 annual financial disclosure statement, which was filed on March 2nd, 2026 with the Ethics Office, I disclosed that my employer, Kilpatrick Townsend, provides legal services to the City of Atlanta. The firm's engagement with the city involves the Department of Watershed Management. I also disclosed in that same statement that I have not been involved in any way in acquiring or performing any of the work under that engagement. This was true obviously when I submitted the statement under penalty of perjury. back in March and it remains true today. I've had no involvement in the investigation of this case. The final decision that was issued by the Ethics Office or in this appeal hearing outside of my duties as a member of the Ethics Board, neither I nor my law firm has any financial or personal interest in the outcome of this proceeding. So based on these facts, while I appreciate your concern, Mr. Berry, I don't believe a conflict of interest or reasonable question of impartiality exists. And so I intend to participate in the hearing.

I appreciate that. And I appreciate that that's your interpretation. I appreciate that your law firm ran conflicts. The city, however, the law firm, of course, should run conflicts. The city has an ethical obligation independent of any conflict search that Kilpatrick did to verify. And I would request that this board with advice of counsel determine, because in my mind, this is reversible error for this proceeding to go forward with a city contractor serving on this board to hear this proceeding. So I would request that this council, this board vote Mr. WILLIAMSON HAS STATED HOW HE FEELS. WE BELIEVE AND WANT THE RECORD CLEAR THAT THIS IS REVERSIBLE ERROR IF AND WHEN THIS MATTER GOES UP ON APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR MR. WILLIAMSON TO PROCEED AT ALL IN THIS PROCEEDING GIVEN THAT HE WORKS FOR A CITY CONTRACTOR. I UNDERSTAND THE LAW FIRM MAY NOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER. THEIR WORK MAY BE ISOLATED TO CITY OF ATLANTA DEPARTMENT OF WATERSHED. uh matters mr williamson may not work on any city of atlanta matters whatsoever but his law firm and his compensation comes from the city of atlanta that to me is black and white and again we respectfully request that this board take a vote on the issue

One more. I disagree with the suggestion that my compensation has anything to do with the firm's work for the city of Atlanta. And I'm happy, obviously, for the work to go.

And I'll clarify that remark. Not that your compensation is paid. Kilpatrick Stockton receives $1 million from the city. That goes into a big pot of money that ultimately is paid to you, to the lease of the firm, to your assistant, all of that. So you indirectly benefit. by virtue of the fact that the city of Atlanta is a client of your law firm. I'm not suggesting that your compensation is directly tied. I'm simply saying your firm is a contractor and receives a material amount of money from the city.

Understood. Is there a motion to vote on this matter?

I move to vote on your participation. All right, second.

So there has been a motion. Is there any discussion?

Have you had any interaction with the attorneys that work on those matters? Have you seen any of the documents? And furthermore, was there any discussion when your firm ran conflicts about the expectation that you vote a certain way?

To answer I guess those questions in turn, my understanding is that the attorney or attorneys that handle the work that my firm performs for the Department of Watershed Management is a completely different practice group. I don't have any interaction with that group or those attorneys. I've never worked with those attorneys on any matters, let alone the city of Atlanta matters. And the issue of me voting a certain way has never been discussed.

I'm comfortable with voting.

Thanks for the motion. All those in favor of Board Member Williamson recusing himself, say aye. Those all opposed, say nay. Nay. That motion, trying to remember which way I wrote it, does not pass.

Can we state for the record, please, that all four members voted against that?

I abstain from voting for obvious reasons here.

I can. As I read the charter, I think you need four votes for any decision of the board. It's section 9103, I think G2, if memory serves correct. That's probably accurate. From the city charter, it says, let me find it. So I think Mr. Williamson would need to vote on the issue. sorry I'm looking for the provision Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. The site is provision 9-102E as in elephant 4. In no event shall a decision of the board be voted upon by fewer than four members. So respectfully, we move that Mr. Williamson please vote or this vote. We take the position the vote is invalid unless he votes on this issue. That's 9102E4 from the city charter, that it requires four people to vote on a decision of the ethics board.

That's fine. We'll have Mr. Williamson vote his vote.

I vote nay. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I don't know how you want to handle this next. There are a couple other procedural issues. The first had to do with the subpoenas that we requested on September 14th. We emailed you requesting attendance of certain ethics office employees and leaders. It may be a moot issue, but I am not sure who all is in attendance. So I don't know. Respectfully, it's your meeting, but I don't know if you want to move to that issue or how you want to handle that.

That's fine. I'm happy to take each of your requests that we said we would address here in turn.

Okay. Well, as I stated, we, in my email to you, that we believe that the ethics officer and the deputy ethics officer and the two investigators need to be in attendance and should have been subpoenaed. I don't know if this issue is mooted by their attendance. I respectfully don't know. I don't recognize the two investigators. They may be here. If so, I don't know. If so, I apologize. I know Ms. Sangove is here. I know that Mr. Santiago is here. BUT I'M ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE HAD MOVED FOR A SUBPOENA, SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE. YOUR BOARD RULES DO NOT REQUIRE WHEN A SUBPOENA NEEDS TO BE REQUESTED, BUT THEY DO STATE THAT THEY NEED TO BE SENT 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. WE REQUESTED THEM AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE, SO IF THE BOARD IS INKIND TO SUBPOENA THEM, THEY WERE NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE. I GUESS YOU ALL CAN DEAL WITH IT AS YOU MAY, BUT I'M AT LEAST RAISING THE ISSUE.

Madam Chair, if I may, all of the parties that were subpoenaed are present tonight, so the issue is .

I appreciate that. Will they all voluntarily testify if called upon?

We would like to lodge objections to each as they come,

subject to the objections, would they? But if the board rules, would they testify?

Yes. If the board finds that they should testify, then everyone who was issued a schema request is prepared to testify.

I'm sorry. Do you mind introducing yourself?

I'm Kevin .

OK. So is that a moot issue at this point or do you want to take that up or how? I've got to be able to know how to prepare my case and present my case. So I don't know if you want to deal with each of those now or what you want to do. Again, I'm happy to go through these if you want me to call each one of them as witnesses. I know, is Mr. Santiago going to present on behalf of the ethics office? If not, then we'll call him as a...

i again it's i'm trying to be respectful it's your meeting but i don't know i'm seeking some guidance how we proceed here i was just going to add if the board's inclined if we want to hold individual hearings on each of the people that are going to be subpoenaed we will lodge our objections

Yes, if we could proceed that way, individual by individual, that would be helpful for us to be able to have any discussion and make a vote on each of those subpoenas, which is required in our process.

Sure. So should we start at the top, or how do you want to do this?

We can start at the top, wherever you want to start.

Sure. With Ms. Sengova and then with Mr. Santiago, as the ethics officer and the deputy ethics officer, We believe that there are questions about how this investigation was conducted, prior investigations and situations involving use of city property for alleged campaign purposes, what, if anything, the ethics office could have done to minimize the impact to the city. And I can't get into a whole lot of the evidence right now, but the ethics office could have actually prevented all of this. Mr. Santiago, we believe, led the investigation. Mr. Santiago was copied on communications to at least two witnesses that we're aware of. So I understand that he intends, I think, to serve as, quote, prosecutor here, but respectfully, he's also a fact witness who was involved in the conduct of the investigation. Councilmember Waits, former Councilmember Waits, argument is both substantive but also procedural when we get to the merits that this investigation had several flaws and missteps and there were certain things that the ethics office could have done and didn't do or should have done and didn't do and one of them and again and I will get into this at the right time the ethics office could have stopped all of this so nothing was ever paid by the city but the ethics office ran that stop sign in a bad way So we believe, again, as the leaders of the ethics office, they need to testify about their role, about their knowledge, about past conduct, about how the ethics office treats various proceedings. Again, I could not find an email on which Ms. Zangova was copied, a substantive email in which she was copied on the proceedings. I've, in my email, dated September 16, 2026. at 11 41 a.m i've provided two examples of at least when mr santiago was uh copied on substantive emails between the investigators and witnesses and one of those witnesses was former council member waits herself So you have the deputy ethics officer is copied on an email from the investigators to former council member Waits. I'd also, just so it's clear, I'd like to, and I'm happy to hand you all copies.

I want to put in the record my email from September 16th, 1.22 p.m.

So that's part of the record as well. I don't know how you want to mark these. I don't know if you want to call that I don't know how you want to mark that. Do you all need copies as well? I've got copies. So that's, again, I don't know how you want to, I guess maybe we'll deal with them first. I've sort of lumped lumped the ethics officer and the deputy ethics officer together. They're factually a little different because Mr. Santiago oversaw the investigation and in fact signed the final report that was issued in November of 2024. So I think he has intimate factual knowledge as he's the one who signed that report and he's involved in the investigation. So I don't know how you want to handle this. And then maybe we move to the investigators next. That may be a moot issue because they're here, but I'll leave that to you.

Well, just for organization, we can mark that as appellant one, just so that it's clear what that document is there. And we will allow the city to respond.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the ethics office objects to both the calling of the ethics officer and the ethics officer.

In terms of the ethics officer.

Do you want the mic?

