Ethics complaint against Newberry Mayor Jordan Marlowe dismissed for lack of legal sufficiency
BY JENNIFER CABRERA
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – According to a press release from the Florida Commission on Ethics, the Commission dismissed an ethics complaint against Newberry Mayor Jordan Marlowe at their June 7 meeting.
At the closed-session meeting, the Commission reviewed 22 complaints for legal sufficiency, one of which was the complaint filed against Marlowe by Save Our Schools Newberry Co-Chair Tyler Foerst. The complaint alleged that Marlowe “has been directing City staff to assist in the creation of the budget for EFN (Education First for Newberry) and has used City resources in benefit of EFN, a private entity, without a vote of the City Commission. By unilaterally ordering City staff to work for the benefit of a private entity, the Mayor has clearly overstepped his authority and abused his power.”
The complaint was dismissed for lack of legal sufficiency. According to the press release, “Reviews of legal sufficiency are limited to questions of jurisdiction and determinations as to whether the contents of the complaint are adequate to allege a violation of the Code of Ethics or other laws within the Commission’s jurisdiction. As no factual investigation precedes the reviews, the Commission’s conclusions do not reflect on the accuracy of the allegations made in these complaints.”
Loser’s Lose.
LOL….Captain “Shart”. Spoken with true ignorance. However, I am surprised that you were able to put two words together. Maybe…..just maybe you will be one of the lucky ones to enter the New Charter Elementary School??
But still Tyler Lost. You can’t change that fact.
Well, the loser did lose. Maybe you should work hard on acquiring more common sense!
Charter Schools Rule and enjoy a disciplined, structured education. Those with a desire to put students first recognize that. They learn respect and not name calling. Childish name calling shows obvious lack of character and education.
Lol
Too bad.
“Reviews of legal sufficiency are limited to questions of jurisdiction and determinations as to whether the contents of the complaint are adequate to allege a violation of the Code of Ethics or other laws within the Commission’s jurisdiction….”
OK, how about an explanation of why the allegation is inadequate as a violation? Pleased or not with the decision, this ruling explains nothing if that sentence is all there is to it.
Complaints are confidential until they’re determined to be legally sufficient, so the decision is made behind closed doors, and no information is released about the reasoning. The only reason we know what this is about is because the complainant made it public.
Thanks for that information. I don’t get why the complaint and it’s details are public – I believe you published them here – but not the finding and it’s details.
By law, the Commission on Ethics cannot disclose information about any complaint until it is deemed legally sufficient (this one was not).
The person who submitted the complaint chose to share the complaint with the media, so it became public via that avenue (the complainant is not required to keep the complaint confidential). There is no such avenue for publicizing the decision because only the Commission on Ethics has that information and cannot disclose it.
Oooh, what a quagmire!!
Sounds like a Karen…