And who is rewriting these

ethics ordinances? Appointees of the current mayor and City Council! The

problem is some of these people tend to lead one to believe that they

are biased in favor of the current City Council. Two of the current Ethics

Committee members wrote strong letters to the editor of this newspaper

in favor of Mayor Brown immediately prior to Mayor Brown's ethics hearing.

Obviously it was unreasonable to expect them to render an unbiased opinion

when they had both expressed a strong written opinion in support of Brown.

When I pointed this out to

the City Council, one member stated that they were only "expressing

their first amendment rights of free speech." I agree, but who would

ever allow a jury member to sit in judgment when he has expressed strong

public support for the accused? It would seem only "ethical"

to me that if someone agrees to sit on an ethics committee, they should

remain (at least publicly) neutral towards the accused.

In addition, another member

of the Ethics Committee voted to exonerate Steve Rapson during his ethics

hearing simply because both Mayor Brown and Councilman Tennant testified

that neither of them felt he had violated the rules. She stated that since

we had elected Brown and Tennant, they "must be right," and

he couldn't have violated the ethics ordinances! I happen to personally

know this individual. She has an incredibly strong hatred for former President

Clinton. However using her logic, "since we elected them," then

I guess she must feel that Clinton didn't lie! And these are some of the

individuals rewriting our ethics ordinances!

The real problem lies with

the entire process. For example, Steve Rapson expressed in the press and

told me personally, that he still doesn't believe he violated the ethics

ordinances. Even though a committee appointed by him and Brown's "team"

found him in violation. Even though he spent $27,000 of our hard-earned

tax dollars having a high-priced lawyer spend close to four hours defending

a 15-minute presentation by former Mayor Bob Lenox, and still being found

in violation by a committee he and his "buddies" appointed!

And now, since they couldn't

publicly not find Rapson guilty, these same appointed individuals decide

that they will close the process, fine individuals who bring complaints

that they don't like, etc. Essentially a bunch of partisan individuals,

appointed by a mayor and City Council that can't obey the laws, will rewrite

the laws to ensure that their "buddies" will no longer be in

violation! Sounds like "ethics" to me!

Here is my question. If the

Ethics Committee, appointed by a City Council who seems to have serious

ethics violations filed against them, will decide to fine and charge legal

fees to citizens who file violations, will a mayor or City Councilman

found guilty be liable for those same legal fees? Hmmm, let's ask Steve

Rapson. No, I guess councilmen live under rules separate from the simple

citizen. Rules to the tune of $27,000!

My suggestion is simple. I

suggest that Brown and the "team" simply live up to the current

ethics ordinances and represent the people like they were elected to represent.

If they are unable to do so, simply step down and let us elect honest

and ethical individuals to run the city. Oh, I also think Steve Rapson

should reimburse the taxpayers for his ridiculously expensive defense

for his ethics violation, a defense that was an abysmal failure. At the

very least he should admit the violation he was found guilty of and act

like a man, instead of rewriting the rules.

Jim Stinson

Peachtree City