Editor's Note: Attached to this column is the resolution that allowed Pat Vaughn to serve as mayor and city manager, an affidavit verified by the City Council from the executive session when Vaughn's salary increase was discussed, and an email to then-finance director Gina Auld detailing the mayor's increase.
By Pat Vaughn
It appears that local elections now follow the pattern of state and national elections by virtue of the misinformation about, and personal attacks on, candidates running for office.
Sadly, in Powder Springs this year, some few citizens and non-citizens have chosen to join the uninformed tide of the likes of the Occupy Wall Street protestors, who have a bone to pick with anyone who is in an elective or appointed position in city government. They want change just for change’s sake, regardless of truth and facts that would advise stability in local government.
Usually this type of behavior is born out of a personal dislike of someone or some decision, regardless of the virtue of a person or decision being maliciously attacked.
Some local individual has chosen to make an issue out of a decision that occurred approximately five years ago, as a result of a unanimous consensus by the Powder Springs City Council.
Mr. Dane Perry, the city manager at the time, had just resigned, and the city of Powder Springs was left with no city manager to run the day-to-day operations. The City Council met in December 2005 and passed a resolution authorizing the mayor to perform the duties usually assigned to a city manager, until such time as a city manager could be hired.
I performed this work with no additional compensation while trying to work at my own private business, as well as performing the duties of the mayor of Powder Springs. In April of 2006, the council met in executive session to discuss additional compensation for me to offset the weekends, holidays, nights and time away from my personal business that it was taking to perform all of the roles I had been given.
I want this to be very clear: I was not in attendance at that executive session, I had no role in the compensation discussion, and as I understand the meeting, it was unclear if there was a vote taken in executive session.
But there appeared to be a consensus of the entire council that my pay as mayor was to be temporarily increased to help offset the long hours and time away from my family and personal business. I did not receive a city manager's salary. My pay as mayor was temporarily increased by $3,000 per month without additional benefits, until such time as a new city manager could be found.
This is not even one-third of a city manager’s salary for a city the size of Powder Springs, which averages $120,000 per year. The council was unanimous in deciding how much to temporarily increase my pay, and again, I was not present for, or involved in, the meeting or any of the discussions regarding this issue.
There was never an outcry from a single council member or any citizen. There was never a challenge to the temporary increase in the mayor's pay, and the executive session affidavit and the resolution involved were signed by the council, all of the council. For this to be brought up at this particular time, after all these years, proves that this is a cheap shot by someone who does not have the best interest of the city at heart.
This is also proved by the person who is bringing this up and not signing their real name to any complaint. Anonymity is the sign of someone with something to hide, who knows what they are doing is disingenuous at best.
In defense of the City Council at the time, members did not know of any violation of any charter provision, or local or state law. They acted out of concern for the enormous amounts of time I was donating to the city at a personal financial loss to myself.
I find it interesting that this issue is directed at me during my campaign for mayor, when I was not present at the discussion or action by the council at that time.
And there is no mention of any wrongful act directed at any council member who was seated at that time. I can't help but wonder why. Surely no one who was present at that executive session in 2006, participated in, and consented to temporarily increasing the pay of the mayor for being tasked with the additional duties necessary to keep the city functioning properly, would now, at this time, make an issue of it using a pseudonym purely for political gain.
I like to think better of my fellow elected officials at that time, as I know them all very well, and my friends who served with me would not stoop to this type of tactic.
But once again, anyone wanting to know the facts can come to City Hall, file open records requests, and see for themselves that that issue was done above-board and without my attendance, participation or urging.
I want to thank all of those council members who supported and served with me during that difficult time, which included the flooding and the start of the economic downturn, and the changes we have had to go through until we were able to find a new city manager.
Those who know me know the long hours required for the job as mayor, let alone the additional duties and responsibilities of a city manager at the same time. I have served this city with honor, integrity, and openness, and will continue to do so. And I promise I will never post a comment in any media using a false name to hide behind.
Pat Vaughn has been the mayor of Powder Springs since 2004.
Lee
8:34 am on Thursday, October 27, 2011
Let me get this straight...."In defense of the City Council at the time, members did not know of any violation of any charter provision, or local or state law." So it is OK that the City Council did not "know" of any violation of charter, but not the police chief. Pat, you are a real piece of work. And such a model Christian as well.