So the ethics office objects to the request to call the ethics officer and the deputy ethics officer as witnesses for the appellant. In terms of the ethics officer, she did not personally conduct anything regarding the investigation and has no relevant firsthand uh material information to offer which is the subject of this appeal hearing this is not a process hearing this is not a appeal to the superior court to discuss the operations of law it is purely fact-finding and she is not a material fact witness she has nothing to offer If she were called to testify, we believe that any testimony she gives would be entirely duplicative and it would improperly, it would have a very high probability that it would involve confidential internal deliberations, which is not contemplated by the code as something that is subject to witness examination in an appeal hearing such as this. So we would respectfully ask the board to deny the request to call the ethics officer as a witness. OUR POSITION IN TERMS OF DEPUTY ETHICS OFFICER SANTIAGO IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. HE IS THE LEAD ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE ETHICS OFFICER'S CASE. WE BELIEVE THAT SUBJECT TO NOT ONLY BAR RULES BUT THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE THAT BECAUSE ANY TESTIMONY THAT HE COULD GIVE AS A MATERIAL FACT WITNESS COULD ALSO BE SERVED BY THE INVESTIGATORS, IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY IMPROPER TO CALL HIM AS A WITNESS FOR THE APPELLANT WHEN THAT EVIDENCE COULD BE OFFERED IN ANOTHER WAY. So with that being the case, we also respectfully ask the board to deny a balance request to have the deputy ethics officer testify as well.

If I may respond to that, and particularly regarding Mr. Santiago, he signed the report at issue under oath. That means he is verifying that every one of those facts is correct. He was part of this investigation. The fact that he intends to prosecute this matter is not relevant to whether he was a witness in this matter. There are dozens of facts in the investigation that these investigators may or may not know. But my client gets to ask about every one of those factual recitations that's in that findings of fact. And unless counsel for the city can stand up and tell me that those two investigators know every fact that's in that finding of fact, my client cannot put on her case. They have blurred the lines between an investigator and a prosecutor here. If Mr. Santiago was going to be the prosecutor, he should have never run the investigation. But that didn't happen. In a federal criminal matter, you get to interview FBI witnesses who conducted an investigation and oversaw an investigation. You don't get to ask the U.S. attorney questions because the U.S. attorney is the attorney bringing the case. Mr. Santiago, in that analogy, is both the U.S. attorney and the FBI. We get to ask him about this investigation. We get to ask him about prior ethics office conduct that, frankly, the investigators may or may not know a thing about. There are prior examples that this office has dealt with that have a direct bearing on Councilmember Waits and how she was treated versus how others have been treated. The investigators may have zero knowledge on that, but it's entirely relevant to our presentation. So again, the fact that he may be the prosecutor should have nothing to do with this board's analysis of whether he could be called as a witness. He signed the very report that we are now challenging. He signed the veracity of public statements that are now public about our client, we get to ask him about those and the steps that he took and the office took, unless the ethics office can tell us with certainty that both investigators will testify and both of them know every one of those facts, Mr. Santiago needs to testify.

Can I get some clarification? Because I thought that's what I understood you to say was that the investigators, there's nothing that Mr. Santiago knows that the investigators don't know. So is that, I just want to clarify that that's accurate.

That is correct. The investigators know everything about this particular case to the extent that Mr. Santiago does.

Do they have firsthand knowledge?

Yes. to all of the substantive investigation. Mr. Santiago can testify as to his conclusions of law. However, those are already provided in the final report. So to ask testimony of those conclusions, we believe is improper.

And what about prior conduct of the ethics office and prior matters?

In our opinion, that's not an issue that's been raised on appeal here. We are here to examine material facts, not past conduct of the ethics office. It is about this case specifically. In case in point to Mr. Berry, we are not a federal court. This is not a state court. This is not a county court. This is a municipal administrative proceeding. It does not operate under the same auspices as those other courts. All this is just not a compelling comparison given the differences in a proceeding . So again, we would respectfully request that he asked to have them as testimony witnesses for the appellant

Just to the point, Mr. Berry, would you mind responding to the point about this being outside the scope, or at least that's how I understood the argument, this being outside the scope of the issue raised on appeal?

Our appeal is like two sentences, so I don't know what he means by outside the scope. Maybe he could elaborate, but our appeal just says we're appealing. So the way that the ethics office, for example, has treated prior city council members is absolutely within the scope of this matter. No, I... The way that other... You have counsel. You have counsel. The way that other people have been treated and course of conduct, there is a city statute that allows newsletters to be mailed. There are other matters that have come... I'm objecting. Go look at the city code 2-39. It allows newsletters. What is the objection?

They're not here to discuss the fire points of municipal law in regards to the availability to send newsletters. They're here to talk about a specific material factual violation of the code of ethics that happens to involve the use of the newsletters.

I don't know. Either a council member can send it. Let me make my argument when I make it.

This has to do with- Let me just respond to the objection. I do want us to stay limited to what the appeal is about, and so I don't know that that is inside the bounds of what we are here to discuss in terms of what the code.

Respectfully, it absolutely is. If a council member, and I'm not going to preview our entire argument right now, but if a council member is permitted to send a newsletter, then I think some of the damages, for example, may be mitigated.

Objection.

We're moving into the actual appeal hearing at this point.

You're...

Yeah, and if I could have Mr. Shuckle to speak to the mic just so for...

If I could continue, he raised an issue. I'm trying to respond and he's objecting to my response to his issue.

I understand. So I think what we want to move forward here with is the determination of whether Ms. Zangova and Mr. Santiago must be compelled to testify, right? That is the piece on the subpoena?

I think I've... Correct. And I think I've at this point said what I can say at this point.

Okay. I guess I have to ask for a motion. I think we make a motion first and then discuss. So should we handle them individually? Yep.

All right. I would move to vote on the issue of whether starting first with the ethics officer, Ms. Sangova, or Sangova rather, whether she should be compelled to testify if asked.

I second. Any discussion? I don't think there's been any demonstration that she has anything to add to this.

Or that she had any involvement in this particular investigation or matter beyond theoretically, I guess, some internal deliberations.

Any further discussion?

No.

We ready to vote?

Yes.

So all those in favor of subpoenaing the testimony of the ethics officer say aye. All those opposed say nay. Nay. So that motion does not carry. I guess now we'll move to the conversation around Mr. Santiago.

So I would second a motion to discuss. Oh, I thought you might. Yes, I move to vote on whether Mr. Santiago should be subpoenaed.

Second.

Any discussion?

The only thing I would add at this point, aside from Mr. Santiago being copied to two emails and then signing the decision, which what's in the decision itself speaks for itself, I don't know that there's been a showing of Mr. Santiago bearing any testimony that wouldn't be duplicative or repetitive or testimony that would be available from the investigators that actually conducted the investigation. based on representations made by the ethics advisor here this evening.

I agree, and I don't see that past investigations and activities is relevant to this fact-finding mission here. So, yeah.

Any further discussion?

No.

go ahead and proceed with the vote. So, whether, yeah, are you in favor?

In favor of compelling the testimony.

All those in favor of compelling the testimony of Mr. Santiago, say aye. All those opposed, say nay.

Nay.

And we can proceed now to the conversation of the investigators.

Thank you. I think it's similar in the conversation with Mr. Santiago, but obviously a little different. We have serious questions about the way this investigation was performed, who was interviewed, who was not interviewed, why certain questions were asked or not asked of certain witnesses. Investigator Hernandez and Investigator Mason became aware of information that could have stopped this entire matter from ever occurring, that could have stopped the city of Atlanta from ever paying a penny, and they ignored it. They are material witnesses to the very fact that the city of Atlanta paid $24,963 or whatever the final amount is. They were aware of it that no payment had been made and did nothing about it, nothing. We are in this predicament because the ethics office did not act when they could have acted. And I'm happy to show you the email where Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Mason were copied before the city of Atlanta paid one penny to the printer And from the best I can tell, they ignored that and allowed the payment to go forward. So we have questions of them both about how this investigation was conducted and how they allowed this to happen. And I'm happy to get into that now if you want.

Is there an objection to the testimony of the investigators? Maybe something we should have figured out before we started?

Yes. So the ethics office doesn't necessarily have an objection to the investigators testifying. We do concede that they are material fact witnesses in this case. However, I still haven't heard anything about what material fact they would be used to establish, which I think is something important that the board needs to know before deciding if their testimony is necessary, given that they were the ones who authored all of the factual parts of the final decision and report that is the basis for the appeal. So I will leave it up to the board's discretion, obviously, as to whether or not you feel that their testimony is necessary. But we would ask that it be stipulated that they only be able to testify to material factual items and not any legal conclusions or deliberative internal processes in that testimony.

Discuss.

Did, yeah.

I'm not sure if you had something else you wanted to respond to.

Well, I didn't know, right, they're sort of asking me to put on my case to then have someone call as a witness to put on my case. I, again, plan to talk about the process used here, the significant stop sign that the City of Atlanta Ethic Office ran here that caused the City of Atlanta, or that could have stopped the City of Atlanta from paying a penny that they ignored. So we don't want to get into the legal conclusions. I don't know that they're qualified to get into legal conclusions. We don't want to get into internal deliberations. I don't think we have a right nor do we intend to do so. We intend to talk to them about this process, what they learned, how they conducted the investigation, and their involvement in it.

I would just add, if I may, to the extent the board would like a more extensive proffer, we may want to invoke sequestration of the witnesses so that they don't hear the proffer testimony and know the question we're going to ask and the answer that we might be after before we actually ask the question. There's a reason why we're not getting into greater detail at this time about the testimony we would be seeking from these investigators.

I'd move to vote on the issue of whether the investigators, Mr. Hernandez, and I'm drawing a blank on the other one. Mason. Mason should be compelled to testify.

Seconded. Any discussion?

Yeah, from my perspective, the ethics office has indicated that they're willing to offer them to testify subject to question by question objection, which obviously I think, Madam Chair, you have the ability to rule on as they arise. From my perspective, I believe having them testify would be relevant to the proceedings subject to that.

Yeah, I agree. Any further discussion? All those in favor of having the investigators testify, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed? That motion carries.

Thank you. We respectfully request that they be sequestered at this point.

So we would object to the sequestration. There is no requirement under the code or under the procedures of this proceeding that witnesses be sequestered at all.

