Contrasts

Back when Harold Bost, Greg Dunn, Glen Gosa, Linda Wells and Herb Frady comprised the County Commission, they goofed. One night in an executive session they were discussing a legally permissible issue and the conversation drifted into policy. They were behind closed doors. The county’s attorney, Bill McNally was not with them that night.

Someone realized they had strayed into questionable legal territory as defined under the Georgia Open Meetings Act and mentioned it. They stopped talking and got back onto the straight and narrow.

Now chances are, no one would have ever known they tiptoed accidentally over the line. If attorney Bill McNally had been there, it wouldn’t have happened.

What’d these guys do? The next day Commissioner Greg Dunn called each one of them and discussed the matter with them saying he felt they needed to be open about it. Once he had a consensus he drafted a press release and went to the press and the group turned themselves in. The group also agreed they would never meet in executive session again without an attorney present just to make sure they’d never stray, even accidentally.

Who’d have ever known if they hadn’t said anything? The easy thing to do would have been to keep mum. Now, to this day, some continue to accuse them of wrongdoing. Not something they deny, nor can they ‘cause they pointed the finger at themselves.

In my mind, that is admirable. I know there are some who would say why bother, why throw yourselves to the wolves? I think it says something about character and integrity.

Now contrast that with what our current Board of Commissioners did and has attempted to do in a vaguely similar situation (well, they both involve executive sessions…).

First, they ditch the current attorney and go attorney-less. They continue to meet, but do so without any legal counsel. That means they can’t talk about legal matters behind closed doors --- per Georgia state law.

One night they find they need to talk about a legal matter. Commissioner Pfeifer questions the feasibility of doing so, asking if they can without an attorney. The correct response would be something along the lines of “no, we can’t, let’s hire an interim attorney ASAP so we don’t break the law.”

But no, Commissioner Maxwell, who said he wanted to discuss the legal matter, scoffs. He ridicules the idea that they shouldn’t discuss the legal matter.

The entire group is sitting around the boardroom table and hears the exchange. They all make the decision to go ahead and talk about what they THINK is a legal matter (whether it really was or not) behind closed doors, knowing they are breaking, or potentially breaking, the law.

It says a lot about a person’s integrity and character when faced with an issue like this one. There are choices that have to be made. This Board made the wrong choice to my way of thinking, no matter how they rationalized it then or later.

After the meeting, they’re all still thinking they’ve discussed a legal matter and Commission Chairman Smith signs a legal affidavit (which he does after every executive meeting) certifying they talked about a legal matter.

Skip forward. Commissioner Pfeifer asks for an opinion ‘cause he’s still not sure whether what they did was right. The Georgia Attorney General says yes, they broke the law, but he’s not going to do anything about it. Yeah, he has bigger fish to fry and probably doesn’t want to get wrapped up into what could become a real political hot potato.

Pfeifer shares the information with the rest of the Board.

Now, chances are you and I would own up and say “oops, I wasn’t sure and I made the wrong choice, please forgive me” if we let it get that far. (Yeah, I know, you’d probably remember what happened to the past Board who turned themselves in and still have some heckling them about it… But most of us would come clean anyway, or at least I’d like to think the rest of you would!).

Does this group of Commissioners do that? Nope. Maxwell spins an elaborate tale that has him in a different room, pushing away from a microphone that doesn’t exist, going down a ramp that isn’t there and making statements he clearly didn’t make (video doesn’t lie as a friend of mine said). He and the rest of the Board change history, re-doing legal affidavits (can they legally do that???) and meeting minutes to try and make their breaking of the law vanish…

Let me guess what’s going to come next… there will be some statement that says they got the dates mixed up, or maybe a more elaborate spinning of facts of some sort. Maybe they’ll try to say they were thinking about a DIFFERENT meeting… except that’s the only meeting I’ve been able to find where a Commissioner called them on the fact they were trying to go into Executive Session to discuss a legal matter without an attorney. And, even if the same thing did happen twice, that only makes it twice as bad. That spin won’t make the August 1st meeting go away…

Here’s another one that works for a lot of politicians when they’re trying to get out of deep doo-doo… they attack the messenger, attack the ones who have a problem with the fact they didn’t own up and/or the ones who have a problem with the fact they broke the law. They’ll say it’s political or some other nonsense. Watch them, they’ll probably really go after Commissioner Pfeifer for questioning the issue and for wanting to do the right thing in the first place. Or they’ll come after yours truly (after all, if I weren’t there video taping the meetings then there wouldn’t be a record of things…).

Quite truthfully, if the day after the meeting they had admitted they goofed I’d have given ‘em a pass and I think most people would have done the same. Even if, when confronted with a ruling by the Attorney General that said they broke the law they’d admitted they goofed and asked forgiveness, I wouldn’t necessarily have liked it, but I’d probably have given them a pass.

