Mayoral Race Thoughts

Why should a citizen of the City of Brookhaven vote for J. Max Davis and not Sandy Murray.

Now that three of four city council races and the mayoral race are in a run off,this seems like an appropriate time to discuss facts. I have received many mailers where Sandy Murray has accused J. Max Davis of negative things.

Sandy Murray,in fact,has two outstanding fines levied by the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission (the Ethics Commission) as a result of her campaign for State Rep of District 80. In short,she has two ethics violation fines that she neglected to pay. Her campaign manager stated that it was a “clerical error.” This is not the time to elect someone like Sandy Murray who can’t file a simple campaign disclosure and provide transparency.

Sandy Murray admitted,in a November 22,2012 Brookhaven Patch article,to voting “no” for the City of Brookhaven. Specifically,the article reads:

“’I wasn’t against making a city,’” Murray told Brookhaven Patch. ‘I was against the rush to make a decision.’”

However,in a blog posting on the Brookhaven Patch dated May 16, Sandy Murray writes:

“Clearly the name Brookhaven doesn't resonate with the world…Since our current addresses are Atlanta,I would rather keep it that way. No City Brookhaven!”

In addition,she is pictured in the Dunwoody Crier campaigning near a polling booth with a black wind flag with white letters that reads “City = High Tax = ½ Police = NO.”

Sandy Murray lacks the commitment,concern or care for the new City of Brookhaven.

The new City of Brookhaven deserves a mayor that wants to make the City of Brookhaven resonate with the world.

J. Max supported the efforts to bring better services, truly local representation of residents and more value for your tax dollars.

