PART 2: What Was the Ethics Matter Involving Mayor Ronnie Marks?

In Part 1, we explained what the Alabama Ethics Commission does and why Alabama has an ethics process in place.

Now, let’s look at what happened in the matter involving Athens Mayor William “Ronnie” Marks. At the center of the issue are city contracts, family relationships and the rules that apply to public officials. Before going further, one distinction is important:

This is not an accusation against Martin & Cobey Construction Company. The ethics matter concerns Mayor Marks and his responsibilities as a public official. Our purpose is to show the records, explain why questions were raised and report what the Alabama Ethics Commission ultimately determined.

What Was the Concern?

The concern presented to the Ethics Commission involved Mayor Marks' family relationships and City of Athens business involving Martin & Cobey.

A family relationship does not automatically establish an ethics violation. Neither does a company receiving city business. The question is whether the rules governing the public official were followed when those interests crossed paths. And that's where the records come in.

What do the records show?

Documents submitted with the ethics complaint show several City of Athens transactions involving Martin & Cobey.

In 2018, the City authorized Water Services to pursue window-replacement work from Martin & Cobey for up to $41,500.

In 2023, the Council authorized $220,600 for Martin & Cobey to replace the Water Treatment Plant roof and make related repairs. That particular resolution authorized the Water Services Director to enter into the contract.

Then the records begin specifically naming the mayor.

In June 2024, Resolution 2024-1970 authorized Mayor Marks to enter into a consultation-services agreement with Martin & Cobey for construction-management services involving Sunrise Park for up to $220,000. Mayor Marks' signature appears on the resolution.

In January 2025, the Council authorized Mayor Marks to amend that agreement for construction-management services at Swan Creek Park for up to $350,000.

At the same meeting, another amendment authorized Mayor Marks to enter into construction-management services involving the Athens Utilities Customer Service Building for up to $362,000.

Those three agreements specifically involving Mayor Marks totaled up to $932,000.

To be clear, that does not mean Mayor Marks personally received $932,000. Those are the authorized amounts of the city agreements.

Questions Were Already Being Asked

Something else happened during the January 27, 2025 meeting that is worth noting.

According to the official minutes, Dr. Michael Rodis questioned why the City Engineer and City Attorney were not being used for services associated with Items Q and R.

The minutes record Mayor Marks' response:

“This is a project manager.”

So questions about the services were raised publicly at City Council.

Were the Contracts Competitively Bid?

That's another question we are examining.

The City sometimes specifically identifies how large purchases are procured. For example, other 2023 purchases were identified in the minutes as using state bid costs or specific Sourcewell purchasing contracts.

The Martin & Cobey resolutions reviewed here do not contain that same explanation.

That does not automatically mean Alabama bid law was violated. Certain types of services may qualify for exemptions.

So, the question we are asking is simple:

If these agreements were not competitively bid, what provision of Alabama law allowed them to be awarded without competitive bidding?

That issue remains separate from the Ethics Commission's determination.

So, What Did the Ethics Commission Find?

This is the most important development. The matter became Case No. 2026-0026 before the Alabama Ethics Commission. On August 5th, 2026, the Commission met to review the allegations involving Mayor Marks. On August 6th, the Commission's Executive Director, Thomas B. Albritton, sent written notification of what happened.

According to that letter: “Based on the evidence presented to this Commission, there exists cause to hold that Mayor Marks has committed one or more minor violation(s) of the Alabama Ethics Act.”

That's important because this is no longer simply someone making an allegation.

The Alabama Ethics Commission reviewed the evidence and made an official determination.

What Happened Next?

The letter reveals another significant fact:

Mayor Marks requested that the case be resolved administratively, and the Ethics Commission accepted his request.

The Commission then referred the case to the District Attorney for Alabama's 39th Judicial Circuit for review. According to the letter, if the District Attorney approves the request, the case will return to the Ethics Commission for the possible “imposition of an administrative penalty and/or restitution, if applicable.” So, in plain English: The complaint wasn't dismissed. The Commission reviewed the evidence. It found cause concerning one or more minor violations of the Alabama Ethics Act. Mayor Marks requested an administrative resolution. The Commission accepted that request.

And now the District Attorney must review it.

Coming in Part 3

The case is now with the District Attorney for Alabama's 39th Judicial Circuit.

So who reviews it?

 What exactly is the District Attorney being asked to approve?

What happens if it is approved, or isn't?

And what safeguards exist to ensure an independent review involving a local elected official?

That's where we'll go in Part 3: What Happens Now?