The selection of Peachtree City's legal counsel and municipal judge for the upcoming year will be made about a month later than usual, as the City Council voted to start the bid process over again and resolicit applicants.

Councilman Robert Brooks asked to put the matter on the City Council's Dec. 16 agenda for discussion due to confusion over the positions of city attorney and solicitor.

Appointments for city attorney, solicitor and municipal judge are traditionally made during the council's first meeting in January.

Requests for proposals were sent out in November for city attorney and municipal judge, with a Nov. 19 deadline to apply, according to a city staff report. In addition to several responses for each position, the city received one application for court solicitor, a service which in the past has always been handled by the city attorney.

Since the solicitor duties were not specified in the RFP for city attorneys, staff elected not to open any of the bids for either position and instead prepared a separate RFP for solicitor with a Dec. 3 deadline.

According to a Dec. 6 written statement by the city's purchasing agent, six applicants submitted proposals for municipal judge, four applied for the dual role of city attorney/solicitor, and one each applied for the city attorney and solicitor positions alone.

Brooks offered that with the specifics being rather unclear about the different positions, the bid process could be compromised. He added that he would prefer having one firm handle bother the city attorney and solicitor duties.

Councilwoman Annie McMenamin, who agreed with Brooks that a “level playing field” is a must during this process, pointed out that her daughter is an attorney with the firm of Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey, the city's current legal counsel and among those bidding for those services in 2000. She will abstain from voting if necessary, she said.

Brooks moved to rebid the positions, combining city attorney and solicitor, so that applications can be received after the holidays and a decision made at the first council meeting in February. The motion passed 5-0.

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