Mr. Bill Websters's letter, published in the Nov. 17 Citizen, spewed quite a bit of venom in the direction of Mrs. Janet Smola. He called her a “poor loser.” Perhaps Mr. Webster is the “poor loser” since his buddy Carl Avrit was the loser in the probable cause hearing before the state Ethics Commission on Nov. 8. Shame on you, Mr. Webster.

Mr. Webster accuses Mrs. Smola of “nitpicking over irrelevant procedural details.” He neglects to mention that the “irrelevant procedural detail” is state law.

“What horrible indiscretion did Mr. Avrit commit?” I suppose state law is only significant if it isn't your buddy who is being charged with possibly violating it. The state Ethics Commission believes the omission of the “miniscule detail” to which Mr. Webster refers, of Mr. Avrit's not having the name of his organization at the end of a recorded message telephoned to a large number of county voters, to be serious enough to proceed further to an Administrative Procedure Act Hearing wherein the state Attorney General's office will represent the state Ethics Commission against Mr. Avrit. The state does not take such serious action against a person for failing to follow “irrelevant procedural details.”

Mr. Webster echoes Mr. Don Johnson's (Mr. Avrit's attorney) words that the SPLOST vote was not a referendum and therefore not subject to the state ethics law. The state Ethics Commission disagreed and their opinion, in this case, was the one that mattered.

Mr. Webster says that the recording was done by “a man in the business of making recordings... who never heard of anyone being called on the carpet for this miniscule detail.” This shows only that the company Mr. Avrit employed was as ignorant of the law surrounding political campaign activities as Mr. Avrit himself was.

Mr. Webster states that no one continues to claim Mr. Avrit's messages were lies. Wrong again. Mr. Avrit was quoted, through his attorney, in a Nov. 10 Fayette Daily News article as saying his problem with the SPLOST was that there was “too much discretionary income.” Funny, that wasn't what his telephone message said — perhaps he didn't believe simply stating what he believed and why would get the results he desired. Instead he made mention of a 40 percent tax increase and a new jail.

No one can tell you a sales tax will be a 40 percent (or any other percentage) increase for you because it is based on spending and will vary from person to person based on their spending. Secondly, several county commissioners stated publicly, prior to the vote, that if the school SPLOST passed, they would not seek a SPLOST for the jail and raise the sales tax a total of 2 percent. At best, Mr. Avrit's statements were irresponsible; at worst they were, well, lies.

The fact is that when Mr. Avrit registered himself as the chairman of a political action committee, his behavior became regulated by the Georgia Ethics in Government Act. Mr. Avrit acted with total disregard to the rules that governed his conduct — whether he did so intentionally or because he didn't know any better is irrelevant. He should have taken the time to find out what he was and was not allowed to do. Ignorance of the law, it has been ruled over and over again in the courts, is not an excuse for violating it. The state Ethics Commission will determine if this violation occurred and what any punishment will be — not Mrs. Smola and certainly not Mr. Bill Webster.

The fact that the SPLOST failed is also irrelevant. Mr. Avrit would have been sitting before the state Ethics Commission on Nov. 8 if it had passed as well. This is not another round of SPLOST supporters vs. SPLOST opponents. However they voted on this issue, every voter in this county should feel insulted at Mr. Avrit's disregard for their right to know who was giving them information and why. Indeed, many of the voters in this county were very insulted.

Mr. Avrit's buddies are upset only because their friend got caught and is being called to answer for it. This is one more case, of which we hear so many, where the person who got caught, and his friends, wants to blame those who brought his actions to light instead of taking responsibility for the fact that is was his own actions which ultimately led him into trouble. Indeed, Mr. Webster, what kind of example does this set for our children?

Connie Leary

Peachtree City

Ù

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