PTC’s mayor hit with ethics complaint

Former Mayor Harold Logsdon (L) and current Mayor Don Haddix. File photos.

A Peachtree City resident has filed an ethics complaint against Mayor Don Haddix for using city funds to settle a libel lawsuit filed over a statement made about former Mayor Harold Logsdon in an email Haddix sent to a city employee.

Steve Thaxton, who has publicly asked Haddix at a council meeting to repay the $9,969 in legal fees, filed the complaint Monday alleging that Haddix committed several ethics violations regarding the matter.

Haddix said Monday night that he has not violated the ethics ordinance and he will be represented at the ethics hearing by an attorney paid for by the city.

Thaxton alleges that by agreeing to settle the lawsuit with Logsdon for $3,000 and by contracting with a private attorney to represent him, Haddix did not seek the consent of his fellow council members, which is normally required for any legal action filed against the city.

“Mr. Haddix benefitted by his negotiated transaction with Mr. Logsdon for a $3,000 settlement payment while at the same time not allowing the governing body of Peachtree City to make the determination of expenditures of funds for this case,” Thaxton wrote in the ethics complaint. “Clearly by appealing to have his legal bills paid by GIRMA and knowing the city had a $25,000 deductible, Mr. Haddix had in effect taken advantage of a way to settle his personal legal issues without regard to the citizens of Peachtree City.”

Haddix contends that he wouldn’t have had to hire a private attorney in the first place if Georgia Interlocal Risk Management Agency had agreed to his initial request to cover the liability. GIRMA denied coverage soon after the lawsuit was first filed in Fayette County Superior Court.

GIRMA’s decision to pay the claim — which resulted in a loss to the city of nearly $10,000 — came after the lawsuit was settled in December.

Thaxton also claims that Haddix’s request for city attorney Ted Meeker to prepare an appeal package to seek the GIRMA funding was an ethical violation for Haddix because city ordinance prevents the use of the city attorney for “personal or private business.”

“Mr. Haddix was not billed by Mr. Meeker for this work and in fact the citizens of Peachtree City were ultimately billed for $110 on Feb. 21, 2012 as a result of Mr. Meeker’s time spent on this action,” Thaxton said in the ethics complaint.

Thaxton also accuses Haddix of failing to notify his fellow council members of his hiring attorney John Mrosek to represent him, specifically because Mrosek at the time was suing the city in a separate claim in federal court over maintenance of a stormwater detention pond adjacent to Mrosek’s home.

The ethics complaint also accuses Haddix of violating several portions of the city’s personnel policy, including one forbidding “discourteous treatment of the public or other employees.”

Haddix said the city will have to fund an attorney to represent him and another attorney to advise the ethics board because City Attorney Ted Meeker will not be able to participate in either function since he is listed as a potential witness in the hearing, Haddix said.

Some council members were outraged when the GIRMA payment came to light in May because it was thought since Haddix was sued personally and not in his official capacity as mayor, the city would not have to pay for his legal fees.

GIRMA, however, ultimately decided that since the potentially libelous statement occurred in an email Haddix sent to a city employee, it was an action that happened during the course of his official duties and therefore the claim should be paid.

A GIRMA official also indicated in a letter that had the agency known the statement in question was contained in an email to a city employee, Haddix would have been covered from the outset of the case.

Several weeks after the GIRMA payment came to light, council decided to make a “budget adjustment” to reduce Haddix’s salary from $750 a month to just under $75 a month for the remainder of the fiscal year with the intention of recouping the funds that were paid to settle the lawsuit. That action is likely the first time in city history that a majority of council voted to dock the pay of a fellow elected official.

madmike
madmike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2006
Haddix Ethics Complaint Withdrawn

