By Pat Cooper
Pat@fayette-news.com
It looks like the next volley in the ongoing battle between Mayor Don Haddix and the Peachtree City council will be fired on Thursday night when the council asks for a salary adjustment for the mayor.
Ever since the council found out, last month, that Haddix had received a nearly $10,000 reimbursement for his legal expenses, stemming from a libel suit. from GIRMA (Georgia Interlocal Risk Management Agency), the city?s insurance company for these types of suits, the four council members have been determined to have the mayor repay that amount to the city coffers.
The city pays premiums to its risk management company each year to receive liability coverage as set on its declaration page - including legal fees and damages- and there was a $25,000 deductible. So after GIRMA reimbursed Haddix, it also invoiced Peachtree City for the payment, which was then paid by the city. The information was a line item on the city?s monthly reports in April.
Haddix has stood firm in his determination not to pay the money back, despite council admonitions.
?I admitted it was a stupid thing to say. It?s over.?
Haddix signed a letter of apology to Logsdon and there was also a monetary settlement that could not be elaborated on.
The dispute started when, in a February 22nd email to then Economic Development Coordinator Joey Grisham, in reference to a change to the city?s alcohol sales hours, Haddix said that former mayor Harold Logsdon ?drank a lot and came to meetings part drunk.?
Haddix said he was trying to impart the historical background on extending the hours for alcohol sales in the city to Grisham.
Logsdon claimed that Haddix?s claim he was part drunk at meetings was false, and he alleges that the claim was made maliciously. In the suit, Logsdon claimed that the email had been circulated among a number of people in the community, harming his reputation.
He filed the suit against Haddix personally, and not in his official capacity as mayor. By not filing against him in his official capacity, it assured that city resources would not be used to fight the suit to fund the legal battle.
Haddix had been turned down at least twice previously by GIRMA because he wasn?t sued in his official capacity as mayor. Haddix had city attorney Ted Meeker appeal a third time. This time GIRMA folded and agreed to pay, then, under the terms of the liability coverage with a $25,000 deductible, turned around and billed the city for the $9,969.40 in expenditures, which the city paid, without consulting the council.
?GIRMA determined that I was covered under the city?s indemnification ordinance. You can?t separate the person from the office. I?m on duty 24/7 so, according to them, I was covered under the indemnification ordinance.?
Councilman George Dienhart told Haddix that his comments were not made in his ?capacity as mayor? and that he should ?do the right thing? and pay the city back.
Councilman Eric Imker said that even if the city?s ordinances said that Haddix?s email might have been considered an official city communication, he still believed the city should appeal GIRMA?s decision to make the payment.
?Everything about this is so wrong. There are times when one has to do the right thing. Clearly this is one of them,? Imker noted.
Last Tuesday, Imker filed an official appeal with George Van Leuven, the manager of Risk Management Services for GIRMA.
?By payment of the claim, GIRMA apparently changed its position from Mr. Haddix' actions not being official city business to such actions being official city business, therefore affording Mr. Haddix the use of taxpayer monies to provide for his defense in every instance at looking at this statement, we find absolutely no reason to understand how slandering a former mayor constitutes city business. The plaintiff in this case made it quite clear they were suing Mr. Haddix in his capacity as an individual and completely separated this from his role as mayor. This is a standalone case of individual versus individual not related to city business. Plaintiff even went so far as to conclude saying he did not want the taxpayers of Peachtree City to be liable for any resulting monetary decision resulting from this case because he was suing Mr. Haddix as an individual.?
Imker also noted that the appeal letter Haddix sent contained ?factual? errors, including:?(a)"Mayor" Haddix did not receive a letter from plaintiff, Harold Logsdon; Don Haddix, a private citizen received the letter; (b) Mr. Logsdon's letter did not claim defamation against the "Mayor;" it was against the individual Mr. Haddix; (c) A lawsuit was not filed against the "Mayor;" it was filed against Mr. Don Haddix.
?For Mr. Haddix to suggest that slanderous comments were city business just because they were sent via a city computer is arguable. It may be official city communications but it is not official city business. Ultimately, the content of the communication is what determines whether it was official city business or not.?
But the council isn?t waiting for GIRMA to answer the appeal letter.
This week all four council members have put a request to adjust Haddix?s salary. Haddix?s yearly salary is approximately $9,000, which, if suspended, would go a long way towards repaying the reimbursement to the city.
?They?re not giving up on getting back the $10,000,? Haddix said Tuesday. ?I?ll have a prepared statement for Thursday.?
He refused to elaborate on the contents of the statement.
?This is so political it?s ridiculous. They?re fighting a legal insurance payment on a legal claim.?
Haddix said the council has repeatedly tried to get rid of him. This is just another attempt. They?ve already threatened him, he said, with ethics violations and censure.
He said he?s received a number of comments from residents who all said that the council needs ?let it go and get back to doing the business of the city.?
madonna super bowl halftime kelly clarkson super bowl giants super bowl 2012 half time show halftime show 2012 kelly clarkson super bowl 2012 giants
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন