At the most recent city council

meeting, we once again were asked to make an appointment to the Development

Authority of Peachtree City (DAPC), and Mayor [Steve] Brown was a proponent

of a "compromise" in making the appointment.

The DAPC is an appointed board

composed of seven members, and only one position was up for appointment,

the one to fill the expired term of Doug Warner, a highly respected attorney

and honorable public servant. It turns out the mayor supported a compromise

which would increase the authority's membership to eight, and allow for

the appointment of two new members now. One of the two new members was

to be the mayor's top choice, Mr. Todd Strickland, who has been a supporter

of annexation of the West village in Peachtree City.

On the surface, that might

sound like a reasonable compromise, given the fact we were deadlocked

2-2 on the same appointment a couple of months ago. But as usual, there

is more to the story when you look at the entire picture.

There are three problems with

the "compromise." First, I think it is neither fair nor sensible

to change the structure, i.e., membership, of an organization simply to

accommodate the mayor's (or anyone else's) top choice. That was clearly

the motive here.

Second, increasing the authority's

membership from seven to eight is problematic in that it leaves no remedy

in the event of a 4-4 tie vote. Having an even number of people on any

board or commission is very rare, and for a good reason.

Finally, I have long argued

that the DAPC must capitalize on securing seasoned business relationships

and networking opportunities to enhance our business and industry recruiting

efforts, and to help build our industrial tax base, since funds from council

for this purpose are very scarce.

As nice a guy as Todd Strickland

may be, Annie McMenamin and I believed other candidates, including two

from Cooper Lighting (Mike Morgan and Jim Maniatis) were more suited and

qualified to serve. Todd Strickland would be a tremendous candidate, however,

on the planning commission, as I have previously stated.

One other interesting note

is that Steve Brown has stated that he recommended Todd Strickland's firm,

Historical Concepts, to Mr. Marvin Eisenburg to do the site work drawings

for a very large residential/commercial rezoning project on the south

end of Peachtree City, commonly referred to as the Stevens Tract. The

deal between Eisenburg and Strickland's firm was to be signed on July

21, according to Eisenburg.

I have no reason to believe

a back room deal was made here to secure the mayor's vote in the upcoming

rezoning issue, but it gives you an idea of the power of "suggestion"

from the mayor. The term "too close for comfort" certainly comes

to mind.

In any case, during the meeting,

Mr. Brown called this lack of agreement "purely political."

It seems if you don't agree with the mayor in our city, you are necessarily

doing so for "purely political" reasons. Heaven forbid if there

was genuine policy disagreement or differing opinions on council. Apparently,

you are an obstructionist if you don't see it Brown's way.

To finish up the story, two

members of council's top choice was Todd Strickland while two members

selected Mike Morgan as their top choice. Councilman Rapson could not

vote due to his wife's lawsuit against the DAPC.

Interestingly, the only other

people directly involved in the interview and selection process were the

city manager and the vice chairman of the DAPC, both of whom have an informal

vote in the selection committee meetings, and at least some influence

in choosing the best candidate. This is a time-honored tradition in the

appointment process of any member to a board or commission in Peachtree

City.

Guess what? Both the city manager

and the DAPC vice chairman chose Mr. Mike Morgan, of Cooper Lighting,

as their top candidate. So, we have four out of six people directly involved

in the process choosing the same candidate as their top choice, but not

Mr. Brown's top choice.

Given that the city council

makes the ultimate decision on appointments, it seems like kind of a no-brainer

to incorporate the opinions of the city manager and vice chairman of the

DAPC (two of the four selection committee members, the other two being

Councilman [Murray] Weed and Mr. Brown) into your vote to resolve a deadlocked

situation fairly, wouldn't you say? Perhaps Mr. Brown would see the merit

in doing just that.

But alas, that would mean Mr.

Brown's choice would be overlooked. All of which explains why Mr. Brown

suggest we "compromise" in the first place, namely, to get his

top selection appointed.

Funny how these things work,

isn't it? Sometimes things are not quite what they appear. Sometimes that

much used word in politics, compromise, is nothing of the sort.

In the end, the city council

appointed Mr. Bill Bexley, an excellent alternative candidate that apparently

everybody could live with. Well, everybody except Mayor Steve Brown. He

voted no.

Go back and read that definition.

I guess almost all of us compromised.

Dan Tennant

Mayor Pro Tem

[email protected]