I made a statement at a recent Fayette County Board of Commissioners meeting and I released that statement to the newspapers. Normally, I like to talk directly to people; a conversation can provide necessary give and take between people, and not conduct business through the newspaper. In this case, I did not do that [and] I’ll tell you why.
I am a Peachtree City resident and taxpayer as well as a member of the Board of Commissioners. I live in Peachtree City, my phone number and address are in the phone book and I can also be contacted through the county offices.
I, perhaps foolishly, thought that an issue of this importance would have generated a letter, a phone call or an e-mail to me from any member of the Peachtree City Council.
It did not. No member of the council has ever bothered to make contact with me to explain the reasoning they used to reach the conclusion that a separate tax district was the best way to fix their EMS problems.
The council sent an official letter to the commission asking us to establish this tax district. No explanation was included with it, either.
At the commission’s request, we did have staff-to-staff contact to attempt to discuss the issue after their letter arrived.
I suppose I should know better; I had hoped that they might rethink their position. They did not and it showed up on my agenda for the meeting of Jan. 27.
I realize that they are elected to the Peachtree City Council to guide and manage Peachtree City. They surely do not have to contact any specific citizen nor any county commissioner to explain themselves.
But, that’s not the way I would do it. Is it how you would do it?
If you wanted someone to support your ideas, wouldn’t you contact them to discuss it or explain it or otherwise attempt to convince them?
I’ll also guess that you would not come to a commission meeting and sit in the front row and snicker and smirk like a juvenile while the commission members talked this over.
But that’s the approach that [Mayor] Steve Brown decided to take.
Peachtree City obtained the services of a consultant and the consultant issued an Emergency Services Delivery Report in January 2004.
It is noted in the report that the council should make “policy decisions.” This is true but they should explain why they make certain decisions as opposed to others.
If they think that the separate EMS Tax District is a better solution for Peachtree City taxpayers and citizens, instead of any of the other recommendations in the report, they should say why.
Why would they attempt to railroad through a change like this? Why would they not want to make a public explanation? Is there some reason that they know about that indicates that the report they commissioned was flawed? How was it flawed? What was wrong with it? They haven’t said.
What makes this interesting from an observer’s standpoint is that Steve Brown is constantly touting “regional cooperation and planning” to address various issues.
However, his actual approach has been to unilaterally make decisions that he expects everyone else to follow! Don’t take my word for it; look up his many past statements.
Let’s look at the report that you paid for, if you are a Peachtree City taxpayer like me. The recommendations are intended to improve services and control costs, both laudable goals.
For many of the problems that were found or where money is being wasted, the recommendations include exploring “automatic aid” and/or consolidation.
In other areas, where consolidation is not mentioned as a cure, it seems to me that these problems and waste would also be addressed and cured if consolidation were to take place.
The report says that these recommendations are specifically noted as addressing the “EMS tax equity concerns.” But, the council appears not to have considered any of these!
Separation regardless of the effect on service to citizens or regardless of the cost to taxpayers seems to be the only solution they considered.
Peter Pfeifer Fayette County Commission Post 3
Folks here uninsightful?
I saw several citizens of Fayettville on NBC Nightly News express their support for Bush and their pity for those who don’t.
I’m one who doesn’t support Bush; didn’t vote for him either time.
Don’t pity me. I see beyond his hypocrisy and see who he is. Pity your citizens’ lack of insightfulness.
Gene Haugen Cottage Grove, Ore.
Making a case for changing to district voting
Why are so many of us disgusted with politics and politicians?
An important reason is that we don’t know our representatives well enough, and they don’t know us either.
And why is it that we don’t know our representatives and they don’t know us? It can be because we have too many of them, and they have too many constituents.
Thus the recent proposal that we consider having representation by district in Fayette County comes as a breath of fresh air, and here’s how it would benefit us.
Right now, if I have a problem with any aspect of county government, I have five county commissioners to contact.
Anyone that I would contact would probably ask himself, Why is this citizen contacting me rather than any of the other four commissioners?
It’s a fair question. The citizen wonders which of the five he’s supposed to contact, or whether to contact all five.
Meanwhile, each commissioner has an incentive and opportunity to pass the buck, telling himself that my problem is not “his” concern as I am no more his constituent than I am a constituent of the other four commissioners.
One commissioner told me that when he became commissioner he was advised (by the other commissioners) not to engage in e-mail correspondence with the citizens, apparently because he might be overwhelmed.
If commissioners won’t respond to e-mail on purpose, that makes them less responsive to the people.
We have about 60,000 voters in Fayette County. That exposes each commissioner to the concerns of 60,000 people.
With district representation, with five districts and one commissioner per district, each commissioner would be directly responsible to 12,000 voters.
Why do so many of us favor smaller classroom sizes in our schools? It’s because it makes the teachers more effective, as they know the students better and have more time for each one.
District voting has similar advantages.
At election time, the more candidates we have to consider as voters the more confused we tend to get.
It’s certainly more difficult to sort out 15 candidates running for five positions than it is to sort out three running for one position.
The candidates have a similar problem in trying to make themselves personally known to the voters. They have to resort to impersonal and costly ads with a limited message, and oftentimes feel moved to use gimmicks to get name recognition.