CIty Dweller
9:48 am on Thursday, October 27, 2011
Exactly, Lee - I whole-heartedly agree. Pat, did you know it was a violation? If so, you should have turned it down. And, if you didn't, shame on you for not being completely informed. I believe the chief was lambasted for that as well. This reeks of your typical Oliver North "I had no knowledge" stance on anything controversial - very similar to your comment to the MDJ that you had not read the results of the Sheriff's investigation to the car sale incident - when in contrast the person in charge of the investigation said he put it in your hands. I'm sure you put it in a safe place and never looked at it until after the City Manager.
John Q. Citizen
10:04 am on Thursday, October 27, 2011
Michael, you probably need to counsel 'ol Lee here on proper commentary protocol.
He's so stirred up that he's making personal attacks about someone's fidelity to their religious principles. That's way out of bounds.
CIty Dweller
10:14 am on Thursday, October 27, 2011
That's funny, Pat, er, I mean, John Q: you didn;t have a single comment about "bounds" when folks called the former chief a "thief".
John Q. Citizen
10:54 pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011
Yep, I missed that one, and I don't disagree with you. There wasnt any indication that the chief stole anything, so people shouldn't be calling him a thief.
His error, though, was being too cavalier with city property, and then when his poor judgement was discovered, he gave " conflicting statements" about what had happened. What would you do if you were a city manager, and your police chief had done that?
CIty Dweller
8:12 am on Friday, October 28, 2011
I would would have to weigh all of the facts about the conflicting statements - when they are made at different times, months apart, more information comes to light that makes the truth look like a conflict. YOU (I mean the mayor) know what really happened. Who signed the title? Who took the payment installments? Did the chief gain anything, or help a smaller department who needed the vehicle? No matter - it certainly didn't warrant trashing someones 28 year exemplary career. People have only been slapped on the hand for much worse, and more than one person was culpable.
Lee
10:47 am on Thursday, October 27, 2011
John Q, I have known the Mayor on a business level long before she became Mayor. My comments about her beliefs are 100% on the mark. There is a HUGH difference between someone claiming to be religious and actually being a Christian. And speaking of "bounds" the current administration in Powder Springs knows of none!
James
9:09 pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011
Jeremiah 17-9 The heart is deceitful and above all things desperately wicked, Who can know it. "Who" is God.
ilovethelord
3:05 pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011
"In defense of the City Council at the time, members did not know of any violation of any charter provision, or local or state law" - So Mayor you are saying that you received $3,000. per month for 18 months = $54,000 and you nor the council realized this was in violation of a charter and/or local or state law? It seems to me that the police chief who did not realize there was an ordinance about the vehicles and did not gain finacially like you was terminated and lost a 28 year career. Doesn't seem fair does it?
John Q. Citizen
11:27 pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011
iltl, the difference is that in the mayor's case there was no compensation attached to the appointment and nobody objected. In the ex chief's case, he was literally in the room when the resolution was passed directing the sale at auction, and then less than a week later he disregarded the directions the council gave him. I suspect what really got him fired though, was when he gave " conflicting statements" about what had happened. The mayor related things exactly as they happened. The chief chose to take another route.
JIM
4:57 pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011
Lee , you don" sound like much of a person, if you can attack their personal
religion or beliefs. but then look at the source.
Matthew
6:22 pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011
This sentence jumped out at me, too: "In defense of the City Council at the time, members did not know of any violation of any charter provision, or local or state law." Does the City not have, and pay for, a City Attorney? Did the City Attorney sign off on allowing a Mayor to also be City Manager? Was the City Attorney present in the executive session? I assume Powder Springs pays their attorney - if the attorney did render an opinion, where is it, and if the attorney did not, why not (and why spend taxpayer money to have an attorney if not to prevent actions such as this which violate the charter and/or local or state law)?
I am curious, too, why the Mayor's response focuses so much on the motivations of the "few citizens and non-citizens" who are "maliciously attack[ing]" her decision. It was either wrong to take the $54,000 or it wasn't! If it was wrong to act as the City Manager while holding the office of Mayor (as it certainly seems to have been), then it was wrong no matter who points it out, or why.