I think the code says we're going to try and follow the rules of evidence. I'm not aware of any proceeding, informal or formal, where witnesses get to hear testimony.

So the code actually specifically specifies that this hearing does not necessarily have to apply the formal rules of evidence strictly. It is at the discretion of the board as how to admit evidence and witnesses into the record and whether or not the finer points of the evidence of the introduction of evidence would be handled.

Mr. Shook, is there an objection to the sequestration beyond the fact that the rules or the code I think you said doesn't specifically require following that particular rule?

No specific objection, but I did want to make the board aware that it is not a strict requirement.

I move to vote on the issue of sequestration of witnesses.

Seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor of invoking the rules of sequestration, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Well, we will invoke that.

Thank you. Respectfully, Madam Chair, did you take a vote on that motion?

I'm sorry, aye.

Thank you. Thanks. My colleague Joe has, I think, another couple of quick procedural matters, and then maybe we'll move on.

I'll give the investigators an opportunity to leave before we proceed. That's all right.

Is there any indication that you would call her?

Well, right now, we're going to take up some procedural objections that I'm about to raise.

Probably counting the weights first.

Yeah.

Madam Chair and members of the board, may I proceed? Thank you. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to present this evening. As my co-counsel, Mr. Berry, already said, we have the privilege of representing former council member Keisha Waits today. And I wanted to talk about some initial procedural issues that we wanted to raise. And I think the best way to consider this is a motion to dismiss or an oral motion to dismiss based on these procedural missteps. Certainly that's the way that we see them. The first is how this investigation was initiated. The code, certainly as it existed, At the time that this matter was being investigated and was initiated, there were certain conditions precedent that had to be met before commencement of the investigation. Indeed, Without those conditions precedent having been met, the ethics office actually doesn't have authority to conduct the investigation, of course, the results of which we're here about today. So specifically, I would want to bring your attention to Section 8101 . which specifically addresses initiation of investigations. It's titled Initiating Investigations. I'm happy to to read those to you. But in essence, you'll see that there are six items listed that must be adhered to, they must be accomplished. Those are the conditions precedent in the alternative. So if any one of those exists, then an investigation can commence and proceed. We have not been provided with contemporaneous documentation at the time that this investigation initiated.

of anything. Objection. This is going too far, not only into the appeal, but also it's asking for deliberative conclusions rather than anything that was required by the code to initiate an investigation.

Respectfully, may I respond? Thank you. Well, this is one of the reasons why we believe that compelling the testimony of Mr. Santiago, who signed this decision, was appropriate, because this potentially needs to be addressed before we can even consider the merits of the appeal. Certainly, if they have this documentation and can present it to you today, we'll evaluate it. We'll consider it. But I believe that the board needs to know that, These don't exist. We don't have them. Any one of these six. So that's the first issue.

So if we could respond to that, the complaint and all attentive documents were provided to them in the final report? I believe and then as well up to these proceedings we have provided copies of everything in our case file including the initiation documents.

And I appreciate the candid response and that's pretty much exactly the objection we have because you'll see in subsection F that a complaint, a written complaint, can serve as the condition precedent to initiate an investigation. We do have a complaint. We have a written complaint. That's subsection F1. But it is not a sworn complaint. And this is very clear that the complaint must be sworn in order for the complaint to sufficiently serve as a basis to initiate this investigation. We don't have that. And finally, I'll point out specifically, to the extent they have any questions about that specifically, if they receive a defective complaint, the code addresses that also. So an unsworn complaint would be considered a defective complaint. That is in Section 2, excuse me, 8, 101, J2, I believe that's right. J2, yes.

I'm sorry, do we have copies of these documents that you're saying are insufficient?

I do, yes. Well, if I may approach. Were you asking about the complaint or the code?

The complaint that you're saying is not sufficiently executed or is not sworn in.

So to clarify the procedural sequence there. Oh, yes. Copies of the complaint that the office received. Yes, we do have copies of those and can provide those to you right now. I'll give you copies of the code as it existed in 2024. If you don't already have it, I'm happy to approach and give you those copies. Oh, OK. Just.

Specifically says that.

But to address your question specifically, I think the ethics office will admit that these are not sworn complaints. I don't think that they will counter that these were sworn complaints.

So, actually, I'm not... Can we stop the hack and forth, please, until he finishes? Let him finish, please.

Well, if he's finishing with incorrect information, I would prefer not to let him finish. So in your packet under section 9106, the ethics office, and it would be subheading D6, it is specifically stated that upon the ethics office shall have the authority to prescribe rules, regulations, or yeah, pursuant to the requirements of this article, the ethics office shall have the authority to initiate and conduct investigations in accordance with clear investigation protocols. of the ways that we may initiate an investigation D6 upon receipt of an anonymous or non-sworn written complaint. Where a complaint is communicated anonymously, such complaint shall be reasonably believed to have been made in good faith and with veracity and sufficiency sufficient specificity so as to provide salient and investigatable facts which can be supported by the ethics office through a showing of reasonable articulable suspicion. There is no requirement that a complaint be sworn. It is not deemed effective if it is unso.

Excuse me. Will you tell me the code section that you're reading from again?

Yes. It is 9106 D2. Okay.

May I respond?

8A106? It would be 8106D2? If I may respond.

So opposing counsel just cited to Article 9, Section 9-106, I think D2. The board should be aware that no Article 9 existed at the time that this investigation was commenced. That is a new code section under the new regime that does not apply to this matter. And if I may proceed, under the code as it existed at the time, If the ethics office were to receive a defective complaint, and you can follow me, this is on page six. This is section J2. upon receipt of a written non-anonymous complaint which does not conform to the applicable requirements of this section. Again, we've already talked about what those requirements are, such as needing to be sworn. The Office of the Inspector General or the Ethics Office shall by letter acknowledge receipt of the complaint and advise the complainant of the defect such that the complaint may, and that the, sorry, excuse me, I lost my place, of the defect in the complaint and that the complaint may not be considered unless the defect is corrected. That was the law at the time that this complaint was received and this investigation commenced. We do not have a sworn complaint in the record.

Has this issue previously been raised before this evening?

We had no opportunity to raise it. We filed our appeal in December 2024.

uh and this is the first time we've been before you there's literally no basis or no means to raise it and there's no requirement to raise it and i don't think we received a copy of this um anonymous unsworn complaint until this week uh this was not something that was provided voluntarily we filed an open records request in the city respond to the statement about when it was when it was raised it well it doesn't matter i look can we all can we take it one at a time please

I was asking a question. I wasn't suggesting an answer. It wasn't a loaded question, genuinely a question as to whether it had been raised with the ethics office at some point. Does the city have a response?

And to be clear, this is the first time we've appeared before you. This is the first time that our appeal is being heard. And this is the first opportunity we're having to raise all of these issues. And of course, we are going to do so this evening.

May I respond? I apologize for that misreading of Section 9 earlier. That was my mistake. Looking now at, I believe, the proper code section, which would be to confirm Section 8108F2. 8101F. You'll notice that it says, the Office of the Inspector General and the Ethics Office shall have the authority to conduct investigations under the jurisdiction of this article. One, upon a sworn complaint by any person in a form prescribed by the Office of the Inspector General or the Ethics Offices, or upon internal determination supported by reasonable articulable suspicion that any matter concerning waste, fraud, abuse, or corruption should be investigated or reviewed. It is not a requirement of our process that we have a sworn complaint. If we receive multiple unsworn complaints, we can use reasonable articulable suspicion to establish that there is a matter before us that should be investigated. Therefore, our initiation of the investigation was not defective. We simply relied on F2.

May I respond, please? It's awfully convenient for the ethics office now to try and do an end run around this when they've relied on an unsporn complaint the entire time, okay? That's first. Second, none of them are sworn. And can I please finish my remarks before being interrupted?

If I could, please, just to make sure that we have order and we can ensure that our transcript is well, can we all... take our turn. So right now, Attorney Singleman, I will give you the floor. When he is finished, then I will take whatever objection or response from the city, please.

Thank you so much, and I do want to just point out that I have waited for opposing counsel to finish their objections before asking permission to respond. I would just request the same courtesy be afforded us. So when I started this, I'm very aware of subsection 2. There is nothing contemporaneous in the record that shows reasonable articulated suspicion that this investigation should be commenced. Now, they might try to retroactively claim that they have that in some way, but there is nothing contemporaneous in the record showing that that standard was met, that that determination was made, and that the investigation commenced only after that. As mentioned, they relied entirely on these unsworn complaints. And up until they're pressed against the wall, they're now trying to come up with some other rationale as to how they could have commenced this investigation, despite having relied on those unsworn complaints. The code is clear in that regard. And also, just to be further clear on this, there's nothing that we have contemporaneous, certainly no documentation, showing that there was an internal determination following receipt of the complaint justifying commencement of this investigation. They may claim something after the fact, but it's not in the record. We don't have it.

If there were some sort of internal determination, I would imagine that would involve some sort of deliberative process. Would you ordinarily have documentation?

If you read this code section, this is to ensure that there aren't rogue investigations. This is to ensure that there is some condition precedent, some form of documentation that is trustworthy such that the person whose conduct is being complained of knows that this wasn't just brought on a whim that's why a written complaint doesn't suffice even if there are three of them it has to be a sworn complaint that's why on the others a resolution by city council not just by request of the mayor in number four but via an administrative order If they can just deliberate and come up with something, create no record, provide no record of this, then it goes against everything this entire code section was built to protect against. So yes, I think that it absolutely is something that we should be entitled to receive, should have received, and that it should be something contemporaneous in the record demonstrating that that determination was made such that the investigation could commence. Again, we don't have that.

