The RealFacts: I took to heart your comments on the Opinion page in your edition of March 15. You are correct — if I don't write it, you can't print it. While I have an aversion on principle to writing letters to the editor to your paper, I have decided that I will do so from time to time. I would like to establish some ground rules:

1) I will submit my own “headlines” for my letters. I consider these to be an integral part of the letter and would appreciate your using them.

2) You will have my letters by Monday noon as I understand you begin your Opinion page layout that afternoon.

3) Please publish my letters promptly. I know you have space limitations but you do seem to regularly find timely space for your other regular contributors.

4) My letters will contain no illegalities, obscenities or threats. Please therefore print them verbatim, typeset them carefully, and try not to spread them over three or four pages.

5) As you have never called me to ask if I wished to respond to an upcoming letter, I would not expect to see contemporaneous responses to my letters.

6) My letters to you will be posted to the city's web site on the Wednesday afternoon following submittal to you.

When you run this letter — including the above preamble and ground rules — please do so under the heading, “The Real Facts,” and please include the underlined subheadings which follow. Thank you.

What I Really Said

I have been taken to task for saying I know more about Peachtree City than anyone. I didn't say that. I said that I know more about the proposed West Village annexation issue than anyone. I think I do. I'm perfectly willing to be criticized for anything I say, but it does gall me to be castigated for something I never said. I'm plenty busy defending my actual comments! Perhaps your paper could do a bit of investigative journalism to determine if this falsehood arose through a misquote by a reporter or first surfaced in a letter from one of your regular contributors.

What Really Happened

Now let's take a look at the denial of “free speech” rights to Mr. Steve Brown. Here are the facts. On the afternoon of our March 2 council meeting, Mr. Rick Lindsey of the law firm Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey asked me if he could make, and I quote, a “brief statement” prior to our consideration of the City Attorney appointment item on our agenda that evening. I asked him if it was germane to the agenda item and he assured me that it was, and could have an impact on our decision.

I did not ask him to define “brief,” and my definition is considerably different than his! Rumors had been running rampant that week that Mr. Webb, one of Mr. Lindsey's law partners, intended to sue Mr. Brown for libel. I assumed Mr. Lindsey's “brief statement” would either quash or confirm these rumors.

At the meeting Mr. Lindsey spoke for precisely 13 minutes. I know, because I subsequently pulled our audio tapes of the meeting and timed it. At the end of his statement he did indeed confirm that Mr. Webb had filed suit for libel against not only Mr. Brown but also against The Citizen newspaper and Mr. Cal Beverly, its editor and publisher.

That announcement was germane to the agenda item — the speech leading up to it was not. In retrospect I should have stopped Mr. Lindsey three minutes into his speech. I am sorry that I did not. However, if you were there, you would know that the audience, including council, was literally hushed and hanging on every word. It was also one of those speeches where you always thought the next sentence would be the last. None of us knew that Mr. Lindsey was the Energizer Bunny in disguise.

Ironically, any member of council, including the self-righteous, pompously indignant — and woefully inept — councilman Tennant could have stopped Mr. Lindsey's speech at any time. Any one of us, under our Rules of Procedure, could have interrupted him at any time and pointed out that his speech was not germane to the agenda item and therefore out of order. That would have broken the thrall in the room. I, as the presiding officer, would have most assuredly agreed to any such objection because it would have been totally correct.

Once Mr. Lindsey came to the announcement confirming the existence of the lawsuit, I knew I had a truly devilish quandary on my hands — and 30 seconds or less to make a very hard decision. Mr. Brown was in the front row of the audience and I knew he would want to speak in his own defense. Who wouldn't? In that 30 seconds I decided that I could not let him speak — for three reasons, in order of importance:

1) As soon as the lawsuit was confirmed any discussion of the merits of the suit or arguments between the parties before City Council during a council meeting became unthinkable. Whatever your or my personal opinions about the rightness or wrongness of the suit or the merits of either party's case, this is a very serious matter which will ultimately be decided in a court of law.

My fellow council members and I will not even discuss a traffic ticket, publicly or privately, with any citizen until the case has been decided in court. There could not be, and will not be, any discussion about this lawsuit before City Council. I personally will not discuss it publicly until the proper court adjudicates the matter. As an elected official of this city, I think to do otherwise is unseemly and inappropriate.

2) Mr. Brown was seething — as he had every right to be. He had no attorney present and would be arguing with an attorney while upset and angry. I have seen Mr. Brown make intelligent comments. I've also seen him shoot himself in the foot. No offense intended — I'm a little short in the toe department myself. This is a very serious matter and I did not want Mr. Brown to do himself irreparable harm.

3) The entire situation had the very real potential of turning the council meeting into a free-for-all. I will do whatever I have to do to ensure that this never happens while I am the presiding officer at council meetings.

My 30 seconds were up. Mr. Brown did indeed wish to speak. I made my decision, and moments later the City Council ratified my decision.

Was if unfair? Certainly. Do I apologize for it? No.

My apology is for not stopping Mr. Lindsey's speech. I have agonized over my decision a hundred times in the last two weeks with the benefit of time, hindsight and a good bit of citizen input. If I had it to do over again, I would make the same decision.

If you have read this far, thank you. I have many other topics I would like to address and I will try to do so in the coming weeks. It's a little daunting to be several hundred letters behind!! If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to e-mail me at blenox@cfcmail.com.

Bob Lenox
Mayor
Peachtree City

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