"but she shouldn't be "burned at the stake" or "thrown in a well" because of her lousy voting record."

Why not? Those sound like two of the many good reasons to me.

If it hadn't been for her lousy voting record we wouldn't want to "burn her at the stake" and/or "throw her in a DEEP well".

Think of it this way; she dug the hole and now we just want to push her in it and throw a little dirt on her. It's nothing personnal.

just a "snippet" of a previous post of yours...

PTC Mayor's Race
Submitted by Hoosier Fan on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 8:18am.
All the PTC incumbants NEED to go!

I guess you changed your mind?

Yes, I’ve changed my mind.

I’m not afraid to admit that I’ve changed my mind – and I’m not afraid to explain why I’ve changed my mind.

Early in my process I felt there was a need to “clean house” and Scott Rowland appeared to be the best “port in the storm.” However, while Mr. Rowland seems to be a nice guy with a good heart, his lack of previous involvement anywhere in PTC government made me wonder if he had a sufficient understanding of the issues facing our community.

At the first forum on October 6, Mr. Rowland’s responses were disappointing, at best, and I started to question my leanings. However, based on additional research, I decided to write off his forum performance as “first time jitters.” Unfortunately, Mr. Rowland’s inability to clearly communicate a realistic plan of action at the October 14 forum caused me to believe that while he may have promise for the future, he’s not yet ready to be mayor of PTC.

Since I have been disappointed with Ms Plunkett’s voting record, that left me with Don Haddix. While I don’t agree with all of Mr. Haddix’ positions, his actions have been consistent with his statements. I believe most people (even in this crazy world) call that integrity. His forum responses may not have been as polished as Ms Plunkett’s, but he clearly understands the issues facing PTC and has not hidden behind “warm fuzzy” campaign rhetoric designed to hide his voting record.

That's why I changed my mind.

I take my voting responsibilities seriously. This is not a popularity contest and it’s not a competition between brochure designers. I know my values and my stands on the issues before I use that yardstick to measure any candidate. When I receive additional relevant facts I'm not afraid to change my mind - and admit it.

Thanks for asking!

It is best if we elect someone to Mayor who doesn't Understand how he is supposed to act!
You know---it has always been that way?

I suspect that when he said that, Hoosier meant the Mayor and all current City Council--and Haddix is none of the above. Makes sense to me.

I am not an incumbent. I hold no office at this time.

The only incumbents are Plunkett and Boone.

Don Haddix
Candidate for Mayor
DonHaddix.com

Mr. Haddix,

I asked you a simple and direct question over 24 hours ago. You still have not responded. Every time you enter a blog I will know you are here and are available to answer if only you wanted to.

What high school and college did you graduate from?

inquiring minds do want to know. After extensive research I have learned what Mr. Haddix is trying to hide from us---his nefarious past!!! I have learned that in the third grade he took a lollipop from that poor litle redhead girl and licked it twice before returning it to her! In sixth grade he looked at Tommy Toodle's arithmetic paper to see if he had the right answers. In tenth grade he told Miss Jones that she looked lovely when in fact her new hairdo was frumpy and that flowered dress made her look fat. In his high school yearbook, under his picture he was quoted as saying "Party Hearty"! Later in life, he took a parking spot that someone else had been waiting for. I cannot blame him for not wanting to reveal this checkered past--if I had all of this in my background I would be shaking in my boots to have an intrepid newshound such as you digging for answers. Thank you for doing the dirty work--someone has to do it!

Not an incumbent?

I could have sworn you were on the council just last month!

We do need some people everywhere in policical parties who aren't tainted by their "service."

That actually helps me to understand more about who Hoosier is. However, don't you think that you are splitting hairs here? The only reason you are not in office at this time and Plunkett is has to do with when you were elected to begin with.

Yesterday I pointed out that Mr. Haddix's educational background has been left out of the information supplied by the Peachtree City Civic Association. This was his respsonse:

"As far as the education thing goes, what I did in college 35 years ago .... seems a bit irrelevant now"

That response insulted the 61% of Peachtree City citizens who DO NOT think that education is irrelevant!

