Peachtree City Council Sends Mixed Messages to Volunteers

Volunteerism is at the heart of how many things get done in society, and Peachtree City Council must improve how it treats the community volunteers who have stepped up to serve on commissions, boards, and groups. I’m chair of the Peachtree City Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) that was created in late 2024 to give advice and recommendations to council, and we are a group of seven volunteers trying to do what is right for the city and its residents, but select members of council have not respected our position as volunteers. I will narrate a brief recent history and make suggestions for improvements.

In September as TAG members were rolling off due to term expiration, city staff solicited new volunteers. Per ordinance, our interview team consisted of Mayor Learnard and one council member, in this case Council Johnson, and myself as TAG chair. We interviewed all applicants and selected those who represent a cross-section of Peachtree City residents to recommend to full council.

When it came time for full council to approve the three new volunteers at a public meeting, Council Holland and Council Brown did not approve the applicants because we did not select the “transportation expert,” and I agree he is very knowledgeable, but he did not make it through the selection process. It is apparent that Council Holland and Council Brown did not consider the ramifications of not approving the new volunteers.

I’m an executive director at major multinational automotive electronics company with a staff of 25 and 30 years of experience. I’ve done plenty of hiring and firing, and I know what it takes for a team to work together effectively. Council Holland and Council Brown did not participate in the interview process and don’t routinely see the workings of TAG so their second guessing of a thoughtful interview process was inappropriately dismissive- again, I’m a volunteer taking time away from my family to support Peachtree City, and when others see this, they might think twice about volunteering.

When full council declines a slate of appointments, it likely means the volunteer solicitation and interview process needs to start over, wasting everyone’s time. I took paid time off from my full-time job to support the interview process, and I’m unwilling to do so again. Per ordinance, as TAG Chair, no interviews can take place without my participation, and my stance is we selected capable volunteers. Without three new volunteers this would mean TAG would have to operate as a group of four, and given quorum is four, it would place more burden on current members, and meetings would likely be cancelled more frequently due to lack of quorum.

Fortunately, per consultation with the City Attorney and review of the City Charter, Mayor Learnard as ex-officio member of all committees was simply allowed to appoint the new volunteers without full council approval, but as residents we should expect more of our political leaders. I’m disappointed that Mayor Learnard had to go to this extreme for something that should not have been divisive.

Additionally, it is disappointing when the interview committee didn’t select the “transportation expert” that Council Holland and Council Brown didn’t ask the expert why he wasn’t selected as it could have led to an enlightening and frank discussion. Furthermore, neither council member contacted me to discuss.

At the council meeting where the new TAG members should have been announced with some fanfare (hurray, new volunteers!) and without a lot of drama, we saw drama. Unfortunately, one of the new appointees, who is quite credentialed and capable, attended the council meeting and had to sit through the vote declining her appointment. Consider this: you’re just a volunteer trying to help out, and you’re essentially told you’re not good enough at a public meeting in front of a room of your peers.

In addition, other volunteers have had their politics questioned. See Kenneth Hamner’s article in the August 25^th2025 Citizen about this. The message is you can be a volunteer only if you share the political views of select council members. All of us have a First Amendment right to express our views and, certainly, “free speech” comes with consequences, but, again, the message to anyone who wants to volunteer is, “it is OK as long as you share my politics.”

Of all the volunteer commissions, authorities, and boards that are in place as advisory groups to council, there really is not a place for politics. On TAG I know we have a broad range of political perspectives, but we’ve agreed on 99% of everything that we discuss, and anything we don’t agree on is not political. For example, there was a suggestion to lower residential speed limits to 25 mph, and we declined to recommend it even though a few were in favor. There were pros and cons, but there just wasn’t the broad support.

Continuing with the issues, council’s selective engagement with TAG undermines the group’s intended advisory role. In the November 18 City Council meeting agenda packet was a proposed Resolution and Bill dealing with transportation intended for our Georgia State legislators, Representative Josh Bonner and Senator Marty Harbin, to take up in the 2026 legislative term. After some tweaking done behind the scenes including my individual input- but not the full TAG- the final Resolution and Bill are both quite good, and I’m not disputing this, but it did not need to be rushed.

I suspect the urgency behind reviewing and sending the Bill and Resolution to our Georgia legislators was due to a misunderstanding by council members. The legislature operates on a biennial basis, and the best time to introduce new legislative proposals is year one of the biennial, not year two. In year two, action on bills introduced in year one takes place, but newly introduced bills may not get much traction- after all, the annual legislative session is only 40 days. 2026 is year two of the current biennial, and Peachtree City’s Resolution and Bill proposal may just go to die. There are other issues that the urgency prevented us from considering.

Any changes to Georgia Code Title 40, which addresses vehicles and traffic, will have lots of interested parties including commercial entities not necessarily working in Peachtree City’s best interest, meaning a Resolution and Bill text is an excellent start but needs comprehensive ground game around it.

Additionally, if Messrs. Bonner and Harbin found the Bill text wasn’t reviewed by TAG, they might think twice about introducing it.

I have a few solutions to council’s approach to volunteers, some better than others. The fundamental problem is the interview committee has only two members from council because having three would make it a public meeting subject to minutes and open records requests, which is not a good idea for a confidential interview process, so there is always a chance that full council can vote against the interview committee’s recommendations.

The first solution is for Peachtree City to hire the expert. If there is such a gap in expertise, then put him on the payroll. His role could be public advocacy, collaboration with other municipalities and civic groups, and grant writing to bring outside money to Peachtree City. Hiring the expert, though, would likely reduce council’s requests for community input.

The second solution is to put appointments on the Consent Agenda, which makes it harder, but not impossible to change. The Consent Agenda should have broad agreement and doesn’t need debate, and everything is approved with one council up or down vote, usually up.

The third solution is to have discussions between the interview committee and the rest of council before voting. Those who don’t participate in the interview process should have a bias to accept the results, and if they think there’s a problem, then they should be on the interview committee. Again, I want a process that doesn’t waste time, creates efficiencies, and leads to an atmosphere where volunteers feel welcome.

The fourth solution is, unfortunately, political: list the missteps of council members, which is what I’m doing here.

The first solution above addresses an apparent city need, and the next two solutions assume council members cooperate in good faith. The fourth solution is necessary because simply appointing volunteers was an opportunity for Council Holland and Council Brown to vote against Mayor Learnard and Council Johnson, not an uncommon occurrence. The TAG enabling ordinance does not require any kind of expertise, and in its original form simply looked for residents to represent cyclists, runners and walkers, parents of school-age children, seniors, and those with disabilities to offer advice from their unique perspectives about transportation.

My expectation as TAG chair while I serve is to have engaged resident volunteers who can collaboratively look at Peachtree City’s transportation successes and where we could improve and make recommendations for council action that make life better for all of us- everyone participates and contributes. Peachtree City thrives when residents step up to serve. It’s time for council to honor that spirit, not undermine it.

As an epilogue to this article, the November 24^th 2025 Wall Street Journal ran an article by Mary Julia Koch, associate opinion editor, describing how American volunteerism has declined in recent years per statistics from the US Census Bureau, and that many nonprofits struggle to recruit and retain volunteers. If Peachtree City doesn’t treat its volunteers right, they will just go somewhere else to serve.