Are we on the right path as a city? What are your thoughts as the reader? Be sure to follow Muscogee Muckraker on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to see our upcoming stories as they break throughout the coming week.

COLUMBUS, Ga. — A city councilor recently tried to have his personal travel expenses to a private conference on Jekyll Island funded by taxpayer money.

During the city council meeting held on July 11, 2023, Councilor Tyson Begly (District 10) also did not recuse himself from voting in favor of his own personal financial reimbursement.

While the Columbus Code of Ordinances does permit the reimbursement of travel expenses for official city business, that rule does not apply for travel of a personal nature — whether it is for professional development, leisure, or anything else; only official business is considered a reimbursable expense, as dictated by Section 2-18.10(a):

“Councilors are hereby authorized the same reimbursement for expenses incurred for travel as well as other expenditures while in the performance of their duties as councilors and as appointees for boards, commissions and committees as the same are reimbursable by other officers and employees when on city business.”

Nonetheless, be it through ignorance or wishful thinking, Begly sought to have the Fountain City Taxpayer fund his unofficial personal travel to a private conference on Jekyll Island this fall.

When the item was called for a vote by the Clerk of Council, Begly also did not recuse himself from voting in favor of his own personal reimbursement despite his obvious conflict of interest.

The vote was inconclusive with 3 councilors in favor and 4 against, which postponed the item to be voted on again at the next scheduled meeting. Do bear in mind that the results of that vote show that three city councilors voted in favor of using taxpayer money to fund Begly’s personal unofficial trip to Jekyll Island.

According to Appendix Two of the City Charter, “Code of Ethics and Prohibited Practices,” city councilors and all other officials are prohibited from taking self-serving actions through their official duties when a conflict of interest exists:

“Conflict of interest. No elected official, appointed officer or employee of the consolidated government or any office, department or agency thereof shall knowingly … Engage in any business or transaction or have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of his or her official duties or which would tend to impair his or her independence of judgment or action in the performance of his or her official duties … Vote or otherwise participate in the negotiation or the making of any contract with any business or entity in which he or she has a financial interest.”

To avoid participating in conflicts of interest that would present the opportunity for undue personal gain through the discharge of official duties, councilors are expected to disclose the conflict and recuse themselves from voting on the item presenting the conflict.

Voting to have one’s own travel expenses reimbursed is just about the most obvious form of conflict there is — whether the trip is believed to be of an official nature or not.

Perhaps our city councilors ought to consider the possibility of conflict before voting in favor of having their own personal financial interests subsidized by taxpayer money during a public meeting.

Perhaps councilors should also have a better understanding of their own Code of Ethics — especially those councilors with years of corporate experience who most certainly are already well aware of what a conflict of interest is and why one does not vote when one exists.

How aMaZiNg.

Facts are stubborn things — and we’ll keep publishing them, whether city officials like them or not.

-30-

© 2023 Muscogee Muckraker. All rights reserved.

Be sure to follow Muscogee Muckraker on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to see all the muck that’s fit to print as it breaks throughout the coming week.