Logsdon: Is anybody there?

Cal Beverly's picture

Is Peachtree City mayoral candidate Harold Logsdon an empty suit? Is it enough that he is “not Brown,” the current mayor?

Is there anybody home behind the vacuous platitudes that form the core of Logsdon’s campaign positions?

What does he stand for? Let’s examine what his own campaign platform says about his positions.

“Leadership is about accepting challenges and presenting solutions,” Logsdon says in his Citizen Forum, available at www.The Citizen.com. “Like any good Army man, I am not interested in excuses. Neither are the citizens of Peachtree City. I am interested in results, and I will work to bring those results quickly and efficiently for the benefit of our community.”

That’s his number one position: leadership.

But where will Logsdon be leading us? What “results” will he be seeking?

Let’s search his Forum statements for any clues to where this “leadership” will be taking us.

Logsdon: “Financial accountability, sensible budgeting, and resource management are among the most vital roles of our next mayor. We’ve seen tax increases for four consecutive years, while visible signs of infrastructure problems continue to appear. This signals a lack of financial responsibility in our current administration.

“I want to use my experience as a certified internal auditor, fraud investigator, and business operations manager to evaluate our city government for efficiency, as well as to better manage our budget. This way we can stabilize and work to reduce the tax burden on our citizens.”

How nice. Not a word, not a word, not a word on “HOW” he will accomplish his number one goal.

How can he do what he says is vital? Cut programs.

Which programs? Soccer, maybe? Recreation in general? Fewer public works employees?

Logsdon never says anything but, “Trust me; I will lead you and I’ll be nice.”

Logsdon: “The West Village land must be developed to our planning standards, and as mayor I will be proactive to ensure those standards are met.”

As far as Logsdon is concerned, the big 900-acre annexation is a done deal. You remember that annexation, don’t you? That’s the one where then-Mayor Bob Lenox told a standing-room-only crowd at City Hall that he knew “more about the West Village than anybody else,” and produced a PowerPoint show to push for his plan.

The citizens rose up and a chastened five-member council voted 5-0 to say, “Oops, we made a mistake. Let’s don’t do this annexation.” That was five years ago, not a long time for anything to materially change to warrant a rethinking of the big NO that residents said to annexing the last time it came up.

But Logsdon is being supported and receiving his talking points from the very people who pushed for that first annexation. He is either ignorant of that “NO” five years ago, or he is choosing to disregard it.

Neither says anything positive about Logsdon’s “leadership.”

Logsdon: “I have maintained that our citizens are most concerned over issues of leadership, accountability, and quality of life here in Peachtree City. ... In times of crisis, I am a leader who will stand firm, make informed choices, and utilize our good will through relationship building with our neighbors.”

How nice. But no details, no specificity, no hints as to what he will do about any “crisis.”

He either doesn’t know what actual issues confront Peachtree City, or he doesn’t have the political guts to declare what he will do about those issues.

The skipped debate is one telling example. Logsdon, who runs on a platform of “leadership,” failed in his first “crisis” when he disrespected a bunch of politically interested teenagers at McIntosh High School by snubbing their political forum.

Here were some impressionable teens looking for examples of leadership, and this reputed “leader” doesn’t have enough regard for the kids to even show up.

If Logsdon can’t handle the pressure of a high school debate, what will he do when the first hot item shows up on the City Council agenda? Duck and cover?

I fear Logsdon is just another in a long line of “stealth” candidates who know the right people, join the right clubs, and issue position statements containing vague platitudes, and hide their allegiance to the developers who dearly want the candidates to loosen up existing development, zoning and annexation policies.

His maximum test will come when he faces a rezoning, say, of some land in the industrial park to accommodate some high-density apartments.

Homeowners by the thousands will expect him to say NO, but he will smile before the big vote, scratch his head, and declare that he has thought long and hard about this and made the tough decision.

He will smile and vote for the developers, I fear, against existing homeowners who must live with the consequences of his “leadership.”

There are a significant number of people in Peachtree City who have a love-hate relationship with Mayor Steve Brown after four years: They love to hate him.

I speak to you folks directly: You are voting for “anybody but Brown,” but my great fear is that you will getting an affable, friendly guy who will favor higher density, more commercial and apartment development and increased traffic every time it comes to a vote.

The homeowners of Peachtree City will get a get-along-go-along kind of guy who will vote against their interests just about every time.