At the special called meeting of Council tonight, Steve Thaxton withdrew his ethics complaint against Haddix. His reasoning was that the cost of the process, especially considering Haddix's $300/hour attorney, would be expensive and he didn't want the taxpayers to have to shoulder this burden.
Haddix couldn't have been happier. I could almost hear the puddle forming under his legs he was so excited. I trust he brought a clean pair of shorts.
For what it is worth, I appreciate Steve's courage in bringing the charges to begin with, and respect his decision to withdraw the complaint at this point. I do believe that Steve is sincere in wanting what is best for the city and the taxpayers.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Darn, Mikey, this must really be a blow to you. This was your

moment to shine as CHAIRMAN!!! Prep for running for council in the next election.. Or was this all a set-up to begin with or just lack of forethought? Didn't Mr. Thaxton think ahead to what it would cost and what if anything it would accomplish, since the verdict had no teeth to begin with? Gave everybody another chance to posture and prance and then like a wisp of smoke it is gone. Just like so many of the posts here--all hot air and no substance.

cogitoergofay
cogitoergofay's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/11/2006
Ethics Story

I find it truly remarkable that Mr. Munford can re-hash this same story 5 or 6 times and still avoid accuracy with such consistency.

johenry
johenry's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2006
Time for them to all go ...

Lee Hearn and Sheila Huddleston want to trash the county. Don Haddix, Kim Learnard and Eric Imker can't stop fighting. They can all join Pothead Horgan.

Don Haddix
Don Haddix's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2007
Haddix: johenry

You forgot Fleisch in your list. She gets right in there as well as does Dienhart.

Exactly what do you want from an elected?

You do not want someone that stands up against a majority that is hurting the City?

I did not do the efforts of removal from the RTR, Censure, false accusations of committing crimes, illegal taking of salary and other such contrived attacks. All of which have proven false over time. All of which have constantly been in the news to try to destroy someone else.

You want elected who just go with the majority vote to later be accused of not standing up?

We have seen the behind closed doors, no arguing, governments, especially in Fayetteville and the County in the past. Seen the behind the scenes maneuvering with supporters. Seen the supporters doing the dirty work so the elected can keep clean hands.

How did that work out? What did it take to shed light on what was really going on?

It took others, especially elected, to get it into the light by talking about it.

When that happened you saw vicious attacks on those bringing it all out, including me.

So, what do you want? I really would like to know.

I am not whining here, just wanting to know what you want?

It is an important question to ask and answer. It makes us all think about what we want and what will it take to get it?

Truly, if no disagreement, just decide and move on, is the kind of government wanted by the voters, that is a playground for what we seen in the past to return.

Now, more than ever, we need people willing to stand up and fight. We are in deep from the old political elite thinking and governing cities all the way up to and including federal.

So, what do you want?

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Make is stop Mr. Mayor..

Please.

Just repay the 10K and get on with serving out the rest of your term, a resignation is far too classy for you. Hopefully you are done insulting people over our City Email system.

Staying off the blogs arguing with fellow citizens would be a nice touch too.

Thanks

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
First Dienhart now Fleisch?

This is beyond sad.

What did Vanessa do? She is never on blogs.

Who's next?

My vote is for Stubs

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/17/us/alaska-cat-mayor/index.html

Don Haddix
Don Haddix's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2007
Haddix: Follow the Context

It was not about blogging. Learnard does not blog either.

As Mr. Huntington Learning Center, you should know about contextual meaning.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Haddix

Don,
What is your obsession with Huntington Learning Center?

Can you explain what your motive is? Is it as a public servant?

You do understand that this business is a GA corporation, which has not posted or expressed any opinions here or in public? This corporation is a separate legal entity that pays Federal, GA & PTC taxes. That this corporation, as a legal entity is granted a range of legal rights and protections in the State of Georgia?

Are you are familiar with GA corporation law and these rights that govern C and S corporations?

Also, you understand that although this is not the official city e-mail, you are an elected official? A public servant in the same municipality that this corporation is located in?

Do you think you showing leadership here? What about other businesses that want to come to PTC, what example are you setting here.

Please clearly explain your motive of mentioning this corporation?

