Embattled Milton City Councilwoman Tina D’Aversa ran unopposed in her first council race in 2006, when the city of Milton was first formed.
By John Fredericks / Beacon Media
Embattled Milton City Councilwoman Tina D’Aversa ran unopposed in her first council race in 2006, when the city of Milton was first formed.
Up for re-election in November, she apparently didn’t expect to draw competition this time, either.
When she found out she had an opponent, one Joe Longoria, a software engineer and Crooked Creek Homeowners Association official, she decided to try to retain her council seat the old fashioned way – by using Tammany Hall tactics – with no results.
Her feedbag ploy having fizzled, D’Aversa is likely to face ethic charges, or worse. Now, winning re-election may be the least of her problems.
The D’Aversa debacle began to unfold on Tuesday, September 1, the day Longoria decided to exercise his constitutional right, and filed to run for her District 5 city council seat. Milton’s electoral charter mandates that city council candidates can only run for the district seat they live in, although all council members are elected at large, by the entire city’s voters. Both Longoria and D’Aversa live in Milton’s Electoral District 5.
“Tina was livid when she found out she would have to run a campaign to keep her seat,” said one city official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “She was not prepared for a race, and she tried to do what she could to avoid one. She thought her re-election was a right of passage, and hoped to run unopposed, like she did in 2006.”
LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE?
In an interview with The Beacon just last week, D’Aversa said she never met her opponent, let alone talked with him. “I tried to reach him to no avail,” D’Aversa told The Beacon. “All I know of him is his name is on the ballot.”
But a series of emails from D’Aversa’s city email account to Longoria, copied to Milton Mayor Joe Lockwood and City Administrator Chris Lagerbloom, obtained by The Beacon this week through an Open Records Request, confirmed that at least one in-depth conversation indeed took place. An email dated September 3, states, “Joe, thank you for calling me last night. I enjoyed our conversation…”
According to Longoria, D’Aversa reached him by phone on Wednesday, September 2, ostensibly to ask him why he was running against her. “I told her that it was nothing personal,” said Longoria. “I had applied for six different volunteer positions through the city’s website, all of which I believed I was qualified for, and never heard back from anyone.” Longoria added. “I believe my experience, ideas and vision for Milton would add value to the city council, and I decided to run. Tina represents my district, so I had to file to run against her. It’s that simple.”
D’Aversa then changed her story and said she in fact had “two or three” conversations with Longoria on the topic. But Longoria denied all conversations except the one referenced above.
Longoria said that D’Aversa urged him to reconsider his council bid in their telephone conversation, and indicated that she had some ideas that might make him think about withdrawing his candidacy. “She offered to email me her plan, and we left it at that,“ commented Longoria. “I had no intention of abandoning my campaign.”
When questioned about the authenticity of the dialogue, D’Aversa disputed Longoria’s version. “That’s a bold-faced lie,” D’Aversa claimed. “He said he would consider getting out.” Not true, says Longoria.
D’Aversa said she had other emails from Longoria supporting her position, sent to her personal email account. When asked to produce the emails as proof, D’Aversa refused to do so. Longoria claimed he had no email correspondence with D’Aversa, other than the ones The Beacon has obtained.
D’AVERSA’S ALLURING EMAIL BAIT A BUST
In the same September 3 email, D’Aversa outlined her proposition to entice her opponent to drop his bid and withdraw his election application, so she could run unchallenged. “We have a number of boards that you may be qualified for, and I would like to explore this with you so we can avoid a costly election campaign seeking the District 5 council position,” her email to Longoria reads. “Presently, I have appointees serving on the Highway 9 board, but I believe I can place you on this board without a challenge. I am going to ask that a developer who serves on the board step aside so that you can become a member…he will be accommodating.”
The Highway 9 board is recommending, among other things, what the look and feel of the Crooked Creek subdivision entrance should be. D’Aversa states in her email, “…you can specifically reach your goal of serving Crooked Creek.” Longoria was mystified by the offer. “To think that I am running for city council just to gain influence of what style and color our gate entrance would be was a little odd,” Longoria responded. “That would take a lot of energy for something that is insignificant.”
When asked if he interpreted D’Aversa’s email as a quid-pro-quo deal to get out of the race, Longoria answered yes. “What jumped out at me was how anxious she was to talk me out of running, after I had filed as a candidate. I never considered doing that,” he clarified.
