By MONROE ROARK
mroark@thecitizennews.com

Peachtree City's City Attorney James Webb advised council members against adopting a stricter highway buffer ordinance two years ago but didn't disclose that some of the land affected was owned by a corporation in which he was chief financial officer, an ethics complaint lodged last week charges.

Mike Hyde, a former member of the city's Planning Commission, wrote in a letter dated Feb. 29 to City Manager Jim Basinger that Webb's participation in discussions of a proposed buffer ordinance during an October 1997 council meeting were in violation of the city's own ethics ordinance, since Webb himself had an interest in a local company that would be affected by the ordinance.

The ordinance that was ultimately adopted is now being challenged in court, Hyde continued, with Webb's firm representing the city.

The violations Hyde alleges occurred under a previous version of the ethics ordinance, which provided that the city attorney would conduct such an investigation. Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey would obviously not be involved in this investigation, Webb's law firm partner Stephen Ott said, and his firm's practice has normally been to have outside investigators handle ethics complaints anyway.

“At no time is his discussion [at the October 1997 meeting] in support of the proposed ordinance,” said Hyde in his letter. “Rather, he suggested ways to modify the proposed ordinance to minimize the impact on existing owners of undeveloped, highway-fronting parcels, a seemingly laudable objective.”

But Hyde goes on to charge that Aberdeen Village Associates Inc. — with Webb as its chief financial officer — purchased in 1991 and still owns a piece of land with about 230 feet of frontage on Ga. Highway 54, between the Bank of America building and the cart path bridge. “This property is clearly impacted by the buffer ordinance,” Hyde said.

Accompanying his letter to Basinger was a copy of a printout from the Georgia Secretary of State's office, dated Nov. 17, 1999, that lists Webb as the chief financial officer of the company.

Hyde stated that in 1996, while a member of the Planning Commission, he requested a legal opinion from city attorneys concerning future actions of city officials regarding the then-proposed buffer ordinance. “On Oct. 7, 1996, the city attorney responded by citing the city's Ethics Ordinance which states, in part, that any official who has any interest in any matter before the city must disclose the interest and not participate in any discussions on the subject,” Hyde wrote in his letter.

Hyde charged that Webb is in violation of the city's Ethics Ordinance, specifically section 2-9.9, because he “did in fact, in 1997, have an interest in property subject to impact by a proposed buffer ordinance and did not disclose said fact and even actively participated in said ordinance's consideration by council.”

He added that he felt Webb's current representation of the city in litigation over the buffer ordinance is a conflict of interest.

Hyde has himself been involved in litigation against the city in recent years, having been thrown off the Planning Commission by the City Council and filing suit over a rezoning dispute.

An enclosed copy of the letter Hyde received from city attorney Rick Lindsey in 1996 said, “The city's Ethics Ordinance is clear that a member on the Planning Commission and members on the City Council cannot participate in the discussions or vote on issues which affect property in which a member has an interest. Therefore, any member of the Planning Commission or City Council who owns undeveloped property or property which adjoins undeveloped property should disclose such ownership prior to any discussions providing a change in the buffering requirement. Such member should then abstain from any discussions or votes on the subject.”

Lindsey did not refer in his letter to a “city official” in general or the city attorneys in particular, but only the members of the Planning Commission and City Council.

“Were it not for the recent spate of questions regarding the city attorney's reappointment, I would never have raised these issues,” said Hyde. “However, when you compound the public concern with a bid process which itself appears questionable, I could no longer just `do nothing.'”

The city council will continue to use Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey as the city's legal counsel, but a new contract will not be voted on until the ethics complaint against senior partner Jim Webb is resolved, Mayor Bob Lenox said at Thursday night's council meeting.

Because there was no time to place the item on last week's agenda, Lenox said the council would consider the issue at the March 16 meeting and decide what action to take.

Under the city's ethics ordinance, a five-member board is selected from a pool of 10 people (two appointed by each council member). Those five would gather evidence and make a recommendation to council, according to City Attorney Stephen Ott.

Among the 10-member ethics board pool is Steve Brown, who is being sued along with The Citizen and Citizen publisher Cal Beverly by Webb and his law firm partners. The suit alleges libel. See story in this issue.