I suggest you show this to Ted Meeker, PTC's legal counsel to get his opinion.

You do understand the 12+ components of comprehension entitled (1) inferencing and (2) sequence of events? right?

Don Haddix
Don Haddix's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2007
Haddix: Sussberg

I just read your email to the city with the threat contained.

Larry, I did not attack your company. I did not criticize your company. I simply stated what is public record on the Secretary of State's website.

madmike
madmike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2006
Haddix: Clayton Tool Grinding

Larry; the Mayor is obviously teasing you about your little company and its unworthy goals of helping students achieve scholastically to better themselves in this world. You see, even though Don's business license was dissolved and revoked by the State in 2008 for "failure to file its annual registration," surely you realize the impact a business that sharpens garden tools makes on the world even for a short time.

Husband and Fat...
Husband and Father of 2's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/23/2012
Mr. Mayor

My Kindergarten daughters' teacher sent home this weeks syllabus. This weeks skill includes teaching the difference between reporting and tattling. The teachers want the kindergarten students to become problem solvers and try to settle problems without adult intervention.

I am not sure how one local business owners business name is relevant to the story. Is someone being hurt? Is someone in trouble and needs help? Is there any property damage? No? Than this may be tattling.

Please report to Oak Grove Kindergarten class for training this week.

As I tell my 5 year old when her older brother teases her. Ignore him.

I would like to note that I agree with some of the points the gentleman is bringing to your attention. You sir, need not respond to these blogs as your blogs bring nothing but tarnish to the title of Mayor.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
My God Larry, you just axed the mayor 8 complex questions

Are you nuts? He can't do even one.

Nevertheless, the answer cat is here to help you.

The answer to all 8 of your questions to the little mayor is, ahem. wait for it

scroll down

I DON'T KNOW

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mudcat - He's

a graduate from Huntington Learning Center, that's why he mentions it so often. There's nothing like higher education.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Mayor "$75 a month without found"

What the citizens of Peachtree City want is:
-A mayor who acts like an adult and not libeling others via city e-mail.
-A mayor whose family members can refrain from making crude statements to city employees.
-A mayor who has the mental acumen to realize that others with opposing points of view may actually be right.
-A mayor who does not have to resort to verbal assaults and public shouting matches.
-A mayor who realizes that learning is enhanced by listening instead of talking.
-A mayor who serves his constituency instead of one who uses his office for personal gain.
There are others, but these are offered as a start.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Haddix - We all want you to

resign.

I don't think you can point to one poster on here that has defended your ego.

So, just to make sure. I am asking all those that support you to write in and let us all know how much they like you and support your efforts. Let them tell us why and where we are dead wrong about you.

We'll wait to hear from them.....not including your wife of course!

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
That's really not a fair question PTCO

Send him instructions on how to create a second identity on here, give him a couple days to get his act together and then ask him again. Then his new and imaginary little friend can support him - just like Brown's do, although he has at least 3 or 4.

Of course da mayor has a writing style that is, ummm, how shall I say this, well, distinctive. So he may not be able to pull off the second identity with panache.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Haddix - I hear

Cickets chriping, we are all still waiting for that flood of posts here supporting you.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
Supporting an ego

I have to go on record as saying that the only big mouth that I am willing to defend, at all, is my own. Both sides are doing things that are wrong, and two dozen wrongs never made a single right. At this juncture, I would propose that the mayor and the council step down. The council members could all run again in the special election.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - I

I like it!

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Is one of the Ethics Board

members a brother in law to Councilwoman Vanessa Fleisch? Don't know him and no slight intended toward him, but could that be an ethical issue in itself? Seems to me it could be.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Why is Imker pictured here also?

Is this deliberate because someone at The Citizen feels that Imker was behind the ethics charge against Mayor Haddix, even though it was filed by a citizen and there is no mention of anything Imker in the story?

EDIT: Obviously it's deliberate...these are two separate photos spliced together. I just wonder why.

madmike
madmike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2006
Nuk...