What we as voters need is to know our representatives, and to know them personally. They need to know us personally too, and to care about us.
District voting makes it easier for us to know the candidates and to choose our representative wisely, and after the election it helps the representative be more responsive because we know who it is we are supposed to talk to, and the representative knows our vote has more weight, and our individual influence is greater, when we are part of a group of 12,000 voters than when we are part of a group of 60,000.
This debate we’re having about district representation in Fayette County is most welcome. As our population grows it is important to reexamine how we can improve the system so it can best serve the people, and I am glad to see someone turn on the heat toward making a positive change.
A change is needed.
Claude Y. Paquin Fayette County, Ga.
Look to Clayton County for district voting results
A person only has to look north and east to Clayton County to see what the result would be for Fayette County if we change from at-large voting for commission seats to district voting.
It is very apparent that people like Rep. Fludd and Sen. Seay who wish to change to district voting do not have the best interests of all Fayette County citizens in mind.
Their desire to change the current at-large voting process is obviously purely racial.
For example, Valencia Seay’s statement, “It’s the way to go. It was just 10 or 12 years ago that Clayton County made the switch to district voting, and that’s how I was able to get elected.”
It’s the way to go? Why? Just so that a minority can get voted in and form a little fiefdom on the north side of the county? Whatever happened to electing a person into office based on their qualifications and ability to represent ALL Fayette residents?
We don’t need people like Fludd and Seay, who don’t even represent the majority of Fayette County citizens, to tell us that we need to change.
It is also rather disingenuous for Mr. Fludd to say that the reason for wanting to change to district voting has nothing to do with race. The people of Fayette County are too smart to believe otherwise.
Matthew Washburn Fayetteville, Ga.
Some historical perspective on voting here
As you so accurately point out, the issue of district voting is all about race and all about politics.
The recent letter from Mr. Jones is full of hate about slavery, etc. That rings hollow when it comes from a “poor downtrodden” airline pilot living in a $600,000 house.
His letter is full of half-truths and incorrect information. Does anyone own slaves in Fayette County today? That is a tired old argument. You can always use race when there is no real defense or reasoning.
Mr. Jones is dead wrong about the voting districts in Fayette County dating back to Abraham Lincoln days.
Another letter writer states that the county is surely in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Again dead wrong.
Our system has been cleared by the Justice Department. Some of these letter writers are so far off, it would take days to correct all the wrong statements.
At the district voting meeting held recently, some residents stated they were not represented because they did not know who to call when things happened such as a dead deer at the road in front of their house.
Now, come on; aren’t you capable of calling the county offices to ask who would handle a problem like this? The commissioners don’t handle service issues. There are various departments for different problems. This is a user problem. This has nothing to do with representation.
Some feel that the representative should be the same color as them to represent them. If that is true, then I am not represented since my representatives in the state House and state Senate are black and I am white.
Seems I recall Martin Luther King saying it should not be about the color of your skin, but the content of your character. Apparently some of the letter writers do not adhere to his teachings.
I am a senior citizen who has lived in Fayette County most of my life, so I think I know a little more about its history than Mr. Jones, et al.
We originally had nine militia districts when the county was created in 1821. These were not the voting districts. Since most subdivisions and roads did not exist then, the militia district lines were used as boundaries for the three commission districts.
For many years we had three voting districts to elect the county commissioners. In fact, that was the way until the late 1950s.
Then in the early 1960s we added the two at-large districts to balance the county commission. (For you youngsters, the militia is now known as the National Guard.)
Anyway, I say to Mr. and Mrs. Jones and cohorts, know your facts before you start telling those of us who have lived here long before you about our way of voting.
Our way of voting for the county commissioners and school board has worked very well all these years. We must be doing it right because we do not have the constant controversy and strife our nearby counties have (Fulton, Clayton, DeKalb).
Everyone talks about our great quality of life here. That is usually the main reason given for moving here. That did not happen by accident.
It was careful and dedicated planning by many elected officials over the years. The schools have been administered by a board of education elected countywide. They show no partially toward any one area, because they are answerable to ALL in Fayette County.
Why do you try to change our county into the area you left? If it was so great there, why did you not just stay wherever you came from?
Mrs. Jones comes to Fayette County and begins criticizing everything immediately. If we have so many deficits, why did you come here?
What if we built a civic center in Brooks right on the Coweta County line? That would make about much sense as the center you want in the north on the Clayton County line.
Recreation, parks and other facilities are normally in the center of the county or city to serve the majority of the people. You expect “special” privileges.
You have an “us” and “them” mentality which is very dangerous. Come on and try to be a harmonious part of this great county and stop preaching hate.
If you can do that, you will be accepted just as the many others who moved here before you. But, if you insist of making this county into Riverdale or Clayton County, you will not be successful. The good people of Fayette County will not allow that.
Do you feel the sheriff, school board members, district attorney, etc., in Clayton County are good representatives? The facts show they are not.
They are all black and the majority of citizens there are minorities. They voted purely along racial lines and now are getting what they deserve: totally hate-filled incompetence.
The [Clayton County] sheriff is in contempt of court for firing all the white deputies and replacing them with black ones; the D.A. has never tried a case before being elected; and the school board has caused the school system to be on probation and almost lose their accreditation. The mayor in Riverdale refuses to come to work. It goes on and on.
