Wednesday, July 10, 2002

I'm a little confused. During last year's mayoral campaign in Peachtree City, Steve Brown used "open and honest government" as a cornerstone of his campaign. Now we find out that he held private conversations with three of four City Council members regarding the hiring of a special investigator to investigate the contract between the city and the Development Authority prior to any proposal or public discussion. The one council member left out of the conversations was Councilwoman Annie McMenamin.

When asked about this, Mayor Brown stated that since her daughter works for the City Attorney's law firm, he purposely left her out of the loop.

Now, my confusion comes from a variety of places. I don't understand why Mayor Brown was afraid of Councilwoman McMenamin knowing that he was calling for an investigation. What was she going to do? Tell her daughter, who would tell her boss, who would know before the public announcement? So what? And shouldn't our mayor have more faith in our elected representatives that they will do their civic duty with the utmost of discretion?

And what about Councilman Rapson? His wife has a major lawsuit going against the very same Development Authority. He certainly stands to gain financially if the lawsuit is decided in her favor. Why wouldn't Mayor Brown leave him out of the loop also since he seems to have the most to gain if the Development Authority is publicly seen in a negative light? But the potential effect on the lawsuit didn't bother either Brown or Rapson, leading to an ethics violation being filed against Rapson.

The real root of my confusion is why Mayor Brown is holding secret discussions with members of the City Council in the first place. After all, he was the one who made "open government" one of the biggest issues of his campaign. How arrogant to purposely remove one of our elected representatives from the process. Apparently he doesn't understand the democratic form of government.

Our elected representatives are our voice in government. To silence one by intentionally leaving her out of the discussion is to silence the voice of the people, the very people that Mayor Brown swore to listen to during his campaign!

Another question I can't seem to understand is why these secret conversations don't violate the Open Meeting laws? When his actions were presented to the County Solicitor, the County Solicitor determined that no violation had occurred. Mayor Brown proudly announced this result during a City Council meeting.

What he failed to mention, as pointed out in the article in The Citizen, the County Solicitor said that he didn't "technically" violate the law, but did use a "loophole" to initiate these secret talks. This is hardly the "exoneration" that Mayor Brown so proudly indicated he had received. It is quite distressing that a mayor who so loudly cried for open government would seek out a loophole to hold secret discussions.

When asked by the Citizen about this issue, Mayor Brown stated,

"I've got every right to call a council member and discuss anything I want to." Well, that may be true (at least technically), but it is NOT what he promised us in his campaign. In fact if I remember correctly, that is exactly what Mayor Brown constantly complained about regarding the previous administration!

And I seriously doubt that the citizens of Peachtree City want this type of government. At the very least, I know that I want ALL of my elected representatives included in ALL city proposals! I certainly don't want someone like Mayor Brown deciding which council member should and which council member shouldn't be included in conversations regarding any city policy.

Bottom line, it is high time that Mayor Brown start working toward keeping his campaign pledges. Any campaign pledge! Even just a simple one, like "listening to the people."

The question is, will Cal Beverly hold Mayor Brown publicly accountable for his failure to govern openly, failure to adhere to his campaign promises, and his arrogant interference with the democratic process as vigorously as he did the previous administration?

Jim Stinson

Peachtree City

[The editor replies: Reader Stinson may not be aware that The Citizen currently has a pending lawsuit against Peachtree City as well as Fayetteville, Tyrone and Fayette County for what we believe to be open meetings violations of a slightly more weighty variety. We won our request for a temporary injunction. The hearing for a permanent injunction against the four governmental entities is set for next month. We are aware of no other person, group or newspaper that has simultaneously sued four of the five governing bodies in the county for open meetings violations.

As an aside, does reader Stinson honestly believe that his favored previous administration conducted no such one-on-one intra-Council discussions? Under the previous mayor, the entire Council met in closed session with the entire Water and Sewer Authority, an exercise of secrecy unparalleled to this day.

One wonders how government could operate without ongoing personal interactions, often not including every member of every board. Do Democrats caucus with Republicans on any local boards across the state? Do factions on boards and councils caucus with each other? One thinks not. And is that against the law? No, not under any reading of the statute. And as one who has been holding elected officials' feet to the open meetings fire for 30 years, I think one is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.]

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