That's former mayor Logsden.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Hey Mike, you'll have to

'scuse Nuk--he's still got that European fog in his eyes!

Oops--may be wrong about the European bit--change that to "Foreign fog"!

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
LOL...you're right

OOOPS.

I also wonder why he's pictured there also :)

madmike
madmike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2006
Nuk oops...

I hope Logsden doesn't sue you for saying he looks like Imker. That is an insult worthy of a lot of defamation dollars :)

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
madmike: more oops

That's Harold Logsdon, not Logsden :)

Again, I wonder why picture him(or Imker or anyone else) in all of this that is all about Haddix?

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Nuk, I believe Logsdon is pictured there because he is the one

who brought the suit against Haddix in the first place. Does look somewhat like Imker doesn't him--not quite as jowly though.

ptctaxpayer
ptctaxpayer's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/23/2005
Lawyer-fest: that's what the ethics thing

Lawyer-fest: that's what the ethics thing will become. These guys are unbelievable. They'll piss away money in countless ways. Go Thaxton, you are priceless.

GeorgeDienhart
GeorgeDienhart's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
I see a picture with Logsden...

nt

Randy Boyett
Randy Boyett's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/13/2011
Haddix only concerned for himself

It should be evident to everyone that Don Haddix has no concern for the Peachtree City citizens. The fact that he would make such a slanderous comment using City email is a pretty good indicator of his leadership skills or lack thereof in my opinion.

Good job Mr. Thaxton - the citizens may not get back their thousands of dollars that Haddix has thrown down the tube, but at the least this will hopefully help all citizens understand that this is a weak leader that needs to be replaced.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Thank You, Steve Thaxton

I have only met Mr. Thaxton once, while he chaired a meeting with a public official. Although I disagreed with what was happening at that meeting,I witnessed Steve,a concerned citizen, who got involved and pulled together this meeting to introduce this newly appointed public figure when concerns were raised.

It felt right, people getting together to meet and talk with this new leader. Mr. Thaxton was assisting the democratic process that our nation is founded on.

We do not know what the outcome of this ethics committee process will be, but this too is part of our democratic process. It's a vehicle to hold elected officials accountable and it allows any citizen to step forward if he/she feels there has been a betrail of the public trust.

It takes time and commitment to enter this process, it appears that Mr. Thaxton took that time to lay out his concerns to convene this committee.

Thank you Mr. Thaxton.
and thank you, the United States of America

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Mr. Sussberg, I find it odd that you would even venture to post

on a blog that included the word "Ethics", since you showed your lack of ethics when you posted on this site under another person's name. I would have imagined you would have been too embarassed to ever even post here at all after having been evicted by Mr. Beverly. Evidently, shame is another word you are not familiar with.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
MYTMITE

Have at it.

I will not mince words with you because I respect your ethical approach on this blog as well as opinions.

Hopefully you can agree that sometimes, when a mistake is made and an ethical issue comes into any situation that a true test for any person is how they handle it. That includes taking responsibility and standing up so others are aware.
Thank you

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
It is only going to take the mayor 15 minutes to hang

hang himself that is with his direct testimony before the Ethics Board. Not sure who these people are, but if they have at least room temperature IQ they can figure this one out very quickly. The penalty is what will be interesting. And no doubt the mayor will try to appeal the decision.

Sure hope the source of the $3,000 payment to Logsdon is brought out into the open. If that came from the city and it was certainly not for legal fees - there is real fraud right there.

Larry Sussberg
Larry Sussberg's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
RWM,PTC-0,Nuk, Mudcat - Alaskan Mayor

Someone sent this to me
I thought you would find this funny

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/17/us/alaska-cat-mayor/index.html

I think his name is Stubbs or Mr. Stubbs?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
LOL....Mr. Stubbs is #1

He doesn't give a damn about blogging or anything else. He takes a "paws off" approach to the issues. I just hope he doesn't get corrupted and demand only IAMS brand cat food and the best kitty litter that money can buy.