We will not let this happen to Fayette County. The fight has just begun.
Faye Norris Fayetteville, Ga.
Lutheran Church site was never zoned commercial
I would like to correct statements made by Lutheran church officials that were printed in at least two articles by your reporter, Mr. John Munford.
The church officials contend their land was originally zoned Commercial and they rezoned it to Office Institutional. After much research through old records, City Planner David Rast and his staff found that both the church site and the site of the fire station went from Agricultural/Residential to Office Institutional.
This is a small point and unfortunate that the church has to resort to untruths to generate acceptance for their actions.
The current church newsletter, “The Shepherd’s Path,” states they are in negotiations to purchase 20 acres of the proposed Wieland West End annexation. They list the advantages of being in proximity of 650 new homes, sewers, etc. It looks as if anyone with money can manipulate our planned community to suit their plans.
On another matter I want to commend you on your editorial regarding the church being faithful to a covenant. Your analysis hit the nail on the head and generated some requests for an apology.
When you criticize a church, some people ignore the facts and label you politically incorrect. I thank you for telling the truth.
Tom Spath Peachtree City, Ga.
Libs nonplussed over vote heard round the world
At age 90 she was wheeled in a wheelbarrow to her destination and once she reached her objective she delivered a blow mightier than the most powerful rifle, RPG, mortar or missile.
How did she do this? What did this determined woman do that was so powerful? She and an estimated 8 million other Iraqis voted in the first free election in Iraq in more than 50 years.
In doing so she dealt a blow to the terrorists fighting democracy that was more fierce and devastating than anything seen so far.
No amount of threats, bombings or executions would keep these brave souls from exercising their right to select their own government and to live as free and democratic people.
The terrorists have thrown everything they had at the people of Iraq and still they could not keep them from voting. Just imagine the number of voters who would have come out if they had not feared for their very lives.
Does this mean that the terrorists are defeated? Certainly not; they will continue their murderous and horrific ways, but make no mistake; they lost BIG due to this election.
The common Iraqi civilians that yearn for a better life now see they have the overwhelming numbers, and time is on their side. They also know it is critical for the United States to stay the course and finish the job.
This incredible display of conviction must come as quite a surprise to many liberal politicians who simply do not understand the willingness of people to risk their lives for freedom and democracy.
Perhaps it is due to the fact that there have been generations between them and the fight for freedom. Fortunately, for these politicians, there were those willing to carry the fight and win our freedom.
There have been several reporters who have stated that they were shocked, SHOCKED, to see the number of voters coming to the polls.
Just goes to show how far these people are from the feelings of those who desire to be free.
The Iraqi people want desperately to be free and have shown that they are willing to face great risk and danger in pursuit of freedom. In many ways they have been silent and unwilling to take a strong stand based on their concerns over the determination of the United States to stay the course and finish the job.
Who can blame them when they see what we did in Vietnam, Somalia and how we abandoned them after the first Gulf war? We especially can’t blame them when they see on TV every night, some liberal (like Senator Edward Kennedy) railing against our involvement in Iraq and demanding that we leave.
When will these liberals learn that they are endangering not only the lives of our men and women in uniform, but also those overseas who want to believe in us? They are prolonging the conflicts and encouraging our enemies to extend the fight.
Incredibly, as soon as the election was over and success was obvious, Sen. Kennedy started demanding that we establish a timetable to immediately start bringing our troops home. How incredibly naive at best and how dumb at worst.
What has been created is the only democracy in the Middle East other than Israel and now Afghanistan. We are finally seeing the positive results that most of us knew would come if we would only stay the course. Now that we have seen the result, Sen. Kennedy wants to put this fragile democracy at risk. Makes one wonder what his real motive is.
To all those nay-sayers in this country and abroad who were against holding these elections saying that they can never take place, that they will not be successful and that we should delay them, it is time for you to stand up and admit you were wrong.
Admit that President Bush was right. Admit that the desire of all people to live in freedom and democracy is an overwhelmingly powerful force that bullets and bombs can’t stop.
Remember that, in a historic sense, it was not that long ago that our forefathers were equally willing to give their lives to be free.
Have we come so far that we forget how powerful that desire is? I certainly hope not, because when we are unwilling to fight for our freedom and the freedom of others, we lose our right to be free.
Smoking: Don’t make life-altering mistake like this
Dany Heatley and I are both paying the price for ignoring our own common sense.
He partied, drove too fast and cost his friend, his teammate, his life.
I knew not to smoke but I still worked in other people’s smoke and it has cost me the life I loved and my own independence.
We both are speaking out to others not to make the same thoughtless mistakes we made.
Don’t be needlessly reckless. Drive carefully and don’t inhale other people’s trapped indoor smoke.
Don’t pay the price we will have to pay, watching the pain our choices have inflicted on others.
You can help today. Tell your state legislators that you support the 2005 Smokefree Air Act (SB 90).
It is time to have smokers step outside, away from others until a better (honest and cost-effective) solution is found. Smokers can still smoke, but let’s limit the damage to just the smokers.
Kathie Cheney Peachtree City, Ga.
