Review of the 5-1-12 Peachtree Corners City Council Meeting

The Peachtree Corners City Council had a special “called” meeting yesterday at 11:00 AM at the Peachtree Corners YMCA.  There was only one major item on the agenda: Whether to submit a request to the County for a moratorium on all permitting, zoning applications, business licenses etc.  

The lawyer – Bill Riley - laid out the argument that there is often a rush to the county for permits before a new city takes over.  He argued that folks will get caught having started the process under the county and may have to finish under the city causing confusion.  He recounted stories of troubles between Johns Creek and Fulton County.  Specifically that the county collected permit and inspection fees, but the city had to do the work because of the timing of the takeover.  That work had to be done without the funding because the county refused to turn over the money collected.  Although he says he does not anticipate any issues with Gwinnett officials, he is seeking to avoid this transition trouble through the moratorium.  In addition, he cautioned that without the moratorium, adult bookstores, massage parlors, etc. often try to slip into the area, believing that the county process will be easier than any new city process is likely to be.  

The councilpersons asked some good questions.  Wright, Aulbach, Lowe, and to a lesser extent Christopher and Gratwick all challenged the lawyer on the implications of doing nothing, the burden on businesses unable to get a license during the moratorium, etc.  Phil Sadd was not at the meeting.  The mayor had no questions for the attorney.  The discussion went on for a bout 25-30 minutes before the council was satisfied and voted to approve the request to the County.

Overall, I was satisfied with how the council handled this meeting.  The questions they asked were in my mind as well. I was pleased to see them challenge the lawyer’s recommendation, require examples of when the worst happened in reality, and explore the implications and burdens on residents and businesses that the moratorium may cause.

My dissatisfaction all centers on the speed that the meeting was called.  Most of us had only about 12 hours notice that it would occur.  It gave off the impression of a rushed, “secret” meeting, held at a time when most folks work and cannot attend.  The meetings are supposed to be announced in the Gwinnett Daily Post in advance.  The acting city clerk assured me that she contacted The Post last week.  Myself and others in attendance let her know that we were unable to locate that announcement, finding out through The Peachtree Corners Patch instead.  She promised to investigate the issue.

I talked to a couple of the councilpersons afterward, spending quite a bit of time with Jeanne Aulbach, Post 4.  I let her know that I felt this meeting ran better than the first one because we saw the council explore the implications of the issue before them.  They challenged the guidance they were getting to ensure it was sound and as many sides were examined as possible.  The last meeting was a series of approvals and hires without any feeling that due diligence had been done.  Those of us attending the meetings expect to see our council really engage and vet the issues, but it appeared they simply abdicated their responsibility to a contingent of Johns Creek bureaucrats.  Ms. Aulbach promised to do more to communicate with her constituents – which includes everyone in Peachtree Corners – so we see the due diligence happen and can better understand the trade-offs and ultimate decisions reached.  

Review of First City Council Meeting for Peachtree Corners

Well the first City of Peachtree Corners city council meeting is in the history books...and all I can say is “buckle up, it looks like its going to be a bumpy ride.”

Apparently the new mayor believes that any dialogue between the council and the citizenry should occur somewhere other than the council chambers. As he explained to one citizen who asked a question during the only ‘public comment’  period (before any city business was introduced)-  the plan is to have a few minutes at the beginning of each council meeting for citizens to approach the microphone and comment on the subject of their desire. The mayor made it clear he does not intend to engage in a conversation with anyone during this period, he will just nod his head, thank you for your input and move on to the next person. This policy needs to change. The mayor claims this is how ‘they’ do it, alluding to the cities of Johns Creek and Dunwoody. A check of both those cities websites reveals that their council meetings include public comment sections both before and after city business is introduced. 

Then the council gets down to business. The mayor taps his gavel and asks the new interim city clerk "what’s next?" The clerk reads the next point of order, the mayor asks the council for their comments or questions, asks for yea votes and nay votes, taps the gavel again and says "the motion is passed". Repeat that scenario as often as the agenda dictates.

I spoke to one councilman after the meeting and voiced my displeasure with the idea that the mayor and council were just going to sit up there and 'proclaim' things without any public input. I was informed that 'most of the actual work' is done in work sessions which are open to the public. The meeting is just a formality. But then he goofed and admitted that there wouldn’t be any public input at the work sessions either.

Am I the only one who remembers the council candidates talking about how accessible they would be during the campaign? How they would listen to their constituents? Some even posted on our fb page that issues would be open to public comment for 30 days before the council would vote on them.

For those of you who didn’t attend the meeting, there are a few things you might like to know. Despite the fact your new city isn’t even a legal entity for 73 more days:

• You already have an attorney on the city payroll. You don’t know anything about him, or his compensation package.

• You have a city clerk on the city payroll. You don’t know anything about her, or her compensation package.

• You have an executive search firm on the city payroll, trying to hire a city manager. You don’t know anything about the search firm, or their fee structure.

• You have hired a 'facilitator' to assist with developing a long and short term strategic plan for the city. You know nothing about this 'facilitator', or his salary.

• You have purchased an insurance policy to protect the mayor and council, presumably from the consequences of any bad decisions they make. You don’t know anything about the coverage terms, or the cost of the policy.

The one thing we do know about our new city attorney, city clerk, city consultant, and facilitator is that they are all currently employees of the City of Johns Creek. We hired the whole bunch of them.

