The

City Council of Peachtree City reached what it

called a compromise of sorts in its appointment

of a city attorney.

Citing

public sentiment against Webb, Stuckey &

Lindsey senior partner Jim Webb related to recent

allegations against him, the council voted 3-1 to

appoint his partner Rick Lindsey individually as

the city's attorney, not the firm as a whole.

Councilman Dan Tennant cast the lone dissenting

vote, while Councilman Annie McMenamin abstained

from voting because her daughter works for the

firm.

The

action ends four months of speculation that

included two separate bidding processes, the

announcement of a libel lawsuit by Webb, Stuckey

& Lindsey against The Citizen newspaper, its

publisher and a private citizen, and an ethics

complaint against Webb that was recently

dismissed on a technicality.

Mayor

Bob Lenox made the motion but added that he felt

Webb deserved reappointment, saying that all of

the allegations against Webb thus far were just

that - allegations.

"I

think most of [anti-Webb sentiment] has been

based on personal animosity and political

motivation," said Lenox. "But public

opinion, however misguided, matters."

Lenox

added in his motion that Lindsey would serve

under the same financial stipulations outlined in

the firm's bid, and he would have access to his

firm's resources when necessary. Lindsey said he

had no problem with this arrangement.

Councilman

Carol Fritz agreed with Lenox's decision, saying

that not reappointing Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey

would be akin to rendering a guilty verdict

without a trial.

Having

heard what she termed "horror stories"

from other municipalities concerning how legal

matters are handled, Fritz said that Peachtree

City has received excellent legal service from

its attorneys, who have been working for the city

since 1992.

Tennant

stressed that he has no personal interest in the

reappointment of Webb's firm, despite what many

in the city may believe, but his problem is with

"potential conflicts," as he put it.

"I

agree with Councilman Fritz that they are

presumed innocent," said Tennant. "But

several incidents from the last few months tell

me we should not reappoint. I think we could do

better, and the city needs fresh blood in that

department."

Tennant

had argued in a March meeting that Webb, Stuckey

& Lindsey should not be reappointed because

they were not the low bidder for the job, and it

would not be a proper use of taxpayer money to

reappoint them.

Councilman

Robert Brooks called Lenox's motion "a

compromise I can support," adding that the

costs are reasonable when weighed against the

quality of service, especially when considering

that several Atlanta firms were in the running.

Robert

Brown, a local resident and Planning Commission

alternate, read from a prepared statement that

outlined his opposition to Webb, Stuckey &

Lindsey's reappointment.

Brown

said that the costs should be looked at again,

noting that city staff made a different

recommendation after the initial bid. The bids

were redone because the council wanted the city

attorney and solicitor combined in a single

position, and some bidders initially sought only

one of those jobs.

The

Newnan firm of Glover & Davis was the low

bidder for the city attorney position the first

time around, but that firm withdrew the second

time because one of its attorneys is municipal

judge Mitch Powell, and the same firm could not

serve as both solicitor and judge.

In

addition to saying that the city could get a

better price, Brown said that the ethics

complaints against Webb were never properly

answered, and the city attorney should agree to

abide by the city's ethics ordinance and avoid

the appearance of impropriety.

The

complaint, filed by former Planning Commission

member Mike Hyde, alleged that Webb advised the

board concerning a proposed buffer ordinance in

1997 while owning property that would be directly

affected by that ordinance.

Attorney

Andrew Whalen III of Griffin, appointed by the

city to advise the ethics board, said that the

city attorney is not within that body's

jurisdiction under the city's current charter and

ordinances, and he recommended dismissal of the

complaint, which the ethics board did.

Brown

also said that Webb's suit against The Citizen,

editor-publisher Cal Beverly and local resident

Steve Brown (no relation) was a "slap"

suit, filed to intimidate the defendants, and is

illegal and Lindsey's statement at a previous

council meeting announcing the suit was improper.

The suit concerns two letters written by Steve

Brown suggesting a possible conflict of interest

over Webb's position on the board of directors of

a local bank.

"At

the risk of being sued myself, I'll say this is

not what I want from attorneys representing this

city," Brown said.

Brooks

specifically addressed Brown's complaints, saying

that the buffer issue was not an ethics issue

because the council was fully aware of Webb's

interest and he made no effort to keep it secret.

The

lawsuit was "much murkier," he said,

but he felt that it was beyond the realm of the

council and many of the public statements made

recently concerning Webb were indeed politically

motivated.

To

demonstrate this, Brooks read excerpts from an

e-mail that was composed in December by a local

attorney John Mrosek and sent to Councilwoman

Fritz. Without Mrosek's consent, the e-mail

recently was anonymously sent to a number of

local public officials and other citizens. Mrosek

has announced he is challenging incumbent

Superior Court Judge Johnnie Caldwell. (See

accompanying stories in this edition of The

Citizen.)

Brooks

said that the e-mail appeared to suggest an

attempt by various people to "manipulate

news stories." There were several direct

references to Beverly, but Brooks stressed that

he knew of nothing to suggest that Beverly was

involved or even knew about what was discussed in

the e-mail.

In

conclusion, Brooks said that since most of the

objections from the public were against Webb and

not Lindsey, he supported this motion by Lenox.

Fritz

also pointed out what she thought was a fact

misunderstood by many citizens, which is that

Webb, Stuckey & Lindsey is not representing

the city in a suit filed in November by Pathway

Communities over the new traffic impact

ordinance.

The

city's insurance carrier appointed an attorney

from Atlanta to handle this case, Fritz said.

Lenox

concluded the discussion by saying that it was

far more common for a municipality to appoint an

individual as city attorney, even though most of

those appointees are members of larger law firms.

<!--

-----------