But, hey, he’ll be nice about it. And he won’t write letters to the editor. In fact, you’ll hardly ever see him, except when he smiles and sticks it to you on behalf of his developer friends.

Don’t say somebody didn’t warn you. And to paraphrase the immortal words of Richard Nixon, “Who you gonna kick around then?”

And let’s all hope I’m totally wrong, and you’re totally right. But, hate aside, is there anything inside that nice suit besides the platitudes? Are you sure?

Steve Brown is a known quantity. Harold Logsdon, so far, is just an empty suit, with developer friends.

Now, let’s vote.

login to post comments | Cal Beverly's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by MARLIN on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 5:14pm.

Take a look at Cal Beverly's editorial of June 9, 2004, entitled "Mayor wants in PTC what he decries in Coweta".

Here are some excerpts:

"...The mayor’s trademark personal cheap-shots included without charge in his column were as usual about one-tenth factually based and about nine-tenths warmed-over Brown stuff. "

"...Prove wrong what most elected officials in this area say privately: You can’t trust the Peachtree City mayor’s word; he’ll say one thing to your face, then he’ll stab you in the back."

"Many of us who supported your election are greatly disappointed in your metamorphosis. We are wondering how big a mistake we made in voting for you."

These are Cal Beverly's words verbatim. What a turnaround he has made. Fortunately, eighty per cent of the voters still believe that Cal was correct in his editorial, which was stated in the heat of the battle, and therefore more likely to be true, as opposed to the current endorsement, which has been calculated to mislead and inflame the uneducated voter.

nuk's picture
Submitted by nuk on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 5:24pm.

He called it exactly like it is in June in regards to Steve Brown.

NUK


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 5:26pm.

We have to pick between Brown and the empty suit Logsdon.

Brown wins out on the issues of substance.


secret squirrel's picture
Submitted by secret squirrel on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 12:06pm.

Putting yet another thumbtack into my mailbox post, in spite of the Logsdon sign in my yard.

1)In keeping with our covenants, I keep my mailbox post well-painted and maintained. These thumbtacks (admittedly he's not the only one) gradually undo the work I've done keeping my mailbox post in one piece and looking nice. You'd probably mind if I stopped by your house and stuck some thumbtacks in your door trim.

2)Probably the more important consideration, the last thing I want is someone with a bag of thumbtacks coming through the streets of my subdivision and on my driveway. Tire repair may be relatively cheap but when it's 6am and I'm heading to work only to find the "Vote for Brown" flyer's thumbtack stuck in my tire, I may get a little pissed.

Give me a phone call at night over thumbtacks in my mailbox any day.

Now, on to Mr. Beverly's comments:
It's painfully ironic that many of the reasons you cite for voting against Harold are and have been wholly-manifested by Steve Brown over his tenure, especially on the development/density issues. We all know it's a smaller percentage of people voting FOR Logsdon as much as those who are merely voting AGAINST Brown. Logsdon will have 4 years to build his reputation. Fortunately for the voters (as well as Harold and all other victorious candidates), these webpages will be archived and saved (by more than one source, undoubtably) and we will see how well they hold to their words.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 12:39pm.

I hate those things in my pole as well.

I have not seen them in my HOA. I don't know how much our entry posting, not allowing such things, has to do with it.

But I have one neighbor who is livid over the phone calls from Logsdon's staff. She is getting drown by them and they will not take no for an answer.

I agree on the archive. That is a good go back and compare mechanism.


DanTennant's picture
Submitted by DanTennant on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 9:15am.

Well, I thought I was done posting on the election, but I just had to have one last say before we vote tomorrow.

And that’s the main point of this post. Vote tomorrow. It’s going to be a nice, sunny day and it will only take a maximum of ten minutes to vote. I am guessing we are going to have 12-15% turnout of registered voters, which means YOUR vote carries that much more weight.

I cannot imagine anyone marking their ballot (OK, touching their screen) for someone they are not long predisposed to voting for, so I am not talking about trying to connect to undecided voters here. I am particularly pleading with those of you who, like me, believe it is time for a change in the leadership of this city. Steve Brown needs to go, and 80% of us made it clear a few weeks ago.

Just remember this, however. If we get a 12% turnout on Tuesday, that means roughly 2500 people will vote. Brown got 1600 votes in the general election. If all of his people show up, and ours don’t, we are stuck with him for four more years. Comprende, amigo?