But they didn’t. They tried to cover up what they’d done. They colluded to try and cover their backsides. People of character and integrity work well in the light. Some of these guys are operating with the lights dimmed and sometimes completely darkened.

Contrast the actions of the current Board with the past Board in some remotely similar circumstances. Night and day. Darkness and light.

If they really want to prove it’s non-political…

At the Commission retreat down at Callaway Gardens one of the items on the agenda concerned hiring the new in-house attorney. Just in case anyone who’s reading this might not have heard, they fired long-term county attorney Bill McNally recently. They’ll tell you that they didn’t fire him because in the motion to do away with his services they said they’d like to use him as an “out-house” attorney (Commissioner Eric Maxwell’s terminology). Given the fact that they knew before they made the motion that night that McNally’s firm wasn’t going to take that bone to gnaw on (what self-respecting attorney would?), it’s pretty clear they just tossed that in so they could SAY they weren’t firing him. Knowing the firm wasn’t going to continue the relationship, the prudent thing to do in my mind would have been to continue the postpone the vote until contingency plans had been made.

Back to the ‘doings’ at the retreat. There was a lot of talk from some about making sure they keep the attorney selection process “outside the politics of the five Board membership”. Commissioner Robert Horgan suggested they put together a committee to sort through all the applications and that only the top three (later expanded to ‘three to five”) contenders would be given to the Commissioners. They would then interview the three to five and choose one. From the subsequent discussions, it was fairly evident that the committee idea had been given quite a bit of prior thought by some commissioners.

The committee the four commissioners decided upon was the Sheriff (constitutional officer), the head of Planning and Zoning, the head of the Water Department, a representative from the tax board, the head of Human Resources and the Commissioner’s Administrative Assistant. The group would be headed up by the Board’s pick for the interim County Manager.

Sounds good, right? Takes the Commissioner’s out of the mix, right?

Weeellll…. No.

To be truly independent you’d take it outside. There would be a headhunter or some agency specializing in legal personnel that would do the search. All the applications would go to them, they’d use the criteria set forth by the Commissioners to determine the top contenders.

Another scenario might be to have each of the Commissioners choose one person to go on the committee. Another might include some independent citizens.

Another additional layer which would help remove any questions of bias, which Commissioner Peter Pfeifer suggested, would be that after the committee has selected the top candidates, allow the commissioners to review those that didn’t make the cut. Pfeifer’s suggestion was shot down by the other four. They plan to shred all the applications and resumes.

At first I thought shredding the information after it was all said and done was a good idea. However, what’s the point? Applications are supposedly confidential whether they’re shredded or not. There will be so many people who’ve seen the applications prior to shredding them that a symbolic shredding will do nothing but make some people wonder why.

I would have to wonder why they didn’t want a Commissioner to see the ones not chosen. If even one of the Commissioners had a question about the process it would seem reasonable to do everything to allay his concerns.

I would also question whether any Commissioner or group of Commissioners has the right to deny a fellow Commissioner the ability to see all of the applications. The committee gets to see them, the interim County Manager gets to see them, someone on the tax board will see them. Personnel staff will see them. But a sitting, elected official partially responsible for hiring an attorney isn’t allowed to see all of the applications? Even AFTER a committee has vetted them? Sorry guys, that ain’t keeping politics out of it.

Regarding the committee itself, don’t get me wrong, I am NOT saying I think anyone on the committee is corrupt or that they’re bad people. I don’t know one of them and I happen to have a lot of respect for some of them. I’m simply talking about the fact that the commissioners said they wanted to take politics out of the mix and they wanted to handle the selection process in such a way that no one could question how they did it. Is having a committee of friends (of some commissioners) and those whose job depends on staying in the good graces of the Commissioners really an independent committee?

And, if you are serious about taking politics out of the mix, would you put the Sheriff, arguably the elected politician with the most clout in the county on the committee? What about the fact that this same politician openly worked to get three of the current Commissioner’s elected to the Board?

Taking the Sheriff out of the equation, want to know how easy it is to get around the committee they chose? Let me suggest some potential scenarios.

If any of the commissioners had a favorite in the wings, it’s easy to conceive that at least two, if not more, of the folks on the committee might know exactly who that someone might be. All that’s needed is to drop it casually into a conversation. So you could have a bias or slant walking into the mix.

I’ve already mentioned the potential problems that might creep into some people’s minds: Having a committee of employees whose future with the county is dependent upon the commissioners being happy with them. It might not be a factor. Then again it might be a factor. Either way to some it won’t achieve the goal of independence from political consideration. If even one of those on the committee knows what their boss wants, even indirectly, you’ve defeated the purpose before the first meeting.

So now, let me see if I can come up with a few other potential ways this independent committee could be influenced. The commissioners are setting up the criteria for choosing the top five. One commissioner is an attorney, all of the commissioners have lived in the Atlanta area and /or Fayette County for quite some time. They probably have a pretty good idea of who might fit the bill for the job. Again, not saying they would or they will, but the criteria could be set up in a way that pretty much assures their guy (or gal) is in the top three to five.

