Mr. Williams, you made some compelling claims, as have I. Any chance we can see any facts from you to refute the ones I've already cited?

We have a candidate running for office who has an on-the-record ethics violation. I do not think it's unfair for the people to ask for an explanation from Mr. Rapson.

Mr. Williams is correct on the factual background; the poster known as "Secret Squirrel" needs anonymity to shield himself/herself from errors, drivel and fantasy contained in the postings about Rapson.

The key differences between Mr. Rapson and predecessor members of council (including Mayor Lenox who actually appointed Rapson to council) are (1) that Rapson believes in Open Government (2) He welcomed scrutiny as to all public officials including himself and (3) he accepted responsibility for a hypertechnical violation and blamed no one else.

All we ever heard from predecessor councilmembers like Lenox and Pace was "I don't see a conflict; no need to investigate."

Rapson is one of the few truly outstanding public officials in Fayette County. If he chooses, he will be the next Mayor of PTC in January 2010.

What do you expect from a guy named after a character on a cartoon show (Family Guy)? Swanson and Rapson are both a couple of characters-- both need to resign.

Joe, please turn in your keyboard and get off this blog. No one will ever take you seriously after this. Has an alien being taken over your mind? Did you actually write that last paragraph? The one that says --

"Rapson is one of the few truly outstanding public officials in Fayette County. If he chooses, he will be the next Mayor of PTC in January 2010."

My God man, I hope you were just fooling around. If you are serious, seek help immediately.

All I ask is to point out the factual errors, "drivel and fantasy." Other than a response with ad hominem attacks, can you actually address the points I make? I posted direct quotations as well as the citations regarding Mr. Rapson's ethical violations. All you respond with is a bifurcated attack on me and, predictibly, a man who is no longer in office.

However let's look at your points: Mayor Lenox did appoint Rapson to the Council. Lenox later filed ethics charges against Rapson for uncovering, too late, Rapson's unethical voting record. Again, I'm responding with facts.

Rapson may now purport to believe in "open government" but his voting record with regard to the consideration of contracts entered into between the city and the DAPC were anything but, again as the article I have previously cited illustrates: "Fritz, who served on the council until January after losing to Weed in last November's election, was on board when the contracts were approved. She said she is amazed that during the past few months when Rapson, Brown and Tennant reconsidered the contracts, she was never contacted."

That's a peculiar definition of "open government." The mantras of "espousing open government" and "welcoming scrutiny" are obviously expected, especially by a politician with a record of violating ethics. Honestly, do you expect him to say anything else?

Steve Rapson is a good man: that is not in question. However his tainted record is now a matter of public record and the issues surrounding his ethics violations require greater redress than simply saying "I'd do it all over again."

Again, all I ask is that you respond with some form of factual basis rather than rhetorical conjecture.

Dear Ms. Squirrel,

I believe that you have given your secret away.

Sure- I'm Carol Fritz and I'm quoting myself in this forum. Do you honestly believe that?

Ms. Fritz made a serious allegation which was never addressed: the Rapson-Brown-Tennant triumverate (before the breakup) were allegedly discussing board business to the exclusion of another council member. Possibly more unethical behavior?

Incidentally, it's "Mr. Squirrel," but you get no more than that- including where I've done my post-graduate work.

No. No. I was speaking about your vocabulary.

Yeah- she's really Kathy Cox.

I guess having a good vocabulary is something unique where you come from, eh?

I'd like to thank Mr. Williams for confirming what we know as fact: Steve Rapson violated ethics rules.

First, Rapson's attorneys were paid with PTC taxpayer money. That is another fact.

Second, whatever claims you, or Mr. Rapson, call "bogus," aren't really the focus: he violated ethics and was found guilty. His wife filed a baseless lawsuit against a city entity and, in his capacity as councilmember, he subsequently voted on issues involving that entity.

Third, the fact that the board failed to exercise punitive measures against Mr. Rapson reflects more on that panel's lack of fortitude. As one former member of the PTC council put it: "He [Rapson] either violated the ethics ordinance or he didn't. He should have been guilty, it should have been 5-0, and it should have been done in an hour."

Fourth, I'm sure Mr. Rapson was very apologetic to the board; however, I asked about his apology to the citizens of Peachtree City who footed the bill for his failed defense. However, Rapson felt no obligation to us as this direct quote from Mr. Rapson himself reveals: "Rapson had no second thoughts about his conduct during the entire affair. "Would I do anything differently? Absolutely not," he said."

All of these comments may be found here: The Citizen Online, 7/17/2002

Finally, I would not ask our voters to assess what is a "serious" ethics violation and what isn't. What I would ask them to do is to think about the propensity of a politician who has formally violated ethics once to do so again. There really is no defense to this, as you reveal Mr. Williams. It's clear-cut and all Rapson can say now, or more to the point, his supporters, is, "yes, I violated ethics rules." And I guess it was serious enough for him to be "quite" apologetic to the board. If only he realized it was serious enough to apologize to his constituents.

Rapson and ethics are two different things. First of all, Secret Squirrel is correct. Secondly, she is a woman - so its Ms. Squirrel to you. I live on her street and she's a hottie.

Rapson was not "technically" innocent, instead he was guilty as sin and got off and because of his choice of attorney, the tapayers picked up the tab.

Surely you're not waiting for him to actually address this issue. He used taxpayer money to hire private attorneys to defend himself against these charges and after he lost (i.e. was found to have violated ethics regulations), his mea culpa was simply to say that if he could do it all over again, he would do it the same way. Basically a "middle finger" to the ethics board, his fellow council members and the people of Peachtree City. But right now he's telling his supporters to ignore the ethics charges: don't talk about them and hope they go away.

Sorry Steve. You have to talk about this sometime. Why do you deserve to be re-elected when your record bears a serious ethics violation? Does anything else you or your supporters really matter until we get an answer on that?

Just how much money have you and your wife cost Peachtree City with your futile lawsuits?