Wednesday, December 3, 2003

PTC tantrums: Facts vie with blind faith

By CAL BEVERLY
editor@thecitizennews.com

The headline in Friday’s Citizen said, “No crimes at DAPC.”

Technically, that’s accurate. But let’s try to exercise our under-used thinking cells a little. Read farther into the report from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Peachtree City chief of police. A different picture about the Development Authority of Peachtree City emerges.

From the GBI report: “During this review, we found that the information provided was insufficient to allow a conclusive determination as to whether a crime has been committed. ... A more specific review of available records and other documentation may allow a more conclusive determination to be made of whether any criminal acts have taken place. In particular, we would suggest further examination of the following potentially problematic areas:

“1. The accounts receivable records are not being maintained and recorded on the Authority’s general ledger.

“2. A large number of accounts and retainage payables were not accrued by the Authority as of the end of the fiscal year.

“3. Advanced payments should be recognized as deferred revenue until the period in which the revenue has been earned.

“4. Recording of transactions to the city and from the city should be shown in separate accounts and not net transactions.”

And from Chief James Murray: “During this review, Chief Murray did not find any conclusive evidence that would suggest a crime had been committed from the materials he had examined. ... In many cases, the failure to have a detailed operation plan specifically designed to hold accountable both employees and members of the Authority for the proper accountability when spending or obligating taxpayer dollars, has led to a cloud of supposition.”

In other, less legalized, words, “We couldn’t find a smoking gun, but we smelled some smoke and we recommend a closer look at the details in a future detailed audit.”

Lesson #1 in investigations: Saying you couldn’t find enough evidence to convict is NOT the same thing as saying that someone is innocent.

The above is to point out the obvious: Whether anybody at the DAPC is technically guilty of violating any laws is uncertain and unprovable at this point.

But innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard, applicable in the courts. Political innocence or political guilt is quite another thing altogether.

What is certain from the two investigations is the following, beyond a reasonable doubt: The DAPC was guilty of bad management practices and negligent to the point of unconsciousness in its accounting for public money. For proof, see the four bulleted GBI points above.

Chief Murray further finds the DAPC failed to have any accountability plan for its employees or itself when spending or obligating taxpayer dollars.

Is there any thinking human still left in Peachtree City who can, with a straight face, declare that the amphitheater and tennis center were “well managed”? To such true believers, even a mountain of objective facts are unlikely to provide additional light to willfully blind eyes. They exist in the realm of pure political faith, untouchable by sloppy reality.

So, let’s move on.

To the subject of wayfaring council members Dan Tennant and Annie McMenamin, who talked over the voting situation facing them and decided to absent themselves from a Peachtree City Council meeting, denying the council a working quorum. For the two truants, the minority rules.

How sad that two good Republicans, in their final elective hours, wrap themselves in the same losers’ flag as those Texas Democrats who fled the state to avoid having the legislature’s majority Republicans vote in redistricting.

Tennant and McMenamin must have been taking lessons from the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, like Tom Daschle and Ted Kennedy, to deny the majority a proper vote in a proper legislative session.

How ironic, that these two should conspire, outside of normal council channels, to obstruct normal council business. Does anyone but me remember that it was Mrs. McMenamin who filed an ethics complaint against Tennant about three years back for (Shock!) his e-mailing other council members about the agenda prior to a meeting?

Now the two former enemies work out a grand plan to halt all legislative wheels from turning, even before any meeting begins. And the two of them dictate what will and will not be on the council’s agenda for the rest of the year. Representative government was never intended to be like this.

My, how the gored ox doth change its stripes, or some such political metaphor. Well, I suppose it’s good to see that old adversaries can find some common ground, even if that ground is moral quicksand.

I don’t like how you are going to vote, so I’ll just take my marbles and go home. So there! Yah, yah.

Such adult behavior.

The good thing is they have only four more weeks left in which to obstruct the normal legislative process.

Note to incoming members Kourajian and Rutherford: The city charter says the council may compel attendance by absent members, but there are no authorizing ordinances to put that charter provision into effect. Please make that one of your first legislative acts, so that in the future no tantrum-prone duo can paralyze the city’s legislative processes.