More Nomination Shenanigans- Council Meeting, 27 July 2015

Well, another Snellville Council meeting, and more of the same in my opinion. The mayor nominated the same two people who were both rejected at the last meeting. Why were they nominated again? Nothing has changed. Did you read the piece I wrote about the last meeting, 13 July 2015? Same dance, same tune. I have to wonder if this is an “I’m a victim” by the mayor. From what I’ve seen in the past, that’s her standard practice. I mean these nominations are discussed in the work session before the meeting and everyone knows before they go into the meeting how the vote will go. So the Mayor continues to nominate people she knows will not be confirmed. To what end? Does she like embarrassing nominees?  In order to make it look as if she (the mayor) is a victim? Awesome. Big win for us. Go Snellville We Win!  Or do we?

Only this time I have every reason to believe the Mayor and one of the candidates co-wrote the comments the candidate made after she was denied a seat on a commission. Just my opinion. Why do I think this? Well I’ve been told that this candidate is a ‘teachers pet” in the leadership course currently in session hosted by the mayor. She may well be qualified, if so, why not got through the process put in place?

After the ‘comments’ portion and Mayor Pro Tem Witts pointed out that two specific directives had not been met for the nominees presented, it seemed clear that the council had done the right thing. I can’t see why anyone should be embarrassed because their nomination was not approved because it had nothing to do with them. It had to do with the process that the Council has for approving nominations. Every nominee has to be vetted by the commission they’re nominated for. No vetting, no approval. It’s that simple. So I have to ask again why the mayor nominated these people for a second time knowing that they had not been vetted and knowing that the nominations would be turned down.

Then the mayor tried to make it look like according to state law the council had in fact passed resolutions and amendments to try to override state law.

I’ve spent ½ the night looking up the “law”’ that was referred to, and the resolution and the 2nd ‘policy’ the city council passed in a majority vote. Neither have anything to do with the law the mayor sited. Neither try to override the law that the mayor sited.

Ever heard of smoke and mirrors?  Old carnival trick. Google it.

Pay attention. Ask questions.

It’s OUR City. Act like it, defend it, be involved for your kids sake. For your grandkids sake.

One more thing in case you missed it.


  1. Ms.Herrington, I see you took issue with my comment. That is not unexpected in an opinion piece. However, I stand by my statement.

    I will concede that you had ample time to collect your thoughts before making public comments. After all, it was known during the 6:30 work session that you would be denied.

    I’m sorry that Kelly Kautz knew how the vote would play out before the regular session, yet chose to subject you to the ordeal of a second denial. I’m sorry Kelly Kautz chose to use your rejection as a tool to try once again to debase those on the dais … your expense.

    I will be clear as to why I doubt your sincerity. I have twice heard it explained to you that once you complete the vetting process according to policy, the vote would go in another direction. Yet you choose to withdraw your nomination instead.I don’t understand the resistance to going through the procedure. The resistance causes me to doubt.

    Thus far, I have simply stated my opinions on the subject and I have expressed my sympathy regarding Kelly Kautz’use of you as a pawn as she has used others. Now, I shall get personal. Please understand that I neither need nor desire a “teaching moment” from you. And a”bad judgment call”? Assuming that I gave no thought to my words….just opened my mouth and let it spew forth was a bad judgment call on your part.

    I shall not be commenting any longer on this thread. That is not to say I’m unwilling to continue the dialogue. I only think the admins would prefer that we move our discussion elsewhere.

  2. This is in response to Terry’s statements concerning my reading from a card what I wished to say at the recent Council meeting. Remember, my comments had to be shared at the END of the meeting – and if you will recall, I had been voted down twice by that time.
    I cannot speak for others – but I know that I give great thought to what I will say in public. To have the three or four sentences written down on a note card(!) so that my carefully chosen words might be succinct and meaningful -hardly should call into question my “sincerity.” Rather it points to the importance I place upon the proceedings and the resultant action. Please also bear in mind that I had more than sufficient time to collect my thoughts while sitting during the rest of the Council meeting until the point where public comments could be shared.
    Perhaps if this could be a ‘teaching moment’ – if something is worth saying – it is worth giving thought to what you are saying and not just opening your mouth and let it spew forth.
    My ‘sincerity’ should hardly be questioned – what should be questioned is one’s motive in going down that road. A subjective response such as ’embarrassment’ is what it is. To be questioned as to its validity is a bad judgement call on the part of the one questioning it.

