VALDOSTA – The ethics complaint against Valdosta Mayor Scott James Matheson, claiming he blurs the lines of his elected office with his career as a conservative talk radio host, was dismissed Wednesday. 

Ethics board members Robert Jefferson, former Southern Circuit Judge Jim Tunison and former Lowndes Solicitor General Richard Shelton met at 10 a.m., April 14, in the city hall’s council chambers to make a decision.

After a lengthy, almost two-hour, executive session, the three – alongside City Clerk Teresa Bolden and City Attorney Timothy Tanner – resumed open session to announce the decision.

In a 2-1 vote, the board dismissed the complaint. Jefferson voted against dismissal, saying he understands the grievances held by the coalition that filed the complaint.

The coalition includes the Mary Turner Project, NAACP Lowndes Chapter, Concerned Clergies of Valdosta and the Valdosta-Lowndes Community Alliance. The groups filed the ethics complaint more than 50 days ago on Feb. 15, saying the mayor would not listen to their concerns.

The complaint, signed by Mark George, the Rev. Darren Neal, Dr. Bruce Francis and Jimmy Boyd representing the respective organizations, claimed Matheson “demonstrated that he is incapable of, and/or uninterested in, representing all citizens of Valdosta equally” in presenting himself as the Valdosta mayor on his weekday radio show Talk 92.1.

It also claimed the on-air rhetoric “regularly disseminates inaccurate, divisive, and inflammatory claims that often demonize local citizens and political viewpoints that differ from his own.”

During the hearing, the board’s job was to see if the complaint’s allegations violate the city code of ethics.

Jefferson, the board’s chairman, found merit in the complaint. The coalition referred to to the first page of the city code of ethics in its compliant. Jefferson agreed with what the coalition found.

The complaint referred to the third, fourth and fifth statements of ordinance number 2014-13 respectively, which say:

“Public officials be, and give the appearance of being independent, impartial, and responsible to the people.”

“All elected officials of the City of Valdosta should conduct themselves so as to not create any question or concern as to the appropriateness, legality or sincerity of any actions or conduct as a member of the governing authority.”

“Provide the public with confidence in the integrity of its government.”

The code also states city officials – including employees, appointees and volunteers conducting city business – be independent, impartial and responsible; treat all people fairly; use the power of their position for the well-being of their constituents; and create an environment of honesty, openness and integrity.

“I feel what the mayor did, speaking on his radio show, was OK as long as he didn’t say as the mayor,” Jefferson said. “I hold the mayor – I hold all elected officials at a higher standard and I think we all should expect more.”

Jefferson said freedom of speech holds true in this situation, but is problematic when the mayoral title is connected to political statements.

“I feel that once you are in that office, you speak for all the people,” he said. “You can have your opinion and you can voice it in certain situations, but once you put that tag on it, ‘As the mayor,’ you’re all of our mayor. You’re Valdosta’s mayor, so you should be speaking for all of us.”

If a political figure has to curtail some speech to create that open, inclusive environment, then that’s what should be done, Jefferson said.

Shelton and Tunison disagreed. Shelton argued the complaint was based on the “preamble” of the code of ethics and therefore had no merit.

Citing the preamble of the United States Constitution, he said, “We the people, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, do ordain and establish. It is after that that is the provisions of the Constitution that matter.

“This ordinance is structured and uses the same language as they do in the Constitution,” Shelton said. “We as a body must find a violation of some prohibited act.”

He referenced Matheson’s actions not violating a conflict of interest or abuse of power. Because of that he had sufficient reason to reject the complaint. That was his first reason, he said.

His second reason was Matheson’s alleged “rhetoric” wasn’t a violation of the code of ethics. Shelton said it was “protected political speech” under the U.S. and Georgia constitutions.

“What we have here is talk radio,” Shelton said. “This is where Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern and hundreds of others – Tom Joyner – all were able to get on a radio and give their opinion without having to give any contrary or public opposing opinions.”

This is a good thing, Shelton said, that helps the democratic process.

Tunison shared a similar view, saying the complaint only acknowledges the preamble and Matheson said things protected by freedom of speech.

But it doesn’t allege Matheson violated any prohibitions in the code of ethics.

“The complaint does not allege that Mayor Matheson used his office to enrich himself. It does not allege he used his authority for improper influence or that he voted in some matter that he had interest in the outcome. It does not allege he violated the law,” Tunison said.

The ordinance itself does not restrict any elected officials from free speech or free expression, Tunison said, even that based on political views.

“We’re not governed by opinions and thoughts, we’re governed by laws,” Tunison said.

This story was updated at 10:18 a.m. to reflect the most accurate information.