By CAL BEVERLY
Publisher

Public disclosure, again: I live on Peachtree City's west side. My residential lot abuts the unfinished — and uniquely unbuffered — parkway that will serve the as-yet unannexed West Village. And remember that Webb and firm are suing me and the paper for running letters to the editor about some of the stuff that follows. Keep that in mind.

They must think we're all stupid, those three members of the Peachtree City Council who voted last week to appoint Rick Lindsey, the law firm partner of Jim Webb, to serve as city attorney.

Mayor Bob Lenox, attributing the controversy over Webb's reappointment to politics and personal animosities, nevertheless made a perfunctory concession to public opinion by nominating Webb's law firm partner — but not Webb — to serve out this year's term.

Lenox and council members Bob Brooks and Carol Fritz made a distinction without a difference, apparently assuming that Peachtree City folks would accept the deception and — in those famous words — “move on.” I guess that their city attorney didn't explain to council members that, for purposes of liability and attributions of any conflicts of interest, even the State Bar of Georgia considers the employment of one member of a law firm as the employment of the entire firm.

So, for legal and financial purposes, the council voted 3-to-1 to reappoint the entire firm — Webb included.

Lenox said that possible conflicts of interest involving Webb were merely “allegations” that didn't rise to the level of fact.

Well, excuse me, but wouldn't council's proper response to such “allegations” be to inquire into their substance by questioning their “independent contractor” publicly and requiring Webb and firm to respond publicly to the “allegations”?

No, not for this bunch. They instead ignore the “allegations” — some of which were reviewed in this column last week — gloss over the controversy by attributing it to “politics” and “personal animosities,” and blithely reappoint the same firm.

It would be real simple for council members sincerely interested in the truth:

Mr. Webb, while you were city attorney in 1997, did you have a financial interest in property affected by a proposed city buffer?

Mr. Webb, did you take part in discussions about the expanded buffer?

Mr. Webb, did you make recommendations to council during this discussion?

Mr. Webb, did you make a public disclosure — either written or verbal — at any time during those discussions that your personal financial interests were involved?

Mr. Webb, why not?

And most to the point, Mr. Webb, why did you not do the right thing and step aside and recuse yourself from ANY discussions about the buffer since you knew — but the public did not — that you had a personal financial stake in the outcome?

And this, for the benefit of the public:

Mr. Webb, when you began discussions about becoming a start-up investor in a new bank during the past couple of years, why did you not consider it at least politically improper for the city attorney to enter into a for-profit business relationship with two major Peachtree City developers, both of whom have sued the city in the recent past and one of whom is suing the city currently?

Mr. Webb, did you ever consider how the public might look at your business deal? Doesn't Canon 9 of your ethics code require you to consider whether your actions might be seen as improper?

And, again, for the benefit of the public:

Mr. Lindsey, are you not in fact in a for-profit business and professional relationship with Mr. Webb, the senior partner in the law firm in which you are also a partner?

Mr. Lindsey, as city attorney, will you not make use of the resources of the law firm of Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey, including possibly other attorneys and paraprofessionals?

Mr. Lindsey, what is your official legal opinion as to whether, for legal and public perception purposes, this city council has appointed just you and you alone — and not Jim Webb and his law firm — to be city attorney?

Mr. Lindsey, do you think that this “distinction” tends to increase or decrease public confidence in its public servants? Or do you think that this “distinction” serves merely to dupe the public?

Voting against the reappointment was Councilman Dan Tennant. Councilwoman Annie McMenamin abstained because her daughter works for Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey.

Meanwhile, Mayor Lenox presses forward to get the West Village annexed into Peachtree City for the benefit of some big-bucks developers, one of whom is Webb's fellow bank start-up investor and board member.

The other bank board developer and his business associates have already sued the city within the past two years — while Webb and firm were city attorney — and won. That developer's victory is giving the west side 399 new apartments and some 200 prefab cluster homes, some of them abutting railroad tracks.

The big annexation sought by Lenox, Brooks, Fritz and possibly McMenamin will dump into Peachtree City at least another 3,000 to 4,000 residents instead of a third or a fourth that many if the land remains in the county.

The losers in that high-density annexation will be the ordinary residents of Peachtree City, many of whom live on the already traffic-choked west side, far away from Lenox's posh east side estate.

But, hey, despite the stench arising from Peachtree City Hall, despite the big-money interests overriding ordinary citizens' quality of life concerns, let's get over this conflict of interest stuff and this ethics stuff and this annexation opposition stuff and let's just move on.

Indeed, let's just move on. At least three members of the Peachtree City Council have done just that.

The numbers game = big bucks.

The mayor is willing to let the developers build at least 1,450 single family homes in the proposed West Village, according to his city website presentation.

Let's see: How much money would that be?

At a conservative average sales price of $175,000 per home, that would weigh in at a staggering $253 million worth of residential development alone, to say nothing of the 100-bed care home and the 30 acres of commercial construction.

That's more than the Big Game lottery pool last week. There's a lot more involved with this annexation than just aesthetics and traffic tie-ups.

Please note: My column last week contained an error. I stated that Webb and firm were currently defending the city against the Pathway suit involving the traffic impact ordinance.

Not so, says city spokesperson Betsy Tyler. Instead, the city is currently being defended in that suit by an Atlanta lawyer selected by the city's new liability insurance carrier.

However, I have in my hands a copy of the city's “Defenses and Answer” to the Pathway suit, filed with the clerk of superior court. The date is Dec. 3, 1999, and the lawyers signing it on behalf of the city are none other than the Atlanta attorney and — da-dum — Richard P. Lindsey for the law firm of Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey. Apparently, the operative word is not “is,” but “currently.”

But also note that Pathway is still the driving force behind the push to get 900 acres annexed into the city for the West Village. Webb apparently is still in a for-profit banking business relationship with the CEO of Pathway. And Lindsey and the Webb firm are still the city attorney and are still giving the council legal advice about annexation and development-related issues.

Has anything really changed?

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