All the reasons to say no to Councilwoman-elect Brown


On November 2nd, I felt compelled to make the following comment during Peachtree City’s City Council meeting. Please pay close attention to the last section of my comment:

Peachtree City has always been a progressive community, looking to be shining example of innovation and planning. We want our community to stand out for its commitment to good planning, not political drama and illegal activity. Transparency is paramount when it comes to local politics, to the point where one of our current city council candidates has it as a campaign platform.

Unfortunately that candidate, along with the councilman she intends to replace and Councilman Clint Holland, have failed our city in their commitment to transparency by twisting its definition and taking their version of it too far.

Government transparency is not and should never be about exposing the vital personal records of the citizens it is in place to protect. By illegally obtaining and then mishandling the social security numbers and other personal information of deceased members of our community, Councilmen King and Holland along with council candidate Suzanne Brown have not only violated state law, but the privacy of thousands of the families they are obligated — or wish to be obligated — to protect. They have put these families at risk of fraud and identity theft, disrupting their lives and potentially prolonging their grief. That includes my own family.

These crimes are unforgivable, which is why I am here today to publicly call for Councilman Holland to put forth his resignation. As a councilman, you should know the procedure for establishing what is and isn’t official city business, and by using your title to obtain the records you did, you broke the law, embarrassed our city, and betrayed your own constituents.

I also call Candidate Brown to drop out of the race for Post 2. As a candidate, Brown runs on the same transparency that she is apparently incapable of, and it’s no surprise that she’s refused to answer questions about her platform considering she’s been busy conspiring with council members to break the law. We don’t need any more scandals or conspiracy tainting our municipality, so if she will not drop out, I implore those who have not voted to help ensure she does not have the opportunity to represent us.”

The election is this upcoming Tuesday, and I am afraid I may be writing this Letter to the Editor too late, but it would weigh heavy on my conscience if I did not let the public know that this latest scandal is far from the only reason NOT to vote for Candidate Suzanne Brown.

So, for the sake of being quick about it, I will provide you with a list of additional reasons that Suzanne Brown would be the worst thing to happen to our city (perhaps tied with the election of Clint Holland last year) since the dark days of having Steve Brown as our mayor. The list is as follows:

• Suzanne Brown does not have the decorum required to be a respectable city councilwoman and would inevitably embarrass our city even more than she already has. At multiple City Council meetings, I have witnessed her obnoxiously scoffing at fellow citizens, laughing out loud at comments made by community members and the Council alike, and holding loud side conversations with her conservative clique, to the point where other attendees (including myself) have had to move away from her to be able to hear what we’re actually there for — city business.

• Suzanne Brown does not have the experience necessary to run this city. Working in corrections and studying Animal Science and Genetics does not make one qualified to run a city. Experience in finance, city planning, city management, or long-term participation in a community is what makes someone capable of governing efficiently.

• Suzanne Brown has publicly denounced (in a City Council meeting this past spring) the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion. By default, this means Brown stands for segregation, inequity, and exclusion. Are those really values we want in the forefront of city decisions?

Peachtree City is supposed to be a community where all are welcome, not just the demographics Brown approves of. Additionally, if she stands so hard against diversity, is she really capable of upholding her commitment to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of our community members who are People of Color, LGBTQ+, or non-Christians?

Her values seem to suggest she would prefer to keep this community as white, straight, and Christian as possible. In 2023, this mindset is simply unacceptable.

• Suzanne Brown does not understand what makes a city sustainable. Her policies regarding expanding industry come with no obvious plans for mitigating the inevitable increase in traffic — which her traffic solutions would not address — nor the worsening of the housing shortage Peachtree City is already experiencing.

Part of her “plan” for expanding industry is actually based on the fact that she doesn’t want more residential development — she does not understand that bringing new jobs to town means our need for workforce housing will increase. If housing geared toward the incomes of the jobs she is intending to bring is not built, our traffic will get exponentially worse.

• Suzanne Brown is not open to conversation with the public regarding her campaign platform. I attempted to ask multiple questions via her SueBown4PTC Facebook page and she subsequently turned off commenting, deleted the comments I had already written, and blocked my account. She does not want to be accountable to delivering answers to the same people she claims to want to represent.