If I can add to that, please. two things first if you rely on the position of the ethics board it makes the requirement for a sworn complaint useless useless because you could have 50 anonymous complaints that council members so-and-so stole seven zillion dollars and if all of a sudden then the ethics office said well I have 50 anonymous complaints that council members stole money don't know, this is enough suspicion, let's go find out. That exception swallows the rule and the requirement for there to be a sworn complaint. And if there's not a sworn complaint, the duty is on the ethics office to go get one or to cure it. I will state in my place, and I'm happy to send you an email, I sent the ethics office an Open Records Act request to ask for a document to substantiate the reasonable articulable suspicion, and the response was, there are no responsive documents. None. I don't think we need a whole case file or deliberation, but I think we need something like, hey, we met on January 4th, and there's enough to go forward in the weights matter, let's do it. That would have sufficed. But in response to my Open Records Act request of this week, the response came in yesterday and I'll state my place and I'll send you the email. The ethics office said there is no document, none. So if you allow them now to rely on this exception, it makes the requirement for a sworn complaint meaningless.

One quick question for the city on we're relying on F2 just concerning waste fraud abuse or corruption Which of those were we relying on or was the ethics office relying on here and initiating this investigation?

so because of our attachment to the OIG. That's obviously written the way that it was, but in our view, this constituted not only fraud, but also abuse of authority. And that is what we initiated the preliminary investigation. And I agree actually about the 50 unsworn complaint points. Because we look at it, and it's how reasonable articulable suspicion works, is that if there's 50 complaints, then something like that would merit investigation. When you have more than one person saying the exact same thing, that is the thing that establishes a reasonable articulable suspicion that something needs to be investigated. Our process does not include nor are we required by either iterations of the code to have anything in writing discussing our deliberative process or how we came to the conclusion that there was reasonable articulable suspicion. Our investigators used their best judgment and came to the conclusion that this was something that merited investigation under that code section.

May I be heard again briefly? I know there's a lot of back and forth, but we're here today because allegedly our client didn't sufficiently follow the rules applicable for this newsletter. Okay? That's why we're here. We are up against the ethics office that is trying to get around following their own rules. This isn't the due process that we created or conjured to try to trip them up. This is the due process the city established probably that the ethics office helped create, and that they are required to follow in order to initiate an investigation to commence this action. And if they're not gonna follow their own rules and yet try to hold our clients strictly to rules that apply to her, that is a double standard that is just entirely unfair. I'll close with this particular argument, remember it's one of three that I have to raise, by saying that if respectfully, if the board finds that one of these condition precedents is not sufficiently contemporaneously in the record, that this investigation should not have gone forward and that everything after that is a nullity. The final decision and any rendering by this board other than dismissal, we contend would be inappropriate should you reach that finding. And we respectfully would say just look at the record because it's not there.

Thank you, council. I would move to proceed forward with the hearing and include a ruling on this procedural issue in the board's final decision.

I second that. Any discussion?

Beyond what's already been discussed?

Right, beyond what has already been discussed.

then we can proceed with the vote all those in favor of yeah including a ruling on this procedural ask uh by council for uh former councilwoman waits i'm gonna go and preempt an issue if that's the case respectfully let's go ahead if if counsel for the city has said the investigators could determine reasonable articulable suspicion or whatever the phrase is I would like a ruling right now that we are able to ask those investigators about their suspicion prior to commencing this investigation. Because otherwise they're hiding the ball. They're saying, yeah, we did this. Cool, we get to ask y'all about what you did then. So I'd like to go ahead and put that on this board now as well, please, so that we can go ahead and preempt an objection because we're gonna ask the investigators about it, please.

I think we'll vote on the motion that was raised first, I think.

uh before we vote on that can we just put on the record that we object to the procedural argument in its entirety because it was not one of the stated grounds for this appeal we don't believe that it's something that the board has jurisdiction to really rule on given the scope of what was put before it thank you all those in favor say aye

Just to be clear, yeah, it's a motion to refrain from making a ruling on this procedural motion at this time, but instead to include that ruling in our final decision at the conclusion of the hearing.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

That motion carries.

All right, thank you, ma'am. Move on to May I move on to the second argument for this motion to dismiss?

Sorry, say that again?

May I move on to the second argument of this motion to dismiss?

So in the spirit of following the rules that are set for the- I'm sorry to interrupt, but there is no operation of any sort of motion to dismiss. for this board. The options before the board in this appeal hearing are to either accept the findings of the ethics office or reject them. I think all of these procedural arguments, really, this is not the time and place to be made. I think those are reserved for superior court on appeal. I don't think this is the proper venue for this.

May I respond?

Yes.

If we're correct, and we strongly believe that we are, we could save this board and everyone a lot of trouble. And look, if we're wrong, then the ethics office can appeal, and the Superior Court can send us back before you sometime later. So I believe the procedural issues are certainly right before this board. The only board that can make those decisions are you. And so we would respectfully disagree that the board can't consider procedural arguments which would moot the merits of this proceeding. I don't believe that any motion is required based on that comment. I respectfully say quiet if you want to comment or do a motion. But otherwise, I'll proceed with our second argument.

You're going to ask how many procedural arguments are there? Three. Okay. Two more.

Two more.

I just for discussion purposes do wonder if we are bleeding outside of the fact-finding operation of this appeals hearing. I hear what you're saying, and you're raising questions that I understand you want the answer to, but my understanding is that we are here to consider, you know, your client's actions specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that is kind of my...

I appreciate the advocacy. I disagree, though, that this issue couldn't have been raised before. There's a section in the Notice of Appeal that says state the basis for your appeal, including based on the law. There's nothing about any procedural issues at that point. I understand you've taken the position, at least with the complaint we talked about that you didn't receive it until recently, which we understand, I think, and appreciate. But I wonder, you know, there was a lot of emails. This was initially scheduled, I think, back in March or April. None of these issues were raised then. This was re-noticed in June. None of these issues were raised. And then there was emails in the past week or two about another extension request as well as some other procedural matters, but none of these issues were raised. Is there a reason that none of these issues were raised at that time if we were interested in saving time?

Well, I'll tell you, this is the first time that we have had the opportunity to be before you. That's actually part of the next issue that we're going to address. But the notice of appeal is like two or three lines. It's 10 days. We provided sufficient notice. I don't think that it requires that anything and everything and every basis needs to be raised in. And I also don't think that this board should endorse the ethics office not following its own rules when they're trying to hold other people strictly to rules that apply to them, and yet they're trying to skirt rules that apply to themselves. And certainly, I encourage you to take into consideration whatever you believe is appropriate. But this is the first time we've had an opportunity to address this. It's the first time that we've had an opportunity to go before you. As my opposing counsel mentioned, there is not a procedure or a process for us to raise these before the hearing. This is it. There's not some like motions to dismiss need to be filed 30 days before the hearing. There's nothing like that. So we are here before you to present every argument that we have. And we believe these procedural arguments are exceedingly meritorious. Otherwise, we wouldn't be raising them before you. And with that, unless there's a motion that you want to make, I'll proceed to the second argument.

Do you have an estimate of how much more time you need for your procedural? Obviously, I know there's back and forth, so it's taking longer, but

It depends on the objections that I get from opposing counsel, and I'll also say that this next issue is one that we literally could not have raised, could not have raised before, and certainly needs to be preserved on the record, even if the board does not wish to take it up. So we certainly will need to address it, and I'll be as brief as I can.

I'm inclined to allow you to raise these issues and we'll make a determination whether that's something the board can take up or not. And so that in the interest of time, we can get to the point of the standard of review that the board is actually able to do. So I'll allow you to put those on the record.

Thank you very much. So before I get into this next point, I want to be clear that I am not being critical of anyone sitting before me. We thank you for your attention. We thank you for your service. We understand that this is a reconstituted body, that you are not the ethics board that we were intended to go before. We appreciate you being here and hearing us out. However, uh we must raise the bylaws that existed at the time that this matter was proceeding in 2024 which requires and i'll read to you from the bylaws the board shall shall schedule a public hearing on all appeals within 30 days from the acceptance of a completed appeal. Shall within 30 days schedule the public hearing. Now the bylaws are different now. Your bylaws are different. They don't say that. They say the board shall attempt, shall attempt to schedule a public hearing within 30 days. So we were not afforded a hearing within 30 days. An entire election cycle has passed. Ms. Waits, our client, is now running for an entirely different office that was even the subject of this issue two years ago. And we did raise in an email that we believed it was prejudicial to hear this now, despite there being some delays and some continuances, one of which we even ourselves requested, but we cannot hide from the fact that she was entitled, explicitly entitled, to a hearing within 30 days. She could have had this behind her in January of 2025, and yet we weren't even contacted about a notice of appeal or notice of hearing for this matter until February of 2026. a year and a month after we should have gotten our public hearing or the minimum notice of the public hearing. It is frustrating. It is not right. And it is another example of the prejudice. It's another example of the rules that apply to the board. Again, respectfully, this was not your job. You weren't here then. But at minimum to the ethics office to see to it that these procedures are pilot and they were not. And it certainly is prejudicial to our client with that. move on to the um the third i can i can enter these bylaws into the record i can enter the emails the initial email we got from mr santiago in february of 2026 when we were first instructed we may have a date for our appeal again 14 months later than it should have been but i don't believe that you need that that's a matter of public record and we can submit it into the record just for preserving it especially if the board does not wish to take that up that's fine you can submit that into the record okay I'm happy to give these to the board otherwise I'll just first is going to be the email accepting the appeal which is December 2nd of 2024 and the second is going to be the email on february 23rd 2026 when we were first notified of the public hearing Although I'm sure the board has it, I will enter into the record for the purpose of completeness. copy of the bylaws as they existed at the time this matter was proceeding two years ago as well as a copy of the bylaws that exists now the one distinction I'll make is again because this was reconstituted at the time there was a joint consolidation of the inspector general and the ethics board so the bylaws applied jointly here however there are separate bylaws for the ethics board nonetheless the point remains As appellants four and five, thank you. Thank you. May I move on to the third argument? I again will be as brief as possible. Third.