I don’t care if you have quadruple bypass scheduled for tomorrow, tell the doc it’s going to have to wait til Wednesday.

I will be the first to tell you I worked tirelessly to help Steve Brown get elected four years ago. I was convinced at that time that Brown was going to be just the breath of fresh air we needed. Instead we got a fire breathing dragon.

We got a guy who has attempted to destroy people, in some cases successfully. We got a guy who has consistently lied, has ethics violations, and who cannot be trusted. We got a guy who quit his real job (even if it was a dental clerk) to micromanage this city to the point that he has choked its successful operation into dictatorial submission.

I was wrong four years ago, folks. Dead wrong. Really wrong. Misguided. Fooled. Betrayed.

But unlike Steve Brown, I can admit it when I am wrong. Brown’s ego is so out of control that he no longer is reality based. Honest. The guy lives in the World According to Steve, and all of us are outside that world.

It’s time to reclaim our world.

Harold Logsdon is a fine man with impressive credentials who understands what the role of mayor is supposed to be. He will lead by example, he will let the city manager do his job, and he will keep the interests of Peachtree City families at the heart of his decision making, despite what you hear from Cal Beverly and other Brown supporters.

OK, that’s it. Go vote for Harold Logsdon on Tuesday and let’s start fresh in 2006 with new leadership with a mayor we can be proud of.

Dan Tennant


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 10:47am.

You are entitled to your feelings and your vote.

But to call Logsdon a fine man when he will not answer questions is something I cannot agree with.

To say he has fine credentials when he will not clarify them for Dana is also not something a fine man should do.

He presents his military record as if he were active duty. Nothing wrong with being National Guard, it is honorable. But it not full time either, as Dana pointed out.

A weekend a month and a couple of weeks a year is non comparable to one who spends 36 years active duty.

He also states 36 years as a fraud investigator. That is a lie since he was a lineman who worked his way up and spent some unknown amount of time as an investigator.

And a professional adviser. Two weeks allows him to claim that as if significant?

He says he has clearly taken positions but his position is repeatedly 'will look into'. Even worse, on stormwater, he lies and says we need to 'begin' looking into it which will take 'years' to perform.

How is that a lie? Because Phase 1 was done under Lenox and Phases 2-4 done under Brown with only the authorization vote left.

Sorry, Dan, a whole lot of deception and outright lying going on here.

No, I don't need to hear the sins of Brown. I have seen them.

So, it boils down to comparing substance to substance. Brown, with all his faults, has good substance on issues of key importance. Logsdon, with all his faults, has no substance.

So, lead by example? A King in the Castle I don't need to tell you anything example is not a good one.

Vote as you wish. Feel as you wish about Brown. Just don't make Logsdon into something he is not.


Submitted by iluvthebubble on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 11:39am.

Harold has been quite clear and not in the least "deceptive" in describing his occupational/military background. He notes in his website that he joined the National Guard in High School and remained in it for 38 years. In the same paragraph he states that he started as a lineman at BellSouth and worked his way up to management over the course of his 36 years there. How could anyone read that and believe that he is, in your words, "present[ing] his military record as if he were active duty."?

With respect to his history as an auditor, his website's description of his professional background explicitely states he began his career doing "technical assignments" and was not promoted to management for several years. He apparently earned his undergraduate degree midway through his career at BellSouth. His first mention of any auditing experience is stated as follows: "After twenty years in Birmingham, AL, [working for BellSouth] Logsdon was transferred to Atlanta, GA on the BellSouth Corporate Staff as a manager in the Audit Department."

Yet you accused Harold of lying by claiming to have spent, in your words, "36 years as a fraud investigator." If you think that's what he's said on the subject, the problem is not that Harold is being deceptive, it's that you are not reading carefully.

So where is the deception and the lying? If Harold has lied about his background, as you claimed in your post, please tell me where I can find these alleged falsehoods.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 12:15pm.

In the bulk of his quotes I have read he totally fails to give clarifications and indeed says things like spent his 38 year career as a fraud investigator or 38 year military career. And then that investment adviser claim!
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/electguidenov05/runofflist.html

Profession: Financial planner; certified internal auditor.

3) Financial accountability - I want to use my background in financial planning, auditing, and fraud investigation to make better use of our tax dollars.

Maybe you don't see it. But a lot of us do.
Where does he clarify his National Guard was not full time? There are full time positions you know.

