FAIRHOPE, Ala. — When the city’s airport board reorganized in 2003, the entity entered a new threshhold of accountability.

Although ordinances still listed in the Code of Ordinances on the city’s Web site refer to it as the Fairhope Airport Board and controlled by the City Council, the Fairhope Airport Authority is a corporation that was formed pursuant to state law in 2003.

The name of the organization changed to the Fairhope Airport Authority at that time and became a corporation controlled by an initial board of directors of Susan Mason, Colton Coile and Khim Vira, according to county records.

The articles of incorporation at that time stated that the board of directors would consist of seven members, six who had to live in the city limits and one within the city’s police jurisdiction.

In 2005, the articles were amended to change the residency requirements of membership to five within the city limits and two within the police jurisdiction. The amended articles listed the following as the board of directors on Oct. 11, 2005: Colton Coile, Mike Baugh, Chuck Zunk, James Garrett, Ken Knutsen and Mike Ford.

The FAA adopted by-laws on March 6, 2007, setting out the rules and procedures for how the organization should be run.

It set out the following board of directors and their terms and residences: Mike Ford, two years, Fairhope; Joe McEnerney, two years, Fairhope; Chuck Zunk, two years, Fairhope; Louis Mapp, four years, Point Clear; Kenneth Knutsen, four years, Point Clear; Michael Baugh, six years, Fairhope; and Charlie Bassett, six years.

That reorganization of the FAA followed the resignation of Coile, the organization’s chairman at that time.

In July 2007, Coile pleaded guilty to federal wire fraud charges in Florida after admitting that he brought clients to a sham company that sold bogus insurance. Coile owned an insurance company in Fairhope at the time, but the charges and plea were unrelated to any of his work or official action on the FAA, according to media reports at the time.

Unlike city committees or boards in which only elected officials and certain public employees are covered by the state ethics law, board members of public corporations such as the Fairhope Airport Authority established pursuant to state law for the purpose of carrying out a specific government function are covered by the state ethics law, according to that statute.

That statute states members appointed to such governmental organizations are “public officials” and covered by provisions of the ethics laws, such as prohibitions against conflicts of interest.

Such public officials are prohibited from taking actions on such a board where a conflict exists between their private interests and official responsibilities and that would materially affect their financial interests or those of their family, according to the statute.

“My understanding is that also means, not only can members not vote on such issues, they also cannot participate in the discussion about it, which could influence someone else’s vote,” said Zunk, the FAA’s current chairman.

State ethics law provisions also prohibit public officials receiving a “thing of value” from individuals under certain circumstances, which includes “any gift, benefit, favor (or) service” given to a public official for the purpose of influencing official action, according to the statute.

During its January meeting, the FAA passed a resolution to enter into an agreement with Red Drum Marketing, a marketing and public relations firm in Fairhope, that would provide marketing and advertising services without charge to the FAA to help find funds to build a general aviation terminal at the Fairhope airport.

Red Drum Marketing provided services to the FAA for a fee to promote the 2008 Festival of Flight event, Zunk said.

After inquiry by the Fairhope Courier regarding whether the acceptance of that free service might violate the state ethics law, Zunk said the FAA would be rescinding the arrangement.

Zunk said he had spoken with the FAA’s attorney, David Bagwell, about the agreement, who did not think it violated the ethics law.

“However, to avoid even the appearance of any impropriety, we’ve decided not to not go forward with (the agreement),” Zunk said.