Politics & Government

Barr: Mayor Wrongfully Received More Pay

The process of giving Pat Vaughn an additional $3,000 a month while she served as city manager went against city and state law, the former councilman says.

Mrs. Patricia Vaughn wrote that was published on Patch on Oct. 27 outlining the events of her being granted additional pay by the City Council. I was a member of the City Council at the time, and I would like to provide some thoughts as a participant in that action.

On April 3, 2006, the Powder Springs City Council did go into an executive session called by Mayor Pro Tem Bob Farmer. The city has provided a copy of the affidavit, which must be signed before an executive session is entered, and it shows that all five City Council members were present.

During this meeting, a discussion was held regarding the additional duties and time Mrs. Vaughn had been providing to the city since early December 2005 when we, the council, had appointed her to act as the city manager. (The city has provided a copy of Resolution 2005-43, which shows this appointment as acting city manager.)

Find out what's happening in West Cobbwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

A proposal was made to provide Mrs. Vaughn with additional compensation for that time and effort. My recollection was that the cash remuneration was suggested to be $1,000 per month in addition to her salary as mayor of $1,500 per month. I recollect unanimous agreement that this additional compensation be made.

While some mention may have been made regarding Mrs. Vaughn’s time away from her private business, I recall no discussion of this additional compensation being for anything but her duties as acting city manager.

Find out what's happening in West Cobbwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The open meetings laws of the state of Georgia do not allow votes to be taken in any meeting where the public is excluded (O.C.G.A. 50-14-1(b)). The public was excluded from the executive session on April 3, 2006.

If any vote was taken at the April 3 meeting, it was void, and any agreement that was reached would have to be separately voted on in a public council session by a resolution—the same process as the resolution to appoint Mrs. Vaughn as acting city manager.

I don’t recall whether a “vote” by voice or show of hands was taken, or if we all merely reached consensus that the additional pay should be made.

The mayor’s annual compensation is set by budget, which begins July 1 of each year, and any change in the compensation amount during the budget year must be made by a budget amendment through an ordinance (City Charter Article 6-27). It is then voted on by the council in an open meeting. Budget amendments generally require two readings and public hearings.

It appears this was not done.

A review of my documents of the agenda and minutes of council meetings during the months of April and May 2006 shows no vote being taken by the council regarding a budget amendment or any other resolution for a change in Mrs. Vaughn’s compensation.

This vote would be necessary for payments to be made retroactive to December 2005 as stated in the email from the finance director directing a change in the mayor’s pay “for her City Manager duties."

A budget amendment vote would have to have been taken in the month of April 2006 (with two readings in two separate meetings) in order to properly begin any payments in April as the email states. I can find no record in my documents of a resolution, approved by the council in a public meeting after hearings, allowing the mayor to be paid this additional money.

And if it wasn’t approved, no payments should have been made to Mrs. Vaughn for the period from December 2005 through May 2007, a total of $54,000 for compensation as acting city manager.

A reading of City Charter Article 2-31 states that the mayor and City Council members can give orders to city employees who are under the direction of the city manager—such as the finance director—in only one instance: if there is no city manager and a “city emergency involving public health or safety” occurs.

Providing extra pay would not constitute a “city emergency” and certainly does not constitute a “public health and safety” matter. A member of the council would not be authorized to direct the finance director to begin these payments; only the city manager would have that authority under Article 2-31. And Mrs. Vaughn was acting as the city manager at that time.

If there had been a resolution voted on by the council, it would have stated exactly what the amount was to have been—$1,000, $3,000 or whatever amount. And the public, as well as the council, would have had an opportunity to comment and discuss the proposal in an open meeting.

Since this administration has declined to take minutes of any work session or agenda meetings, there is no record of any further council discussion of this pay after the April 3 executive meeting.

I took an open records request to on Oct. 28 requesting a “Copy of the resolution from April 2006 allowing the City of Powder Springs to increase the salary of the mayor by $3,000 monthly to a total of $4,500 per month retroactively to December 2005.”

I received an email Wednesday from the city clerk that says: “There are no documents that meet the criteria of your open records request of 10/28/11.” 

Based on the facts cited above, it is my opinion that the payments of $3,000 monthly over and above the previously approved $1,500 mayoral salary for the months of December 2005 through May 2007 appear to have never been properly authorized and should not have been paid. 

—Ra Barr, Powder Springs


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

More from West Cobb