Not to be outdone, of course,

Lenox himself wrote a letter to the editor in last week's paper which

basically denied my assertions. Well, Lenox can deny an abuse of power

and the inappropriate spending of public funds until the cows come home,

and he can point the finger at everybody except himself, but it doesn't

change the facts or the truth. Denial ain't a river in Egypt, King Bob.

The good news is that I sponsored

legislation to keep this kind of stuff from ever happening again. Even

Lenox voted for it, because he knew he had to or face the wrath of an

already wary citizenry. Council members Carol Fritz and Steve Rapson used

good judgment, as usual, and supported the measure, and I am sure Mrs.

Annie McMenamin would have done so if she were present, but she was out

of town for that meeting.

The bad news is that Bob Lenox

just cannot, for once, admit he was wrong and accept responsibility for

some very shady behavior and poor decision making. As I read King Bob's

letter, I was reminded of two of Bill Clinton's famous quotes: "I

did not inhale" (translation: I did it but won't admit it) and, "Now

listen to me...I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski"

(translation: denial with a good dose of the best defense is a good offense).

Lenox's enormous ego just won't permit a humble apology.

One of the many ironies in

this story is that I am writing this letter publicly. Of course, if King

Bob had voted to support my suggestion to televise council meetings, you

could have seen the antics for yourself, and I could save the wear and

tear on my keyboard and fingers.

But Lenox felt it was more

important to spend that $25,000 expense instead on a grand and generous

severance package for Ms. Faulkner (someone I admire and respect I do

NOT blame Faulkner for this fiasco). Or maybe King Bob thought it made

more sense to spend $25,000 on efforts to force annexation of the West

Side down the throats of the vast majority of our citizens who didn't

want it. Of course, who are we to question the King's judgment?

So why did Lenox feel compelled

to be the hypocrite he is and write a letter of his own to the paper?

Well, let me give you a few reasons.

Bob Lenox does not like me.

Now, rest assured, I could not care less how Bob Lenox feels about me,

but understand why it is I somehow grate on the guy's nerves.

The king did not like it when

I ran against his developer buddy as a write-in candidate for council

in 1995 and nearly won. He did not like it when I criticized his famous,

"If you don't vote, you don't count," comment. He did not like

it when after he asserted "This is my meeting!", referring to

a city council meeting, I reminded him it was NOT his meeting; it was

the people's meeting.

He did not like it when I stood

up in defense of Steve Brown and his right to be heard before his elected

representatives after Lenox denied him the right to do so. (We managed

to change that law, too, so feel free to speak up at a council meeting

if you have been publicly lambasted the way Steve was.) He did not like

it when I fought the annexation of the West Side Village and its dense

population consequences and won.

He did not like it when I voted

against Wal-Mart on an already overburdened Ga. Highway 54 West. He did

not like it when I successfully urged council not to reappoint his buddy

to a fifth six-year term on the Development Authority, but rather give

others a chance to serve.

And he most certainly did not

like it when I starkly and accurately pointed out he exceeded his authority

and bypassed express council consent in the recent city clerk golden parachute

debacle.

The King runs his own multimillion

dollar company and is used to having absolute control and doing things

his way. I don't begrudge the guy for that; this is America, the land

of opportunity. But it is also America, the land of the free where government

derives its authority from the consent of the governed. In this most recent

display or ultra-arrogance with the Faulkner package, consent is not implied

As to the mayor's letter last

week, three quick responses:

1. What was the urgency to

go ahead and sign an agreement to provide Ms. Faulkner over $30,000 in

cash and benefits rather than wait for express council approval, and why

would Lenox inappropriately poll council members by memo to respond to

an act that should have been public in the first place? If this sounds

like an open meetings violation to you, too, don't feel like the Lone

Ranger.

2. For Lenox to imply that

anything I ever said to Ms. Faulkner somehow handicapped the city's negotiating

power in reaching the severance agreement is "patently absurd,"

to use the King's language. More than that, it was inaccurate, unfair,

groundless, and probably libelous.

Although I made reference to

former Fayetteville City Manager Mike Bryant's sexual harassment difficulties

to Ms. Faulkner in good-natured jest, Ms. Faulkner has repeatedly denied

there was ever any kind of sexual harassment on my part. (I will humbly

tell you that it was stupid and probably inappropriate for me to have

made any remark to Nancy about Mr. Bryant's troubles.)

Lenox would have just loved

to pin such a charge on me, but there was simply no accuracy in making

such a charge. And think about it for a moment: If I were in the slightest

bit "guilty" of any kind of sexual harassment with Faulkner,

do you think I would have led the effort to deny her an overly generous

taxpayer-funded severance package? I may have been born at night, but

it wasn't last night.

3. As to the mayor's diatribe

about my dealings with other council members, it is certainly true that

while I have not always seen eye to eye with some members in the past,

I do think all members of council except King Bob vote with their conscience

and with the best interests of their constituency in mind.

Council members Fritz, McMenamin

and Rapson spend a lot of time and effort to try to do the right thing

and serve the citizens of Peachtree City well, as did Dr. Bob Brooks for

many years. They each have a very difficult yet thankless job, so go thank

each of them the next time you see them.

Lame duck Lenox, in my opinion,

votes in the best interest of Bob Lenox and his developer buddies, and

routinely exploits every opportunity to manipulate things in his own favor.

Give the devil his due, though, the guy is brilliant and very articulate.

But as for me, I'd trade a high IQ for a high moral standard any day of

the week.

I thank the good Lord every

night that my pastor, Chuck Hodges, and not King Bob swore me into office

in January 2000. I am equally thankful we will not have to worry about

Mayor Lenox taking any oath in January 2002.

Dan Tennant

Peachtree City Council member

[email protected]