And he has flat lied on the facts in areas like stormwater having had nothing done to date.


Submitted by pattiadams on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 12:59pm.

In an attempt to counter every possible blog, PTC Guy stoops to denegrating the service of our Military People.

Only someone who's never served in the Military would stoop to questioning one's Service and demanding clarification of that.

This City is full of ex-Military, Retired Military, ex-National Guard, Retired National Guard and Reserve, Active Duty Military, Active Reservists and Guard, and former all of the above. It speaks volumes of you, and certainly doesn't endear you to our Military populace to continue questioning Military Service. If you understood the sacrifice and dedication of those who serve or have served in any capacity, then you'd be mute on this. Your obvious lack of personal Service is not your most endearing quality.

Also, if you Served in the Military, you were in the Government. It's written on the paycheck.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 12/05/2005 - 1:10pm.

Get your facts straight before you throw out stupid, biased and totally false statements.

I am a Vet, who served overseas, in intelligence, for Nam during the pull out, and prior, and the Russian theater during some very major points in the cold war.

I saw and experienced my share. I know more than most will ever know about the facts of then. Don't go there with me. Do not question my patriotism.

I have nothing but the highest regard for fellow vets.

I did not go the career route. But I was there.

The issue is clarity of what he did. Not that he didn't do something.


Submitted by fran sheldon on Sun, 12/04/2005 - 5:22pm.

Thank you Mr. Beverly for your endorsement of Steve Brown.

I will be joining you in voting for him Tuesday.

Mrs. Fran Sheldon

Submitted by Made up my mind on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 8:16pm.

I have been keeping up with the blogs and am abhorred at what I have read. The attacks that the well organized machine that Logsdon has built remind me of a certain political party that do nothing but whine, complain and criticize others, but have no real answers themselves. If these are the type of people that support Logsdon, then I don’t want any part of this man in office in Peachtree City, or anywhere else for that matter. I feel that he and his machine will treat us like mushrooms. Keep us in the dark and feed us a lot of....stuff. Even though I am not happy with the approach that Brown has taken over the years, at least I know what I’m getting and where he stands. I fear that we are in for a real shock with Logsdon. Just as we were in for a rough ride when Brown took office, I feel that we will truly be in trouble with Logsdon. We have no idea what he will do since we have seen no real stand on issues, but his election machine has done a good job at painting a very positive picture of someone we really don’t know anything about.... yet. I’m going with the more familiar and lesser of the two evils.

Submitted by Made up my mind on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 8:15pm.

I have been keeping up with the blogs and am abhorred at what I have read. The attacks that the well organized machine that Logsdon has built remind me of a certain political party that do nothing but whine, complain and criticize others, but have no real answers themselves. If these are the type of people that support Logsdon, then I don’t want any part of this man in office in Peachtree City, or anywhere else for that matter. I feel that he and his machine will treat us like mushrooms. Keep us in the dark and feed us a lot of....stuff. Even though I am not happy with the approach that Brown has taken over the years, at least I know what I’m getting and where he stands. I fear that we are in for a real shock with Logsdon. Just as we were in for a rough ride when Brown took office, I feel that we will truly be in trouble with Logsdon. We have no idea what he will do since we have seen no real stand on issues, but his election machine has done a good job at painting a very positive picture of someone we really don’t know anything about.... yet. I’m going with the more familiar and lesser of the two evils.

Submitted by MARLIN on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 4:07pm.

In blistering editorials earlier in the year, Cal Beverly blasted Steve Brown for calling him a liar and for supporting the Walgreen's rezoning at the Lutheran Church corner, and supporting the developer Wieland in annexing the West Village. If you care to read those editorials, check the archives around the time of the Lutheran Church rezoning hearing. At that hearing, Brown was the only one who voted for the rezoning, against a petition of 1600 signatures, and he publicly berated the City Planner at the time, embarrassing many members of the church. In his editorials at that time, Cal said it was no wonder that the members of our legislative delegation say Brown can't be trusted.

But Cal apparently has a short memory, hates the majority of people in Peachtree City who are supporting Harold Logsdon, or simply is enjoying the financial benefit the Citizen Newspaper and this website is receiving.

