Assume that you are in the midst of litigation against a corporation. You are convinced that your attorney will provide you with the finest defense possible. Your attorney's firm “has provided excellent service for the past several years” and you have no reason to fret.

Suddenly, you discover what was previously thought unimaginable - your attorney has a joint business venture with the CEO of the corporation that you are contesting in court. At this juncture, you are left wondering whether your attorney has your best interest or his own financial interest at heart.

Of course, we know that such an illustration is merely fiction. Such unethical behavior on the part of the attorney would not be allowed under the American Bar Association's Model Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct as well as the Georgia Code of Professional Responsibility - right? Wrong, this is reality in Peachtree City.

The Peachtree City staff recently changed its mind and decided that the firm of Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey should remain as city attorney (The Citizen, Feb. 4). Not only was the law firm the substantially high bidder but partner James Webb, Jr. decided to veer into the banking business on the side.

Mr. Webb is one of the new directors on the board of the Bank of Georgia (The Citizen, Jan. 19). Fellow board members include Steve Black, CEO of Pathways Communities, which is currently suing the city and recently pushed for annexation on the city's west side. Developer Michael Rossetti, who recently sued the city and won (did Mr. Webb represent the city in that case?) is also a board member. It was reported that “the 12 board members invested a combined $3.35 million” in the new financial institution (The Citizen, Jan. 19).

Interestingly, developers filed most all the lawsuits against the city that I could recall. Now, Councilman Bob Brooks and Mayor Bob Lenox want to reappoint a city attorney that has a direct vested, financial relationship with the same persons who most often come before the city for rezoning, site plans, annexation, roads and various other commitments.

How about conflict of interest? Is this the moral or ethical thing to do? Can we trust our local government under such circumstances?

Dan Tennant recently introduced an enhancement to our ethics ordinances at the Jan. 20 City Council meeting. The measure won by unanimous vote. One of the changes included: “Prohibiting full-time employees from engaging in outside employment that would interfere with the interests of their city service” (The Citizen, Feb. 4).

We make these conflict of interest demands on our full-time employees and yet we do not expect the same of our City Attorney who provides us with our legal opinions regarding Council decisions, law and city policy?

In 1980, The Hastings Center (Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Science) consulted with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics on a multi-year project on legislative and representative ethics. One of the main ethical principles that was identified was to “remain free from improper influence” (The Ethics of Legislative Life, New York, 1985).

Political scientist Alan Rosenthal points out that, “Virtually every professional group [attorneys and governments included] has a code of ethics, the purpose of which is to provide guidance to members relative to actions that might arouse public suspicions of violations of trust, impairment of independence of judgement, and favoritism” (A. Rosenthal, Drawing the Line, University of Nebraska Press, 1996).

How can we not look at our City Attorney in midst of a lucrative business arrangement with the largest developers in town and not be suspicious and worry about an impairment of independence of judgment and favoritism?

If Mayor Lenox continues touting the many wonders of Peachtree City, perhaps he should also promote a higher ethical standard when it comes to appointing a City Attorney. I agree with the words of Fredrick Herrmann when he asserts that “... the great weakness in the regulation of ethics in this country is not so much the provisions of the law but the lack of concern for their administration and enforcement” (F. Herrmann, Bricks Without Straw: The Plight of Governmental Ethics Agencies in the United States, Public Integrity Annual 1997, Vol. 56, No. 6).

Watch for Councilman Brooks and Mayor Lenox to say that an appointment under such circumstances is “technically” not illegal at the first meeting in March.

There is a chance that the behavior may be legal but it is most certainly not ethical. Let's reach for a higher ethical standard and save some considerable taxpayer dollars in the process.

Steve Brown

Peachtree City

Steve_ptc@juno.com

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page