Peachtree City's

City Attorney James Webb advised council members

against adopting a stricter highway buffer

ordinance two years ago but didn't disclose that

some of the land affected was owned by a

corporation in which he was chief financial

officer, an ethics complaint lodged last week

charges.

Mike Hyde, a former

member of the city's Planning Commission, wrote

in a letter dated Feb. 29 to City Manager Jim

Basinger that Webb's participation in discussions

of a proposed buffer ordinance during an October

1997 council meeting were in violation of the

city's own ethics ordinance, since Webb himself

had an interest in a local company that would be

affected by the ordinance.

The ordinance that

was ultimately adopted is now being challenged in

court, Hyde continued, with Webb's firm

representing the city.

The violations Hyde

alleges occurred under a previous version of the

ethics ordinance, which provided that the city

attorney would conduct such an investigation.

Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey would obviously not be

involved in this investigation, Webb's law firm

partner Stephen Ott said, and his firm's practice

has normally been to have outside investigators

handle ethics complaints anyway.

"At no time is

his discussion [at the October 1997 meeting] in

support of the proposed ordinance," said

Hyde in his letter. "Rather, he suggested

ways to modify the proposed ordinance to minimize

the impact on existing owners of undeveloped,

highway-fronting parcels, a seemingly laudable

objective."

But Hyde goes on to

charge that Aberdeen Village Associates Inc.

- with Webb as its chief financial officer

- purchased in 1991 and still owns a piece

of land with about 230 feet of frontage on Ga.

Highway 54, between the Bank of America building

and the cart path bridge. "This property is

clearly impacted by the buffer ordinance,"

Hyde said.

Accompanying his

letter to Basinger was a copy of a printout from

the Georgia Secretary of State's office, dated

Nov. 17, 1999, that lists Webb as the chief

financial officer of the company.

Hyde stated that in

1996, while a member of the Planning Commission,

he requested a legal opinion from city attorneys

concerning future actions of city officials

regarding the then-proposed buffer ordinance.

"On Oct. 7, 1996, the city attorney

responded by citing the city's Ethics Ordinance

which states, in part, that any official who has

any interest in any matter before the city must

disclose the interest and not participate in any

discussions on the subject," Hyde wrote in

his letter.

Hyde charged that

Webb is in violation of the city's Ethics

Ordinance, specifically section 2-9.9, because he

"did in fact, in 1997, have an interest in

property subject to impact by a proposed buffer

ordinance and did not disclose said fact and even

actively participated in said ordinance's

consideration by council."

He added that he

felt Webb's current representation of the city in

litigation over the buffer ordinance is a

conflict of interest.

Hyde has himself

been involved in litigation against the city in

recent years, having been thrown off the Planning

Commission by the City Council and filing suit

over a rezoning dispute.

An enclosed copy of

the letter Hyde received from city attorney Rick

Lindsey in 1996 said, "The city's Ethics

Ordinance is clear that a member on the Planning

Commission and members on the City Council cannot

participate in the discussions or vote on issues

which affect property in which a member has an

interest. Therefore, any member of the Planning

Commission or City Council who owns undeveloped

property or property which adjoins undeveloped

property should disclose such ownership prior to

any discussions providing a change in the

buffering requirement. Such member should then

abstain from any discussions or votes on the

subject."

Lindsey did not

refer in his letter to a "city

official" in general or the city attorneys

in particular, but only the members of the

Planning Commission and City Council.

"Were it not

for the recent spate of questions regarding the

city attorney's reappointment, I would never have

raised these issues," said Hyde.

"However, when you compound the public

concern with a bid process which itself appears

questionable, I could no longer just `do

nothing.'"

The city council

will continue to use Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey as

the city's legal counsel, but a new contract will

not be voted on until the ethics complaint

against senior partner Jim Webb is resolved,

Mayor Bob Lenox said at Thursday night's council

meeting.

Because there was

no time to place the item on last week's agenda,

Lenox said the council would consider the issue

at the March 16 meeting and decide what action to

take.

Under the city's

ethics ordinance, a five-member board is selected

from a pool of 10 people (two appointed by each

council member). Those five would gather evidence

and make a recommendation to council, according

to City Attorney Stephen Ott.

Among the 10-member

ethics board pool is Steve Brown, who is being

sued along with The Citizen and Citizen publisher

Cal Beverly by Webb and his law firm partners.

The suit alleges libel. See story in this issue.

<!--

-----------