Waffle House unneeded in Tyrone
The city of Tyrone needs a Waffle House like it needs another drug store. It simply doesn’t need one.
We have one 4 miles down the street at I-85 and then there are at least two that I know of in Peachtree City.
I don’t care for the saturation of our small area with the same few businesses.
Tyrone is a unique area that should only allow more unique businesses that would attract people from Peachtree City and Fayetteville.
Janet B. Hughes via e-mail
‘Anti-American’ doesn’t fit
I’ve been trying to figure out what makes me “anti-American,“ the pejorative hurled twice now by the verbose Dickinson who insists he saved it specifically for me.
First of all, we have thankfully never met, so Dickinson can’t know about my 1987 Toyota truck, nor my English wife who is now a U.S. citizen, nor my Great Dane who is American-born.
As a matter of fact I can’t think of a single thing either in my possessions, my thought processes, nor my lifestyle that would lead him to conclude I was “anti-American.”
I love my country, believe in her basic goodness, and only want her to succeed and prosper.
So I can only conclude that Dickinson finds me anti-American for my criticism of the government’s actions [in] both initiating and prosecuting this war in Iraq.
Apparently I would not be “anti-American” were I to protest other governmental policies, and he lists a few. I believe it would be helpful, for Mr. Dickinson’s state of mind, if he started a Web site listing those things he finds most “American” to dissent.
He could call it “iamadickinson.com”, and make it the showcase for people who think exactly as he does.
Just for the record, back in July of 1787 58 men from 12 states met in Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation. They ended up discarding the Articles and over the course of the next two months through much vigorous debate ended up with a working document.
It was sent to the states for ratification and was ratified on the premise that it be revised to contain a “Bill of Rights” specifically spelling out those rights of the individual on which the government may not infringe.
Now Mr. Dickinson has a real problem with protests in time of conflict. He cites the ludicrous example of some suspicion that FDR knew of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but which was never pursued by patriotic Republicans.
Cynthia McKinney tells us President Bush knew of the 9-11 attack. Both accusations are so extraordinary, ridiculous and unsupported as to deserve nothing but our contempt. The FDR rumor has the added benefit of 64 years with nothing to recommend it.
Of course Mr. Dickinson is trying to draw a parallel between WWII and Iraq. He apparently hasn’t noticed that we are not rationing. We don’t have a draft. We are not opposed by the collective efforts of several well-armed industrialized foreign states. We do not have millions of men under arms, and Americans are not being asked to sacrifice ... anything.
Except of course those whose sons and daughters have been caught up in the debacle produced and directed by George W. Bush.
He points to decisions made by FDR to support the European battlefield first while fighting a holding action in the Pacific, as though this was not a cogent strategy that could have been, and probably was, defended by the President at the time.
He points to strategic decisions made in Europe by General Eisenhower. I assume he’s talking about the decision to reduce the Bulge instead of bypassing it as Patton proposed.
What all this has to do with civilians exercising their right to free speech, I don’t know. Yes, big mistakes were made in WWII, but it was a big war fought for national survival on a world scale.
This war in Iraq bears no resemblance to WWII. Those of us who disagree with the government on [the war’s] inception would like to know some things.
Over 1,500 of our citizenry have been killed, more than 10,000 wounded, some $280 billions spent. Where was the “grave and growing threat” cited by President Bush in his appeal to Congress for authorization to use force? Where was the al Qaeda connection that was always implied by the administration?
What had changed in our containment policy of Iraq that then forced us to both invade and occupy that country? What did this war in Iraq have to do with our war on extremist Islamists, particularly Osama bin Laden?
If the intelligence was so bad, why did Bush give [former CIA Director George] Tenent the Freedom medal? Why did the government press ahead with such a small force when the army chief told them they would need a much larger force to occupy?
Why haven’t governmental forces killed bin Laden yet? How does all this diversion of treasure, lives and national will make us safer?
If all these questions are not going to appear on iamadickinson.com, well that’s just too bad. Mr. Dickinson apparently is not upset with his hero telling the insurgents in Iraq to “bring it on” (sounds familiar), which they did. He is very upset about my criticizing the government and the President in their conduct.
And one more thing “for the record.” Bush’s errors do not pale in comparison to those made in WWII. We were attacked by the Japanese and forced to declare war on them. Two days later Hitler declared war on us and we returned the favor.
The present war, attributed to bad intelligence, seems to be the result of a definitive, pre-ordained policy. This seems borne out by former insiders in the administration and documented under oath to the 9-11 commission.
Intelligence is the interpretation placed on certain data received from various sources. There will never be an “Iraq War Commission” as Mr. Dickinson proposes. If there were, we would be amazed and appalled at the process used to arrive at this conflict.
I had some trouble following the logic of Mr. Dickinson’s letter as he bounced from FDR to Mussolini to Hitler. He was effective providing his own definitions of the labels he likes to hurl. All I know about labels is that they just never neatly fit.
I know people who would think Dickinson a sniveling liberal, using their own definition of that label.
When I said I know his type, I also mentioned that intolerance varies by degree and opportunity.
Dickinson’s opportunities to exercise his intolerance are pretty much limited to writing trash to the paper because we have a functioning society, protected by an overarching legal theory and document that allows us redress, but also restrains the intolerant.