I hear that several dogs are ardently opposed to him being Mayor so there's probably going to be competition in this small Alaskan town soon.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Wow! What

a concept! Much, much better than a rat.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Now that is my kind of mayor

Let's do that next time.

borntorun
borntorun's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/28/2005
RWM: Ethics Committee Members

The following is from an article in another local paper:

The committee is made up of 10 members, two picked by each councilmember and the mayor. However, the two members picked by the mayor - Tom O’Toole and Mark Hallums- would not be qualified to hear the complaint. That left eight members until one of councilmember George Dienhart’s selections - Sean Frick- moved out of town.
Now down to seven members, with Imker appointee Mike LaTella as chairman of the committee, names will be picked at random until five members are impaneled.
However, Haddix doesn’t believe LaTella should be impaneled as “he’s already asserted publicly that he believed Haddix was guilty. Imker also said he believed LaTella should step aside, in the interest of fairness. The other remaining members include Scott Austensen, Todd Strickland, Cathy Nelmes, Louise Nelson, Dan Haas and Eric Slepian.
Another cost to the taxpayers will be paying for attorneys for both the city and Haddix, as Haddix will have to hire an attorney to defend his case and the city will also have to hire an independent attorney since it’s anticipated that city attorney Ted Meeker will be called as a witness during the proceedings.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
By the time the attorneys are paid and other costs are taken

into consideration this will probably cost more than the initial amount. With the city's finances as they are I think this is such a waste of money. Nothing was done when the bank was paid after the tennis center fiasco-- we were under no legal obligation to pay and that was much more than what is involved in this instance. Where were all the people screaming for something to be done for those who signed off for that deal so their banker friends would not lose out? As it is now everyone involved has had the opportunity to pick two people--of course these two people will share the same views. Since we know how the other council members feel re: Haddix we can safely assume their choices share those feelings--and we all know what MadMike thinks as he has been telling us time and time again as has Boyett. So the majority will vote against Haddix, his two will vote for and what has been accomplished? And that is an actual question, what will be accomplished at the end of this hearing or whatever it is being called? Will Haddix still have his job? Does this committee have any power to make any decisions? And can any decisions made by them be enforced or will that lead to another law suit? And, are these committee members being paid for their services or are they just being public spirited citizens?

madmike
madmike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2006
Mayor's appointments are serving...

The Mayor's two picks are able to serve on the panel, should they be called. The article saying that they couldn't was premature. Had they been precluded from serving in an effort to form a a more impartial panel, then that would add weight to the argument that I am too biased to serve. My dislike and distrust of Mayor Haddix has been well documented on these blogs and in printed editorials. I stand by those comments. The Mayor hasn't changed; neither has my opinion of him.
As Mudcat alluded to however, this isn't a criminal trial where the ultimate goal is to find a jury of Eskimos who have been hidden away in an igloo for the past two years oblivious to any of the facts or players involved. Contrary, by nature of having the Mayor and each council member appoint two people to the board, it is intentionally made up of people who have a proclivity towards a set of ideas or ideals. By intent, these appointees are and should be people who are aware of the current events in town and have decided opinions in those matters. If total impartiality was the goal, the authors of the article establishing the ethics board could have easily written that into the law and had the panel exist of random citizens pulled from the voter's roll. That wasn't the intent.
Understanding that, to say that I have already made a determination on how this will be decided and am unable to look at the facts, hear the testimony, and make a fair decision based on that information would mean that I would shirk my duty as a citizen and disregard the fundamental principles of being under oath. Some of you may believe that to be true; so be it. I would simply say you don't know me very well.
So to clear up any procedural questions... we now have 10 appointed members of the Ethic's board. As chairman, I automatically serve and help lead the proceedings with the assistance of an outside attorney (Meeker would normally do this but he has been named as a witness). Out of the nine remaining board members, six names will be drawn out of a hat; four to serve on the panel of five, two as alternates. There is a strict time frame required by the ordinance and this will begin and end relatively quickly. I know the article that establishes the Ethics Board and the rules of procedure therein pretty well at this point and would be glad to try to answer any questions you may have. My email is mlatella@bellsouth.net.

