Wednesday, June 12, 2002
|
Wednesday, June 12, 2002 |
|
I voted on one contract, Mayor signed another Over the past weeks, there have been comments in the local newspapers questioning my ethics and character. I think it is appropriate to respond so that I may correct misstatements and misrepresentations. Let me summarize some significant facts that have been reported separately but not comprehensively: On June 7, 2001, I made the motion that authorized former Mayor [Bob Lenox] to enter into the intergovernmental contracts between [Peachtree] City and the Airport and Development authorities, provided that there were no "meaningful" changes to those contracts. The motion that I made and the motion that is recorded in the minutes of that meeting was to approve the contracts which appeared in the council meeting book that is provided to each council member the week prior to council meetings. Council member Dan Tennant seconded my motion to approve the same contracts. The council meeting book that I referred to was prepared by city staff and picked up by me on June 1, 2001, a Friday, six days before the council meeting. During the June 7, 2001, council meeting there was no mention of another version of these contracts. There was no mention of an e-mail. I have checked my records and I do not have a copy of an e-mail that was apparently sent the day before the council meeting. A copy of the e-mail, as I have read in the papers, was also supposed to have been placed on the dais the evening of the council meeting. I did not receive that copy, either. However, I do have copies of the five items which were placed on the dais that evening. I can tell you what they are, because I keep everything. But here's the point whether a revised contract existed or not is irrelevant because the minutes and transcript clearly reflect the fact that neither the former mayor nor council members ever mentioned the subject of another amended contract. Furthermore, the city attorney did not mention any proposed changes to the contracts and in fact referred to the contracts "in the council book" that specifically do not include these changes. In the recorded minutes of that meeting, the city attorney clarifies my motion by saying, "But I would like for your motion, Steve, is that you authorize the mayor [Lenox] to sign an agreement that is substantially similar to the two that are before Council in the book." The contracts in the council book are clearly and specifically referenced. No one made any mention at all of an amended contract sent the day before or of any other version. Was there an e-mail? Yes! I have just recently seen a copy of this e-mail that has been referenced for the past month. The city attorney did, in fact, send the city manager changes to the airport contract. However, neither I nor [Councilman] Dan Tennant received this e-mail nor was there any mention or reference of this e-mail during the meeting. There was no clarification, discussion or debate concerning any other contractual revisions concerning the contracts found in the council meeting books. I can assure you that my motion, and my intent, was to approve the contracts in the council meeting book and the City Council voted unanimously to do so. All of this is recorded quite clearly in the minutes from that meeting. I voted on what was before me. What is important is that the signed contracts are substantially different from those that council authorized the former mayor to sign. You don't have to take my word for it, since all of what I'm saying is public record. I encourage anyone to review the actions that took place during the public City Council meeting. Review the official City Council approved minutes and the verbatim minutes. This was a very long council meeting and there was plenty of opportunity for someone, anyone, to mention that another version of the contracts existed. The council books are prepared by city staff the week prior to the meeting. I typically stop by City Hall on Friday evenings to pick up my copy and spend the weekend reviewing the information. It is common practice during council meetings for council members to clarify which version of a memo, report or contract is the most current version. Again, you can review minutes of other meetings to verify this. As for me, I have a duty, an ethical duty, as an elected official, to report on matters that I believe are not true or activities that are prohibited by law. Three weeks ago, I voted to appoint a special investigator to determine if the city's contracts with the Airport [Authority] and Development Authority are legal because I do not believe the contracts that were signed were the contracts authorized to be signed by council. I do not believe that the motion I made was honored. I chose to vote to table the amendments to the intergovernmental contracts indefinitely and to appoint a special counsel to investigate the legality of the contracts. It is my sincere belief that I had no choice but to vote on the matter. I made the motion and I am the only person who can verify the intent of my motion. The citizens deserve to have an unbiased investigation to determine whether or not the city is legally bound by what is now a 50-year contract with the [two] authorities. This action did not void the existing contracts, or place blame, or accuse anyone of an illegal act it simply investigates the legality of the contracts. This is a fact-finding process. If these contracts are found to be valid, then political justice has prevailed. If these contracts are found to not be valid, then the remaining council members will come to terms with new contracts for the authorities. I will again be abstaining from matters dealing with the Development Authority. Either way it is in the best interests of Peachtree City residents to settle this matter once and for all. I was elected in November to represent the citizens of Peachtree City. My duty to represent the citizens supersedes the fact that my wife has filed a lawsuit against the Development Authority. Anytime someone files a lawsuit it is a very difficult decision. This is new ground for us. I assure you that my wife did not reach this conclusion lightly. Now it is in the hands of the court. However, the legality of the contracts in question has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on her lawsuit. Let us not forget that this action occurred eight months prior to my wife even filing her lawsuit. This is a morality question, deciding what's right and what's wrong and making a judgment call. I made a judgment call. It's up to the citizens to decide whether they agree or disagree with my call. There simply is no "conspiracy theory." At least not one of which I am a part. Maybe I'm just new to the political arena, but I'd truly like to believe this is an honest mistake simply because all the players were not on "the same page." However, somewhere along the line some of the people involved have lost the ability to respond in a civil and respectful manner. Hurling ethical insults, when the real issue is a bona fide disagreement on the worthiness or validity of a contract, does little to further the public interest. Such accusations undermine public confidence in elected officials and generate ill will in the ongoing relationships between everyone involved. I was elected to serve the citizens of Peachtree City and I will continue to do my best to see that your interests are represented. Steve Rapson Councilman
|
||