Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016    Login | Register        

Settlement or fight coming over PTC mayor's pay cut

Will the Peachtree City Council cut a deal with Mayor Don Haddix to avoid a lawsuit over the unprecedented pay cut he was given in May, or will they hire an attorney and battle a potential lawsuit in the matter?

The answer is expected tomorrow night after council discusses the matter in executive session and takes one of two actions: approval of a “proposed settlement agreement” or paying an outside attorney to represent the city in the matter. Both options are on the table on an amended council agenda as the city took the unusual step of itemizing the executive session discussion and options on a revised council agenda for Thursday night’s meeting that was published Wednesday morning.

The executive (closed) session is slated to occur at the end of the meeting. Per Georgia law, any vote by council must occur in open session, so any decision will be a matter of public record.

In May, council voted to cut Haddix’s pay from $750 a month to just under $75 a month, and they continued that pay cut by making it a part of this year’s city budget. The pay cuts were a reaction to recoup nearly $10,000 in legal fees the city paid to litigate and settle a libel lawsuit filed against Haddix by former Mayor Harold Logsdon.

The city’s risk management agency has denied coverage for the pay dispute and potential lawsuit alleged by Haddix, which means that any legal fees incurred in a potential lawsuit will be borne in full by the taxpayers.

Haddix’s attorney has contended that council had no authority to cut the mayor’s pay in mid-term because city rules require any pay changes to be effective on the subsequent term of office.

The issue of the city paying for Haddix’s legal fees in the libel case was brought about because the risk management agency was convinced to cover the cost of the legal charges and settlement after the case concluded. The agency ruled that since the alleged libelous statement was contained in an email Haddix sent to a city employee, it was an official act Haddix undertook as mayor.

Others contend that Haddix’s labeling of former Mayor Harold Logsdon as “part-drunk” at council meetings was a personal cheap shot and not one deriving from his official duties.

The risk management agency had initially denied Haddix coverage in the libel lawsuit, which caused Haddix to hire his own personal attorney in the case.



then I say the City should go for it. Otherwise, hold his feet to the fire for costing our City the money. I would never agree to give him his pay back that we have withheld.

Or he could resign and drop his silly/childish THREAT of a lawsuit and save everyone time and money. I prefer this option.

rolling stone's picture

With lawyers involved, even if you win you lose and council's chances of winning look remote. The council made an error by withholding the salary, not to mention Imker's public statement calling the mayor a thief, which to a casual observer such as myself looks a lot like slander.

americanpatriots's picture

It will cost the taxpayers a lot more if this issue goes to trial.

I seriously doubt the city would prevail at trial and the council members will probably be sued individually for what they did and said. One council member is especially vulnerable for his public comments.

Settle this and move forward. Nothing will be gained by drawing this out any longer!

The voters are sick of this nonsense.

A tip of the ole fedora to both of you. Finally someone points out in writing the council members outrageous comments as well as Imker. I agree Mayor these should be grounds to be sued.

Mr. Mayor pass that along to your lawyers. I am sure you are ready for this to end but also feel individual filings are in order. I support American Patriots and Rolling Stone and since it has been placed in writing perhaps you could call them as witnesses, surely you will win the city suit and after this, the individual ones if you proceed.

I pray you will NOT go into settlement take this to the full extent that the law provides. Stand up to these bullys. Though I have not agreed with all you do you have tried, you threw your hat into the ring, you have lived here for twenty plus years and you had/have a vision.

Thank you for not backing down Mr. Mayor, I have you in my prayers and watch with interest.

Bless Your Heart.

ptctaxpayer's picture

Haddix Settlement--- I agree Rolling Stone with just about everything you said especially the stupidity of Imker. He's gotta be one of the dumbest people to ever walk in to City Hall.

The problem with the settlement is two fold. (1) They have to restore Haddix's pay. Not a particularly big deal money wise. (2) The Vigorish To Lawya Bowers: Judge Pappy's buddy is gonna need some cash. That is gonna be harder for the council to swallow.

Everyone would like to settle this once and for all. No one is going to win here. However, both sides need to compromise. Lets see tonight if Mr. Haddix and Council can play nicely in the sandbox. Would be nice to see the Mayor learn how to build a consensus.

It's not worth the continued effort.

Taxpayers should not have to pay any more money in a new lawsuit. Give him back the money he took from taxpayers.

We have paid in so many ways for Haddix's lack of leadership and inability to govern the city!

Let's just make sure we vote for a real leader in 2013.

NUK_1's picture

Let the voters get rid of Haddix next year without having to keep paying for his stupidity and also having to pay for Council being petulant. This could easily make the 10k the taxpayers lost due to Haddix's complete incompetence and lack of anything resembling common sense or class look like peanuts by the time Haddix's lawyer has to get paid, the outside attorney representing council gets paid, etc. etc.

Enough, restore the clown's pay and just move on. You're going to have to trust the voters to take care of Haddix a year from now and we'll handle that, barring pumpkin succeeding in getting the FBI, CIA and the military to monitor any conversations we may have that might impugn the character of our present Mayor. In pumpkin's hysterical mind, free speech only exists if pumpkin approves. Otherwise, BRING IN THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES! Good Lord we have some "winners" in PTC.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

or troll, whichever you prefer.
Yes indeed, a settlement is better than an expensive fight at this point and of course everyone (except pumpkin) knows the Haddix dude is done. Let's just leave it at that and concentrate on who will replace him next year.

Live free or die!

Mike King's picture

...But does anyone actually believe individual egos will be left at the door? The key to putting this sorry episode behind us lies with the two women on Council who it seems possess all the leadership.

Hopefully, Vanessa and Kim will bring their rolling pins to the dais and enforce sound reasoning. Surely, George will get the message.

We have talked- you must have came out that conversation with confidence that I could at least do simple math. Hope all is well. (This is meant as good natured, hope it came off that way.)

Mike King's picture

Math plus rational decision making. Albeit after voting to do what you're about to undo.
All too often decision makers are seen as "flip-floppers" because of not realizing the ramifications of their actions. Hang in there.

abeautifulday4us's picture

Mr. King, I find this comment ignorant and offensive. Vanessa and Kim are each professionals and may not even be "cooks in the kitchen". I resent that stereotyping.

NUK_1's picture

[quote]Vanessa and Kim are each professionals [/quote]

Mike King's picture

Surely you understand a play on words. In case you don't the two women are the actual power on the dais.
Could it be your skin is a bit thin?

You won Mayor as well you should........

I am

Ad space area 4 internal