MILTON — An anonymous source mailed numerous residents copies of an ethics complaint recently filed against Milton City Councilman Jimmy Messick.
Now, a city spokesperson says the city wants to set the record straight.
Resident David Gary Pruitt filed the original ethics complaint, which contends Messick used his position for personal gain. The city, citing residents’ confusion following the anonymous mail, sent a media release sharing these details about the process behind the purchase of properties:
- "The plan to pursue parcels one, six and eight in Downtown Milton was part of the city staff’s proposal to obtain properties consistent with the Master Plan for downtown Milton. Parcels in downtown Milton would serve the goals of the Master Plan as well as support a proposal to site the courthouse downtown.
- “When the plan to pursue parcels one, six and eight was developed, staff was fully informed on Councilman Messick’s wife’s ownership of parcel seven. Because the plan did not include purchase of parcel seven, and because parcel seven was not necessary for the goals being promoted by the plan recommended by city staff to the City Council, the city attorney concluded Councilman Messick was permitted to participate in the process without a conflict of interest.
- “The city attorney researched opinions about purchasing parcels of land adjacent to those owned by council members or close relatives and concluded Councilman Messick would not be violating ethical standards if he participated in pursuing parcels one, six and eight. This conclusion was based in part on opinions exploring whether an elected official voted on matters (that) were known to cause a special private gain or loss to the official.
- “No special private gain or loss to Councilman Messick was known with regard to parcels one, six or eight based on the city attorney’s research. The city attorney stated at all times Councilman Messick fully disclosed to city staff all pertinent facts. Throughout this time, Councilman Messick sought and followed the advice of the city attorney on these purchases.”
- “Councilman Messick abstained from all votes as to parcel seven, which was not pursued by the council until October 2015, which was the result of a discussion between the city and Santa Rosa County about an alternate location for the courthouse in the downtown area.”
- “At this time, parcel seven is no longer being pursued because it is unlikely the alternate location of the courthouse is of interest to the county. The city currently has no plans to purchase parcel seven."
The Commission on Ethics will review the anonymously shared mail and will determine whether to investigate it, according to the media release.
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: City: Messick sought advice to avoid conflict of interest