Hang on one second. Does the city have any response to?

Yes, we do. And actually, given that we're in the appeal hearing now, I'd like to have Mr. Santiago discuss this, given that he was the one. I believe we're still in the preliminary.

Okay. I'll just have your binder. Just missed a few emails.

Hopefully this doesn't count against my time. Thank you.

Mr. Santiago is going to explain the emails just for a better frame of reference for the board. However, we would re-launch our objection that this is not something that can be decided on by the board and certainly the ethics office had no control over when the new board was reconstituted. That was a decision of city council to dissolve the old board. We were confined to what we were allowed to do with a non-existent non-functioning board at that time.

Thank you, board members. I just want to point attention to Mr. Siegelman did introduce two emails. Again, those are the bookends of an ongoing conversation that began when we noticed Councilmember Waitz of the decision in this matter. And then upon receipt of the appeal in December, I did provide a response to Mr. Siegelman. And again, all of these documents, all of these notice documents and the entire conversation are located behind tab two in your binder. So if you go all the way back to tab three and start working your way back, you'll see all of the correspondence between our office and council for appellant Notifying them along every step of the way of what was going on first of all My first response. I'll point you to the email sent back to Joseph Siegelman on December 2nd 2024 again confirming receipt of respondent's notice of appeal, and then specifically noting that the governing board typically hears appeals of adverse decisions every other month. The board had voted on their calendar for that month, and the calendar did an every-other-month appeal schedule similar to what our board does currently. Based on that calendar, the next available appeal hearing date was February 2025. At that point in time, I notified them that beginning next year in 2025 would be the first opportunity to have the hearing. And then I also notified them that we would, of course, notify them within 30 days prior to that hearing date. What happened next in the interim was that there was a the board had been, there was a charter amendment, there were charter amendments that were entered. And at that point in time, those were going, there was an ongoing charter change in January and February of 2025, which immediately upon that, conclusion of the charter being amended and adopted we then notified immediately mr sigelman to let him know and this we'll see first of all on march 17 2025 i did let him know that the uh the city charter amendments were approved on february 17th resulting in a dissolution of the governing board and that upon reconstitution of the new ethics board that Ms. Waitz's appeal would be docketed. And again, along the way we received no indication that there was any issues, no response, no concerns, no nothing. And then on January 15, 2026, I notified Mr. Siegelman that the City of Atlanta Ethics Board had been reconstituted with a quorum of members and therefore we anticipated the appeal hearing in her matter to be docketed for April 16, 2026. So I just think it's a little bit disingenuous to imply that there was no conversations that occurred or no consideration for the time Ms. Waitz's due process rights or to opposing counsel. What was brought to you earlier, that was not an honest assessment of what occurred. So I just wanted to make sure that the record is clear that from the point in time we noticed the appellant all the way to this time we have been in constant contact notifying every step of the way of our process and some of things that were not in our control but as soon as it was in our control we immediately docketed and as you know once we docketed we received a request for a reset um i i do have one

I guess general wondering, which is in an instance like this where the appeals board doesn't exist for a period of time, is there something that says these matters remain open? I mean, are you supposed to wait indefinitely for reconstitution before you get your day to appeal?

So in this situation, I would say that the only thing that we could do is make our best efforts to immediately react to the charter change that happened. As soon as we were aware that the charter changed, we notify them. As soon as we knew that it was reconstituted, we notify them. And as far as that break, there's not a problem here because, again, we brought this case under, again, Article 8, under our authority under Article 8. The hearing is taking place under Article 9, which is the current governing article for this hearing. Again, the bringing of the decision, the investigation work, the work of the attorneys in the office to come with the decision, that is a separate process. that concludes with the issue and said that decision report which is all done under that prior charter section so we we notified opposing council that this would be docketed with the new board and again did not receive any response any indication that there was an issue we're hearing all this for the first time now thank you so i believe your issue has been

recorded as well as the city's response. Do you want to go to your final procedural issue and then we will take a break?

Sure. Thank you. And thank you for your patience hearing both sides of this. I'll end on this just by saying that we didn't come up with this due process procedure. It's not our duty. In fact, it's not even the ethics office's duty. It's the board's duty to schedule the hearing. The board, of course, isn't here to defend itself. But there's also measures in the bylaws that say that Essentially say that as I read them that the ethics board should ethic the ethics office should execute accordingly That didn't happen. It didn't happen All right. So the third argument is very straightforward and simple this is found in Section 8 101 H which which just states a rather simple requirement that and I want to state it verbatim that This is concerning the issuance of final reports and decisions at the conclusion of any investigation conducted under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Inspector General or the Ethics Office. The Inspector General or the Ethics Office, the Ethics Officer shall issue a final decision and report. There's no dispute that who the Ethics Officer is. It's not Mr. Sandiago. He's a Deputy Ethics Officer. There is no delegation of responsibility anywhere in the record that we've seen delegating to the deputy the responsibility to to sign the reports according to this section a matter of practice or otherwise it is the duty of the ethics officer for the plain language not the ethics office to issue the final decision and report just didn't happen here with that I will conclude respectfully any one of these certainly the combination of all three strongly suggest that the ethics office isn't adhering to its own stringent standards. This is the ethics office. We're here today because of an alleged slip-up by former council member Waits, and you've now heard of three rather significant slip-ups, some of which are extraordinarily prejudicial to Ms. Waits. They want to bypass all that and go right to the merits. We're prepared to argue the merits, and we will, but we believe that these procedural arguments warrant dismissal of this and serious due consideration by the board. Thank you.

Thank you. City have a response?

Yes. So in response to the delegation issue that was brought up, there is nothing in Georgia law, the city's law, the county's law, anywhere that requires a delegation of authority of this type be written down everywhere. Ms. Zangova, as a fact, reviews all final decisions and reports that are prepared by her staff and gives her final approval to them before they are signed by the deputy ethics officer. She has delegated that power to him lawfully. There is absolutely no issue there. It is coming out of an absolute lack of any backing that that is a requirement.

One quick question. Are the parties in agreement as to whether the, I think the phrasing was issued by the ethics officer, that that means the ethics officer is supposed to sign the decision?

No, we do not take that interpretation. And there is nothing in the code to suggest that the ethics officer must physically pen her name to any final decision and report. She merely needs to approve it under the code.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought earlier you said that Ms. Sangiovese doesn't have any factual knowledge. I just want to clarify, because it sounds like you're also saying she read the report and signed off on it. So I just want to know what her, I want to be clear what her role was.

Yeah. So as the ethics officer, the one approving the final decision and report, she inherently has to review the factual findings and conclusions of law, and she retains the ability to modify that if she disagrees with the assessment. She does have material knowledge of this case. However, again, it's duplicative of anything that the investigators would already know because the only thing she would be able to testify is already written down in the report and was gathered by the investigators.

It's diametrically, he said that she, Ms. Sangoba, sorry to interrupt, had no knowledge. Now he says she has material knowledge of the entire process and reviewed the report.

And approved before.

And approved the report. Which is it?

but it does also sound like it's secondhand knowledge, not to put words in anybody's mouth.

Yes. So it's, Let me be very clear. Ms. Zangova has read the report. She has no knowledge of the events outside of the four corners of that document that occurred. She has nothing to offer materially outside of what any other party could testify to that was involved in the writing of that report. She doesn't have anything more to offer on that.

I will simply say, Ms. Cole, thank you. That was something that we were going to raise as soon as we heard it out of opposing counsel's mouth. Look, we've already heard them shuffle their position regarding the complaint. Now they're saying they don't care about the unsporn complaint because they did have an articulation of reasonable suspension contemporaneous with the decision to proceed with the investigation, although there is no record of that at all in the files that we received. Now they're saying that there was no involvement, no factual information that that the ethics officer was simply standing by, had nothing to do with this, and now we're getting different information in the same hearing. And the only remaining question I have, which really isn't even necessarily pertinent to the requirements of the code that I've already recited, is simply if she did, take it upon herself, to review to approve to affirm and then why didn't she issue it why didn't she just follow the code section sign it we've already established that mr santiago is the one who issued the final decision and signed it why didn't the ethics officer herself as it's specified in the code do it especially if she was as involved materially as they're now representing that concludes our arguments regarding this we understand the board's taking it under advisement we're ready to proceed to the merits after the break thank you

so i'd like to respond to that final comment so the impetus being placed on the ethics office to do things a certain way there's no requirement on us to do that our process was developed and it's the process that we adhere to but in any assertion that why didn't they just do it this way or this could have been prevented is entirely undermined to what is before us our process is allowable under the code under the thing that we operate by And all of the requirements for the final decision and report are maintained by law. There is no issue there. And I will read from what I said to you earlier in our preliminary hearing about the testimony of Ms. Sangova word for word as to not get anything confused. The ethics office objects to the request to call the ethics officer because she did not personally conduct the investigation and has no relevant firsthand evidence beyond the investigative record. We never said that she didn't know anything about the investigation. She's the one who approved the report. But any testimony she would be able to offer would be duplicative and better served by someone who actually prepared that report and performed the firsthand investigation. So I just want to make that very clear for the record.

Thank you. We are going to go ahead and take a 10 minute break. So I believe right now it is 731. So we will reconvene at 741. I appreciate the spirited and zealous advocacy on both sides. I would encourage us to, as we go into the merits of the case, think about how we put forth our most succinct and clear arguments so that we don't spend the night here, please.

do

do do Thank you.

do do Thank you. music music Thank you. Thank you. do do Thank you. I'm going to make a table. I'm going to make a table. I'm going to make a table. music music so so so so so do

do

Are the parties ready?

