A separate legal opinion requested by the City Council says Councilman Chris Anderson did not violate the city ethics policy.
The opinion was by attorney Sam Elliott, who is city attorney for both Collegedale and Soddy Daisy.
City Attorney Wade Hinton said the ruling agreed with his assessment that the allegations were not sustained.
Citizen activist Helen Burns Sharp filed the complaint.
She questioned whether Councilman Anderson should have revealed prior to a vote on rezoning for a controversial seven-story apartment building on Cowart Street that the spokesperson for the project, Mike Price, was a host for his campaign fundraiser.
Attorney Hinton also said that Ms. Sharp stated that she did not intend "a personal attack" on Councilman Anderson.
Ms. Sharp said, "This was never a witch-hunt or a personal attack on Chris Anderson, whom I have supported in the past. He is a bright, articulate young man.
"I never accused Councilor Anderson of having a conflict of interest in this case. I did believe that he should disclose the appearance of two potential conflicts of interest.
"My Dec. 3 letter to the city attorney raised the appearance of a conflict between Mr. Anderson and engineer Mike Price, who is the spokesperson for the Knoxville developer of the apartment project on Cowart Street (Belle Investment Company). I have read that a principal in BYD Cowart Group, GP, the current property owner, is also active in Mr. Anderson’s campaign for re-election to the City Council. So I hoped that Councilman Anderson would disclose his association with Kevin Boehm as well.
"What I am doing is raising a public policy issue about transparency in government.
"There are two kinds of conflicts of interest - actual and potential.
"Actual is easy to spot - like if a family member applies for a zone change. I believe every elected official would know to disclose this kind of conflict and not vote on the matter.
"In other instances some members of the public might perceive the appearance of a conflict of interest. I believe it is the responsibility of the elected official to recognize when there might be that perception and disclose it before the vote. Oftentimes the official will state why he or she believes there is not a conflict and state that the association will not affect their ability to be an impartial decision maker.
"In my letter, I gave the reasons why I believe Mr. Anderson should disclose his associations with Mr. Price (and Mr. Boehm):
· $500 contributions;
· Members of host committee for recent campaign event for Mr. Anderson’s re-election;
· The timing of the votes on the zoning matter on Cowart;
· Mr. Anderson and Mr. Price have been the only public advocates for lifting the height cap to allow 7 stories. The Planning Commission had recommended a maximum of 5. The 2007 City Council had established a maximum of 4 stories for this particular site. There is considerable opposition in the neighborhood.
"I realize that a campaign contribution by itself does not create a conflict of interest for an elected official. In many instances, it may not need to be disclosed. Here it was the combination of the $500 contributions, the host committee roles, and the timing of the votes that suggested to me that disclosures were appropriate.
"The City Code lists what the City Council may do when a complaint like this is filed:
“The City Council, by a majority vote, shall determine that this complaint has merit, does not have merit or has sufficient merit to warrant further investigation.”
"I had hoped that on Dec. 8 the Council would have determined that my complaint had merit and that Councilman Anderson would address the associations between him and Mr. Price and Mr. Boehm before voting on the ordinance. I believe he did say that his relationship with Mr. Price had no bearing on his ability to be an impartial decision-maker. That is what I was asking.
"I was surprised when Councilman Anderson asked the council to instruct the city attorney to hire outside counsel to do further investigation.
"I heard this afternoon (Dec. 15) that local attorney Sam Elliott, whom the city attorney's office frequently uses as outside counsel, has cleared Councilman Anderson of an ethics violation regarding conflict of interest. Good. I never alleged a conflict of interest. I wanted him to disclose the appearance of conflicts.
"I have not seen the report. No one contacted me to discuss the basis of my allegation. I assume the report was thorough and that Mr. Elliott requested copies of all emails and phone records between Councilman Anderson and Mr. Price and Mr. Boehm.
"This council unanimously adopted their ethics policy almost two years ago as a measure to promote transparency in government.
"At the city where I worked as planning director for 18 years, state law required that the chair of the Council and the Planning Commission ask at each rezoning hearing if any member needed to declare a conflict of interest (actual or potential). I wish the Chattanooga City Council would adopt a similar policy for all zone changes and tax breaks."