• Suzanne Brown has very close connections with insurrectionists who have been charged and convicted of crimes due to their participation in the attack on our nation’s Capitol on January 6th. She has used unsubstantiated information provided by the group these insurrectionists belong to as justification for her harassment of our county’s Board of Elections. 

• Suzanne Brown had the audacity to ask the Board of Elections to keep her emails to them confidential, and my theory is that she did that because she understood that the information she was propagating was based on extremist political rhetoric and nothing more. This is another clear indication that she does not care about her own transparency, only the transparency of the politicians she doesn’t agree with.

At the end of the day, politics in the United States always comes down to strategic voting. Vic Painter may not be your favorite person in the world, and you may not agree with everything he says or stands for, but he is a far, far better candidate than Suzanne Brown. A vote for Vic Painter is a vote against Suzanne Brown, and at the end of the day it is imperative that we keep her out of office.

I implore those in our community who have not yet voted to VOTE AGAINST SUZANNE BROWN on Tuesday, November 7th.

Taylor Pessin

Peachtree City, Ga.


    • Since “Diversity” as currently used means choosing people based on their skin color, sex, gender, sexual preference, etc. rather than on their merits, yeah, a lot of aren’t down with that. We think it’s more important to have people with the right qualifications and principles than checking different boxes.

      Likewise, “Equity” and “Inclusion” are words that are used to put a nice face on divisive and harmful policies.

  1. And I thought Tricia Stearns was out of touch with reality, but Taylor Pessin takes the cake. This letter has to be the more outlandish and desperate attempt to trash someone’s character in the history of our local politics. The depths some of these fanatics go to disrupt our community is remarkable. As a long time resident of Fayette County it’s now hard to believe that we have these miniature lying anarchists running all over our streets. These youthful unintelligent antagonists would rather make up a bunch of lies rather than spend 15 minutes researching someone to write an accurate account.

    • Folks, I value real dialogue and I am perfectly fine with criticism, but when you make comments, stand tall. I don’t see one real name on this thread. If you make comments, at least have the courage to post your name.

          • Hi Vic

            As I have said, Im glad to have the public discussion and sharing of ideas. While I share in my own name, I have the scars to show for it. including in Mrs. Moore’s manifesto. However, I am willing to stand by what I write and find the openness holds me to my standards. Its important t know that I was born in Fort Apache the Bronx and grew up in New Jersey. Being civil is a choice not an instinct.

            I respect other people who chose to use screen names, and only interact with those who are civil and return respect. Like i said, I believe that I have interacted with this author on Facebook and we had some really good dialog as she is getting a civic planning degree.

            While i happens from time to time, I also choose not to interact with those who have nothing to share. Just like “real life”. But as I said before Im glad for a place where people from different segments can interact.

            It’s funny, last year I was in the hospital, and I got a Facebook message reaching out from a name I did not know. It was someone from these blogs who had heard about my issue and wanted to send good wishes. Sometimes we just need to enjoy our Fayette Matrix, its what we got.

  2. Anyone following along could plainly see and hear she was showing up at council meetings and now running for a council seat with a personal agenda in mind. It’s a deep hidden agenda where they like to refer to themselves as patriots with a sly wink. With regards to elections, one of the reasons we look for experienced individuals and candidates to run for public office is to avoid mistakes that will inevitably come up at taxpayer expense. In this case, had the individuals had compliance training as entrusted employees within the business or corporate world, they would’ve clearly known better having been trained on regulations, policies and legislation. Then again, maybe they do know the difference between right and wrong and we are dealing with sneaky little Segretti types (Nixon era) or worse, modern-day Roger Stone.

    • You are spot on, Doon. A candidate for local or national office who runs primarily on a grievance agenda rarely has the will, knowledge, or ability to contribute anything positive to governance. I hope our local PTC government doesn’t become as inept as our national House of Representatives.

      • Folks, I value real dialogue and I am perfectly fine with criticism, but when you make comments, stand tall. I don’t see one real name on this thread. If you make comments, at least have the courage to post your name.

