Saturday, September 24, 2016

Georgia’s Government Corruption

The Georgia Municipal Association and the Georgia Legislature drives the cost of government higher and weakens voter control over decisions. Salaries recommended by the Georgia Municipal Association are sky high.

City & County Charters leave voters no say-so on critical issues.  The Georgia Legislature uses the Charters to Muzzle the Voters. Cobb taxpayers are stuck with Brave’s Stadium debt because they had no opportunity to vote on this bond issue. Hall County had their property taxes quadruple at Lake Lanier, because the County Council hired a firm from out of town to assess the property.

City Staff run the Dunwoody City Council. Council Reps defer to the “professionals”. The Council-Manager structure is prone to this weakness. Staffs insistence on keeping “Care Homes” and minimum 15,000 sf lot size in R-100 created problems in Manget Way and Dunwoody Club Forest.

City Staff careers are controlled by Municipal Consulting firms in collusion with the Georgia Municipal Association and other State Municipal Associations. Bringing temp staff on to the City payroll does not alter their loyalties.

City Staff members don’t live in Dunwoody. They have been trained by ICLEI to implement UN Agenda 21. They are biased toward the Agenda 21 concepts we find wasteful and ridiculous.

The Georgia Municipal Association publishes the Georgia Municipal Handbook for Mayors and Councilmembers. It is a “cookie cutter” manual installed by ICLEI to implement UN Agenda 21.  The 3 forms of municipal government used in Georgia are described as follows:

FORMS OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT In Georgia, most municipalities utilize one of three forms of government: Mayor-Council (Strong Mayor) Form Mayor-Council (Weak Mayor) Form Council-Manager Form

These forms of government divide executive and policy-making roles and responsibilities between the municipality’s elected officials - the mayor and council – and appointive staff. While there are distinct differences between these forms of government, there are many variations on structure and policy roles depending on the provisions of the municipality’s charter and the philosophy of the municipality.

Mayor-Council Form (Strong Mayor) Under this form of government, the city council provides the primary policy role, while the mayor provides the primary executive role. This form provides for a distinguishable separation of powers between the city’s executive branch (mayor) and its legislative branch (city council). Thus, the separation of powers contained in the “strong” mayor form is similar to those found in the national and state governments, with the office of mayor being similar to the President of the United States or a governor of a state. Likewise, the council acts as a legislative body similar to the Congress of the United States or a state legislature. Under this form, the mayor serves as the city’s chief executive officer and has full responsibility for the city’s daily operations. As such, the
mayor normally possesses the power to hire and fire
department heads and other city staff, prepare and administer of the city’s budget, and execute contracts. The mayor may also have the authority to appoint council committees, veto legislation passed by the council, and appoint members to city advisory boards. In some cities, particularly larger ones, the mayor may appoint a professional administrator (chief administrative officer, city administrator, etc.) to assist in carrying out the daily operations of the city. The city council is responsible for enacting the city’s policies, through the adoption of ordinances and/or resolutions. While the mayor may possess the authority to veto actions of the city council, the council may possess authority to override the mayor’s veto.

Mayor- Council Form (Weak Mayor) Under this form of government, the mayor and city council normally share the primary policy making role, while the mayor provides the primary executive role. However, in many cities, the “weak” mayor’s role is primarily ceremonial, with the “weak” mayor possessing few, if any, of the executive powers provided to a “strong” mayor. For example, the mayor may not have the authority to appoint council committees, develop the city’s budget, or veto actions of the city council. Also, the mayor may have limited authority to appoint department heads, subject to confirmation by the city council. However, the mayor may not possess the authority to fire department heads. The primary advantage of this form is that it keeps control of the government out of the hands of any single person, so that a corrupt or incompetent individual could do little harm to the city.

1 Council – Manager Form Under this form of government, the city council provides the primary policy-making role, and an appointed city manager provides the primary executive role. It combines the strong political leadership of the elected mayor and council with the strong managerial experience of an appointed local government manager. The council-manager form of government was developed in the early 1900s by reformers who envisioned a more business-like approach to municipal government. Thus, the structure of a municipality operating under the council-manager form of government is similar to the structure of a corporation. To this end, the municipality’s citizens are treated as shareholders that elect a city council to serve as their board of directors. The city council establishes the city’s policies, while a professional city manager, hired by the city council, is charged with implementing the council’s policies. In this capacity, the city manager functions similarly to a corporation’s chief executive officer, or CEO.2 Primary Features of the Council-Manager Form of Government Generally, the council-manager form of government deviates from the traditional separation of powers structure that exists at the national, state, and local levels of government. Instead of having an elected chief executive (president, governor, etc.), the council-manager form of government gives formal governmental authority to an elected city council. The city council then hires a professional city manager to oversee all administrative and executive functions.