The McCarthy Commission, while an embarrassment, was limited in the damage it could do because of these restraints.
The war I witnessed in Bosnia, and that occurred in the Krajina and Eastern Slovonian sections of Croatia was not limited by such niceties and the Dickinsons of those regions took full advantage of that fact.
Whether they call themselves reds, whites, fascists, Nazis, chetniks, ustasha, black hand, or Ku Klux Klan, the intolerance that is the basis of their actions springs from the same polluted origin. I don’t expect the proponents of this intolerance to recognize it in themselves.
Mr. Dickinson would also like for me to outline a solution to our present quagmire. I have none, except to plow ahead, give the Iraqis some measure of self-defense, and leave.
But my purpose in criticizing is to put the government on notice that this sort of crisis fabrication and waste of resources will not be tolerated in the future.
This invasion was a huge mistake, however good we may feel about the first free election in Iraq.
It has not made us safer, and only negatively contributes to the issue of Islamist terrorism.
If Dickinson believes that to be anti-American, we really have nothing to talk about.
And I always appreciate a fan, Mr. Carr. I outgrew those black shoes a while ago. Wearing them again would only make me feel small, like those who can see no other shades. It’s a freedom you get when you don’t give a damn what anybody else in the room is thinking. You ought to give it a go!
Timothy J. Parker Peachtree City, Ga.
Lenox, Brown, Parker, etc.: Would you please just grow up or shut up?
To Bob Lenox, Steve Brown, Timothy Parker, et al: Please, please, either grow up or shut up.
In the past I have been proud to say that I lived in Peachtree City. Now, I cringe when someone asks where I live. My answer is sure to provoke comments regarding the on-going feuds going on in this city.
Sad to say, the story about the blind drunk letting his dog drive his golf cart indicates a higher level of intelligence than the missives I have been reading lately in The Citizen.
If Brown and Lenox really wanted to iron out their differences, they would not have invited an audience of reporters to their luncheon.
May I suggest that they just e-mail each other and leave the rest of us out of their vituperations? We really are not interested.
On some other matters:
The annexation issue: There is no question that Mr. Wieland builds fine homes, but the people who moved into Mr. Wieland’s subdivisions knew the traffic situation when they moved there.
I’m sure Mr. Wieland felt he could sway our city fathers once it was a fait accompli. The amount of money we receive from this annexation if it is approved will never cover the costs to the city in increased services: schools, fire, police, etc., no matter what proponents say. Believe me, it never is.
Mr. Parker: Just give him a column to write for the paper and put him on the opinion page, then we can just skip over him as we do others we find too opinionated, long-winded or pompous.
Or better yet, Mr. Parker, spare us and e-mail or write to yourself with copies to Lenox and Brown, and I am sure they will respond.
Then the three of you can go on and on ad infinitum, as all three of you seem to like the sound of your own voices.
The anonymous gentleman who feels he needs to have his e-mails go through his attorney because of fear of retribution: Get real; if you ran for office, would your attorney speak for you at meetings or would you hide behind a facade as in “The Wizard of Oz”?
This is just a ploy to keep your identity secret. Again, who really cares?
Free speech column: This would be a fine idea except some cowardly people use this forum as a way to be mean-spirited. If you feel it enough to write it, have the intestinal fortitude to sign it.
Rezoning at Peachtree Parkway and Ga. Highway 54: We don’t need a Walgreens on this corner. There is a drug store across the street, another one several blocks away in either direction; and we certainly don’t need another bank there. The traffic situation would be unbearable.
Yes, the church should have the right to sell their property, but the community should be considered in the mix. After all, the church has had tax-exempt status all these years, solely because they were a house of worship.
There must be another church that could use this space as a satellite church, school, Sunday school, etc.
I know this letter has been long-winded but it has been a long time in coming and I promise I will not be rebutting any letters from Parker, Brown, Lenox, et al.
By the way, I am not now, never have been and never intend to be a politician. I am just a private citizen who would love to see Peachtree City restored to what it once was: a wonderful place we were proud to call home.
Cookie McClure Peachtree City, Ga.
Argue issues, please; stop insults
Thank you for the continuing publications of letters that appear in your paper which stimulate an ongoing discussion of what appears to be Conservative vs. Liberal or Left vs. Right, or Him vs. Me.
Timothy J. Parker and Don Dickinson, in your Feb. 2 publication, provide the latest installment in (take your pick); entertainment, education, historical analysis, opinion, or a poor man’s replacement for “Crossfire” or “Point Counterpoint.”
It is obvious to me that Fayette County is affluent in income and lifestyle and conservative in its politics. Your publication reflects much of the political current in its “letters to the editor” section.
With no end, apparently, to the number and various positions of the conservative side or issues, it is rather refreshing to find that there is someone as brave as Timothy Parker to weather the storm of continuing pressure to cease and desist.
Mr. Parker does us all a good service in pointing out what may be wrong, what needs to be corrected, and that emperors may have no clothes.
It appears that he does so in order to tweak the noses of those in this community who step forward to take his bait and animate what would probably be a dull section of your paper.