Mike LaTella

borntorun
borntorun's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/28/2005
Mad Mike

Mike, it may not be a criminal trial as you say but the charges made by Mr. Thaxton are serious. And you may be correct in saying that the Ethics Committee should be made up of citizens who hve a proclivity towards a set of ideas, are aware of current events in town and have decided opinions. Fair enough. However, when the Chair of the Ethics Committee has already blogged to the world that is his opinion that Donnie is guilty, then how in the world can you say with a straight face that you will be impartial during a hearing?? Sorry I have no reason to doubt you are an honorable man but I don't buy that for a New York second. And as I said before, I too believe Donnie is guilty as charged and needs to be removed from office asap. But if this committee is nothing more than citizens handpicked by the mayor and council, then the credibility of the committee is a joke. Naturally each council member is going to appoint cronies or people who subscribe to their way of thinking. And pull names out of a hat as to who gets to be The Deciders? Really?? LMAO! Let me ask you this. Suppose the committee finds Donnie guilty. What are the consequences? Are fines assessed? Will Donnie be forced to resign? Will criminal charges be filed if it is found that fraud was committed? Are there appeal rights? If so, who hears the appeal? Or is all of this just an opportunity for the local esquires to pick up a little extra change?

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Since MadMike has spent months and months on this site spewing

his venom against Haddix, I agree that he should not be on this panel. Funny that Imker should appoint LaTella and then decide that LaTella should step aside in interest of fairness. Why appoint him in the first place? During all those months of MadMike's blogs praising Imker I wondered what the connection was--Imker's appointing of LaTella indicates there was/is some connection. Could it be MadMike is getting ready to run for the council? Boy, won't people hae a field day with that one! Remember, what goes around comes around, Mikey.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
I agree MadMike a little biased. Put him on the bench.

If only simply to deny Haddix an excuse for any appeal.

Now George, we are down two people in the jury pool so the only logical thing would be for you to appoint a replacement for Mr. Frick. Mike King comes to mind. Steve Brown seems to have extra time and he knows a lot about ethics hearings. Scott Bradshaw would be a good choice. Maybe Gene Drake, he too will have some extra time. David Barlow can gain some practical experience serving on this committee before he's sworn in as commissioner. Jack Smith is a fine young man who would look good on an ethics committee.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Mudcat, Mikey being a little biased is like being a little

pregnant. As for Mike King. I think you could not find a better man in Fayette County but when it comes to Haddix, he too is fixated. Maybe the only fair thing to do would be to put all the voters' name in a hat and let each council member pick out their choices. Maybe primitive but at least no one could yell 'bias'.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Haddix is going to yell "biased" and "politically motivated"

no matter how hard the city council tries to be fair. Agree, they should try to find 5 people who have not prejudged this horrific crime of grand larceny (whoops, I just disqualified myself), but it won't be easy. Sometimes when a crime gets too much press they move the venue. We could do the same here - getting say the Cobb County Ethics Committee to loan us 5 people.

Of course the minute Haddix starts speaking, they will prejudge, but I guess that is ok and part of the process.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
LOL, Mudcat, you would have been disqualified long before that.

I know you like to go for the "WOW" factor but isn't your use of 'crime' and 'grand larceny' stretching it a bit?

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
No, stealing money is a crime. More than $1k is grand larceny

$10k is mighty grand larceny. The dude has misdirected our money. For his own personal use. What more do you need? The SOB is guilty of a crime. He is also a dope and a bad mayor. There ain't no WOW factor here old lady, we going for his jugular. Read this carefully - "He stole city money to defend his own personal lawsuit that he started by falsely accusing the former mayor Logsdon of drinking on duty." Then he got zapped by city council and they took his pay. Fair? Huh? I think yes.

