Public

disclosure, again: I live on Peachtree City's west side.

My residential lot abuts the unfinished - and

uniquely unbuffered - parkway that will serve the

as-yet unannexed West Village. And remember that Webb and

firm are suing me and the paper for running letters to

the editor about some of the stuff that follows. Keep

that in mind.

They must think we're all

stupid, those three members of the Peachtree City Council

who voted last week to appoint Rick Lindsey, the law firm

partner of Jim Webb, to serve as city attorney.

Mayor Bob Lenox,

attributing the controversy over Webb's reappointment to

politics and personal animosities, nevertheless made a

perfunctory concession to public opinion by nominating

Webb's law firm partner - but not Webb - to

serve out this year's term.

Lenox and council members

Bob Brooks and Carol Fritz made a distinction without a

difference, apparently assuming that Peachtree City folks

would accept the deception and - in those famous

words - "move on." I guess that their city

attorney didn't explain to council members that, for

purposes of liability and attributions of any conflicts

of interest, even the State Bar of Georgia considers the

employment of one member of a law firm as the employment

of the entire firm.

So, for legal and financial

purposes, the council voted 3-to-1 to reappoint the

entire firm - Webb included.

Lenox said that possible

conflicts of interest involving Webb were merely

"allegations" that didn't rise to the level of

fact.

Well, excuse me, but

wouldn't council's proper response to such

"allegations" be to inquire into their

substance by questioning their "independent

contractor" publicly and requiring Webb and firm to

respond publicly to the "allegations"?

No, not for this bunch.

They instead ignore the "allegations" -

some of which were reviewed in this column last week

- gloss over the controversy by attributing it to

"politics" and "personal

animosities," and blithely reappoint the same firm.

It would be real simple for

council members sincerely interested in the truth:

Mr. Webb, while you were

city attorney in 1997, did you have a financial interest

in property affected by a proposed city buffer?

Mr. Webb, did you take part

in discussions about the expanded buffer?

Mr. Webb, did you make

recommendations to council during this discussion?

Mr. Webb, did you make a

public disclosure - either written or verbal -

at any time during those discussions that your personal

financial interests were involved?

Mr. Webb, why not?

And most to the point, Mr.

Webb, why did you not do the right thing and step aside

and recuse yourself from ANY discussions about the buffer

since you knew - but the public did not - that

you had a personal financial stake in the outcome?

And this, for the benefit

of the public:

Mr. Webb, when you began

discussions about becoming a start-up investor in a new

bank during the past couple of years, why did you not

consider it at least politically improper for the city

attorney to enter into a for-profit business relationship

with two major Peachtree City developers, both of whom

have sued the city in the recent past and one of whom is

suing the city currently?

Mr. Webb, did you ever

consider how the public might look at your business deal?

Doesn't Canon 9 of your ethics code require you to

consider whether your actions might be seen as improper?

And, again, for the benefit

of the public:

Mr. Lindsey, are you not in

fact in a for-profit business and professional

relationship with Mr. Webb, the senior partner in the law

firm in which you are also a partner?

Mr. Lindsey, as city

attorney, will you not make use of the resources of the

law firm of Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey, including possibly

other attorneys and paraprofessionals?

Mr. Lindsey, what is your

official legal opinion as to whether, for legal and

public perception purposes, this city council has

appointed just you and you alone - and not Jim Webb

and his law firm - to be city attorney?

Mr. Lindsey, do you think

that this "distinction" tends to increase or

decrease public confidence in its public servants? Or do

you think that this "distinction" serves merely

to dupe the public?

Voting against the

reappointment was Councilman Dan Tennant. Councilwoman

Annie McMenamin abstained because her daughter works for

Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey.

Meanwhile, Mayor Lenox

presses forward to get the West Village annexed into

Peachtree City for the benefit of some big-bucks

developers, one of whom is Webb's fellow bank start-up

investor and board member.

The other bank board

developer and his business associates have already sued

the city within the past two years - while Webb and

firm were city attorney - and won. That developer's

victory is giving the west side 399 new apartments and

some 200 prefab cluster homes, some of them abutting

railroad tracks.

The big annexation sought

into Peachtree City at least another 3,000 to 4,000

residents instead of a third or a fourth that many if the

land remains in the county.

The losers in that

high-density annexation will be the ordinary residents of

Peachtree City, many of whom live on the already

traffic-choked west side, far away from Lenox's posh east

side estate.

But, hey, despite the

stench arising from Peachtree City Hall, despite the

big-money interests overriding ordinary citizens' quality

of life concerns, let's get over this conflict of

interest stuff and this ethics stuff and this annexation

opposition stuff and let's just move on.

Indeed, let's just move on.

At least three members of the Peachtree City Council have

done just that.

The numbers game = big

bucks.

The mayor is willing to let

the developers build at least 1,450 single family homes

in the proposed West Village, according to his city

website presentation.

Let's see: How much money

would that be?

At a conservative average

sales price of $175,000 per home, that would weigh in at

a staggering $253 million worth of residential

development alone, to say nothing of the 100-bed care

home and the 30 acres of commercial construction.

That's more than the Big

Game lottery pool last week. There's a lot more involved

with this annexation than just aesthetics and traffic

tie-ups.

Please note: My column last

week contained an error. I stated that Webb and firm were

currently defending the city against the Pathway suit

involving the traffic impact ordinance.

Not so, says city

spokesperson Betsy Tyler. Instead, the city is currently

being defended in that suit by an Atlanta lawyer selected

However, I have in my hands

a copy of the city's "Defenses and Answer" to

the Pathway suit, filed with the clerk of superior court.

The date is Dec. 3, 1999, and the lawyers signing it on

behalf of the city are none other than the Atlanta

attorney and - da-dum - Richard P. Lindsey for

the law firm of Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey. Apparently,

the operative word is not "is," but

"currently."

But also note that Pathway

is still the driving force behind the push to get 900

acres annexed into the city for the West Village. Webb

apparently is still in a for-profit banking business

relationship with the CEO of Pathway. And Lindsey and the

Webb firm are still the city attorney and are still

giving the council legal advice about annexation and

development-related issues.

Has anything really

changed?