However, at times (most of the time) the issues become lost in the lobbing of phrases and metaphors that center on castigating the messenger rather than the message.
To this end, perhaps because of its majority of opinion-meisters, the conservatives seem to overwhelmingly project the bottom line of most of its reasoning: “If you don’t like it, move away”, “if you got brown shoes, and everyone else has black shoes, get another pair, or hope that no one notices.”
Tolerance and intolerance are the two main factors in determining the success of individual and social units; from family to neighborhood, to city, district, county, state and nation.
If we are ever to achieve peace in this world, we should embrace tolerance, and accept the fact that not everyone has to believe or accept, as dogma or gospel, what I, or you, or any church, or political party represents.
Tolerance allows the differences between us all to coexist in harmony.
Now can we continue with any discussions that concern us without having to resort to denigrating the messenger?
Mervine Garlow Peachtree City, Ga.
‘Free’ means ‘sucker’ in this satellite TV program
After using a cable service for several years, I have grown tired of rerun sitcoms, and station after station of public service channels.
I saw an ad for satellite TV, one to four rooms free, 125 channels. I bit, called to have it installed free.
About 12:30 a car with a New York tag, and a ladder drove on top came up in the drive, and out came two men. No identification on the car, just two men dressed in winter clothes.
Since he had my phone number and called to say he was on the way I let him in to see where I wanted the “four FREE” rooms connected. The “FREE” rooms would cost $159.
The ads said “professional installation.” Now how professional is a car with a ladder on top?
I called the customer service, and it was as professional as the installers in an out-of-state car.
I was told standard installation was for new homes, of which Atlanta has 75 percent ( new homes), and new homes already are equipped with cable.
So I would be charged $40 for going under the house, and $25 each for the four rooms, and $50 for a pole for the dish.
When I called in regarding the ad, I was told all I needed for credit check was a debit or credit card, and, yes, I bit. I gave my debit card number.
The next day I called to check on a deposit for my checking account only to find that it had been debited for $19.99, which was never mentioned to me in the initial conversation.
This little incident already made me wonder about this operation.
I asked the customer service rep what professional installation meant to him. He said the drivers’ truck was out of service and he agreed to used his own car. I guess a lot of the installers’ trucks are out since the same thing happened to my daughter in Coweta County, another out-of-town car, and a ladder on top.
Needless to say the first thing I did was to cancel my debit card, and the second thing I did was to show the two men to the door.
Now if they use professional installers who show up in a car with a ladder on top, what happens for a service call when you have problems with the dish? I guess someone riding a bicycle shows up to do a service call.
How many people do you know who will let someone in a out-of-state car come into their home to install satellite TV? One dumb old lady; probably no many others.
Let the buyer beware; nothing is free.
LeGay Saul Fayette County, Ga.
Who does lawyer think she’s kidding?
How do people like this lawyer Chidister sleep at night? These two [teen suspects] were found with evidence on them that proved without a doubt that they planned and carried out these horrible murders.
It is such a shame that we as citizens have no control over our hard-earned dollars going to defend such lowlifes.
Lawyers like Chidister start out in what used to be a “noble profession” but with the help of activist liberal judges have turned our court system into a three-ring circus.
When this terrible act of murder happened I wrote you and predicted the way this would all play out; looks like I was right.
Nancy Sullivan Fayetteville, Ga.
Another GOP view: Tort reform needed, but current bill worse than none
One of my children’s favorite fictional characters, Headmaster Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series, tells his students at one point, “It takes great courage to stand up to one’s enemies but even greater courage to stand up to one’s friends.”
This week I have greater appreciation for this quote because I need to express to my fellow Republicans in the House my deep reservations about Senate Bill 3, the tort reform bill that is scheduled to be voted on in the House. The bill contains serious flaws that I believe must be addressed before passage.
On the issue of tort reform, too often this complicated problem is reduced to short sound bites. I want to give you an entire meal to chew on.
In a few areas, I believe SB 3 goes too far. In some others, it clearly does not go far enough. In a couple of situations, its proposals inadvertently take us in just the opposite direction from where it intends to go.
I want to start by emphasizing how much I agree with the stated purpose of SB 3 and the need for tort reform.
I have been practicing law for 21 years as a civil litigator. Most of my law practice is spent representing defendants in personal injury actions.
I have defended doctors, hospitals, businesses, nursing homes, funeral homes, homeowners, insurance carriers, churches, charities, schools and every other kind of entity that a plaintiff’s lawyer’s creative mind could think of to sue.
I know the anger of my clients when they are trapped in a frivolous suit. I have shared their frustration in cases in which the plaintiff views an injury as a lottery ticket to wealth.
For almost 30 years, issues on tort law in this state were essentially decided by Tom Murphy (an old school plaintiff’s lawyer) sitting alone in his Speaker’s office.
As a result, we have a strongly pro-plaintiff playing field in this state on issues like venue shopping, use of experts, employer liability, offer of judgment, and comparative negligence that have a real impact on the rights of a defendant in a civil case and the rates of insurance we all pay.
The medical insurance rates are merely the proverbial canary in the coal mine. A new direction is needed.
Change, however, must be properly applied so that we cure the problems in our system and do not simply create knew inequities to replace the old.
