For Brutus is an honourable

man;

So are they all, all honourable

men

... I will not do them wrong;

I rather choose

To wrong the dead, to wrong

myself and you,

Than I will wrong such honourable

men.

Mark Antony's speech from

Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2

The Development Authority of

Peachtree City wants a do-over. Voting with a bare quorum of four members,

the DAPC last week took back their management contract resignation.

"However, after much consideration,

we believe that the management of these two now significant facilities

is beyond the scope of a part-time, volunteer authority and that the expertise

of the city's full-time employees is required to continue the ongoing

operation and success of these venues," wrote Chairman Tate Godfrey

in the resignation letter of Sept. 25, a week before the do-over.

Many of us could not agree

more. So why did the DAPC take the tennis center and amphitheater back

after only a week?

"Cooler heads," is

what Peachtree City Councilman Dan Tennant says he is after, playing a

power broker's role in the city-DAPC dispute. There's some exquisite irony

in that role reversal, but whatever that says of politicians running for

reelection, a few questions must be asked.

Here's the problem. DAPC Chairman

J. Tate Godfrey is senior vice president, business development, for Group

VI, a Peachtree City-based construction and real estate development company.

Group VI built the most recent

expansion to the tennis center, for which it received only partial payment.

DAPC still owes a large unpaid bill to Group VI, well over $200,000 in

unpaid construction debt.

Godfrey voted at least twice

in the past two weeks on issues that directly affect the debt repayment

ability of the DAPC. Those votes directly affect the collection of an

unpaid $200,000-plus debt owed by DAPC to Godfrey's employer, Group VI.

So far as I can determine,

in neither of those two votes did Godfrey make a public disclosure of

his potential conflict of interest. In neither of those two important

votes did he abstain from voting.

His actions, or lack thereof,

raise issues of law and ethics.

You can find the "Development

Authorities Law" online as part of the Georgia code of laws. Refer

to code section 36-62-5. In part (e)(1)(B) it requires the following of

any DAPC member who is employed by any company doing business with the

DAPC:

"... [T]he authority may

purchase from, sell to, borrow from, loan to, contract with, or otherwise

deal with any director or any organization or person with which any director

of the authority is in any way interested or involved, provided (1) that

any interest or involvement by such director is disclosed in advance to

the directors of the authority and is recorded in the minutes of the authority,

(2) that no director having a substantial interest or involvement may

be present at that portion of an authority meeting during which discussion

of any matter is conducted involving any such organization or person,

and (3) that no director having a substantial interest or involvement

may participate in any decision of the authority relating to any matter

involving such organization or person."

Did Godfrey's two votes, one

to resign the contract and the one to renege on the resignation, violate

the code section quoted above? You be the judge.

Then there's the matter of

ethics, specifically the Peachtree City Code of Ethics adopted as the

law in the city most recently this past April.

The city code sections specifically

apply to the DAPC and say this: "Sec. 62-83.Abstention. An official

or employee who has an interest that he has reason to believe may be affected

the city shall disclose that interest. Such official or employee shall

abstain from participating in any such discussion, voting

or otherwise participating in any official acts or actions affected by

such interest. That interest shall be disclosed by such official or employee

prior to there being taken any official act or actions. (Ord. No. 802,

4-17-03)."

Did the DAPC chairman and Group

VI officer disclose his potential conflict of interest? Did he abstain

from voting? Were his votes, absent disclosure, valid and binding?

Another problem area is Section

62-81, incompatible employment: "No official or employee shall engage

in or accept employment with or render services for any private business

or professional activity when such is adverse to and incompatible with

the proper discharge of his official duties or would tend to impair his

independence of judgment or action in the performance of his official

duties. (Ord. No. 802, 4-17-03)."

Do you think that a $200,000

debt owed by DAPC to Godfrey's employer might "impair" Godfrey's

objectivity on DAPC's financial affairs?

And this one: "Sec. 62-89.Disclosure

of relationships.

"(a)Each party subject

to this article shall disclose to the city council, either orally or in

writing, the following information:

"(1)Any current business

interests between or among any parties subject to this article, with a

description of such involvement;

"(2)Any business interests

between or among any parties subject to this article which have been terminated

within the past six months; and

"(3)Any business interests

between or among any parties subject to this article anticipated in the

next six-month period.

"(b)Additionally, each

party subject to this article shall inform the city council, either orally

or in writing, of any business relationship entered into with another

party subject to this article, within ten days of such contractual or

implied relationship.

"(c)Failure on the part

of any party subject to this article to comply with the provisions of

this section shall be deemed to be a violation of this article. (Ord.

No. 802, 4-17-03)."

Was this done? If not, why

not?

If the chairman should have

recused himself from voting on the management contract, what effect does

that have on the bare-quorum 4-0 vote to rescind the management contract

resignation? If only three could vote on the matter under the city code,

is the resignation still in effect and unrescinded?

These are questions of law

and ethics, involving a public official. Whatever you think should happen

to the tennis center and amphitheater, no one, including public official

Dan Tennant, should imagine that these questions can any longer be ducked.