MILTON — The city’s attorney and Councilman Jimmy Messick’s wife are challenging an ethics complaint filed against Messick just before the Nov. 8 election.
Gary Pruitt filed the complaint contending Messick used his public office for personal gain, but Milton attorney Heather Lindsay and Theresa Messick say that’s not the case.
At issue is the now controversial parcel seven, which Theresa Messick owns.
“In June 2015, when Mr. (City Manager Brian) Watkins presented to the council the map that numbered the different parcels, some of which there was a recommendation that council pursue,” Lindsay said. “One of those parcels, parcel seven, was not recommended to council to pursue.”
Lindsay said Watkins informed her on the matter before he presented the information before the council. At the time, she was aware of Theresa Messick owning parcel seven.
“I researched opinions regarding transactions involving adjacent parcels of land to evaluate whether Councilman Messick should be advised to abstain,” Lindsay said. “It was my judgment that the standard (of) whether Mr. Messick knew a special gain or loss would occur as to parcel seven was not met in June 2015 based on the circumstances at that time and I advised Councilman Messick accordingly in advance of the meeting in 2015.”
Lindsay said city officials did not know until after the Santa Rosa County Commission meeting in October 2015 that there would be any reason to consider purchasing parcel seven. At the time, Commissioner Rob Williamson was interested in evaluating a new downtown location for the courthouse.
“Pursuing parcel seven came as a result of cooperating with Commissioner Rob Williamson's efforts to find a compromise after Commissioners (Bob) Cole and (Don) Salter voiced opposition to a downtown Milton location while Commissioners (Lane) Lynchard and (Jayer) Williamson voiced support,” Lindsay stated in a comment on srpressgazette.com.
Lindsay said Councilman Messick acted in good faith during the process, adding he consulted with her each time the courthouse properties were discussed. He also abstained from discussion and voting pertaining to parcel seven.
“Councilman Messick has not done or said anything that would support the complaint Mr. Pruitt filed,” she said.
Lindsay has said the Commission on Ethics is unlikely to take action before the Nov. 8 election.
“It takes months for the commission to even decide whether there is an investigation (that) should be undertaken,” she said.
The process involves several steps and procedures, she said. Most of them should remain confidential.
When asked by Council member Ashley Lay as to whether any action would be taken on the breech of confidentiality, Lindsay said, “the Commission on Ethics cannot punish someone for breaching that confidentiality; there is no authority granted them to do that.”
Lindsay said she wanted to make the council aware of the information pertaining to the ethics complaint should they have any questions.
Theresa Messick said she and Jimmy moved to Milton in 2002 and, in 2006, she bought two pieces of land: one on Oak Street and parcel seven on Pine Street.
“I bought it myself; I wanted to restore this property,” she said. “I did not buy that parcel to sell it.”
Theresa said she paid $49,000 for parcel seven, which had an asking price of $50,000, and she has owned the property for 11 years. In a letter submitted to the Press Gazette, Theresa said there has been friction between her and Pruitt, who at the time also sought to buy parcel seven.
When Williamson expressed interest in the new courthouse location for which parcel seven was needed, Theresa said she was still reluctant to sell.
“I did not even discuss it with my husband; I did not talk to him about the price,” Theresa said. “I went out and hired a real estate person.”
When speaking before the council, Theresa said she has dealt with online criticism and even said there were occasions of the couple’s residence being egged along with her car, which was also keyed at one point.
Despite the acts and the negativity, Theresa said she wanted to keep the courthouse downtown.
“I care about the county, I care about our city and if it meant for our people to have jobs and to keep that courthouse in downtown Milton, I was willing to give it up,” Theresa said.
Now with the courthouse’s future uncertain, the outcome changed, she said.
“My deal with the city was, if the sales tax for the courthouse passed, they could purchase my property. To that end, the city held in escrow the $2,500. Since the (courthouse) sales tax did not pass, the city council moved to not purchase my property,” Theresa said. “Also, I had already informed (Watkins) that, since the city was not purchasing the property, I did not want, nor would I take, the escrow money.”
On the matter of serving on the city’s Historic Preservation Board, which Pruitt’s complaint mentioned, Theresa said she served on the board five years before her husband was elected to city council.
“According to the city attorney, my service on that board in not a conflict of interest and has nothing to do with whether or not my husband violated any ethical standards in his actions relating to the property purchases by the city,” she said.
Theresa contended that Pruitt’s complaint may have something to do with the 2014 election in which he lost a seat on the council to Ashley Lay.
“This all is just sour grapes by Pruitt and the leadership of the Santa Rosa Historical Society, of which Pruitt is a part, for their candidates being defeated in that election. It is an attempt by that group to influence the outcome of this election in favor of the four candidates run and supported by them and Mr. Jack Sanborn.”
Despite two attempts, the Press Gazette could not reach Pruitt for comments by deadline.
Regardless of what has occurred, Theresa maintains she will continue to support Milton’s best interest.
“I will continue to serve the city and I will continue to work very hard at whatever they have me to do and my husband is the same way,” she said.
This article originally appeared on Santa Rosa Press Gazette: City attorney: councilman acted in good faith