By DAVE HAMRICK
dhamrick@thecitizennews.com

The City Council of Peachtree City reached what it called a compromise of sorts in its appointment of a city attorney.

Citing public sentiment against Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey senior partner Jim Webb related to recent allegations against him, the council voted 3-1 to appoint his partner Rick Lindsey individually as the city's attorney, not the firm as a whole. Councilman Dan Tennant cast the lone dissenting vote, while Councilman Annie McMenamin abstained from voting because her daughter works for the firm.

The action ends four months of speculation that included two separate bidding processes, the announcement of a libel lawsuit by Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey against The Citizen newspaper, its publisher and a private citizen, and an ethics complaint against Webb that was recently dismissed on a technicality.

Mayor Bob Lenox made the motion but added that he felt Webb deserved reappointment, saying that all of the allegations against Webb thus far were just that — allegations.

“I think most of [anti-Webb sentiment] has been based on personal animosity and political motivation,” said Lenox. “But public opinion, however misguided, matters.”

Lenox added in his motion that Lindsey would serve under the same financial stipulations outlined in the firm's bid, and he would have access to his firm's resources when necessary. Lindsey said he had no problem with this arrangement.

Councilman Carol Fritz agreed with Lenox's decision, saying that not reappointing Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey would be akin to rendering a guilty verdict without a trial.

Having heard what she termed “horror stories” from other municipalities concerning how legal matters are handled, Fritz said that Peachtree City has received excellent legal service from its attorneys, who have been working for the city since 1992.

Tennant stressed that he has no personal interest in the reappointment of Webb's firm, despite what many in the city may believe, but his problem is with “potential conflicts,” as he put it.

“I agree with Councilman Fritz that they are presumed innocent,” said Tennant. “But several incidents from the last few months tell me we should not reappoint. I think we could do better, and the city needs fresh blood in that department.”

Tennant had argued in a March meeting that Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey should not be reappointed because they were not the low bidder for the job, and it would not be a proper use of taxpayer money to reappoint them.

Councilman Robert Brooks called Lenox's motion “a compromise I can support,” adding that the costs are reasonable when weighed against the quality of service, especially when considering that several Atlanta firms were in the running.

Robert Brown, a local resident and Planning Commission alternate, read from a prepared statement that outlined his opposition to Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey's reappointment.

Brown said that the costs should be looked at again, noting that city staff made a different recommendation after the initial bid. The bids were redone because the council wanted the city attorney and solicitor combined in a single position, and some bidders initially sought only one of those jobs.

The Newnan firm of Glover & Davis was the low bidder for the city attorney position the first time around, but that firm withdrew the second time because one of its attorneys is municipal judge Mitch Powell, and the same firm could not serve as both solicitor and judge.

In addition to saying that the city could get a better price, Brown said that the ethics complaints against Webb were never properly answered, and the city attorney should agree to abide by the city's ethics ordinance and avoid the appearance of impropriety.

The complaint, filed by former Planning Commission member Mike Hyde, alleged that Webb advised the board concerning a proposed buffer ordinance in 1997 while owning property that would be directly affected by that ordinance.

Attorney Andrew Whalen III of Griffin, appointed by the city to advise the ethics board, said that the city attorney is not within that body's jurisdiction under the city's current charter and ordinances, and he recommended dismissal of the complaint, which the ethics board did.

Brown also said that Webb's suit against The Citizen, editor-publisher Cal Beverly and local resident Steve Brown (no relation) was a “slap” suit, filed to intimidate the defendants, and is illegal and Lindsey's statement at a previous council meeting announcing the suit was improper. The suit concerns two letters written by Steve Brown suggesting a possible conflict of interest over Webb's position on the board of directors of a local bank.

“At the risk of being sued myself, I'll say this is not what I want from attorneys representing this city,” Brown said.

Brooks specifically addressed Brown's complaints, saying that the buffer issue was not an ethics issue because the council was fully aware of Webb's interest and he made no effort to keep it secret.

The lawsuit was “much murkier,” he said, but he felt that it was beyond the realm of the council and many of the public statements made recently concerning Webb were indeed politically motivated.

To demonstrate this, Brooks read excerpts from an e-mail that was composed in December by a local attorney John Mrosek and sent to Councilwoman Fritz. Without Mrosek's consent, the e-mail recently was anonymously sent to a number of local public officials and other citizens. Mrosek has announced he is challenging incumbent Superior Court Judge Johnnie Caldwell. (See accompanying stories in this edition of The Citizen.)

Brooks said that the e-mail appeared to suggest an attempt by various people to “manipulate news stories.” There were several direct references to Beverly, but Brooks stressed that he knew of nothing to suggest that Beverly was involved or even knew about what was discussed in the e-mail.

In conclusion, Brooks said that since most of the objections from the public were against Webb and not Lindsey, he supported this motion by Lenox.

Fritz also pointed out what she thought was a fact misunderstood by many citizens, which is that Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey is not representing the city in a suit filed in November by Pathway Communities over the new traffic impact ordinance.

The city's insurance carrier appointed an attorney from Atlanta to handle this case, Fritz said.

Lenox concluded the discussion by saying that it was far more common for a municipality to appoint an individual as city attorney, even though most of those appointees are members of larger law firms.