For Cal to say that Logsdon would be a pawn of any developers or would build apartments in our industrial park is appalling and just plain inflammatory. Logsdon is a normal citizen, sick and tired of Brown's negative and egotistical reign, who decided to do something about it and run for office. He is a homeowner, a true family man, who has no connections to anyone, which is refreshing. In fact, he has no reason to be beholden to anyone, for his support is widespread and strong, and includes all citizens who are tired of the negativity in Peachtree City. People are contributing to his campaign and trying to help him get his message out because they intensely believe we need to restore honesty and integrity to our city government and end the senseless and baseless attacks on people who have volunteered their time and money for decades to make this a better place in which to live.

Logsdon is on record as stating that he will not vote for multifamily zoning in Peachtree City. Every right-minded citizen in Peachtree City knows that any more multifamily developments in this city would be clearly detrimental and undesirable.

Logsdon is further on record as saying that he would only support annexation if it would benefit the Peachtree City homeowner, and that's a high hurdle to leap. His words have been taken out of context, twisted and turned, in Steve Brown-style spin, in an attempt to inflame the undecided voters, if there are indeed any left.

And after Steve Brown made his egotistical attack on John Munford as a journalist, Cal Beverly reached a new low by supporting the guy who attacked his newspaper's best journalist. That's a sad commentary on Cal's inability to put aside his own biases and support his staff.
Does that mean he agrees with Brown's attack? That's really sad.

It is my sincere hope that Beverly's editorial serves to further energize the anti-Brown voters. If they relax for one minute, Brown will be back in for another four years, and we can all expect more of the outrageous attorneys fees and litigation, increased bureaucracy, skyrocketing taxes, attrition of industry, egotistical behavior, and personal attacks we have experienced during the last four years.

Submitted by matthewlramsey on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 2:52pm.

I wonder how it would feel if someone publically and pointedly attacked my professional abilities and then just days later a co-worker or my boss made a full throated endorsement and defense of the person that had attacked me? I've got to imagine that I would feel utterly betrayed by such patent disloyalty. I guess I should ask John Mumford how it feels.

Just days ago in this forum Steve Brown went back to his tried and true method of attacking anyone that remotely disagrees with him when he charged that Mumford does not do his research, does not understand the issues and is not thorough in his writing. To make these charges of a journalist is an attack at the very core of his professional competence and integrity. Then just days later his editor/colleague, old Cal, again publically endorses and supports Steve Brown, despite Brown's latest attack.

Cal, it is becoming more and more publically pathetic the depths to which you will sink to protect your paper's circulation meal ticket, Steve Brown.

John Munford's picture
Submitted by John Munford on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 3:23pm.

This being a free country and all, it really doesn't matter to me who my boss endorses.

Now if Cal took Mayor Brown's words seriously and fired me for not doing my job, I'd be ticked. But I'm still employed, at least as of this writing Eye-wink

By the way, had I written a column endorsing Logsdon, I'm 110 percent positive Cal would have run it in the paper. Why? Despite the fact that it differs with his opinion, Cal is committed to a free exchange of ideas, as most would notice in the variety of viewpoints published in the letters to the editor section ... and on the fact that we're having these online conversations now.

Honestly I expected the Mayor to react to my column with a little bit of gristle, and that comes with the territory. I've developed a pretty thick skin over the years in this profession.


Submitted by MARLIN on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 4:53pm.

John, you are an honorable gentleman. In attacking you, Brown has proven yet again that he is incapable of disagreeing with someone without taking a cheap shot at him or attacking his integrity. As usual, instead of just disagreeing with you or pointing out where you were mistaken, he had to attack your journalistic ability, the very essence of who you are and what you do all day for a living. This is the same treatment he gave David Rast, the City Planner, in public, during the Walgreen's rezoning fiasco. Do you wonder why eighty per cent of us voted against him in the primary? His ego just does not allow him to disagree without being disagreeable.

Even though he endorsed Brown, Cal Beverly should have said something about your journalistic ability. Everyone who knows you knows that you are very fair and objective in your reporting, and you have a strong sense of journalistic ethics. Brown attacked your integrity by saying that you write articles without properly researching them.

As far as I'm concerned, that's just one more falsehood of many Brown has put forth.

ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 11:31am.

I really would like to vote for Harold, but I do not know what I am getting. Cal states it plainly, where are the details?

The only saying that applies here is:

"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know"

Before the usual flaming starts I will repeat I did NOT vote for Brown or Harold the first election.

Given the run off Harold has done NOTHING to win my vote.


H. Hamster's picture
Submitted by H. Hamster on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 3:30pm.

That devil saying does not apply here. Steve Brown is a God-fearing Christian gentleman who is a good family man and has a very nice method of presenting himself to special interest groups such as seniors and soccer moms. Ufortunately he has proven himself to be a lousy mayor, aninept leader and a total failure at cooperation with other governments. That we know, but he is not the devil.

Logsdon may be an unknown (the real point of that saying) but he has 60 years of living life as a family man, military man and professional man without a single blemish on his record. We know about the lack of blemishes because Steve Brown didn't mention any and we all know he has dug for dirt - but didn't find any.


ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 3:47pm.

Guess again, you are getting warmer!


birdman's picture
Submitted by birdman on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 3:18pm.

I assume that you don't quite feel the same way when talking about...say...Saddam Hussein. We know we have a "devil." Why would you want to repeat that mistake? Give someone else a chance. To simply assume that Logsden will be horrible just because Brown, Cal, and PTC Guy says so is sad. But, vote for whomever you want. Do you really want four more years like the last?


ArmyMAJretired's picture
Submitted by ArmyMAJretired on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 3:45pm.

I guarantee thet if Saddam were running for mayor of PTC, I would not vote for him silly birdman. Clinton was also an incumbent that I voted against.

That said, can you tell me one thing that Logsdon has done since the first election to tell undecided voters, such as I, why they should vote for him?

Has he been to any public events? Has he written concerning the negative feedback about lack of details on his "vision and priorities" web site? Other than assuming the development authority debt, what will he do?

Here's another saying that applies to your candidate: "never buy a pig in a poke".

Or has he taken his lead and the "anybody BUT Brown" attitude and safely hidden from public view. That is not leadership in my book, but hey JMHO.


Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 3:21pm.

Cal Beverly thinks that Brown and his continual bombardment of letters to the Editor sells papers. In my opinion, Brown's letters belong on the funny pages.

Submitted by triton on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 3:29pm.

Thank goodness this "fish wrapper" is free! Puzzled

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 12/02/2005 - 11:28am.

Looking at this from a personal, HOA, area HOA's and infrastructure point of view Logsdon is an empty suit backed by those who helped create the infrastructure issues plaguing our area.

And will not be there for the infrastructure issues now coming into big concern and play due to aging infrastructure as well.


Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 12:27pm.

All this debabte about specific issues is intersting, but none of this stuff can be undertaken by Brown or Logsdon without getting at least 3 votes from city council. That's why the Brown, Rapson, Weed unholy alliance was such a problem for the city, but I digress.

The point is - and I want you to honestly answer this question - Given the fact that we know who the 4 councilpeople are, Judi, Cyndi, Stuart and Steve (Boone, thank God) - which candidate for mayor will get more support for his programs from those 4? Brown? Logsdon?

And is it not better to have cooperation on council among sincere dedicated honest people - which I honestly believe the 4 already elected are.


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 12:58pm.

Not a clue if they will support Logsdon. Not a clue if he is a team player or a military "jump to" guy. Why? He hasn't taken any factual positions to base those answers upon.

Will they support Brown's positions on Cart Paths and Stormwater Utility? I believe they will.

On annexation and the Tennis Center court issue? Not sure on the Annexation and since the court issues is already filed not sure they have an option unless an out of court deal can be arranged.

But I don't think, admittedly do not know for sure, the bank is willing to do that.

Just remember, one of those 3 required votes is the Mayor's.

Good questions and I have answered as honestly as I can.


Submitted by Reality Bytes on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 1:02pm.

PTC Guy says, Just remember, one of those 3 required votes is the Mayor's.

Let's do the math.

If Judi Rutherford, Stuart Kourajian and Cyndi Plunkett vote yes on an issue, and the Mayor (TBD) and Stephen Boone vote no on an issue, does the issue pass? YES.

If Judi Rutherford, Stuart Kourajian, Steve Rapson, and Murray Weed vote no on an issue, and Steve Brown votes yes, does the issue pass? NO.

Does the mayor get two votes or something? He has no special powers that you appear to think he does.

Please correct your statement, lest you be considered a fool by others who read this.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 1:20pm.

The Mayor has a vote. His vote is not required on the winning side but it most assuredly is a vote that can be part of the winning vote.

Agree, I was not clear enough on my point.

Now, for the fool issue, I suggest you read the powers of the Mayor and correct your statement, lest you appear the fool to others who actually know the facts.