Yes Madam Chair.

All right, we're going to come back. And I'm going to tell you we're about to go right back to a break again. But just in the interest of balancing both the ability for you to put on your case and managing the time and the proceedings appropriately, we're going to give both sides 45 minutes to present your case. We'll give you some time to figure out how you want to strategize around doing that. Again, I do want to ask that everyone wait their turn so we can make sure that the record is clear. and proceed in that manner.

Madam Chair, I'm going to make a couple comments, but I'm first going to object to that.

I asked efficient time and the response was yes. So now to impose a time limitation when we've got one witness from Ms. Waits, at least two from the city, possibly three, to impose a time limitation of 45 minutes when I did raise this very issue and your response was we would have adequate time. I understand we raise procedural issues, but respectfully, we would suggest that we reconvene this hearing. We're happy to brief whatever procedural issues you want. I'll come back whenever. But the idea that our client, who is facing a $29,000 fine is gonna be limited in time. It's late, I get it. It's 7.50 p.m. I fully understand that. But we've been waiting for a long time. We can debate why we've been waiting for a long time. We've been waiting for a long time for this hearing. But the idea now that we're gonna have 45 minutes to put on a hearing to defend a public official accused of taking money from the city of Atlanta? I respectfully request that you reconsider that. Again, when I raised the issue of time limitations, you said there were none. Now, however, we raise procedural arguments that we're entitled to raise. And the notion from the other side that we could not raise these procedural issues are somewhere between perplexing and bizarre. The ethics office has taken the position that they get to live in the gray. But Ms. former council member Waits has to live in the black and white?

Council, I'm going to stop you there because you're eating into your time.

And so... Well, I respectfully request that we reconvene. I will continue speaking.

We have given you sufficient time. And I'm happy if you think you need an additional five, ten minutes, but to purport that we will just be here indefinitely... I think is not the best use of any of our time and resources. And so if you have a suggestion in terms of if you need more than 45 minutes, do you believe you need 50 minutes, 55, an hour to put on your case related to this appeal? Because what we would love to do is also actually address the issues that the board is able to provide its decision making on.

Understood. I would love for your suggestion of 45 minutes is not sufficient how much it's not sufficient and I don't recall exactly Respectfully your phrasing madam chair, but we have a public official How much time would you need? I need at least an hour and a half to put on our case to be able to call three witnesses at least three witnesses to be able to put on our case and These are serious allegations and respectfully, I understand we've taken a little while, but I wish we had also had a heads up if we knew that there was gonna be a time limit.

Can I get some clarification? Because you have spent this last almost two hours, a lot of that time talking about the actions of the ethics board. And respectfully, my understanding is we are here to determine whether or not Ms. Waits acted in accordance with the rules. Keeping in mind that we are asking you to address that issue today and not the issue of the ethics board's steps, activities, procedures, what be it, How much time do you need?

I think an hour and a half. To answer your question, I think an hour and a half. But I think, as I said, if this process was messed up from the outset, as my colleague and I have explained, I think that needed to be made and stated. And I think it needed to be stated on the record. And you stated it. Understood.

So at this point, focusing just on your client's actions.

I mean, I think I'll try to do the best I can in an hour and a half.

In just one point of clarification, there was a request about the time, any time limits by email by Council Berry. And I think you had suggested that Chairwoman Lewis responded saying there was no time limitations. That's not what she said. I think it was, I don't have in front of me something like sufficient time. She said the proceeding officer of the chair will manage the order and pace of the proceedings, including the presentation of evidence, examination of witnesses and arguments, including ruling on any objections. The chairperson retains authority under the bylaws and charter to direct the hearing, ensure the parties remain focused on relevant issues, and make procedural rulings as necessary. Both sides will be afforded a fair and adequate opportunity to present their respective positions.

Understood. And we've got 40 exhibits from the ethics office.

To not further delay this so that we can move forward, I think we're OK to give each side one hour to move forward. And so if you need to take some time now to determine your strategy to do so, that is how we will move forward at this point.

Is that just an hour total for us to call Ms. former council member Waits and also the ethics investigators, or however we put on our case?

Correct. And I would just one small point of clarification. There was a great amount of time devoted to the procedural issues that we do believe are important. A great amount of that time was hearing the objections. So I just want to.

You're starting to eat into your time.

OK. OK. So I'll go ahead. The only alternative, we're prepared to proceed and we'll do our best to adhere to those. We appreciate the flexibility. The only thing I'd say is if there's been talk about the timing of this hearing, we would be willing to come back as opposed to keeping us here all night if that is the preference of the board. If it's not, we're certainly, we're prepared to proceed, we will proceed, and we'll do so as efficiently as possible. I just wanted to point out that if the board wanted to address that, we'd be willing to come back.

I'm going to give you until 8 o'clock to figure out how you want to put your case on, and then your one hour will start.

Thank you.

um you do do I don't hear

You mean the handheld?

Testing.

Thank you.

That's fine.

Any objection from the?

I'm going to call former council member Waits. Actually, before I do that, I'm going to give a super short opening statement, and it is as follows. This board, and thank you for your time tonight, thank you for your service. This board serves as an important check on the ethics office, as you're well aware. The ethics office does good work, but sometimes the ethics office gets it wrong. And we believe this is one time when the ethics office has gotten it wrong. The evidence is going to show that the ethics office was aware that the payment at issue here, the $24,000 payment, had not been made and did nothing to stop it. So to the extent, even if our client did the worst thing under the sun, the ethics office had the ability to stop the payment and did not do so. They sat on their hands. The ethics office could have saved the city $24,000 and did nothing about it. Secondly, The amount of damages that the ethics office seeks to impose and fine our client is not tied to anything, nothing. There is no evidence in the record, none, zippo, zilch, of how many mailers in fact went out or how many mailers had the KeishaWaits2024.com on it. Sure, there's a purchase order, and there's some mail information from DMS, the mail company. That doesn't tell you that there were three of them mailed. That doesn't tell you there were 37,000. It doesn't tell you 10. It doesn't tell you what's on there. There is not one shred of evidence that $24,000 worth of mailers were mailed. So to the extent that this board is even inclined to sanction our client, $24,000 is not the right number. Moreover, that $24,000 figure assumes every action that she took as a council member was an improper action. Stated differently, the fact that this newsletter had the 2024 Keisha Waits stamp on it does not undo that this was a city newsletter properly authorized by the correct city officials. So that one action doesn't undo that 99% of it was, the 99.9% was city content, public content about her service as a council member. With that, I'd like to call Council Member Waits, please. Do you want to, where, sorry, where are we? Do you want to just? swears her in.

All right, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you. Council Member Waits, what office did you hold, when did you serve, and which constituents did you represent?

City Council District, Post 3 at large.

Did you represent the entire city?

I did.

When were you sworn into office for Atlanta City Council? Approximately. At what month or year?

January.

Of?

I believe 2022.

Okay. Did your office, at some point after you were sworn in, start working on a constituent newsletter? Correct. Can you walk me through, just in the interest of time, the sort of genesis of that newsletter or when that began? Sure.

I had conversations with other members that had done newsletters, and I thought this would be a great idea. And so we started putting content together to produce a newsletter.

That started in 2022?

At the very end, we started talking about doing the newsletter. However, as I indicated to you, that there were no funds in the account, and so we had to wait.

And what was the purpose of the newsletter?

It was to highlight the work that we had done, the projects that we had moved forward, and also to get information to constituents.

I'm referring to Exhibit 2 here, and by that, that's Exhibit 2 in the binder that we've moved. It's under Tab 6 here, but Exhibit 2, so if everyone could just follow along as best as possible.

Exhibit two to the final decision.

It's a January. I have no idea. I think so. It's yeah, it's a email.

Sean waits on January 12th, 2024.

Council member waits. Do you recognize what I've handed you as exhibit two? Do you recognize that document?

I do.

Can you please tell me, is that a document that you produced, the typed document?

I've seen the top portion of the document, but as I flipped over, this is not my document. This was something that was shared with me.

And do you see reference to Inga and Inga Willis, I think, throughout the document? And I'll specifically point to I don't even know what page, but Target precincts, Inga's home precinct. Do you see that? I do. And on the last page, it says send vote Inga. You know, there's some references to vote Inga and robocalls from Inga. I do. Do you think this is a document that Inga Willis, a state representative, created?

I'm not sure who created the document, but this is germane to Inga Willis' campaign. This had no germaneness to anything that I was working on.

So this was not a campaign document that you or anyone created?

No.

Okay. On January 18th, you requested funding from... Well, sorry, let's go to Exhibit 3 quickly, which is an email from you to, I believe, some of your staff. Exhibit 3, and I apologize, I've got to be quick. Is that laying out, I guess, what you envisioned for a legislative newsletter?

That is correct. That was the original intent.

Okay, and are those all related to work you performed as a council member? Correct. Every one of those, there's 20 different items?

Correct.

Okay, and on January 17th, you emailed Santana Kempson Wright, or sorry, January 18th, asking about transferring funds within a council expense account, right? Correct. What was that for?

Well, as I was informed by Mary Tanner, there were no funds in the account because it had been depleted and I needed to wait until the next fiscal year. The previous member had depleted the account.

Mary Norwood?

Mary Tanner is the person that works with you to determine what's in your account. Okay, got it.

So on February 4th, this is Exhibit 5, you email Michael Gay. Who is Michael Gay?

