The headline in Friday's

Citizen said, "No crimes at DAPC."

Technically, that's accurate.

But let's try to exercise our under-used thinking cells a little.

Read farther into the report from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation

and the Peachtree City chief of police. A different picture about the

Development Authority of Peachtree City emerges.

From the GBI report: "During

this review, we found that the information provided was insufficient to

allow a conclusive determination as to whether a crime has been committed.

... A more specific review of available records and other documentation

may allow a more conclusive determination to be made of whether any criminal

acts have taken place. In particular, we would suggest further examination

of the following potentially problematic areas:

"1. The accounts receivable

records are not being maintained and recorded on the Authority's

general ledger.

"2. A large number of

accounts and retainage payables were not accrued by the Authority as of

the end of the fiscal year.

"3. Advanced payments

should be recognized as deferred revenue until the period in which the

revenue has been earned.

"4. Recording of transactions

to the city and from the city should be shown in separate accounts and

not net transactions."

And from Chief James Murray:

"During this review, Chief Murray did not find any conclusive evidence

that would suggest a crime had been committed from the materials he had

examined. ... In many cases, the failure to have a detailed operation

plan specifically designed to hold accountable both employees and members

of the Authority for the proper accountability when spending or obligating

taxpayer dollars, has led to a cloud of supposition."

In other, less legalized, words,

"We couldn't find a smoking gun, but we smelled some smoke and

we recommend a closer look at the details in a future detailed audit."

Lesson #1 in investigations:

Saying you couldn't find enough evidence to convict is NOT the same

thing as saying that someone is innocent.

The above is to point out the

obvious: Whether anybody at the DAPC is technically guilty of violating

any laws is uncertain and unprovable at this point.

But innocent until proven guilty

is a legal standard, applicable in the courts. Political innocence or

political guilt is quite another thing altogether.

What is certain from the two

investigations is the following, beyond a reasonable doubt: The DAPC was

guilty of bad management practices and negligent to the point of unconsciousness

in its accounting for public money. For proof, see the four bulleted GBI

points above.

Chief Murray further finds

the DAPC failed to have any accountability plan for its employees or itself

when spending or obligating taxpayer dollars.

Is there any thinking human

still left in Peachtree City who can, with a straight face, declare that

the amphitheater and tennis center were "well managed"? To such

true believers, even a mountain of objective facts are unlikely to provide

additional light to willfully blind eyes. They exist in the realm of pure

political faith, untouchable by sloppy reality.

So, let's move on.

To the subject of wayfaring

council members Dan Tennant and Annie McMenamin, who talked over the voting

situation facing them and decided to absent themselves from a Peachtree

City Council meeting, denying the council a working quorum. For the two

truants, the minority rules.

How sad that two good Republicans,

in their final elective hours, wrap themselves in the same losers'

flag as those Texas Democrats who fled the state to avoid having the legislature's

majority Republicans vote in redistricting.

Tennant and McMenamin must

have been taking lessons from the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, like Tom

Daschle and Ted Kennedy, to deny the majority a proper vote in a proper

legislative session.

How ironic, that these two

should conspire, outside of normal council channels, to obstruct normal

council business. Does anyone but me remember that it was Mrs. McMenamin

who filed an ethics complaint against Tennant about three years back for

(Shock!) his e-mailing other council members about the agenda prior to

a meeting?

Now the two former enemies

work out a grand plan to halt all legislative wheels from turning, even

before any meeting begins. And the two of them dictate what will and will

not be on the council's agenda for the rest of the year. Representative

government was never intended to be like this.

My, how the gored ox doth change

its stripes, or some such political metaphor. Well, I suppose it's

good to see that old adversaries can find some common ground, even if

that ground is moral quicksand.

I don't like how you are

going to vote, so I'll just take my marbles and go home. So there!

Yah, yah.

Such adult behavior.

The good thing is they have

only four more weeks left in which to obstruct the normal legislative

process.

Note to incoming members Kourajian

and Rutherford: The city charter says the council may compel attendance

charter provision into effect. Please make that one of your first legislative

acts, so that in the future no tantrum-prone duo can paralyze the city's

legislative processes.