Furthermore, we must maintain the core principles in our legal system that require the truly wronged and injured to be made whole and all defendants to stand equally before the law.
Therefore, any solution to our present medical malpractice crisis must provide for the following:
1. Quality available health care;
2. A level playing field in court that protects the innocent and allows the truly wronged to be made whole; and
3. Uphold the Republican principles of personal responsibility and limited governmental interference in private disputes.
As you read this e mail, I invite you to also go to http://www.legis.state.ga.us/ and pull down the bill that was approved by the House Select Committee on Civil Justice Reform (the revised SB 3 bill should be available for viewing [by now]).
Venue
“Venue” in the law essentially means which county a lawsuit can be tried. A defendant must be sued in the county where he or she resides. Where there is more than one defendant from several different counties, the lawsuit can be tried in any one of the defendants’ counties.
The problem that has arisen is that some plaintiff’s attorneys will drag in a defendant who may have only been marginally involved in the accident in order to sue other defendants in a county that the plaintiff feels is more favorable.
For instance, if Sally is injured by Larry but Larry resides in Hall County and Sally thinks that she can get a better verdict in Fulton County (which often is true), she may go out and also sue Darryl, who had little to do with the case but lives in Fulton County.
SB 3 tries to deal with this problem by saying that if Darryl were dismissed from the suit by the judge, or the jury found Darryl not liable, then the case will have to be sent back to Hall County and the remaining parties have to start over.
This may solve the problem with venue shopping but it leads to a lot greater time and money spent by Larry in defending the case. There is a better way.
We need to change the venue law to allow Larry and Darryl to agree at the beginning of the lawsuit as to which of the two counties they live in the suit will be tried. This will take away Sally’s incentive to sue Darryl to begin with and it will cut down on the Larry’s time and cost in defending the lawsuit.
Pre suit investigation
Let me continue with the story of the law suit between Plaintiff Sally and Defendant Larry by adding the fact that Larry is a doctor and Sally claims Larry committed medical malpractice.
Under the present law, Sally must file with her lawsuit against Dr. Larry an affidavit from a medical expert that says in his opinion Dr. Larry committed malpractice.
As a practical matter, this requirement has done little to curb frivolous lawsuits. Instead it has simply led to the creation of a cottage industry of “experts” whose primary business is selling their opinions to lawyers. I invite you to visit the web site www.experts.com for an example of this new business boom.
The only thing SB 3 says to address the issue of the affidavits is to lengthen the time that Dr. Larry has to object to the affidavit.
Under the present rules, Dr. Larry must object to the sufficiency of the affidavit at the time he files the answer. Under SB 3, he will have until the end of the discovery period (6 months or more) to raise objections.
This change will only increase the cost of litigation for both sides. Instead of dealing with the issue immediately, we will now drag out the case over several months and thousands of dollars before it is addressed.
I want to go in the opposite direction. We should require extensive pre-lawsuit investigation by both sides before formal litigation can commence. Both sides should be required to conduct an extensive investigation and, if justified, settlement negotiations.
This has been tried in Florida and other jurisdictions with success. It leads to meritorious claims being settled quickly and creates a high wall to protect against frivolous law suits from ever being filed in the first place.
Medical records
A chronic problem in lawsuits is obtaining medical records. Recent federal law has made getting those records even harder. If Plaintiff Sally wants to pursue a lawsuit against Dr. Larry she should be required to sign a release authorizing the release of medical records.
SB 3 addresses this need but it applies only to medical malpractice claims. The changes should apply to all lawsuits for personal injury and we need to change SB 3 to do so.
Offer of settlement
Under the Federal court rules, if a defendant offers a settlement to a plaintiff and it is rejected by the plaintiff and the plaintiff subsequently fails to win a judgment a least as big as the amount offered, the defendant can recover his litigation cost he incurred from the time the offer was made through trial.
This is a great tool for pushing for reasonable settlement of cases and many of us in the legal field have been advocating for years for it to be used in Georgia courts.
The good news is that SB 3 tries to put this rule into Georgia law. The bad news is that it allows an undefined “bad faith” exception to this rule that allows the judge too much discretion to throw out the impact of the requirement.
Most states provide a detailed list of permissible exceptions to this rule. We need to do the same in Georgia.
In addition, we need to have the issue settled by the jury and not the judge. (Too often judges are not willing to impose attorney’s fees and cost sanctions out of deference to the lawyers. Juries are not usually so squeamish.)
Who is an expert?
As I mentioned earlier, a cottage industry of “experts” has developed in recent years. Many of these people have not actively engaged in their professions in years and primarily earn their living selling their opinions to the highest bidder.
SB 3 tries to address this problem but the language is too vague to keep many of the worst charlatans out of the courtroom. We need to tighten the requirements for an expert to require that at least 75 percent of his professional practice be devoted to his profession and not merely acting as a hired gun.
Emergence room immunity
Returning to the lawsuit between Plaintiff Sally and Dr. Larry, assume for a minute that Dr. Larry is on call to an emergency unit. Also, assume that on the night that Sally goes into the hospital following an auto accident, Dr. Larry had a few drinks before being called into the hospital to operate on Sally.