Michael Gay provided the best quote at the time because if you notice the newsletter was fairly lengthy, it would be too many pages. So we reduced the newsletter from 30 pages to eight pages. And this was one of the numbers that he provided in terms of doing the job.

Okay, and then it says, similar to a print job you completed for Marcy Overstreet. What did you mean by that?

I liked Marcy Overstreet's newsletter. I thought it was professional, and I wanted to mirror the work that she had done.

And tell me about that newsletter, as you recall.

It had the same format that I just mentioned to you. The 2024 draft that I showed you, this was a lot of the information that she had in her book. It had NPUs, a message from the member committee assignment. So that's where I got the idea of how to lay out and design the newsletter.

Okay. And so for the next couple months, did you and your staff start working on a city newsletter or continue working on a city newsletter?

We did.

There were multiple iterations, multiple drafts of that?

Well, it changed several times because when we initially laid it out, it was too long. It was too much information. And so we tried to tweak it to make sure that it got the information that we needed in there and that it stayed within a certain budget.

Okay, I'm going to direct your attention. I think it, well, it's all the way back, but... It's exhibit 30 in the binder. If you could flip to 30, it's I think the, hold on, sorry, before we, I apologize. Can we go to exhibit 13, which I think is a draft of the newsletter dated March 5th. Yeah, right there. Is that a draft of the newsletter that your office prepared? Okay, and this is all regarding city. You know, your work as a council member, right? Correct. And if you scroll to the back, there's a, I think a reference to your Facebook account and Instagram and Twitter, right?

Yes.

Okay, that's on page 14. Yes. I want to just make sure you can get there with me and I'm sorry we're going fast So ultimately at some point that version changed, right? Yes Did it ultimately become Exhibit 30? I think the Keisha Waits legislative newsletter that looks like this Correct Okay, and why did that change?

Well, if you go back and look at the original newsletter, it had QRC codes. I didn't think it was user friendly. I'm an older person, and I didn't want to scan anything. I didn't like that. And so I asked that that be removed. It had all of the social media in there. I thought that was unnecessary, and I wanted to keep it germane to the work that we had done. This one talked about a presidential primary. voter registration information. I wanted to keep it succinct to the work that we had done on the Atlanta City Council. So all of that we removed.

Okay. I'm going to, if you'll jump back to Exhibit 27, which is a purchase order, is the record correct that you were told to get this under a certain price, to get this mailing under a certain price and to seek a couple vendors? Is that correct?

Correct. I was told to produce three

Like quotes?

Quotes is what I was told.

And did you do that? I did. Okay, I'll direct your attention to exhibit 27, which is a purchase order.

Sorry, we're going fast. Sorry.

All right, if you have in front of you exhibit 27,

Yes.

Do you see in the top right it says purchase order date March 1st, 2024?

I do.

And it says approved, right?

I do.

And at the bottom it's signed by, it looks like J. Deep Majumdar. Apologies if I've mispronounced that. Is that correct? In the bottom right? Correct Okay, and does it say that that person certifies that he or she is an official of the City of Atlanta and this merchandise is purchased for such governmental agency and is tax exempt? Did I read that correctly? That is my understanding So in signing that, that person probably believed that this was an authorized city expense, right? Yes And above that on page one it says it's for 37,500 mailing service fees, correct? 37,500 newsletters? Correct Okay, and on the next pages talks about postage and delivery to the post office, right? Correct. And the third page is a total of $24,963. Correct. And that was, again, a purchase order approved by the city to mail the newsletter you and your team had been working on for many months, right? Correct. Okay. Now, at some point, did you provide a mailing list to Michael Gay? I did. Okay, and approximately how many people were on that mailing list?

Well, it changed. I think about 50,000.

Is what it started at? Correct. Okay, and was it narrowed down?

When we removed the duplicative households, for example, if you had two individuals living in a household, it would go to the family. So, for example, it would go to the Waits family. So we were able to reduce the number of addresses that way.

Thank you. Ultimately, did you provide Michael Gay with a mailing list of who to send these to?

I sent Michael several mailing lists.

Okay. I want to be real careful with my question. Do you know if the newsletter was mailed? Do you know if the newsletter was mailed? Not trying to trick you.

I assume the newsletter was mailed.

Do you know how many copies of the newsletter were mailed?

I requested 37,000 pieces.

Okay, you requested. Do you know with certainty how many copies were mailed?

I would have no way of knowing that.

Okay. Do you know if Michael mailed 37,000 copies?

Michael's a trusted figure in the community. I assumed he did.

But you don't know with certainty that he mailed 37,000?

I wouldn't know that.

Thank you. Did you take the newsletter to be mailed at the post office? No, I wouldn't do that. Now, when did you resign? You resigned from Atlanta City Council, correct?

I did.

Approximately what date was that?

This was done at a council meeting, I believe on March, it was on Monday, I believe on March 4th, effective March 8th, Friday.

Okay. So March 8th was your last date as an Atlanta City Council member? Correct. Did the Atlanta City IT Department turn off your email effective immediately? No. So you had access still to your email even though you had resigned, right?

I had a conversation with Santana regarding leaving it on because we were still working through some changes and I was removing documents that I had on the computer that I was turning into the City of Atlanta.

And who's Santana, just so the record's clear? Or what position did she hold? She's a woman, right?

She is the council staff person that supports council members.

Okay, so you asked that your email remain on even though you had resigned, correct?

I asked that until I was able to transfer all of the documents. Correct.

And are you aware that the city IT department or whoever had allowed email access to remain for other council members after they left office? Yes. You're aware of that?

That's standard.

So it wasn't uncommon, right?

No, it was not.

I'm gonna direct your attention to... Hold on, what's the exhibit? Hold on, let me just find the exhibit. I'm going to direct your attention to, hold on, now I'm not seeing it. Are you aware of any emails that went to the printer regarding using Keisha Waits 2024 on the, oh, sorry, I'm going to direct your attention to exhibit 29, please. I think it's, we're looking at 30. Do you see exhibit 29?

I think you just passed it. Yes.

Do you recognize exhibit 29?

I do.

And can you tell me what that is, please?

That's the format where we just discussed that I wanted it to go to Keisha Waits or Waits family, our current resident.

Okay, so you told him to use this format, correct? Correct. And the mailing as printed... Just said Councilmember Wade's PO Box such and such, Atlanta, Georgia, post3atlantaga.gov. Correct. So it was printed like this?

Yes.

When this was printed, to the extent you know, did it have any reference to Keisha Wade's 2024?

We removed the social media and the website.

Okay, so there was no reference to Keisha Wade's 2024 in this product?

Not on the print.

Do you know when that was added?

Once the voter file was finalized.

Okay, and you think Michael Gay added the Keisha Waits 2024? Yes. I believe the testimony to the ethics office is there were sort of two steps here. Mr. Gay's office asked someone else to print these newsletters, correct? Correct. And then Mr. Gay, once he got the hard copies, added the information about mailing, correct?

Yes, Mr. Gay is a mail house.

Okay. Are you aware when or how the Keisha Waits 2024 was added to the final product? Or let me rephrase that. Are you aware that it was added to mailers?

At the time, I did not recall, but I'm looking at an email where I'm assuming it was added.

Okay. But are you aware of mailers where that included the Keisha Waits 2024?

I had the remaining mailers, which there were a couple of dozen, and it did not have that on there.

So at some point, Michael Gay, is it correct that Michael Gay added the 2020, Keisha Wade's 2024 there before it was mailed? Correct. Did you receive a cease and desist letter from the city on May 1st? Well, let me actually just hand you this. I'm handing you what's a May 1st, 2024 letter.

This is I think appellant's exhibit five.

I don't know where it is, but I'll make it Appellant's Exhibit 5. I think we're up to.

We're up to 6, just to clarify.

OK.

Sorry, just for clarification, I believe that should be appellate.

If you could please let me know which exhibit it is, because I don't think it's, no, sorry, in the binder. Ms. Waits, do you recall receiving this May 1st cease and desist?

I can't tell you the date that I received it, but I received, I remember getting a letter to this effect.

Did this date, May 1st on this letter, correct? That's what it says. Did City of Atlanta investigators drive to an event in Sandy Springs to personally hand this to you?

They met me at the Sandy Springs event, yes Okay, so they left City Hall to come to you, right?

I don't know where they left I know that they came to City Hall and they gave me some documentation to Sandy Springs Now, can I direct your attention to the first sentence? It has come to our attention that your campaign is using city property to promote your candidacy for Fulton County Clerk Did I read that correctly? Correct. Do you see, does it say might be using, could be using, thought about using, is alleged to use? Or does it say is using?

It states it as you've said.

So there's no doubt in that first sentence, correct?

That's my assumption.

So do you believe, reading this now, that the city ethics office, oh, this is, well, it's unsigned by Jabu Sangova. Do you see that on the next page?

I do.

Okay. Okay. Did you take this then or now to mean that the city was aware of your mailing? Well, actually, let me scroll down a little bit. Go to... the last line on the page that it says, we also received a campaign mailer with images of the mayor, council members, and the city seal, which was sent out to Fulton, sent to Fulton County residents. Do you see that? I do. So do you think that the city was aware on May 1st about this newsletter based on this cease and desist? I do. Thank you. council member waits looking at this newsletter that i'm holding are there any and i think it's exhibit 30 or and take time to review that please but are any or are all of those pictures and stories and coverage. Is that all related to your work as a city council member?

Absolutely.

As a city council member, were you entitled to use the city seal?

Absolutely.

Okay. Did you pay for some printing of this newsletter with your own funds?

I did.

Do you recall approximately how much?

$1,700.

With your own funds? Correct.

Thank you.

We have just a few more questions for Ms. Waits, and we'll try to move along our direct appeal. Ms. Waits, you're aware that you're here about an intentional violation of the city's code? I am. Did you intend to violate the city's code?