John Q. Citizen
12:12 am on Friday, October 28, 2011
Yeah, let's give a refund, shoot the clerk, close the shop, and like Shakespeare said "let's kill all the lawyers". That'll fix things alright.
I Get It.
6:25 pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011
@author of this article: " and non-citizens have chosen to join the uninformed tide of the likes of the Occupy Wall Street protestors,"
Nice attempt at being witty. Fail!
I find it intriguing your audacity labeling some constituent as "OWS" intriguing. Let me point out that unlike some of your supporters on this forum who are masquerading as lap-dog intellectuals, many of your critics here are not in the same class as the OWS crowd. Your critics do know what they are talking about. Why is this so hard for some people to understand just astounds me. Further, would you label other activist groups such at Tea Partly members, Moveon.org or AARP as OWS clones? We hate to break this to you but "misinformation" is in the eye of the beholder. Elections have always been riddled with it. Citizens just have more venues to discuss the issues. We don't expect information from our local Pravda affiliates (AKA, The Messenger) to keep us informed. Thank you, Patch!
The more you try to explain your actions, Madam Mayor, the more questions that are raised. Bottom line, what ever happened to "the buck stops here!"
James
10:28 pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011
Mayor Vaughn,
I am appalled that you would refer to your constituents saying, “It appears that local elections now follow the pattern of state and national elections by virtue of the misinformation about, and personal attacks on, candidates running for office.” Are you talking about how your supporters have been acting? Probably not. Your people have repeatedly attacked both Paul and Rick in their attempt to follow their dreams.
You said, “Some local individual has chosen to make an issue out of a decision that occurred approximately five years ago, as a result of a unanimous consensus by the Powder Springs City Council.” This was a decision made in Executive Session which most people were not aware of, and I bet the amount of your increase was not mentioned. You said your business was loosing money. Was it $3000.00 a month? You said you didn’t know the amount, but I bet you didn’t refund the city after you saw the amount.
The money you made could have paid the yearly salary of two or three entry level city employees or kept some from being laid off. I don’t believe the council would have minded if you had at least reduced the amount.
You held the chief responsible for an issue that happened three years, so if he made it to five years like you he would have been OK?
Mayor you should resign!!!
James
11:53 pm on Thursday, October 27, 2011
Mayor Vaughn,
It is a shame how you try to minimize the outcry by saying a few. It amazes me how you attack people for stating their oppinion. And speaking of amazing, it is amazing how you as mayor control human resourses and the court system by placing them under the City Clerk. That too is a violation. Human resources and the court system should be under the control of the City Manager and not the Mayor through the City Clerk.
Daisy
8:54 am on Friday, October 28, 2011
Two thoughts about this situation: (1) Maybe the mayor or the city council should read the charter, it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the people we have entrusted (and pay) to run our city should be aware of its laws. I'm not an attorney, but I don't think ignorance of the law is an allowable defense--especially for the mayor??? (2) if no one wants to bring charges against anyone for breaking the law then perhaps she should just repay the money as reparation for the offense.
Another thought, too is, doesn't she own a management company for Country Walk? Isn't that a conflict of interest being mayor and manager of an HOA in the city limits. Perhaps it isn't, but I can see the potential for issues with that situation too.
Daisy
9:27 am on Friday, October 28, 2011
Whether the mayor was at the meeting where they decided to pay her or not, it seems to me that when she began executing the duties of both offices she was violating the charter. Who enforces the charter anyway? Not the chief of police who is hired and fired by the mayor, right? Obviously, I don't understand small town politics at all.
Jonathan Huff
9:29 am on Friday, October 28, 2011
@John Q. "let's kill all the lawyers". That'll fix things alright.
Well, not all of them. Just those who sit back and do not properly advise their clients on matters of importance. Like say, making sure their clients adhere to the City Charter.
What say you, Mr. Calhoun?
JIM
12:00 pm on Friday, October 28, 2011
Daisy if that is the case no one in the city could run for anything if they have any
kind of business.
James
3:07 pm on Friday, October 28, 2011
Jim, only a conflicting business. Maybe they should sign a conflict of interest like most non-profit board members do.
Daisy
2:30 pm on Friday, October 28, 2011
Good point, Jim.