Commission to tackle conflicts of interest

By Joel Davis
of The Daily Times Staff

Whether or not politics played a role in spurring attention about possible conflicts of interest, County Commission Chairman Robert Ramsey is advocating that the newly established Ethics Committee investigate legal issues surrounding three commissioners.

“We obviously can’t ignore what we’ve received,” Ramsey said Tuesday when asked about recent legal opinions concerning Commissioners Mike Lewis, Bob Proffitt and Wendy Pitts Reeves.

On Oct. 19, County Mayor Jerry Cunningham forwarded a memo to Blount County Commission members containing legal opinions drafted by a County Technical Assistance Service lawyer that could potentially affect the eligibility of Proffitt and Reeves to serve on the commission because they are health-care providers through Highlands Health Partnership, which refers county employees to local doctors for health care.

Reeves said no conflict exists but that she would take steps to avoid even the appearance.

“I do not have any conflict of interest,” she said. “I don’t contract with the county. I don’t receive checks from the county. However, because it’s so important for me to make sure there is no potential for conflict, I am not going to renew my contract with Highlands in regards to Blount County government.”

A previous opinion by Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper Jr. indicated that Lewis could face possible ouster because of holding shares in GreenBank, which provides financial services to the county.

In the interim, Lewis has taken steps that he believes satisfy the letter of the law that could have made it illegal for him to serve.

“Because I was a stockholder in the bank, I transferred ownership of that stock to my wife,” he said. “... I e-mailed all the commissioners to that effect on Oct. 15, letting them know. Hopefully that will settle any issues that are out there.”

Reeves, who chairs the Ethics Committee, agreed that the allegations need to be discussed. She is having the matter placed on the committee’s agenda for its Oct. 29 meeting.

“It’s time to deal with all of this properly,” Reeves said. “The proper way would be to file a complaint or statement with the Ethics Committee through Betsy Cunningham or the Human Resources Office ... because no one else is handling this the way it’s supposed to be handled, I’m going to (put it on the agenda).”

Reeves, however, said she recognizes there would be a conflict of interest in her being directly involved in the proceedings.

“As chair, I can’t be the one to lead that discussion,” she said. “I will remove myself ... and let the vice chair handle that discussion.”

Commissioner David Ballard said the questions about Reeves and Proffitt are politically motivated.

“What else is there?” he said. “The asking of questions (has motivated this).”
Any allegations of conflicts of interest need to go through the County Ethics Committee, Ballard said.

“We do have a formal process ,” he said. “What I’d like to see in the future is for issues to go through that process and be handled accordingly.”

Acknowledging conflicts

In the letters that Cunningham forwarded to the commissioners, CTAS lawyer Stephen Austin wrote that T.C.A. 12-4-101 (b) requires any public official “indirectly interested” in any such contract must publicly acknowledge a conflict of interest.

“It is my opinion based on the facts as I understand them to be that the commissioners in question have an ‘indirect interest’ in the contract that the county has with Highlands Health Partnership,” he wrote. “Under T.C.A. 12-4-101 (b), they must publicly acknowledge this indirect interest prior to voting on the contract. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of T.C.A. 12-4-101 (b).”

Reeves, who was elected in November, has not voted on any contract with Highlands. In January, she resigned from the Human Resources and Insurance Committee to avoid voting such a possibility.

“What’s interesting about that is in the mayor’s letter, he only asked about two of the three health-care providers on the commission,” Reeves said. “Why is that? The real story here is, ‘what happens to people who ask questions?’ Clearly, he would rather I quit asking questions, but I’m not going to do that.”

It was Reeves who first questioned whether Lewis would have a possible conflict of interest serving as a member of the Blount County Purchasing Commission because his is a GreenBank employee.

Cunningham said he was only following the direction of several commissioners in requesting the opinion.

“It’s a commission matter,” Cunningham said. “It’s not a mayor matter. I’m just a conduit. I’ll get blamed, I understand that.”

The third health-care provider that Reeves was referring to is Chairman Ramsey, who is a dentist. The county is self-insured when it comes to medical insurance but actually purchases dental insurance through Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

“What I’d been told before is that we are under contracts individually with the patients,” Ramsey said. “We’re not under contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. If that’s the case, there is no reason that I shouldn’t be able to represent my constituents on a full range of decisions over county government.

1957 Budgeting Law

Austin also cited the County Budgeting Law of 1957, which contains more stringent prohibitions about commissioners voting on budget matters in which they hold an interest.

“Putting aside the issue of the Highlands Health Partnership contract there is another issue of concern,” he wrote. “In your letter, you stated that the county commissioners in question voted on the county budget and appropriations to fund the employee health-benefit package. As noted in your letter, these funds are used to pay the doctor bills of county employees who see the doctors on the list provided by Highlands Health Partnership. In essence, the commissioners voted on the budget which pays their compensation as doctors when they see county employees. County commissioners are prohibited from voting on a budget that includes their salary, however, such commissioners may vote on the tax rate.”

However, the county didn’t return to the County Budgeting Law of 1957 until July 1. It had operated under the Financial Management Act of 1981 for some years prior. Commissioners voted in June to approve the current budget.

Commission Vice Chairman Steve Samples said all commissioners need to take a hard look at their own situations.

“It’s incumbent upon every commissioner to look at the opinions that have been given by CTAS and the attorney general and inspect their own situation and make certain they comply with the law,’ he said.