    Grace to all,
    Anna Herrington

  3. Oh, Steve, I thought your publication was above calling one another names. You perform a vital service by providing a channel for news distribution, please don’t let it slide down to name calling. It appears everyone has dug in their heels to maintain their position – and the ones who ultimately get hurt are the citizens.
    Grace to all, Anna Herrington

    • There was no name calling, just a description of the events as I saw them. Any embarrassment you feel was caused by one person who obviously had no concern for your feelings. I believe the council did the right thing by sticking to its policy. If you think that was wrong, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

      For the record The Snellville Times does not engage in reporting for the purpose of creating negative publicity. However, we WILL report the facts to make people aware of them. In some cases that may cause an article to have a negative tone. That’s a result of someone’s actions, not our reporting. We would be doing a disservice to our readers if we didn’t report something simply because it wasn’t nice.

  4. Ms. Herrington

    As you know things aren’t always what they appear. Based on things we have seen in the past it seemed like the mayor was involved in your comments. You say that is not true, so please accept our apologies.

    I do disagree with you about the mayor making the nominations. True the charter gives her the authority to make those nominations. It also gives members of the city council the authority to vote on those nominations. If the members of the council have decided that they will not approve anyone who is not recommended by the commission that’s their decision. Personally I think it’s a good practice. It doesn’t really matter what the mayor says or what the city attorney says. The council members can vote the way they want.

    Why can’t we all play well together? That should be obvious. You have five people who go above and beyond for the city and one person who is on an obvious power trip and doesn’t care about anyone else’s opinion. Have you ever been able to play well together with a spoiled little brat who has a tantrum every time she doesn’t get her way?

  5. Well, I have been called many things, but this is a new one :”teacher’s pet.” If this means I am polite in class, try to be helpful, am friendly to my fellow participants, do not stir up political muck in a session. . . well, maybe indeed the shoe fits. You see, I was raised to be nice to people.
    But I had to laugh at the comment that the mayor assisted in drafting the remarks I made following the meeting. This is entirely ridiculous. The only one to see my remarks in advance was my husband – hardly ‘the mayor.’
    I am no one’s spokesperson, except for the trio known as “me, myself, and I.”
    As I understand it, the Mayor was acting on the power granted her position by the city charter (i.e. our city’s constitution, so to speak). Whereas the Council was acting upon their understanding of the procedure they passed earlier outlining a different procedure about who does what in the nomination and appointment process of an individual to a commission (using the power of ‘home rule’)Perhaps we just should all be patient and see what the city attorneys’ opinions are concerning legality of it all.

    What I will share – and I think I echo the sentiments of many of our citizens – why can’t we all just ‘play well together.’ Differences of opinions, points of view, and perspectives do not necessarily have to weaken the organization or group. Rather, if done respectfully, orderly, and with good intent – it is possible to achieve something greater as a whole than as any single part.
    Let us all remember the perhaps too ‘sweet’ a sentiment – but yet an amazingly honest one:
    Together Everyone Accomplishes More. Just take the first letter of each word and see what it spells. . .

  6. The nominee in question spoke eloquently of the embarrassment and humiliation she felt after being denied twice and was withdrawing her application in order to not be subjected to such rejection again.
    Yet, she was not speaking from the heart. Rather she read a prepared statement. A statement that referred to TWO denials. That indicated to me that she knew she would not be approved before the meeting. Any feelings of sympathy I may have had for her quickly dissipated along with my opinion of her sincerity.
    As mentioned in the article, the nominee could be an asset to the committee but I believe last night’s “nominee shenanigans” to be just another ploy to discountenance the Council.

  7. The mayor continues to throw residents under the bus for her personal power trip. The law for vetting appointees was put into law in March of 2014. It is a requirement for prospective appointees to first attend the committee meetings they were to be appointed to and secondly to be vetted by the people they would work with. Kautz was told in the work session, preceding the regular meeting, that although these two had attended a meeting, they still had not been vetted by the committee. Therefore they would not be approved this evening because they had not gone through the full process required. Kautz refused to take their names off of the agenda. They would have most likely been approved at a future meeting after full vetting had been accomplished. Thus they had their names raked over the coals in public again because Kautz disagreed with a former council decision. And in retrospect, the one person who was approved had gone through the proper vetting required. However, Kautz voted against him. He had been vetted, reviewed and suggested by the Arts Commission three times and Kautz refused to present his name. After discussion with the city attorney in the work session concerning the issue, it was his opinion that under the city laws, the council, in lieu of the mayor, could present this applicant and vote on his approval due to the length of the time the seat had remained vacant. Kautz was the only one to vote against him. She claimed that her challenge of this issue in court is still undecided. It would be nice for a change, with this mayor, to decide something in the council chambers instead of in a courtroom. Remember, this is a “Weak Mayor” form of government, not a dictatorship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.