        • Hey Vic P., you are welcomed to come play in the sandbox with us, but you’re not the Emperor who sets the rules. We’ve been enjoying our friendly banter on this site for years. You are welcome to bring your shovel, but don’t tell us how to use our own.

  3. It is without a doubt a sad and troubling day for Peachtree City, once the apple of Fayette County.
    Peachtree City will soon take a backseat to Trilith. Suzanne Brown is a right wing radical, lacking vision. Look out property values in Peachtree City!

  4. Respectfully, I think your correlations and allegations are horrible. Fortunately, the majority of voters disagreed. PTC is a family community and has not traditionally been what people refer to as progressive, quite the opposite it has leaned slight right of center. The allegations and insults you leveled against people that disagree is painful. We need community. Most don’t want high density housing, bars and nightclubs but a place to affordably raise a family with quiet enjoyment and low density living. We appreciate green spaces, golf cart paths and parks. Great schools and everything that PTC stands for. We don’t want more development, more tax and spend and despite the massive influx of New Yorkers and Californians we don’t want the horrible conditions that they brought to their states. Funny how the flee now but want to recreate that here.

    • FWIW, the majority of voters didn’t vote.

      New Yorkers and Californians are generally leaving because of housing shortages, not anything related to the politics. Peachtree City is also a housing-stressed location. I’ve said multiple times here that I won’t say anything against a person who holds the opinion that we shouldn’t grow. I personally disagree with that opinion, but you have the right to your opinion same as I do mine.

      I *will* say things against folks who claim both that they want to address housing costs and also disagree with development. You can’t reasonably have both of those views at the same time. And to be clear–I am saying this paragraph as a general statement, not claiming that you have both of these views.

      • FWIW, NY & CA have “housing shortages” along with high taxes, crime, high cost of living, etc. Some of us suspect it’s related to their left-wing political leadership. Others are convinced that, no it’s purely a coincidence. C’est la vie.

      • What does “housing stressed location” mean? Not trolling, please clarify. More expensive than it used to be? Very expensive compared to the average income statewide? Not enough available land to build enough housing for everyone who wants to live here?

      • Been using it for over 2 decades. just because you lost the election, wouldn’t disclose your view upfront and don’t agree with those who voted against you doesn’t mean you get to treat people with contempt

  5. Calling all lawyers well-versed in local law. How do we get Prebor, Holland, and Brown removed from the City Council? Impeachment? Recall election?

    I imagine there must be several ways to remove council members that have behaved criminally and have lost our trust.

    • Recall elections are governed by OCGA 21-4-4 and following.

      This law provides that for local officials, you need 30% of the number of electors registered for the position to sign a petition. However, OCGA 21-4-5 provides that no recall petition may be filed in the first or last 180 days of a person’s term of office. Therefore, at the current time, Prebor cannot be recalled (term expires soon) and neither can Brown (term has just started). In order to apply for a petition for recall, you need 100 voters or 10% to apply in the first place. After that, you get a period of time to reach the 30% mark. I’m not familar with what the 30% would be off the top of my head but if it is more than 5,000 you get 45 days to get signatures; if it is less than 5,000, you get 30 days.

      If the petition passes the 30% mark in the required timeline, then a recall election is held. More than half of the votes cast must be for removal for the person to be removed from office.

    • You need 100 voters or 10% of electors (whichever is LESS) to apply for a recall petition. Then you get 30 or 45 days to circulate the petition to obtain 30% of electors signing the petition. If the 30% requirement is less than 5,000 people, the timeline is 30 days; if it is more than 5,000, the timeline is 45 days.

      If you have enough people to apply and you get 30% of electors signatures in 30/45 days, as appropriate, then a recall election is held. If more than half of the votes are for removal, the official is removed.

      NOTE: recall petitions cannot be filed in the last 180 days of an official’s term (Prebor) or in the first 180 days of an official’s term (Brown).

      • Thank you Blakeh95 for this helpful information!

        Getting 5,000 signatures sounds unlikely given that it’s about the same number of TOTAL votes in this election.

        Maybe the better course of action is for the victims of the identity fraud to file a police investigation? (The fraud part being that these three stooges were able to access the protected information by falsely claiming official business.)

        Also, any tips on how to file an ethics investigation?