Editor's Note: Patch didn't originally publish the page of signatures attached to the resolution allowing Mayor Pat Vaughn to also serve as city manager because it didn't include any of the resolution's text. Upon her request, Patch has attached that page to show the council's approval.
Powder Springs mayoral candidate L. Rick Richardson of Mayor Pat Vaughn previously serving as both mayor and city manager.
“I have been asked this question by several Powder Springs citizens. That is a question Mayor Vaughn needs to answer,” Richardson wrote. “If Mayor Vaughn was being compensated financially for both positions simultaneously, it was then and is now a violation of Powder Springs Code of Ordinances.”
Richardson cited Section 2-14 (e), which reads: “In eligibility of elected official. Except where authorized by law, neither the mayor nor any councilmember shall hold any other elective or compensated appointive office in the city or otherwise be employed by said government or any agency thereof during the term for which he was elected.”
In response to the former police chief, Vaughn : “Mr. Richardson claims that several years ago, I was paid for two city jobs at once. During a prior term as mayor, I was having to serve as mayor and city manager because the city was without a city manager. The council, on their own, realized I was having to work three jobs: mayor, acting city manager, and my own property management business.
"I was having to pay someone to do the work in my absence from my business that I would not have to pay if I were not at all day. Accordingly, the council unanimously authorized a temporary increase in the mayor’s salary until we could find a city manager.
"I received only one W-2 form from the city, not two, for the relatively short period of time which elapsed until a new city manager was hired.”
On Dec. 5, 2005, three days after Dane Perry’s resignation as city manager, the council authorized a resolution for Vaughn to act as mayor and city manager until a new city manager could be found. The resolution is attached to this article.
The resolution does not mention additional pay for Vaughn, whose annual base salary for mayor is $18,000. Patch has requested documentation showing the increase's authorization.
For authority to allow Vaughn to serve as city manager, the resolution points to Section 2.29 of the City Charter, which reads:
By a letter filed with the city clerk, the manager shall designate, subject to approval of the mayor and city council, a qualified city administrative officer to exercise the powers and perform the duties of manager during his temporary absence or disability. During such absence or disability, the mayor and city council may revoke such designation at any time and appoint another officer of the city to serve until the manager shall return or his disability shall cease.
In 2009, Snellville faced a similar debate about whether the mayor was serving as city manager, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
That article quotes an opinion from then-Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker: "The mayor is not authorized to both act in his capacity as the elected executive leader of the city and also as the city manager because such dual service is inherently incompatible and inappropriate."
Vaughn served as city manager from December 2005 until Charles Nickerson was hired in April 2007, according to a separate AJC article.
She again served as city manager from Nickerson’s leave and eventual firing in November 2008 until Rick Eckert was hired in March 2010, but she was not paid extra during that period.
James probably looks a lot like you know who.........
I have seen many races in this city. This is the dirtiest race ever. All the people need to do is go to city hall and ask to see the records of why Richardson was fired. It is a matter of public record. Do not take anyone's word on this and other matters . You need to come to the Political Forum on Thursday October 27 and meet all candidates. Remember you need to know the truth. You need someone who has administrative experience and someone who can read and do a budget. As for code enforcement, they are not doing their job. I have seen to many signs that are not on people's property but in the right of way. They should be pulled up bycode enforcement. Remember to find out the truth, go to city hall to see the file/records of the firing. I feel that if anyone wants to run for public office, they should volunteer on some of the many committees or boards the city has and also go to the Monday night city councel meetings. You need some experience to run for any office.
I know you are not that gullible. Are you?
There were several city department heads that were capable of being active city manager. That would have saved more and it would have been legal. The first time she did it, I somewhat understand, but the second time a power play for sure.
You do not know me nor do you understand the facts. You do not know I had several conversations with him after his firing and have in my possession a several page chat from facebook nor what was said nor am I going to air it here rather as soon as possible get it to the Mayor and or City Attorney.
If there were others that could have handled the job, then why did the entire council pick the mayor to do it instead, and then let her continue to do it? They could have voted to replace her with some other "acting city manager" whenever they wanted to, but they never did. Did any of the council members ever even introduce a resolution to appoint somebody else as "acting city manager"? If they had, I'll bet we would have heard about it by now. Normally, if anybody had a problem with the way things were being run, you would think there would have at least been some effort to change it. How does somebody who doesn't even get to vote (unless there's a tie) pull off a "power play" in the first place? This election year "issue" sounds pretty hollow to me.
I see ex- chief Richardson wasn't on your list of top five department heads you believe should have been appointed as acting city manager. If he didn't even make the cut to be on your "acting city manager" list , then what qualifies him to be mayor???
The mayor, she knows that he didn't hire his own brother, and the reason he made deputy chief was because he had been there longer than anyone else and should have been promoted... Maybe if you wouldn't have fired him as well for no reason then it wouldn't have cost the citizens $180,000 when he proved to a judge that you fired him because he supported Paul in the last election
As for firing the deputy chief, the mayor didn't fire anybody. The city manager directed that after getting his bait of complaints from the chief himself about his brother's toxic effect upon the department, and observing that nothing was being done by the chief about this problem. Nobody proved anything to a judge, but an insurance company did settle the case, and no, the city didn't pay any 180,000 to anybody.
And more details to follow?
And now we are back to where we started, with pointless, unsubstantiated expressions of subjective opinion which achieve nothing except reinforce the theory that the incumbents supporters are ill-informed and foolish.
The chief's brother often berated the chief in front of other officers , causing obvious problems in the department, and the chief wanted him out. That happened, but just not the way they figured it would. ( read the records. It's all there)
You oughtta take a peek at those sheriff's interviews. I have.
The chief's brother did work for the chief as his deputy chief, and he was promoted ahead of two others who had been there longer, wasn't he ?? What's subjective, opinionated, and unsubstantiated about that?