Absolutely not.

Did you intend to commit an ethics violation?

No.

Did you intend to convert city funds and property to personal or campaign use?

Absolutely not.

Is there a reason why you thought that this newsletter was perfectly appropriate and within the bounds of both law and ethics? Can you tell us what that was sure as I've indicated?

There were members who had done newsletters and I thought it was important to talk about the work that I had done I was also going to be stepping down early and I wanted to have a Letter to the city detailing the work that I had done and I wanted to be able to demonstrate That my time here was well spent and and that I had honored the obligation that I made when I ran for this seat. That's articulated in the letter that I wrote to the city of Atlanta neighbors. Was there?

Was there a specific instance of a newsletter being sent out by any particular member of the city council that made you think that what you were doing was exactly or close to what you were trying to do?

Well, as I've indicated to you, prior to my newsletter, all of the members had sent out a newsletter. I can recall several years ago where a candidate running for mayor of Atlanta sent something to the entire city of Atlanta. That exceeded over $100,000, so certainly I thought and felt well within the law to articulate the work that we had done. If you look at the newsletter, there's nothing in there that's tied to a campaign.

Do you remember what year that was where a newsletter by a council member was sent out to the city as a whole?

I don't remember the year, but it was an electoral year. Cat Head was running for mayor probably 2017. A book, a magazine was mailed to the entire city of Atlanta. The member was a district member. This was not a citywide member.

Do you remember, and your district is at large, is that right? Post three. Post three. Do you remember seeing any news reports about a newsletter being sent out? Or do you have any firsthand knowledge of this newsletter from this other candidate or this other elected official?

I wouldn't recall a news report, but the booklet came to my home as well as all of my neighbors.

Okay. I'm going to show you something and just tell me if you, I've highlighted something. See if you recognize it. And if you do, let me know.

I do not.

Okay. Does this reference an elected official sending a newsletter?

Siegelman, do you have copies of that for us?

Yes.

It does.

May I approach her? Does this reference the scenario that you were just mentioning about a newsletter being sent out during a citywide campaign where city funds were used?

We're calling it a newsletter. That was a magazine, a booklet that was mailed out. According to this article, it was 58 pages. Yes, I remember that.

I received this. How much were charged to taxpayers for this booklet? I wouldn't know that. Does it reference, look at the...

Yes.

What's the amount that's referenced there?

It says that the taxpayers were charged $40,000.

$40,000 for a booklet? And this is for a sitting council member running for mayor? Correct. Will you turn to the last page?

There's another highlighted portion.

And just I'm gonna read this for just for speed says as for those flyers We told you about reference before Commission found they were permissible under the law all 58 pages and

That's what this article says.

And this article was mentioned in 2021. That was before your mailer was conceived. Is that right? I think you said it started in 2022.

Objection. I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. We're not here to discuss someone else's mailer or another case.

It looks like also just reading the heading, this is in regard to a campaign finance complaint before a campaign finance commission.

Yes, yes, correct. So this is in reference to the ultimate findings, which I have and I'm happy to introduce to come full circle. But this was an ethics complaint sent to the State Ethics Commission as opposed to the City Ethics Commission. So it is different in that regard, but the circumstances where a sitting elected council member sends a costly newsletter citywide during their campaign for another office is found to be permissible under the law by the State Ethics Commission, and this entire proceeding is about whether an intentional violation occurred, whether there was fair notice, to Ms. Waits that her conduct was indeed unlawful, and that she intended to commit unlawful or at least unethical conduct. And this happened just before.

Council, I'm going to stop you there, because it is before a different body, which we have no standing, et cetera. I'm going to ask you to move forward.

Absolutely, thank you. And this, by the way, this goes to intent. This is not some precedent that controls what this board does. It is purely to the intent, which is the burden of the ethics office demonstrate that an intentional violation occurred. I'll ask you, before we relieve Ms. Waits, I want to confer with co-counsel, make sure we don't have any further questions.

Let me just close this loop real quick. You were aware that Keisha Lance Bottoms sent a citywide mailer, correct? I was. And you thought that was appropriate and permitted to do under city ethics law, right?

Absolutely.

So you followed what then council member Bottoms did, correct? Correct. And you thought you were complying with the law? Absolutely. Thank you. And are you aware of council member Bottoms getting any city ethics violations for this mailer?

No, I'm not.

And you're aware of other council members sending similar newsletters, right? I am. You never had any intent to break the law, correct?

I did not.

And you had worked on this newsletter for a year and a half, correct? Correct. While you were a council member? I did. Correct. Thank you. So put a bow on it. You never intended to violate any city ethics or other ordinance, correct? Absolutely not.

I'd just like to ask one question. Is your determination on whether or not this was permissible based off of the actions of others? Did you also review the guidelines for what was or was not permissible?

Is that a question to me or to her?

Well, to Ms. Williams. I'm happy to, yes. I met with Santana Kempson-Wright multiple times surrounding this newsletter. And I was given guidance in terms of how to do this. I was told to obtain a purchase order and three quotes from printers and mail houses. Michael Gay's house was determined to be the best one. quote that we would use. So as I've indicated, and I think the purchase order was submitted in October. Unfortunately, it took some time to put the newsletter together.

We have no further questions for this witness. For completeness, we'll go ahead and offer this into evidence as Appellant's Exhibit 7.

And then just sort of, I know, just sort of housekeeping measure, does this cut to our time as well, or they're about to, as they're entitled to, to cross, but. Right, but does it count, we've used 30-ish minutes of our time, so I'm just wondering.

I think that would count against the city's time.

So then do we get to ask questions of theirs and count towards their time, right?

Yes.

So if he's questioning, it's his time. The chair just said, oh, sorry, I missed, I apologize. Carlos, are you?

I have you, that was 33 minutes or so.

Thank you. have that one if you want to do the city yeah it started at an hour and did we enter into the record the actual newsletter because we certainly want the board to have the newsletter well a physical copy would help let's introduce this as well as a pellets exhibit

If we're going to do that, we're going to go ahead and do two interviews.

We can make that a joint exhibit. I mean, we have no problem with that.

Clarity, we probably want it to be two separate exhibits.

Then we'll just make clear on the record, we have no objection to the introduction of that.

Should we call that City 1?

Yeah. So just for clarity, then we have Appellants 8 and Cities

Yeah, so city two. So city two. No.

I do want to make one thing clear. I don't think we assigned a number to the binder itself.

It shouldn't be one. Just call it 100, whatever it is, because you've lost track of the number.

Just make this zero.

All right.

So for clarification, then the binder is appellants exhibit zero. And we also have appellants exhibit eight, which is their version of the newsletter and cities exhibit one, which is the city's version of the newsletter. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Sorry, we just need to remark the city's exhibit. We caused confusion. This should be city's exhibit one, not two. Okay.

All right.

Just wait, make sure.

ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD.

GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. GOOD EVENING, MS. WAITS. SO I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE ASKED OF YOU AND ALSO JUST SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION. WAS THE CAMPAIGN PLAN, WAS THAT SENT FROM YOUR CITY EMAIL ADDRESS?

The document that you have?

Exhibit two, was that sent to your campaign email address from your city email address?

I don't recall where it was sent. I recognize the document in my handwriting, but this particular document was sent to me. This is not my document.

Well, the question is, did you send this document to your campaign from your city email address?

To my personal email address.

That is, I would contend that that is your campaign. That is the email address that you use for your campaign disclosures and your campaign reporting, correct?

That is my personal email address.

It's your personal email, but it also doubles as your campaign email, correct?

I forwarded hundreds of documents from my city email to my personal email to clear them off of my city laptops.

So it's your contention that your personal email is not your email that you used that's on file with the state of Georgia?

It is on file, but you're asking me if I referred this for campaign purposes, and I'm saying that I was transferring documents or information or emails that I had received to my personal email.

What are the dates of the campaign, of the election that's dated on there?

On this campaign document, it says March 4th.

No, the voting portion.

The presidential primary?

No. If you go further into the document, what date was the election?

The document doesn't belong to me.

It was on your city computer, correct?

It was sent to me.

It was on your city email? It was sent from your city email to your campaign address, correct? Okay.

So it's my belief that this document actually belonged to another elected official. This was sent to me.

Would you consider this city business?

This is not city business.

So why was it being transmitted from your city email address to your campaign email?

Because at the time, if you go back and look at the other exhibit, when we were putting the newsletter together, there was a portion in the newsletter that talked about usable information for constituents.

And if you go to, I believe this is exhibit. So just so we can go, yes or no, is this city business?

Respectfully.

Was this city business?

May I answer the question?

You may. Okay.

Exhibit 13, there's a portion in here that gives information regarding voting dates in that document. So that's why that information was sent. If you notice on page eight, it gives the presidential primary as well as the state primary information.

Was this related to a city council election?

We were discussing putting together a newsletter with useful information. The first original draft of the newsletter- Which campaign is it?

What is this plan for?

The document doesn't belong to me. It was forwarded to me because it had information on there that I may use within the newsletter.

All right. So let's just move forward. Did you initiate the PO for this newsletter?

The purchase order?

Yes. I was advised to do so. Did you initiate it?

I had a conversation with city officials regarding how to do a newsletter.

Right. Did you submit the invoice for the newsletter?

My staff did.

You did not submit the invoice?

We're talking about some time ago. I directed my staff to do so.

So your statement is you directed your staff to do so. Who told you to get the PO under a certain price?

It wasn't about getting it under a certain price. The initial conversation about the newsletter was around $60,000. Because of all of the delays that were involved, I was told that it would take another level of approval for the newsletter. So for that reason, I was told.

I would just request that the board have her please answer the questions I'm directing towards her.