Bowling Green Board Of Ethics Finds City Commissioner, Catherine Hamilton, Did Not Break Rules In "Or*l Sex In City Park" Affair.

Ethics board clears Catherine Hamilton
Commissioner’s disorderly conduct charge did not violate city’s code
By ANDREW THOMASON

The Bowling Green Board of Ethics dismissed Tuesday a claim that Bowling Green City Commissioner Catherine Hamilton violated the city’s code of ethics this year when she was charged with second-degree disorderly conduct.

The conviction stemmed from an undercover police investigation into illicit sexual activity at Weldon Peete Park. Hamilton was spotted by police officers performing oral sex on Mark A. Vaughn of Bowling Green during the morning of April 22, according to Bowling Green Police Department reports.

Vaughn was charged with indecent exposure.

She and Vaughn both pleaded guilty the next day, and were each ordered to pay a $200 fine.

A report on the incident and whether it violated the code of ethics was performed for the city by the Cole & Moore law firm. After reviewing the police reports, audio confessions of Hamilton and Vaughn and an interview with Hamilton this month, Cole & Moore concluded that Hamilton’s actions did not break the code of ethics because the code was intended to regulate public, not private, life.

Whether that was the case or not is something that troubled board member Walter Hawkins.

“It wasn’t entirely a private affair, literally,” he said.

All members of the board in attendance agreed that Hamilton did not break the code of ethics as it is written, but that could be more of a sign of a problem with the code rather than a vindication of Hamilton.

Hamilton did not attend the hearing Tuesday, and she did not immediately return an e-mail from the Daily News seeking her response to the decision.

“I understand the argument. It’s hard to imagine, however, that what happened here doesn’t somehow fall under the code of ethics,” Hawkins said.

Hawkins voted in favor of dismissing the case, but said he did only because he felt compelled to do so because of how the limited nature of the code of ethics is written. Other board members echoed his sentiment.

“My motion is based on a technicality and not my attitude towards (Hamilton’s) action,” said board member John Parker.

According to the report issued by Cole & Moore, Hamilton’s actions did not adversely affect the integrity, efficiency or discipline of the city, nor did they have a negative effect on her performance as a city commissioner.

“Our job is not so much to be the morality police but to enforce the ethics code,” said Dan Rudloff, board chairman.

The vote was unanimous, but that doesn’t mean the dismissal was an easy decision to come by, according to Rudloff.

“It may have been a dismissal, but this was a very fact-sensitive case,” he said. “If it had happened inside this building that would have changed everything. One fact different and I think we would have made a different decision.”

Hamilton still could be impeached by the Bowling Green City Commission. Once charges had been brought against her, there would need to be a 4-0 vote to fire her. However, there has been no indication by anyone on the city commission that it is willing to do this. Something that might play into this was Hamilton’s decision not to run for re-election several months before the incident.

Because of this case, board members said the code of ethics should be reviewed. They were specifically concerned with the section that Hamilton’s case boiled down to. Section 25-3 of the ethics code states that public officials will not do anything that might hurt the “integrity, efficiency or discipline of the city service.”

The lack of a further definition of these three words in the code of ethics makes for a very legal interpretation of them, according to the Cole & Moore report. Board members said a work session will be held in the near future to help clarify these definitions, as well as look at other sections of the code of ethics.