Councilman Howard Disputes Mayor's Claims Concerning Invoices

(Editor's note: the following is a letter to the editor sent by council member Bobby Howard. The statements made are the opinion of the author, and they do not represent the views of Snellville Patch.

For further reading:

• Mayor Kautz Says Recent Allegations are 'Blatantly False'
• )

In a recent article, Snellville Mayor Kelly Kautz claims that recent allegations of her misconduct are “blatantly false”. So let’s take a look at Kautz’s statements where she attempts to prove her point, and examine the facts. When you do so, you'll come to the inescapable conclusion that the only allegations that are blatantly false are the ones made by Kautz. (Anyone with an interest in the way their tax money is spent should verify the facts for themselves.) 

Kautz-statement from Snellville Patch “Kautz, however, said in an email to Snellville Patch that everything she did was known and legal. She brought Cruser and Mitchell into the case to replace City Attorney Tony Powell, who had a conflict of interest in the case due to being an “independent witness," according to Kautz. 

Fact- It was unknown by at least four members of Council that Kautz had hired Cruser and Mitchell until December 13, when she sent out an email stating that she had hired the firm to serve as City Attorney. 

Fact- There was in fact no conflict of interest on the part of Tony Powell. This was verified by the State Bar of Georgia and the Georgia Municipal Association. 

Kautz- “Per the City Charter the mayor has sole authority to appoint assistant City Attorneys...”

Fact- The Snellville City Charter, Section 3.12 states, “The mayor shall appoint a city attorney, together with such assistant city attorneys as may be authorized”—“AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED” means that the Council has to authorize the mayor to make such appointments. 

Kautz- "This check was not written by me alone without authority, but to the contrary followed the proper procedures of the City," Kautz stated in an email to Patch.  

Fact- Proper procedures were NOT followed. Without the City Manager's knowledge, Kautz directed the accounting department to write the check, a clear violation of the City Charter. Violation of the City Charter is not a proper procedure.

Section 3.14. - City manager (d)

Except for the purposes of inquiries and investigations, the mayor, the city council, and council members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the city manager solely through the city manager; and the mayor, the city council, or council members shall not give orders to any such city officer or employee, either publicly or privately.  

Kautz- "It was for city work, not individual work, that all members of Council may not be happy about but they were aware of the contract and the legal services being performed." 

Fact- City Council members were never aware of a contract between the City and Cruser & Mitchell. If the law firm had been hired as assistant City Attorneys, the City Council would have had to authorize the hiring. It did not. Since a proposal to hire assistant City Attorneys was never brought before the Council, Kautz apparently hired Cruser & Mitchell to defend her individually. In her 10/30/12 e-mail to the Council, Kautz stated only, "I have asked Nola Jackson, from the law firm of Cruser and Mitchell to assist us in this matter." For reference, Karen Woodward, another Cruser & Mitchell attorney billed for work done on 10/18/12, almost two weeks before Kautz informed the Council she had asked Nola Jackson to assist. 

Kautz- "I do not, as standard procedure, send the invoices to Council personally (unless I am specifically asked). I send them to staff, which is what I did with this invoice." 

Fact- City Attorney bills are routinely addressed to, "City of Snellville", NOT to the mayor. The proper procedure is for the bills to be handled by the appropriate staff members. As City Manager Butch Sanders stated, "we always sent out copies of the bills just as an FYI, but never did so looking for approval." 

So it seems that each and every statement that Kautz claims is "blatantly false", is actually "blatantly true". When you read through the facts, it would seem that the only conclusion you can reach is that this is yet another example of statements made to divert attention from the irresponsible spending of taxpayer money.