Dr. Larry had sincerely thought he was OK to operate because he didn’t feel intoxicated but he was wrong. As a result, Sally is left paralyzed by Dr. Larry’s bungled surgery.
These facts come from an actual case I helped defend shortly after I began practicing law. A jury found the doctor to be negligent but failed to find that he acted willfully or wantonly.
Unfortunately, some doctors do bad things and people get hurt. The law should protect these people.
In my earlier case, the plaintiff was able to collect for his injuries. The failure of the jury to find willful and wantonness only affected the plaintiff’s ability to collect punitive damages. This was a just result, even if I was on the losing side.
Under SB 3, however, Sally would be barred from recovering anything from Dr. Larry unless the jury found the Dr. Larry acted “willfully and wantonly.”
This creates good faith immunity for Dr. Larry. He can act negligently or even grossly negligent, as outlined above, and not be liable for Sally’s damages.
This goes too far. We need to tighten up on what constitutes negligence in an emergency room and protect doctors from liability merely because of bad results beyond their control.
But I do not believe that we can justify giving the medical field blanket immunity from negligence or gross negligence.
Joint and Several liability
Under the present law, if Dr. Larry was 99 percent liable for Sally’s injuries and Dr. Darryl was only 1 percent responsible, but Dr. Larry was broke, Dr. Darryl could have to pay the entire claim brought by Sally. That’s wrong and it needs to be changed.
Oftentimes, however, it’s not so easy to divide out responsibility between two defendants. For instance, if Dr. Larry and Dr. Darryl were both operating on Sally and both were negligent, resulting in one single injury to Sally, how do you divide up the percentage of responsibility?
SB 3 does not provide for the second scenario. It requires the jury to come up with a percentage division even where it’s impossible to do so.
There is a better way. We should require the jury to affirmatively decide whether the liability can first be apportioned among the defendants but, if it cannot, allow for joint liability. In other words, each case should be looked at individually. One rule simply does not fit all cases.
Pain and suffering
Pain and suffering damages are called “general damages” under the law because they cannot be computed by a calculator. These damages, however, are real, the pain someone feels every day as a result of a severe burn injury; the difficulty a brain injury victim goes through life with day in and day out; or the suffering a paraplegic goes through straining to do the daily tasks the rest of us take for granted.
The law recognizes that there must be a way for compensating for these difficulties as well as the fixed cost caused by the injuries.
I recognize that these kinds of damages have been abused by occasional runaway juries in the past and I’ve had clients trampled on by them. We need reform in this area but I do not believe that a hard cap applied in every case without exception is the way to go.
Let me abandon the plight of Sally and Dr. Larry for a moment and tell you about another case I settled last year.
The plaintiff was the daughter of a prominent doctor who in the past has often come to the Capitol arguing for damages caps. The daughter suffered a brain injury caused by an accident on an ATV. The ATV was owned by my clients and the doctor accused them of causing the injury.
It was interesting to me that when the issue involved his own daughter, the doctor suddenly was not interested in limiting his daughter’s recovery for pain and suffering she would suffer from her permanent brain injury. He wanted a settlement to reflect the difficulties she would face for the rest of her life.
Under SB 3 there is a cap on pain and suffering damages of $250,000 per defendant with a maximum award of $750,000. No exceptions are recognized. There are several problems with this approach as follows:
1. What difference does it make whether there are one or three defendants when it comes to the amount of plaintiff’s pain and suffering?
2. Doesn’t this approach actually encourage the plaintiff to go out and find more possible defendants to sue in order to collect more in pain and suffering?
3. Is this arbitrary cap fair in cases involving catastrophic injury, death or vegetative state of the plaintiff?
I sponsored a bill last week, HB 329 that would provide for parameters on pain and suffering without a simplistic arbitrary cap. It modifies SB 3 as follows:
1. $750,000 cap regardless of the number of defendants; and
2. the cap will not apply in the following circumstances:
a. catastrophic injury;
b. death; or
c. Vegetative state.
Future Medical
Under the law as it presently exists, Sally can recover from Dr. Larry not only for her past medical expenses but her projected future medical expenses as well.
The way it now works is that the plaintiff is given a lump sum of money. Often, this leads to the plaintiff blowing the money in a short period of time and having nothing left for her future medical expenses.
SB 3 as modified by the House Special Committee on Civil Justice Reform does not provide for this problem.
We need to require future medical awards be placed in an annuity that is paid out over time. That will reduce defendant’s up front cost and ensure that the money is there when the plaintiff needs it.
Conclusion
As stated in my opening, I agree with the goals of SB 3 to return Georgia tort law to a fair and level playing field. However, as presently written SB 3 will fail in the test of time.
In some areas it provides a superficial band aid where surgery is required. In others, it locks the law into rigid uniform rules when flexible parameters are more suitable.
These failures may force the courts to throw out many of SB 3’s key provisions, including the rigid caps, under theories that they deny plaintiffs’ equal protection and their right to be made whole in court.
We can do better. Our present medical crisis was created over several years and cannot be fixed in a day. The modifications suggested herein, however, will go along way toward restoring sanity to the civil tort system and maintaining the core principles of justice.
Edward Lindsey House District 54 Committees: Civil Judiciary (Vice Chair), Education, Industrial Relations