D’Aversa, however, insisted the email was taken out of context.
But her next line in the same email was revealing. “My intention is for you to join a board committee and to withdraw your [council] application to seek my council position serving from District 5…Let’s save the city money and move forward without a costly campaign for the council position,” it reads.
LONGORIA’S RESPONSE
Longoria responded to D’Aversa’s pact plea in succinct terms in an email the next day: thanks but no thanks. “…diversity is directly related to the number of citizens who step forth and seek to play an active role in the community…This is the reason I decided to run for a council position…thanks for the email follow-up.”
But D’Aversa said Longoria agreed to a subsequent meeting with her and then didn’t show. Longoria asserted that once he understood D’Aversa’s intentions – to offer him a board position to get out of the race, “there was no reason to meet to discuss her offer further.”
ADAM ORKIN NOT PRIVVY TO D’AVERSA’S DEAL
The “developer” in question that D’Aversa promised to jettison from the Highway 9 board appeared to be Adam D. Orkin, CEO of Orkin and Associates, a local real estate investment firm. When contacted, Orkin said D’Aversa’s deal was news to him. “I had no knowledge of it,” Orkin said. Orkin added that he would be happy to step down for another applicant, provided the city sanctioned it, the council wanted it and a majority of his committee peers were in favor of it – a long way from D’Aversa’s solo proposition. Orkin elaborated that the Highway 9 board has worked together for better than nine months, and maintained that they are one meeting away from presenting their recommendations to city council. “We have made a tremendous amount of progress,” Orkin said.
When questioned, D’Aversa said that the board member she wanted to replace was Vic Jones, not Orkin. But Jones is not a developer, and he serves on the Transportation Advisory Committee, not the Highway 9 board, which is stated in her email. When made aware of the exact wording of her email, D’Aversa promptly changed her account again and said it was another developer she wanted to replace, not Orkin. D’Aversa refused to reveal the identity of the member she claims she really meant to have replaced on the board.
The other developer on the board in question could be Councilwoman Karen Thurman appointee John McMillan. When made aware of D’Aversa’s email, Thurman said she would not entertain the idea of replacing McMillan, who she classified as an “outstanding contributor who is well qualified.” Thurman said that D’Aversa would have to get a majority of city council to approve any appointee brought forward.
ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL OR JUST PIOUS INDIGNATION?
Questions that arise from D’Aversa’s desperate expiation to coax her opponent out of her council race with a blatant promise of an appointed position are three-fold. Was it illegal, unethical, or just plain dumb?
Milton’s lawyer, Ken E. Jarrard, of Jarrard & Davis, LLP could not be reached for comment by press time and City Manager Chris Lagerbloom was not available on Friday. When contacted, Mayor Lockwood withheld comment on the matter until he looked into it further. He said he recalled the email, but may have only glanced at it in cursory fashion when it passed his desk. Lockwood did reiterate his electoral support for D’Aversa, regardless.
Another city attorney from a Fulton County municipality doubted D’Aversa’s attempt at horse-trading broke any state laws, but thought it most likely violated the city’s ethical standards, depending on their ordinances regarding the matter.
No financial gain was at stake for her, other than the money she may have had to invest in her re-election bid to win, but certainly she stood to gain politically. “Using your office as an elected official to effectively [cajole] an opponent to withdraw their campaign application in exchange for an appointment to a city committee is highly irregular, probably unethical and really dumb,” the veteran city attorney said. “I would advise against it.”
One Milton city official was not amused by the episode. “It exhibits a lack of intelligence,” the official surmised. “It’s surprising that someone could stoop to that level.”
Longoria supporter and one-time Milton Council candidate Gordon Hunter described it as a pattern of behavior. “I’m not at all surprised at Councilwoman’s D’Aversa’s tactics,” Gordon admitted. “It fits with her persona as far as I’ve experienced.”
But Lockwood countered with his support. “I will continue to support Tina in this race and I am committed to her re-election,” Lockwood said. “She has been a very effective member of Milton’s City Council.”
D’Aversa maintained that she did nothing inappropriate. "I did everything above board,” she declared.
As for Longoria: welcome to politics, Joe. Milton politics, that is.
Courtesy Beacon Media