We thought we elected a mayor and a city council. Apparently what we got was a Czar and his ruling cabal...or perhaps a puppet regime of the bureaucrats of John’s Creek.

Run-off Elections in April

Three posts were secured on Tuesday night.  Mike Mason, running unopposed, was confirmed as Mayor.  Phil Sadd will represent District 1.  Jay Lowe will represent District 2.  The other posts are expected to have run-off elections in early April.


Post 3 - Run-off between David Proud and Alex Wright
Post 4 - Run-off between Jeanne Aulbach and Robert Byars
Post 5 - Run-off between Lorri Christopher and Gray Terry
Post 6 - Run-off between Weare Gratwick and Brian Stickney


Congratulations to all the candidates for running great campaigns.  The Peachtree Corners Ballot Committee appreciates how well you engaged with us on the issues.  We hope that Scott Ehrlich, Brent Johnson, and David Leader  will stay as engaged in the City and the issues as they were during their campaigns.  We look forward to seeing you on our Facebook Page and at future city meetings and events.

Is the Peachtree Corners City Charter a Sham?

Many in Washington look upon the Constitution as an ancient document written by a bunch of old guys with almost no relevance to today.  It is ignored or circumvented when working within its bounds is deemed too cumbersome or inconvenient.  The Peachtree Corners City Charter is the city’s “constitution”.  It describes the boundaries of the city, how the city will function, how it will add services, elect officials and collect taxes.  It clearly states that the charter may only be changed by a referendum of the city’s citizens.  But a small group of politicians just changed the charter without any such vote by the citizens.  

These politicians, including mayor-to-be Mason, the Berkeley Lake Mayor Salter and State Representative Tom Rice, met together, decided that a stretch of land along Peachtree Industrial would go to Berkeley Lake despite being ratified in the Charter as belonging to Peachtree Corners.  Bill 956 was passed by the State House on February 27, 2012.  It amended our charter by legislative fiat.  No citizen referendum.  Poof! 161 businesses are no longer in Peachtree Corners because a group of politicians banded together to go around the city’s “constitution.”  Promises were made during the vote for cityhood.  Those promises have already been broken.

Now, I believe that if a group of residents or businesses want to secede from the City, they should be allowed to do so by following the rules in the Charter and State Law.  What is shocking is how quickly Mr.  Mason and Mr. Rice directly circumvented a referendum because they saw the need to do so.  Mr. Rice has offered all sorts of “I know what’s best for you” reasons.  But rather than explain those reasons and let the citizens vote per the charter, he used his political power to simply act.  What else do these politicians think needs action and going to the voters is just too much trouble?  What do they think we need next:  Perhaps a police department, a big city hall, more tax revenue, more, more, more.  But we certainly need no votes by the citizens.  That is just too inconvenient and the voters won’t understand anyway.  They need the superior intellect of us politicians to tell them what is best!  Yikes folks.

In November, we didn’t vote to become a city because we wanted to write 'Peachtree Corners' on our return address- we voted to adopt the charter. The charter defined our boundaries. The charter was sold to all of us as having protections built into it that no other city had- it could not be changed without a referendum.  By legislative fiat, Tom Rice and his cronies just changed the charter without our vote.  This isn’t an issue of whether I pay the legal fees to fight Berkeley Lake annexation attempts, it’s much more fundamental than that.  The city we voted on in November will now no longer exist.  Is the charter still a legally binding document or not? And if it is, what good is the supposed requirement for a referendum if Tom Rice and his buddies down at the statehouse can sit down over a glass of bourbon and a good cigar and do whatever the hell they want to do anyway?  Remember that cities exist at the will of the legislature, so political friends there will allow quick changes to our Charter whenever it is convenient for them.  And the rights of we the citizens are just so much lip service.

Be sure to vote on March 6.  Be sure to pick people absolutely dedicated to protecting your right to referendum laid down in the Charter.   Do not surrender this city to the elitist “I know what’s best for you whether you like it or not” politicians.  Mike Mason looks to be that kind of politician.  Figure out who his friends are and who is a thorn in his side and make sure we have a council that will stick up for us.  Candidates, show us if you have any thorns please.  Post your comments on our Facebook Page.

Peachtree Corners - The Friends and Family Plan

Section 3.11 of the Charter (page 16) allows for the city council to create jobs for their friends and family at will.  No referendum is needed to establish boards, commissions, and other authorities.  The Mayor will appoint the personnel.  The charter is designed for cronyism at its best.  Here is section 3.11:

(a) The city council shall create by ordinance such boards, commissions, and authorities to fulfill any investigative, quasi-judicial, or quasi-legislative function the city council deems necessary and shall by ordinance establish the composition, period of existence, duties, and powers thereof.

(b)   All members of boards, commissions, and authorities of the city shall be appointed by the mayor and council for such terms of office and in such manner as shall be provided by ordinance, except where other appointing authority, terms of office, or manner of appointment is prescribed by this charter or by law.

(c)  The city council by ordinance may provide for the compensation and reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses of the members of any board, commission, or authority.

The Yes-side really does not want you to read the charter.  The pretty postcards present the story as they want you to believe it.  The Voter That Knows Votes NO!  Please read the Charter and vote on November 8^th. 

Posted By: Ali