When I questioned the recent proposal for redrawing the County Commission districts, the finger was pointed at me, and it was said that I opposed this because, “I just wanted to keep the smallest district and have fewer opponents.”

I try not to throw accusations around and sometimes I don’t respond until after I have checked the facts. I checked this one by asking for information from the Elections and Voter Registration Department. My belief was correct.

Here are the facts. First, remember that currently all posts/districts are voted on by voters in the entire county but to run for Posts 1, 2 or 3, you must live in the district for that post.

Post 4, Jack Smith, and Post 5, Eric Maxwell, are the “at-large” districts. The total number of candidates for the “at-large” districts since 1980 has been 23 for Post 4 and 20 for Post 5. Remember, a candidate can live anywhere in the county to be eligible to run for either.

Since 1980, the total number of candidates for Post 1, Robert Horgan, is 23. A candidate must live in that district.

Post 2 is Herb Frady. He drew the lines for the proposed “new” districts. The total number of candidates that have run for commission from this district since 1980 is 12.

And, the last candidate to challenge Commissioner Frady has been drawn OUT of this district by Commissioner Frady. That would reduce it to 11.

The total number of candidates since 1980 for Post 3, Peter Pfeifer (me), is 26. The highest number from the smallest district!

I have no idea why, but this post has been the most active in producing candidates even though it has had the smallest population base. And, it is the only district, so far, to have already produced an announced challenger for next year (and rumors of more to come).

No, I don’t think it can be substantiated that I am opposed to these new districts because I want to “keep” having fewer opponents.

While I am writing, I will also apologize to the people of Fayette County. I participated in a unanimous vote to amend the minutes and an affidavit from the Aug. 1 meeting of the County Commission concerning an executive session.

I was told that the reason for the executive session was incorrectly stated and that the stated reason was corrected at that Aug. 1 meeting, before the executive session. I did not have a basis to doubt that.

I have now seen the evidence, the video on YouTube. The stated reason for the executive session was the original one, “a legal issue.” It was not changed to a “personnel issue.” the original minutes and affidavit were correct and should not have been amended.

The video also indicates something else to me. In a recent communication, Commissioner Jack Smith says that I violated my duty to the commission because I did not bring my concerns regarding our procedures to the attention of the other commissioners.

In my letter to Commissioner Smith, and to the Attorney General, I mention his charge and answer that I did attempt to bring these issues to the attention of the commission on two occasions. I describe those in that letter.

Now that I have seen this video from Aug. 1, I see that I brought up my concerns at this meeting as well. I thought I remembered doing so, but I was not positive, and as I stated above, I try not to make statements unless I am sure of them. So, that makes three times I attempted to bring concerns about these issues to the attention of the commission.

This was my second attempt and it brought the response you can hear, “We don’t have one (a county attorney), so we better discuss it.”

The first attempt to bring up problems was ignored by the other commissioners and the third time was answered by the interim county administrator with a response that I consider very misleading.

So, I should not have voted to amend the minutes and the affidavit. In the future, I see that I will have to obtain more positive proof to make any changes on any issues.

Peter Pfeifer

County Commission, Post 3

Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments