I firmly believe that the following statements are based on truth, however, they are expressions of my personal opinions, and as such are not presented as facts. The statements and actions upon which I base these opinions are readily available and I will gladly provide documentation upon request.

In her Mayor’s comments, Kautz noted that only council Member Diane Krause participated in a scheduled sign tour of neighboring cities. She also noted that she had advised city Manager Butch Sanders that she would be late because she had to be in court. That’s all true. What Kautz left unsaid was that she didn’t show up for the sign tour at all– not because she was in court, not because of a previous commitment, not because a critical work-related situation had arisen, but because she was having her nails done.  Her statement was clearly an attempt to discredit members of Council– all of whom had legitimate reasons for their absence– and to shift the spotlight away from the fact that she didn’t show up.

Kautz’s second statement of false reality was that she had nominated five people for the Evermore CID board position that has been vacant for over a year. The former city-appointed board member resigned in November, 2011, about the time Kautz took office. For almost a year, Kautz did not ever nominate anyone to fill that position. It wasn’t until late last year, hat she made her first nomination– of a person who neither lived nor worked in Snellville, and whose admitted purpose for applying for the position was to build a business alliance.

Why did Kautz state that she had nominated five people when in fact she has only nominated one? My guess is that if asked, she will claim confusion. My opinion, based on similar actions in the past, is that she is once again trying to portray herself as a victim– this time of the Council members on the other side of the divide.

Taken by themselves, these two incidents seem trivial at best. However, they are part of a continual barrage of false and inaccurate statements specifically designed to discredit fellow Council members. Apparently, Kautz prefers to widen the divide upon which the Council stands, rather than attempting to build any form of unity.

For more tales of small town politics, direct your browser to- Cut To The Chase Political Commentary

Yet in spite of all the city’s positive aspects, it is fighting some demons. Since the current mayor has been in office, city attorneys have come an gone with alarming regularity. The latest chapter in what seems to be an endless saga began last December.

“Victim” may seem like a strange word to apply to a City Attorney, yet for the participants in the parade of attorneys who have recently attempted to serve the City of Snellville, it appears to be entirely appropriate. The most recent victims of Snellville’s revolving attorney door are Nola Jackson and Karen Woodward, members of the law firm Cruser & Mitchell.

Without any discussion whatsoever with other Council members, the current mayor appointed Cruser & Mitchell as interim City Attorney on December 13, 2012. On a number of previous occasions, Ms. Kautz had attempted to fire current City Attorney Powell. (Whether the mayor has the authority to fire the City Attorney is a matter that’s pending before a Superior court judge.

Obviously, neither Ms. Jackson nor Ms. Woodward had anticipated the positions into which they found themselves when they agreed to serve the city. At both the January 9th specially called meeting, and the January 14th regular meeting, Ms. Kautz placed Ms. Woodward in the unenviable position of being asked questions that appeared to be designed to solicit answers that would contradict those offered by Mr. Powell.

To her credit, Ms. Woodward expressed her honest opinion and more often than not agreed with Mr. Powell or stated that she didn’t have the information she needed to provide an answer. Ms. Woodward was clearly uncomfortable, having been placed under the aura of cross-examination. It’s a pretty safe bet that she didn’t anticipate her legal service would give her a starring role in a contentious court room-style drama played out in a public meeting.

Consequently, it came as no surprise that on January 17th, Cruser & Mitchell informed the City it was terminating its agreement to serve as interim City Attorney. In its letter to the City, the law firm stated, “Thank you for the opportunity to serve as interim city attorney for the City of Snellville. At this time, however, we feel it is not in the best interest of Cruser & Mitchell to continue in this position. In accordance with our agreement for services, we are providing written notice that, effective immediately, Cruser & Mitchell, LLP withdraws from representation of the City”.

That’s makes it five law firms that have gone through, or become ensnared in the revolving door in a little over a year. Two firms resigned and two were fired. In this case, two plus two equals five because one firm was fired, rehired and fired again.

The question is, “Where does the City go from here?” Given this history, many attorneys will decline to even consider serving as Snellville’s City Attorney—being fired, or resigning after only a few months or less on the job, is never a good thing to have on a resume, or on the minds of one’s peers.

So for the moment, Snellville’s revolving attorney door will continue to spin, just waiting for its next “inductee”.

For previous City Attorney Land Adventures, click the links below.

Adventures in City Attorney Land

Adventures in City Attorney Land, Part Deux

To accept that voters cast their ballots according to the monolith in which they are placed, is to deny that these voters are individuals, with unique priorities. Therefore, it’s unreasonable to expect that one person will have the same values and expectations as another simply because he or she shares an ethnic or religious background.

On the other hand, sometimes “monolithicist” theory is eerily close to being a precise reflection of actual election results. Such was the case in the 2008 presidential election. According to some pollsters, approximately 78% of “the Jewish vote” was cast for Obama. Even if that percentage is grossly optimistic, it begs the question of why any person of the Jewish faith would vote for a candidate who is not only anti-Israel, but is also a supporter of Israel’s enemies.

The easy answer is that many Jews have had a long-time affiliation with the Democratic Party. That affiliation dates back decades, to a time when Republicans were often viewed (on some occasions with a fair amount of accuracy) as being anti-Semitic. Many Jews see themselves first and foremost as members of a faith that has been persecuted for thousands of years. As such, they have an affinity for, and feel a connection with, members of other minorities who have also been victims of prejudice.

The fault in that logic is the assumption that any victim of discrimination shares a bond with all other victims, irrespective of the factors upon which specific discriminatory actions are based. Prejudice, and the discrimination that arises from it, originates from fear fueled by socio-economic difference. While the discriminator many identify race or religion as the objectionable aspect of a particular individual, his or her true antagonism arises from fear– fear that a person of a particular description is a threat to his or her social or economic status.

The stereotypical attributes of one monolithic group rarely have much in common with those of another. Consequently, one group that has been the victim of discrimination may fear and disdain another as much—or more—than the general non-monolithic population. That’s a concept that Jewish voters must accept, and any doubters need look no further than Obama’s numberous assaults against Israel. Here we have a Democrat, who was overwhelmingly supported by Jewish voters, putting forth proposals that are not merely harmful, but potentially devastating to Israel.

Some liberals do understand that Obama’s proposal for Israel to surrender all of the areas captured in its war of 1967, (except for land swaps) will erode the Jewish monolith. Whether they truly care about Israel, or are simply posturing to minimize the effects of a backlash is another matter entirely. Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City is one long-standing Democrat who gets it. Koch has stated he’s ready to break with his party in the upcoming presidential election as a result of Obama’s Middle East policies.

New York senator Chuck Schumer also gets it. He has been critical of Obama’s position on Middle East affairs in the past. A staunch supporter of Israel, Schumer, like many Democrats is now between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If he backs Obama’s latest plan, he loses the support of New York’s Jewish voters; if he objects to Obama’s foot-in-mouth escapades, he risks repercussions within his own party. (Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.) Although Schumer has been openly critical of Obama’s Middle East agenda in the past, he has avoided making a statement about the administration’s land surrender proposal

That may bring Schumer’s primary allegiance into question, but there’s no doubt as to Obama’s. This isn’t the only time he has thrown Israel, and consequently Jewish voters under the bus and it won’t be the last. Voters of all faiths should remember that when they enter the voting booth in November. In abandoning Israel, Obama has not only turned his back on an ally, he has insulted the Jewish voters who supported him.

According to Tracey Mason Blasi, an attorney with over 20 years of experience, who is currently a candidate for Gwinnett County Superior Court, “I have served as a municipal judge, and as a professional mediator, and have also worked to settle cases outside the courtroom. When you can mediate and avoid a trial, it saves everybody time and money and often leads to settlements that would be extremely difficult or impossible to achieve in court. Mediation can be a VERY effective alternative, and that’s why I’m working to promote more Community Courts—they are very effective alternatives.”

Gwinnett County already has an alternative court for drug offenders. Ms. Blasi wants to establish one for mentally ill defendants. The rationale behind her efforts is simple– alternative courts are significantly more effective than traditional courts in reducing crime. In Gwinnett County, and across the nation, jails are filled with repeat offenders; it’s not unusual for these offenders to be sentenced to jail 10 times in a 15 year period. These aren’t hardened criminals. They’re people who have fallen into a lifestyle of committing petty crimes as a result of drug abuse, drug dependency or mental health issues.

The intent of alternative courts isn’t to offer soft-on-crime options, or to give criminals a free pass, but to address specific core issues that lead to criminal behavior, rather than the consequences of that behavior. And that’s the key to their success. If you can control the cause, you can eliminate the result.

It’s creative approaches like this that have made Ms. Blasi the candidate of choice for Gwinnett County voters. And her extensive work defending taxpayers against overreaching government agencies, previous judicial experience and a life-long familiarity with Gwinnett County add a unique dimension. One that is essential in a Superior Court judge.

To accept that voters cast their ballots according to the monolith in which they are placed is to deny that these voters think independently and have unique priorities. But to accept the monolith theory is to accept as reasonable, the idea that one person will have the same values and expectations as others simply because he or she shares an ethnic or religious background.

On the other hand, sometimes “monolithicist” theory is eerily close to being a precise reflection of actual election results. Such was the case in the 2008 presidential election. According to some pollsters, approximately 76% of “the Jewish vote” was cast for Obama. Even if that percentage is grossly optimistic, it begs the question of why any person of the Jewish faith would vote for a candidate who was clearly anti-Israel and supportive of Israel’s enemies.

The easy answer is that many Jews have had a long-time affiliation with the Democratic Party. That affiliation dates back decades, to a time when Republicans were often viewed (on some occasions with a fair amount of accuracy) as being anti-Semitic. Many Jews see themselves first and foremost as members of a faith that has been persecuted for thousands of years. As such, they have an affinity for, and feel a connection with, members of other minorities who have also been victims of prejudice.

The fault in that logic is the assumption that being a victim of persecution or discrimination forges a bond with other victims who are persecuted for unrelated reasons. It does not. The root of all discrimination is socio-economic difference. While the discriminator many identify race or religion as the objectionable aspect of a particular individual, his or her true antagonism arises from fear– fear that a person of a particular description is a threat to his or her social or economic status.

The stereotypical attributes of one monolithic group rarely have much in common with those of another. Consequently, one group may fear and disdain another as much—or more—than the general non-monolithic population. That’s a concept that Jewish voters must accept, and any doubters need look no further than Obama’s latest assault on Israel. Here we have a Democrat, who was overwhelmingly supported by Jewish voters, putting forth a proposal that is not merely harmful, but potentially devastating to Israel.

Some liberals do understand that Obama’s proposal, which calls for Israel to surrender all of the areas captured in its war of 1967, (except for land swaps) will erode the Jewish monolith. Whether they truly care about Israel, or are simply posturing to minimize the effects of a backlash is another matter entirely. Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City is one long-standing Democrat who gets it. Koch has stated he’s ready to break with his party in the next presidential election as a result of Obama’s Middle East policies.

New York senator Chuck Schumer also gets it. He has been critical of Obama’s position on Middle East affairs in the past. A staunch supporter of Israel, Schumer, like many Democrats is now between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If he backs Obama’s latest plan, he loses the support of New York’s Jewish voters; if he objects to Obama’s latest foot-in-mouth escapade, he risks repercussions within his own party. (Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.) Although Schumer has been openly critical of Obama’s Middle East agenda in the past, he has yet to make a statement about the administration’s most recent proposal.

That may bring Schumer’s primary allegiance into question, but there’s no doubt as to Obama’s. This isn’t the first time he has thrown Israel, and consequently Jewish voters under the bus and it won’t be the last. Voters of all faiths should remember that in 2012. In abandoning Israel, Obama has turned his back on yet another ally. How many more can we afford to lose?

In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion article, Peggy Noonan asks quite a few questions about the U.S. military action in Libya . I’m afraid most of them will go unanswered, because in addition to not having answers, Obama doesn’t even understand the questions. When he was still a candidate, my opinion was that Obama was terminally naive and unjustifiably arrogant. In the intervening years, he has made the accuracy of that assessment more and more apparent.

Supporters, of the president rail against conservatives, liberals or both (mostly conservatives) for promoting malaise about the president’s actions. Such arguments are at best irrelevant as they fail to address the core issue. Opinions vary as to whether our actions in Libya are justified, the true goal of those actions, and the US military position with respect other participants. But they are simply that– opinions. However, Obama’s disconnect with Congress, and the American people, is an irrefutable fact.

Ms. Noonan states, “He has to make a case for his own actions. It’s what presidents do!” She didn’t say, “That’s what presidents HAVE to do!” because the reference was to protocol and respect, not requirements. An American president who is truly concerned about the country’s citizens would never take war-like actions without directly addressing those citizens and the Congress that represents them.

It is both naïve and arrogant for this president to think such communication is unnecessary– naïve because he apparently believes his actions will have no consequences, and arrogant in that he has blown off Congress and the American people. But he has also sent a similarly offensive message to our allies, while concurrently informing our enemies that he truly does not have a grasp of the nature of international conflicts.

Obama has stated that US involvement in Libya will only “last a few days”. Nothing of this magnitude lasts a few days. If the end game was to do nothing more than launch a few missiles, drop a few bombs and call it good, such might be the case. But if military action is a cornerstone for launching a humanitarian effort, it is delusional to think that the desired outcome will be achieved in less than a typical American work-week. On the other hand, proposing that the U.S. hand-off spearheading the effort to our European allies and NATO is analogous to saying, “we’re going to have a hell of a party, and if we bust up the place, you guys stick around a clean up”.

Thus far, the general media and his fellow Democrats have seemed untroubled by Obama’s modus operandi. But there are limits. Naivete and arrogance ultimately prove to be a fatal combination which begs the question, is Obama too naïve to realize it or too arrogant to care.