Let’s say one or more of the commissioners has an idea of who they want to hire. They also know the criteria. In casual conversation they happen to make sure the attorney friend they would like to see hired knows what they’re looking for so they can craft the appropriate resume.

I’d imagine if I really, really put my mind to it I could poke some more holes. However, I’ve poked more than one hole and that’s all I think it really takes. I’m sure a long time before the retreat that discussions had been had between 3 or 4 of the Commissioners about how to select a new attorney. Want to make it truly apolitical and independent? Let me count the ways it can be done…

Bloggers, Newspapers, Bias VS Facts

I rarely read the blogs on the local newspaper site. Seems to me a lot of people with axes to grind (some of them pretty strange axes) and very little real factual (or even vaguely correct) information like to spout off about every and anything. How do they find the time? Better yet, why do they make the time?

Anyway, I did look at one the other day. I have a standing Google search on a variety of names and issues, one came in, I clicked the link and ended up on a page of bloggers. One person (anonymous as always… theses folks are so brave hiding behind their pseudonyms!) must have kept an on-going newspaper clipping file on County Bill McNally for years. He (or she, but probably he since he used a John Wayne photo) had this long litany of grievances against Bill.

I quickly scanned through his looonnnngggg list of issues and grievances. Guess what, from what I could see without intense dissection, he lifted every bit of information from the newspapers! Now that’s real research. We all know how accurate the news is and how they research in great detail all of their news stories and they don’t have an ax of their own to grind and their’s no bias and, and, and… did you happen to catch any sarcasm when you read all that blather?

I’d venture to guess that at least 90% of the people who regularly share their opinions about the County Commission or folks like Bill have never been to a County Commission meeting (or at least not more than one or two times), that they’ve never done an open records request for data, and they’ve never really taken the time to talk to the people they write about. Or, if they have taken time to talk to whoever they’re trashing, it’s been at some public meeting where the majority of the time they threw their opinions at the Commissioner.

John Wayne seemed to have a personal problem with Bill. Maybe the blogger is an attorney who lost a case to him, or there’s professional jealousy, or he works with the Sheriff’s office or maybe he’s just a “concerned” citizen with a lot of time on their hands who collects stories about public officials and those who work for the government, or maybe he’s a friend of one of the Commissioners who canned McNally. Doesn’t matter. He, the John Wayne wannabe, isn’t the point of my blog.

The fact that someone, anyone, would use newspaper stories as a basis for their opinion or to substantiate an opinion is what led me to write this column.

No one, absolutely no one, should trust what’s written in a newspaper.

There is bias. No matter how hard a person tries they dislike or like whoever they’re writing about, they have preconceived notions about whatever issue they’re covering, or they dislike or like some action. It’s virtually impossible not to let their bias, pro or con, shape whatever is being written.

Editors and publishers love to write their opinions. The vast majority of time they don’t walk outside their office doors. They wait for those with a stake in whatever issue is hot to bring them information. If only one side brings information then that’s all they know aside from the meager dregs brought in by their reporters.

The length and depth of information contained in articles in newspapers is money driven. Not saying they’re taking money, absolutely not. However, the number of pages printed is based on the amount of advertising dollars obtained. Light advertising week, less space. There’s a bottom-line factor involved in how much time a reporter can give to researching an article. Advertising dollars have to cover their salaries also. Hot issues sell papers (well, that’s not a biggie with most local papers since they’re free to most). However, hot issues do ensure that people will actually open the newspaper. And it attracts the bloggers, gets your hits up on the Internet and helps to sell advertising.

Most reporters are facing deadlines and are short on time. It’s a rare breed who will take the time to go sit in a Commissioners office and ask questions. The only reporter in my history of reporting in this County who ever took the time to really research a story sadly died some years back. Dave Hamrick was a true news reporter in the finest sense. He rode my back about making sure I got both sides, that I had done my homework. I lost money on every story I ever freelanced with his paper trying to get the full background and information on my stories. I still have emails from him where he gave suggestions, pointed out flaws and occasionally made my day with a bit of praise. I still miss him.

I also have to give kudos to Ben Nelms while thinking about good reporting. Ben sank his teeth into the problem on the north end of the county regarding what has become known as the “onion odor issue” and still hasn’t let go. He’s really done some superb research and hung in there. The few times he and I have covered the same story he’s always seemed to be well informed and to have done his homework.

I’ve interviewed many folks in concert with other reporters. It always amazes me how little reporters know as they pepper individuals with questions. They don’t have time and most don’t have that extra fire that is necessary to make sure they get the entire story. Quick headline, quick story, move onto another story…

Lots of sidetracking in this opinion column! Bottom line point I hope I made is… don’t trust what you read in the newspaper and don’t trust anyone’s so-called documentation if it’s based on newspaper articles.