The city manager serves at the pleasure of the city council. If a majority of the council is displeased with the manager’s performance, the manager can be fired, subject to applicable laws and ordinances, as well as the terms of the manager’s employment agreement with the city council, if any. In summary, the council-manager form of government combines the strong political leadership of elected officials (mayor and council) with the strong managerial experience of an appointed local government manager. Under this form of government, responsiveness to citizens can be enhanced, as administrative accountability is centralized in one individual, the city manager. Additionally, because political power is concentrated in the entire city council rather than in one elected official, the council-manager form may provide citizens with greater opportunities to serve their community and to influence the future of their community.

Responsibilities of the City Council - The council is the city’s legislative and policy-making body. Its members are the community’s decision-makers. As such, the city council is responsible for enacting policies, approving the city’s annual budget, setting the city’s tax rate, and focusing on such major projects and issues as land use planning, capital financing, and strategic planning. The council is also responsible for hiring the city manager, supervising the manager, and evaluating the manager’s performance. By its very nature, the council-manager form of government is designed to free the city’s governing body from the administration of daily operations, allowing them to instead devote attention to policy-making responsibilities.

Responsibilities of the Mayor - In the purest sense of the council-manager form, the mayor is a member of the city council, with the position of mayor usually being chosen from among the council members on a rotation basis. Under this scenario, the mayor presides at council meetings, signs official documents (ordinances, resolutions, proclamations, etc.) and serves as the city’s official spokesperson. In this sense, the mayor in a council-manager city is similar to a corporation’s chairman of the board. In actual practice, however, numerous cities, including many in Georgia, now elect the mayor citywide by the voters. In these cities, the mayor may possess expanded powers, including the power to veto legislation, appoint council committees, appoint citizen advisory boards, and/or prepare an annual report (“State of the City”) to the council and the community. However, the mayor normally does not possess any day-to-day administrative responsibilities.

Responsibilities of the City Manager - The city manager is hired by the city council to carry out the policies established by the council and to oversee the city’s daily operations. The manager should be hired solely on the basis of relevant education and professional experience. Typically, the city manager is responsible for implementing policies and programs adopted by the city council; hiring and supervising the city’s department heads and administrative staff; developing a proposed budget for the council’s consideration; administration of all city contracts; and serving as the mayor and council’s chief advisor. The city manager also serves as the mayor and council’s liaison to the city’s department heads. While the reformers who created the council-manager form of government originally sought to separate the politics of local government from its administration, this separation is now mostly fiction. Today, most city councils desire and expect their manager to make policy recommendations, with such recommendations providing accurate and detailed information, possible alternatives, and any long-term impacts. The city council can then adopt, modify, or reject the manager’s recommendations. While city managers are typically hired by the city council and serve at the council’s pleasure, most managers, particularly those in medium and large cities, now operate under the terms of an employment agreement. Such agreements normally outline the terms and conditions of employment and separation, along with providing clear guidelines for evaluating the manager’s performance.


The fact that the Georgia Municipal Association writes the rules for all cities and counties ought to tell you that our Codes have been imposed from the top down.

Not all cities and counties went along with UN Agenda 21 abuse. Many of them refused to overuse consultants. They made their Master Plans identical to their original zoning. Counties in South Florida openly rebelled against the complexities of Agenda 21 and voted to reject Regionalism..  Habersham County GA rebelled against the plan that ceded most of their farmland to the federal government. They kept their old Codes and Plans.

Dunwoody could have avoided excessive cost and abuse by rejecting the “cookie cutter”, top-down approach. High density development is still part of the Dunwoody Master Plan despite the fact that our roads and highways will not accommodate the additional traffic. The rush for unsustainable overdevelopment in PCID smells like a scam designed to spike costs.


Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

No comments: