Milton Discusses Appointee Policy

NOTE: Please share your thoughts on the article below. Who do you agree with; Paul Moore or Bill Lusk?

by Jason Wright / http://www.northfulton.com/ / Appen Newspapers

Can an appointed city representative criticize Milton, its staff or City Council in a public setting?

That was the question before Milton's elected officials Jan. 17 during council's work session.

The discussion came about as a result of comments made by Planning Commission Chairman Paul Moore at the Dec. 13 council meeting, a situation that prompted councilwoman Karen Thurman to say it is "an embarrassment to tell people you're on the Milton City Council" because of similar events and all the bad press they have garnered.

That night Moore spoke against the possible abandonment of Black Oak Road, which had been deferred from the previous week's meeting. The item was removed from the night's agenda before Moore's comment.

Moore questioned Councilman Bill Lusk's qualifications as an engineer in assessing the effects of erosion on the road in the previous meeting. He also mentioned Thurman and Neal O'Brien in his comments, saying they and Lusk were reacting to issues of liability "like chicken little was standing before you ... the sky is falling."He was joined in his opinion by a few other citizens, most notably Leon Cole Jr., who brought an ethics complaint against O'Brien and Lusk that ultimately was dismissed.Cole questioned the lack of "due process" in bringing the matter before council.

Moore, who ran for council in 2006 against Lusk and who was a vocal opponent against O'Brien in the 2007 election, was asked to stop mentioning people by name and finished without incident. He was asked to leave by Mayor Joe Lockwood, who had appointed him to the Planning Commission.

That night, a vote brought forward by Lusk failed to remove Moore from the Planning Commission for his conduct, ending in a tie.

Thurman, Lockwood and Julie Zahner Bailey voted against removing him. Rick Mohrig and O'Brien, who left council that night, and Lusk voted to remove Moore.Thurman said she didn't feel she should remove a volunteer, instead leaving it up to the person who appointed him."This type of behavior cannot be tolerated," she said.Thurman said she has since realized she "prefers public service to politics."

Discussion lasted early into the next morning over what to do.

"As public officials, unfortunately we're under the microscope of our citizenry and they can come before us in public comment and comment to us, about us, as long as it's not defamation or libel," said Councilwoman Tina D'Aversa in the discussion at the work session.D'Aversa was not at the meeting when the situation occurred, but said she's seen others on council "suck it up" when attacked because it is their duty.

The city has had a checkered past of citizens speaking against elected officials at meetings, including an October attack against Councilwoman Julie Zahner Bailey by her political opponent at the time, Roger Santi.

In addition, various outbursts toward council at an April 26 Milton City Council work session led to the creation of a "decorum statement" warning citizens about such displays.City Attorney Mark Scott said he feels it is dangerous when council members' appointees speak ill of council or the city because it can create such a negative appearance in the press.

"Do they have the right to say those things? Of course they have the right," said Scott. "But do you folks find it to be conduct that is befitting of a person in a position such as that?"Scott said he feels the issue of free speech among appointees might be one of contract, meaning the limitation of freedom could be a trade off for the responsibility in the community.

D'Aversa said she felt council could not ask appointees to bite their tongues, but Thurman disagreed."I think a public servant, whether they are elected or appointed by one of us, is representing the city," she said. "And I would hope they would care enough about the city ... that they would not want to do something that was detrimental."

Scott said Johns Creek City Attorney Bill Riley has instructed appointed committee members not to make comments in other groups' meetings, which he said he feels goes too far.Lockwood said he would be open to guidelines for what is expected of volunteers."There have been some instances in the past that were much worse than what happened at that meeting and we didn't bring it up," he said.

Lusk brought up the city's conduct rules for City Council members at board and committee meetings, which lay out specific rules for what elected officials can do in city meetings."I think board members and committee members should be held to the same standards we are," he said. "They also are representatives of the city."

Lusk added the city needs to nip this problem in the bud now and draw up guidelines so everyone can "act like the civilized people we claim to be."Council was clearly divided on the issue, so Scott and city staff were instructed to look at other cities and see what their policies are before moving forward.