And he still has not responded to the simple and direct question. Where did he graduate from High School and from what institution did he earn his degree?

I am going to keep asking until he sheds "sunshine" on it. "Sunshine" being something that he claims should be a part of local politics.

While I applaud your question and have even defended your right to ask it and expect an answer. I, at this point, really would not expect a straight answer. But you will no doubt be besmirched and belittled for having the audacity to ask it from staunch supporters of this candidate. A better perspective might be to talk to the other candidates and ask the same kind of simple and direct questions as your current one and report their answers. I say that because the other candidates are not avid bloggers.

Hey Steve,
I looked at Plunkett's expenses and see she hired Five Points Consulting, Atlanta for $2,000 (so far) to tell her how to lie. If she needs handlers to tell her story she's clearly not mayor material. Why would anyone want to continue with both Plunkett and Boone giving away rezonings and causing nothing but grief for our city is beyond me.
BTW - Note Mike Brady (Airport fame) donated $1,000 to Plunkett's campaign. Mike ... you just paid for a handler to tell Cindy what to say. What a waste of money. But if you've got it and want to spend it that way more power to ya.

Oh, so in your book, pointing out a LIE is defined as a hatchet job? Last I checked that is the JOB of our press to hold people accountable for their actions, especially our elected officials.

The big 3 including Plunkett do not deserve to stay or move on to the next level. In fact our favorite insurance commissioner is not going to be in the top 3 in the primary.

Haddix is trying hard to appear to know everything about everything, but I'm a little uncomfortable about him making a full-time job out of mayor.

Rowland is probably not ready to lead our city as you point out, but that makes him unqualified to be city manager. I'm ok with him as mayor in a weak mayor/strong city manager form of government - which is what we have.

If a Mayor works full time on this job, he's probably going to do the town a good bit of disservice. I recall back to the constant meddling that went on in the Brown Administration, and it appears we would be in store for more of the same. I don't think Haddix is ready for a weak mayor/strong city manager form of Govt.

Your going with Rowland's statements that I want to sit in the Mayor's Office 40 hours a week running the City. His invention and his false statement.

Might as well toss in his accusation Plunkett and I want to be career politicians.

Read the City Charter I posted, Morgan, and remember what I said. Tons of work that Mayor is charged to do.

I have no desire or intention to do the City Manager job. It is illegal to do so and if you know anything about me I am dedicated to legal.

The City Manager is the administrative officer in charge of daily OPERATIONS. The Mayor is the chief executive officer and the City SUPERVISOR responsible to ensure all is legal, by the book and so forth.

My statement was that it is incompatible to have a full time job, private sector, and accomplish the job of Mayor, as Lenox and Brown learned when they tried to do both.

So, no, while it does require being in the Mayor's office several hours a week, no way do I have any plans on being there 40 hours a week or doing the City Manager's job.

Even Rowland, at the Rotary, changed his tune and said the Mayor's job consumes a lot of time and has a lot of duties.

Logsdon, Steve Brown, Lenox and Fred Brown, just to name the last 4 mayors, didn't have full time jobs in addition to being Mayor. Think about it.

As for trying hard to appear I know it all, that is false. I simply listen, learn and ask questions to know what I am talking about. A Mayor who does otherwise isn't doing his job.

Don Haddix
Candidate for Mayor
DonHaddix.com

Several points
1. Thanks for being respectful instead of hateful. That has become my new theme - disagree, but do it professionally and respectfully. Hope some of the others on here get it as well.
2. Operations left to a strong city manager and legality left to a strong city attorney - correct. We have neither. What will you do to replace these people who were hired by the second brown mayor?
3. Actually Lenox did have a full time job for his first 2 years, but after that he and the other Brown and Logsdon took the job a step too far. Hiring a compliant city manager simply accelerated the process.
4. The first Mayor Brown was retired, but was in city hall maybe 10 hours a week. He understood. And he had Basinger - the best city manager anywhere.
5. Another version of question #2 - who will you hire as city manager or will you leave Bernie in there?
6. You (and I) are old. Scott is young. Cyndi is nuts. I understand not going with the nut, but which is better - young or old?

Your welcome. I truly hate non respectful discussions. As you know it is a two way street. Enough said on that one.

On the attorney a lot of that has to do with the instructions they receive from the City Manager and/or Council. Bad instructions give bad results. Seen a few issues where advisement was contrary to majority instruction.

City Manager is an executive session issue. Personnel matter. A next year issue.

As for Lenox's job time, which he stepped down from because it became too much to be Mayor and and CEO.

But the key issues isn't being seen here. What was to population when he took office and when he gave up his job? In 1990 I believe the population was about 19,000. it did a 66% growth through 2000 to 31,580.

In other words the demands of growth and the now significantly larger population were the changes that placed the demand.

Growth means increased administration demand.

Today we are over 36,000 in population so the demands are even higher.

It is comparing apples to oranges on job demands from, say, when I moved here in 1987 with a popultion of 13,600 to today.

Not a new issue and one every city has faced as it grows.

I don't want to debate the Lenox or Brown years. I agree things happened under Lenox that were not good for the City and under Brown there were massive runs of dissension, for many reasons.

But I am neither of them. You don't want a rubber stamp Mayor and/or Council anymore than you want a Mayor who intrudes upon the duties of the City Manager. The key to success is balance. Each doing their respective jobs, properly, and neither assuming the role of the other.

Now, if it took Fred Brown 10 hours a week to do his job it is not out of line for now to take 15-20 of actual work in City Hall, which has nothing to do with his duties elsewhere.

As well City Staff grew because the City Manager could not do it all on his own as they use to do. But the Assistant City Manager job is no more and I fully supported that move. Pushed for it actually.

Old teaches young and prepares them to lead when they are old.

Energy does not replace experience, Morgan. Wisdom comes with age is an old saying that has been around for along time for good reason.

Now, how old is enough varies from one to another. But no matter how you slice or dice it experience accumulation takes time.

Don Haddix
Candidate for Mayor
DonHaddix.com

Nuts and imcompetence you can do nothing about. As for the young as opposed to old. There are benefits to both. Old should bring more understanding and patience and hopefully more knowledge. Young should bring new ideas and vigor. You notice I said should. Young and old are subjective at best. I have known young people who seemed to have been born old--afraid to take chances, set in their ways or young enough to feel they could just barge into any situation without carefully thinking it out. I have also known older people who seemed to have garnered nothing from that trip through life. They plod on not wanting to hear new ideas-always wanting to stick to the status quo. I don't think we can dismiss someone because they are young or old. It is what they know or are willing to learn, what life experience they have regardless of calendar years. Anyway you look at it, it is a crapshoot. You cannot rely on promises made by a candidate running for office any more than that sweet young thing can believe that testerone driven young man who promises to love and respect her in the morning. Right or wrong, that is why I would rather go with the one I know has not spoken with forked tongue in the past.

1. Yes PTC is certainly larger now than during the first Brown/Lenox era. And back then the development company was actually well-run and loyal to the land use plan. In fact you could make a case that their planning department was actually doing city work. For sure they worked toward the same goal - none of the tension that started when Equitable sold out and got out of control under the second Brown.

So maybe I can see more hours from the mayor, an asst. city manager (last choice) or even a shift in the charter - if made formally and legally by the new council, not just by 1 person.

2. The age comments from both of you are interesting and thought-provoking. Young and old; experienced and in-experienced; incumbent and non-incumbent - are 3 completely different things. It will be interesting to see how that all plays out in the actual election.

I do think that everyone should get prepared for 2 or 3 runnoffs because of the high number of candidates. In a way that will be good because it will be easier to compare just 2 candidates. It would really be helpful to have a forum or debate after the runoff candidates are chosen. It would help keep people interested enough to vote the second time.