Wednesday, July 23, 2003

I am getting more technically proficient in my research, or just lazy, depending on how you look at it.

Rather than reaching for my Webster's Dictionary that I've had since tenth grade, I typed in "dictionary" on my AOL keyword, and here is what popped up for the word "compromise":

"Compromise: A settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions."

At the most recent city council meeting, we once again were asked to make an appointment to the Development Authority of Peachtree City (DAPC), and Mayor [Steve] Brown was a proponent of a "compromise" in making the appointment.

The DAPC is an appointed board composed of seven members, and only one position was up for appointment, the one to fill the expired term of Doug Warner, a highly respected attorney and honorable public servant. It turns out the mayor supported a compromise which would increase the authority's membership to eight, and allow for the appointment of two new members now. One of the two new members was to be the mayor's top choice, Mr. Todd Strickland, who has been a supporter of annexation of the West village in Peachtree City.

On the surface, that might sound like a reasonable compromise, given the fact we were deadlocked 2-2 on the same appointment a couple of months ago. But as usual, there is more to the story when you look at the entire picture.

There are three problems with the "compromise." First, I think it is neither fair nor sensible to change the structure, i.e., membership, of an organization simply to accommodate the mayor's (or anyone else's) top choice. That was clearly the motive here.

Second, increasing the authority's membership from seven to eight is problematic in that it leaves no remedy in the event of a 4-4 tie vote. Having an even number of people on any board or commission is very rare, and for a good reason.

Finally, I have long argued that the DAPC must capitalize on securing seasoned business relationships and networking opportunities to enhance our business and industry recruiting efforts, and to help build our industrial tax base, since funds from council for this purpose are very scarce.

As nice a guy as Todd Strickland may be, Annie McMenamin and I believed other candidates, including two from Cooper Lighting (Mike Morgan and Jim Maniatis) were more suited and qualified to serve. Todd Strickland would be a tremendous candidate, however, on the planning commission, as I have previously stated.

One other interesting note is that Steve Brown has stated that he recommended Todd Strickland's firm, Historical Concepts, to Mr. Marvin Eisenburg to do the site work drawings for a very large residential/commercial rezoning project on the south end of Peachtree City, commonly referred to as the Stevens Tract. The deal between Eisenburg and Strickland's firm was to be signed on July 21, according to Eisenburg.

I have no reason to believe a back room deal was made here to secure the mayor's vote in the upcoming rezoning issue, but it gives you an idea of the power of "suggestion" from the mayor. The term "too close for comfort" certainly comes to mind.

In any case, during the meeting, Mr. Brown called this lack of agreement "purely political." It seems if you don't agree with the mayor in our city, you are necessarily doing so for "purely political" reasons. Heaven forbid if there was genuine policy disagreement or differing opinions on council. Apparently, you are an obstructionist if you don't see it Brown's way.

To finish up the story, two members of council's top choice was Todd Strickland while two members selected Mike Morgan as their top choice. Councilman Rapson could not vote due to his wife's lawsuit against the DAPC.

Interestingly, the only other people directly involved in the interview and selection process were the city manager and the vice chairman of the DAPC, both of whom have an informal vote in the selection committee meetings, and at least some influence in choosing the best candidate. This is a time-honored tradition in the appointment process of any member to a board or commission in Peachtree City.

Guess what? Both the city manager and the DAPC vice chairman chose Mr. Mike Morgan, of Cooper Lighting, as their top candidate. So, we have four out of six people directly involved in the process choosing the same candidate as their top choice, but not Mr. Brown's top choice.

Given that the city council makes the ultimate decision on appointments, it seems like kind of a no-brainer to incorporate the opinions of the city manager and vice chairman of the DAPC (two of the four selection committee members, the other two being Councilman [Murray] Weed and Mr. Brown) into your vote to resolve a deadlocked situation fairly, wouldn't you say? Perhaps Mr. Brown would see the merit in doing just that.

But alas, that would mean Mr. Brown's choice would be overlooked. All of which explains why Mr. Brown suggest we "compromise" in the first place, namely, to get his top selection appointed.

Funny how these things work, isn't it? Sometimes things are not quite what they appear. Sometimes that much used word in politics, compromise, is nothing of the sort.

In the end, the city council appointed Mr. Bill Bexley, an excellent alternative candidate that apparently everybody could live with. Well, everybody except Mayor Steve Brown. He voted no.

Go back and read that definition. I guess almost all of us compromised.

Dan Tennant

Mayor Pro Tem

dtennant@peachtree-city.org