Puttin' this dude away in the slammer. I'm thinkin' 3 years. Donnie doing 3 in the slammer? Brown still gonna endorse? Bad dog, Donnie. You got to be put away for a while.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
borntorun: Clarification and The Citizen

Is "Mark Hallums" really Mark Holumns or are they in fact two different people? Holumns would be a good choice, no matter who picked him. Why this is being reported in another newspaper and not The Citizen is strange.

Between this lack of reporting on Haddix's ethics charge and the pic of Imker next to Haddix in The Citizen story about the ethics complaint, I'm starting to wonder about unbiased reporting here. That and how also it seems certain people are tipped-off to certain letters to the Editor or even ads purchased before publication. I've noticed that in the past and also now where one person is responding to a letter or an ad that wasn't published before and that's kind of sketchy.

This might be my last post to The Citizen as the ban-hammer might get brought down on my head, but there is some stink here:)

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
So what if Madmike thinks he's guilty? He is guilty.

City council had a trial, a vote and a penalty and they docked his pay. Guilty and serving his time - or paying his fine. Done deal. Haddix's only defense is double jeopardy. I know Mark and Todd and Eric and of course Randy and none of them are by any means stupid. This will be a good thing for the public to attend. I hope it is during the day so I don't miss any of the election coverage on Fox News

GeorgeDienhart
GeorgeDienhart's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
My other appointee is

Randy Boyette. Per the ordnance The mayor's 2 appointees CAN serve, and will go in the hat.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Mr. Dienhart, I think you need to go back over the past

year-year and a half's blogs before you make your appointments. In the interest of fair play I think anyone who has, time after time, posted negatively against someone should not be considered an unbiased member of any committee or panel regarding that person. Mr. Boyette, your appointee and Mr. LaTella, Mr. Imker's appointee definitely would fall into this category. My interest in this is in seeing that everyone is treated equally and fairly. If you have been a consistent blogger or just a reader of other's blogs you would be aware that there are several people on this site who have consistently used this site to bash Haddix. That is fine, they have the right to their opinions as do you and I. What is not fine or fair is that these biased persons be put on a committee to decide something they have made a decision on years before being called to serve on that committee.

istilldontknow
istilldontknow's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/06/2011
George Dienhart - , Ordnance versus Ordinance

I know you are former military, but if your wordsmithing isn't intentional, it should be :)

GeorgeDienhart
GeorgeDienhart's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
Autocorrect got me again

Need to stop trusting the proof reading to Microsoft...

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
GeorgeDienhart - proof reading

Google Chrome has a spell checker that is somewhat more effective than Microsoft's. Go figure!

borntorun
borntorun's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/28/2005
Dienhart: Randy Boyette

I'm no fan of Donnie Darko by any stretch of the imagination. The sooner this cancer is removed from city leadership the better. However, it does seem that members of the Ethics Committee should not have a preconceived bias one way or the other. And just as Donnie's nominations should not be considered nor should your nomination of Randy Boyette as well as Mike LaTella's consideration be allowed as both have made it clear they already believe he is guilty. As do I by the way. But this is a serious charge filed by Mr. Thaxton and it would seem whoever is selected to render a decision of guilt or innocence would not be someone who has made known their belief on this blog prior to the hearing.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
BTR: completely agree

I know that it's not possible to separate out everyone who posts here pro or anti Haddix, but when you have real names attached to real people and they have already judged Haddix guilty or totally innocent, that's simply not right and those people shouldn't be on any "jury" making a determination here. IN this case, it's Boyette and LaTella and while I may agree with them, they really shouldn't be on that panel, IMO.

