As reported in The Citizen

Review of Nov. 9, Mr. Rower did not respond to a question on his position

as whether or not he would support any of the failed bond issues. Mr.

Rower continues to reinforce my belief that he would be another elected

official who immediately upon election becomes much smarter than "us

average citizens." This was evident in his letter published in The

Citizen Newspaper of Oct. 17, where he makes an elementary attempt to

clear up impact fees for "us confused citizens." This was followed

problem but with no real solution for solving them.

I would urge every citizen

to visit the web site of Steve Brown for a real discussion of the issues

and solutions for the future of Peachtree City, www.stevebrownptc.com .

I know that Steve has a real interest in the betterment of Peachtree City

as has been evidenced by his active participation in many citizen groups

as well as working on many task forces appointed by the city. He attends

most Planning Commission and Council meetings with well-articulated and

thoughtful positions. I have recently heard many vicious rumors and attacks

on Steve which I believe shows the depth of concern and fears from the

development community over his candidacy.

I urge everyone to review the

candidates' positions and vote to change the status quo by electing Steve

Brown as the citizen's mayor of Peachtree City.

In the race for City Council

Post 4, I urge all citizens to review the platforms of Ms. Fritz and Mr.

Weed. Again you will see that Ms. Fritz is for annexation, which means

higher density. Ms. Fritz also must run on her complete record, not just

the areas she chooses. This record includes higher taxes, "Big Boxes,"

traffic congestion and lack of cooperation with other Fayette County governments.

Ms. Fritz in her letter to

The Citizen of Oct. 17 talked about a conspiracy at City Hall. She saw

only one side of the issue. I would like to discuss the "possibility"

of a different conspiracy. In October of this year, at Ms. Fritz's instigation,

the city charter was revised to "update and revise the charter to

make it current with existing state and federal law." While I think

this is a productive and admirable effort, I was frankly confused by the

results.

I will briefly mention several

changes and let the readers make their own judgement. I would also urge

every citizen to review for themselves the referenced section.

"Article II. Governing

body; departments; appointive officers Sec. 2.1b. The chief administrative

and operational officer of the city shall be the city manager." So

far, so good?

"Sec 2.12. Council interference

with Administration. The city council and its members shall deal with

city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision

of the city manager SOLELY through the city manager except for purposes

of gathering of needed information which is of routine matters or is the

type of information which such officers and employees can easily and quickly

assemble. Except as provided above, the city council and its members shall

not give orders directly to such officers and employees either publicly

or privately, but shall coordinate all orders and instructions through

the city manager."

Step 1: Enhance the power of

city manager; dilute power of mayor and council.

"Sec. 2.13. Appointment

of officers by council; removal. The city council shall at its organizational

meeting and thereafter at the discretion of city council appoint a clerk,

a city attorney, a city auditor, a city judge, a city manager and any

other city positions as required by ordinance. Such appointed individuals,

after their initial appointment, need not be reappointed on an annual

basis but shall serve subject to the pleasure of the mayor and council

and may be removed from office by the council and may be removed from

office by the council at any time; provided, further that the mayor may

suspend any such individual pending a meeting of the council to make a

formal decision on the appropriate action to take."

Step 2: Avoid the annual appointment

of said individuals in a public meeting. This avoids embarrassing episodes

for the city manager who, when explaining his recommendation of the current

city attorney appointment, could only rationalize his recommendation by

stating, "We work well together." This in spite of the fact

that his bid was twice that of another well-qualified candidate. Well,

it's only taxpayer money.

Finally, "Sec. 2.18. City

Manager. The mayor and council shall appoint and contract with a city

manager who shall serve subject to the pleasure of the mayor and council

for a term as set forth in the contract and according to state law."

I believe the current contract is for one year, automatically renewed

for an additional year. This gives the current manager job protection

in case of council and mayoral changes.

Were these changes in the best

interest of the city? You decide.

In summary, I believe Mr. Weed's

experience, education, community involvement and ability to work with

governments at all levels, without question, makes him the superior candidate

for Council seat Post 4.

Please vote on Nov. 27 for

Mr. Brown and Mr. Weed and let's take back Peachtree City for the citizens.

I would urge all voters to cast a ballot in this runoff to show support

for our troops, who are now in harm's way to insure your right to vote.

Don't let them think that only one-third of you care.

Willis J. Granger

Peachtree City

Back

to Opinion Home Page | Back

to the top of the page