He does have powers above and beyond the rest of the Council.

Very poor word to choose for use in such conversations.


Submitted by Reality Bytes on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 1:29pm.

Yeah, and this one's done. We can semantics all day long.

Tell ya what - If you quit posting, so will I. Let's give someone else a chance.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 1:34pm.

Just done? No admission you were wrong on the authority issue?

No. It is not a matter of semantics when the authority is so literally spelled out.

Post or not. Your choice.

Anyone who wants to post may. No one is stopping them.


Submitted by Reality Bytes on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 1:42pm.

Is this your point of contention?

(13) To do acts and things as may be proper and necessary in the proper conduct of the affairs of said city and as may be hereinafter authorized.

So, can we define "proper and necessary"? And can we show examples of the mayor doing such things?

Subject to the limitations contained in this Charter, the said mayor shall exercise general supervision and jurisdiction over the affairs of the said city; however, the responsibility for the daily operation and administration of the city shall be delegated to the city manager who shall report on such activities to the mayor and councilmembers as hereinafter provided.

How are any decisions made? Are any made unilaterally by the mayor? Please explain which are, and use specific examples.

TO EVERYONE ELSE - Do you really want PTC Guy and me to go on with this circular babbling? Someone come in and tell us BOTH to be quiet, please! Someone else start the battle!

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 2:45pm.

This is very educational for those who think they know, but do not know. Like with all those who thought they understood stormwater but did not, including you.

(13) is only one point.

There are 12 other prior lines of responsibilities, authorities and powers that go well beyond what you are claiming is the Mayor's authority.

(13) is is a standard type catch all clause to all types of governments, from HOAs on the small end to major cities on the largest ends.

It allows for needed powers and authorities to be granted in addition to the prior stated powers as long as no clause of the Charter is violated.

Yes, the City Manager oversees the daily functions of PTC under the scrutiny of the Mayor.

The Mayor and Council Members are elected by the voters. They answer directly to the citizens themselves. Not via the City Manager. Citizens input non standard daily issues to the them, not the City Manager.

The Mayor appoints the Committees and is a member. That is additional power.

The Mayor is the spokesman for PTC. Not the City Manager or the Council Members.

The Mayor mayor can sign documents and such without the vote of the City Council Members or City Manager on issues already ruled on by the Council that exceed the authority of the City Manager.

Meaning there are areas where policy and guidelines are established for acting and signing. Then the Mayor is responsible for interpreting and applying those policies and guidelines without need to discuss it with the Council in every little case.

The policies and guidelines establish the scope. The Mayor applies.

You have to distinguish between policy, and so on, setting, and on issues of enforcement.

Those 12 other authorities are not defined via (13). (13) is in addition to the prior 12.

SOME of the enforcement falls to the City Manager. SOME falls to the Mayor.

It just is not this clear cut division of labor you want to hear.

And wrong, HOAs are governments that parallel city and such on a micro scale. And the same power and so on issues are there as well. They mirror each other but vary on scale.


nuk's picture
Submitted by nuk on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 8:44pm.

The charter of PTC isn't anything like the charter of other cities that have a "strong mayor" form of government. The "catch-all" as you put it actually gives all the power of day-to-day administration to the Mayor, including personnel decisions. For example, Fairburn I believe has a strong Mayor form of government as does East Point and Palmetto.

The Mayor isn't even the official "voice" of PTC government, the Public Information official Betsy Tyler is. This keeps the Mayor from making OFFICIAL statements that the other council members may not agree with or have not voted upon yet.

The City Manager serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council. That is what the charter says, not just the pleasure of the Mayor. The Mayor alone cannot remove the City Manager. The whole point of the PTC charter is put the power into the hands of more permanent personnel than the Mayor or the Council. Elected officials turnover a lot more than the city staff and that's why the charter doesn't allow for the Mayor and Council to get their paws all in day-to-day operations and personnel decisions besides the City Manager's contract.

NUK


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 12/03/2005 - 8:55pm.

Fine.

Just keep refusing to read the 13 lines of authority for the Mayor and stay with your opinion and only quote the parts you like.

The powers listed to the Mayor in the Charter cannot be transfered to anyone without amending the Charter. Any such effort is immediately moot.

Until you learn to distinguish between day to day operations and day to day oversight and non day to day administration you are just going to keep getting it wrong.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.