If the ethics charge and all the evidence has merit, it would be sorely cheapened by a group that is already prejudiced one way or the other and it would appear to be all political instead of a deliberation and analysis of the facts.

mudcat
mudcat's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
What you guys are saying makes perfect sense, but

we are not talking about a normal person here. Haddix will wildly claim this is 100% political, that his enemies on council controlled the process, that his pay docking penalty was unconstitutional, etc. And those are his only arguments because he is guilty as can be on the cold hard facts. He has to distort and distract to defend himself. It is all he has.

Sure it is best to remove any appearance of prejudgement ahead of time, but don't expect Haddix to honor that or believe it or even acknowledge that. I can already see him being interviewed by the Doug guy on Channel 5 (his only media fan) whining about his political enemies.

The most important thing here is to have someone likable and articulate like Todd Strickland chair the committee or at least be the spokesperson to announce the results and to be very open to media interviews. Todd telling the truth vs. Haddix spewing trash keeps PTC's image somewhat intact. And that remains important whether Haddix is found guilty or innocent.

MYTMITE
MYTMITE's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/14/2008
Mudcat, even if what you say is true, isn't it better to be able

to say that the panel was not biased at the onset? I disagree, the most important thing is not to have someone likeable and articulate to chair the committee but to have someone who can lead the committee in a fair and unbiased way--I do not know Mr. Strickland and he very well may be the best person--to be articulate would be a bonus. The problem I see here with some people's blogs is that they are just as guilty of the things they accuse others of--let's do this in a fair and aboveboard manner and leave no room for the need for a 'do over.'

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Todd is a good leader and a very fair, very articulate man

He would be perfect on this committee or any other and he certainly has the ability to outshine our mayor in any media confrontation or debate.

He would also be perfect as mayor or councilman or county commissioner. Openings coming up for all 3 in 2014.

borntorun
borntorun's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/28/2005
RWM: Todd

While I don't know Todd one concern may be his ability to be unbiased given he was DAPC Chair while Donnie was the council rep to DAPC. Is it possible Todd might have some kind of bias toward Donnie because of his support for DAPC? Who knows but then again, this is why this Ethics Committee is a joke since its stocked by Donnie and the Ladies with their cronies. Regardless of the outcome, one side or the other is going to cry foul. And it would be a legitimate gripe to say it was not impartial. Still waiting to hear from Mad Mike about what happens after a decision is rendered. Maybe he's consulting with Erica. As for Todd outshining our mayor in any media confrontation or debate, hell....I got a fence post out in the pasture that could do that!

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
BTR: Todd

The only bias you will ever find in Todd Strickland is that he sincerely wants whatever is best for PTC and honestly believes in the whole master-planned community thing. He was a complete professional through the entire DAPC thing and you don't see him blogging on here second-guessing anybody.

Now that the ethics complaint has been made, I'm real interested in seeing the event begin. Surely it will open to the public, won't it?

borntorun
borntorun's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/28/2005
RWM

Like I said, I don't know Todd but I will take your word for it. Good question about the hearing. Seems to me the Sunshine Laws would say it would have to be open to the press and public. Another queston for Mad Mike if he ever decides to get back here. If so, taking a bag of popcorn ad a coke and watching Donnie have a meltdown.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
RWM, BTR

Great idea concerning the popcorn and coke to view the likely melt down of the mayor. The proceeding should be open to the public, but not if the mayor(or his counsel) have their way. Additionally, I see the whole thing being delayed at least until after the current mayoral term where all sorts of legal fees can be charged to the city and used by the mayor as an "I told you so."

The down side to the whole affair is should the mayor not be held responsible, he will certainly claim that the whole thing was orchestrated to make him look bad, make him the victim of a political witch hunt, and justify his delusional stances. My question now is: Is this worth the risk of validating Don Haddix?

Just my two cents worth.

GeorgeDienhart
GeorgeDienhart's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
Mike King

The reality is that the longer any legal matter drags out, the more it costs. My personal feeling is that this needs to happen as soon as possible. It will not drag out past the election.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
"It will not drag out

past the election."

Care to share with us how you know this to be the fact you just stated?