These are just some of the reasons I am voting for J. Max Davis for Mayor of the City of Brookhaven.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Carl Childers November 15, 2012 at 07:30 PM
I have done extensive research on the topic of thinking. As a scientist I often turn thinking into Soctratic Questioning. You may want to re"think" your methodologies to include: 1. Revealing the issue: ‘What evidence supports this idea? And what evidence is against its being true?’ 2. Conceiving reasonable alternatives: ‘What might be another explanation or viewpoint of the situation? Why else did it happen?’ 3. Examining various potential consequences: ‘What are worst, best, bearable and most realistic outcomes?’ 4. Evaluate those consequences: ‘What’s the effect of thinking or believing this? What could be the effect of thinking differently and no longer holding onto this belief?’ 5. Distancing: ‘Imagine a specific friend/family member in the same situation or if they viewed the situation this way, what would I tell them?’ This will help lead you to a better - clearer answer and perhaps along the way you will learn a bit about yourself. I am a scientist and a genius. Notice my enormous cranium.
Eddie E. November 15, 2012 at 07:32 PM
Phil, The contributions have been received by a Candidate from 'boutique city service providers'. That should be reason enough for individuals with adequate curiosity approaching an election to take pause before casting a vote. Especially when the Other Candidate has not accepted such questionable contributions. Don't you think?
Jack of Kings November 15, 2012 at 09:38 PM
Thank you for acknowledging that there is no Pay to Play. Now you are saying "That should be reason enough for individuals with adequate curiosity approaching an election to take pause before casting a vote. ". I agree...and I have paused and determined that with the microscope under which contracts coming out of Brookhaven is under, I have little fear that there will be contracts going to vendors just because they contributed to a candidate that may win as mayor. A mayor that does not even have a vote in contract awards. But, again, Eddie. It takes a big man to admit that there is nothing out there that says a contributor to a campaign who has not received a contract awarded by the recipient of the contribution is confirmed as a Pay to Play transaction. By George, I think you got it!
Eddie E. November 15, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Phil, So you are comfortable with a 'difference' that is not really a difference (if I read that right). It still stinks and Voters need to think very carefully. Of course in this state we have no qualms in saddling taxpayers with a new stadium while our schools are starving.
Eddie E. November 15, 2012 at 10:45 PM
jg, And you repeat adding an honor to a man who has done NOTHING. Thanks for playing!
HamBurger November 15, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Mr. Phil, this says it all . . . UPDATED- Davis: I Accepted Campaign Contributions from Vendors http://brookhaven.patch.com/articles/davis-i-accepted-campaign-contributions-from-vendors
Brookhaven Maven November 16, 2012 at 02:00 AM
To All Posters and Readers -- Does anyone know whether it is possible or allowable to write in another name on the run-off ballot? For innumerable reasons, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Murray or Davis. Since Larry Danese has already qualified for the mayoral position and has paid all of the requisite filing fees, will I be allowed to write his name in for the run-off? -- The Maven
Jack of Kings November 16, 2012 at 02:11 AM
Sure you can write in Larry Danese. You could write in President Obama. Whatever floats your boat and makes that big statement that no one cares about. Vote third party.
Brookhaven Maven November 16, 2012 at 02:23 AM
To Phil @ 9:11 -- Don't be a nut job. Read the posts. There are a LOT of people who don't want either Murray or Davis to be mayor. Regarding your comment about writing in obama, that would be a wasted vote, since he hasn't qualified for the mayoral race. Actually, now that I think about it, he IS NOT qualified to be the mudprint mayor, any more than these other two clowns.
Brookhaven4u November 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Phil you are so Naive. So you are saying JAX Consulting is donating to J. Max because they only have the best interest of Brookhaven Residents? How about Calvin, Giordano, & Associates? These for profit companies only have the residents of Brookhaven in their heart. There is pay to play if J. Max is elected as mayor.
Jack of Kings November 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Brookhaven4u--why do you insult the integrity of Jim Ehre and the yet to be determined council members?
don Gabacho November 16, 2012 at 05:24 PM
"Phil you are so Naive."---Brookhaven4u Philemon is not "naive." Just determined to impose his handlers' un/anti-American agenda.
Brookhaven4u November 17, 2012 at 03:47 PM
Phil how did I insult the integrity of Jim Ehre? Again making things up? But Jim is only one Council. District 1 with RCW is a puppet of the founding fathers of our city. So J. Max, if elected only needs 1 more Council to side with him on issues and his pay for play would be in play. Do I need to educate on how the founding fathers set up our city? Do you remotely understand? All bargaining with our city start with District 1. Do you feel our city would crumble to the ground if say JAT Consulting was not awarded a contract?
Jack of Kings November 19, 2012 at 11:19 PM
B4U--- What if this and what if that? What if there is a conspiracy? What if Jim Ehre votes for a contract award to a contributor? What if J. Max NEVER has to break a tie? I need no education, B4U. Spend the tuition money on yourself. You ASSUME (and insult) whoever wins in District 1 will vote for whatever J. Max snaps his fingers on. I could care less about JAT Consulting--unless they are awarded a contract and it is not defensible. Anything else, B4U?
Booyah November 20, 2012 at 12:28 AM
If Sandy Murray were to win, Jim Eyre will control the city. If one other district votes a 'NO CITY' person to council; Sandy Murray and the 'No City' folks would run the city. DO NOT let the 'No City' crowd hijack the election.
Brookhaven4u November 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Phil you do need education because your logic is illogical. You believe that in our diverse city the mayor won't make a tie breaker vote? That speaks volumes that you don’t understand the intent our founding fathers had for our city and district 1. RCW will be in our founding fathers back pocket, remember when she could not answer a question on CVI, “It is above my pay grade.” The puppet master was brought in. What if JAT wins a contract over a better bid? That is called pay to play. <Education 4 u> So from your statements, you fill pay to play is fine so long as J. Max gets the votes. Our tax paying dollars should be used to assist in future political career. If people want what is best for the city and do not believe Pay for Play is the best way to get there, they should vote for Murray.
Brookhaven4u November 20, 2012 at 11:53 AM
You tried to associate Murray claiming someone (Who happen to live in the city) could buy or start a company that might end up bidding on city services. Obviously Murray is above this and would not be involved in Pay for pay. There is only one Mayor candidate that is for sure involved in Pay for Play: http://media.ethics.ga.gov/Search/Campaign/Campaign_ByContributions_RFR.aspx?NameID=18022&FilerID=C2012002379&CDRID=70024&Name=Davis,%20J%20Max&Year=2012&Report=15%20Days%20Before%20Special%20Election%20-%2011/06/2012
Jack of Kings November 20, 2012 at 01:01 PM
B4U-- your postings are so misleading. IF you do not get a 2-2 vote in the Council, the mayor has no vote. Pure and simple. Do YOU understand? I suspect that Jim Ehre will not vote for ANY contract bid by a contributor to J. Max. But I would hope that he would be honest to measure the award on the merits of the contract proposal and not the contribution history of the bidder. I could argue that Jim Ehre's presence on the Council should reassure that there will not be Pay to Play, even in the event of a tie. Does anyone here think Jim would stay silent? So P2P is very unlikely to me. As for Sandy Murray? Sorry, I see nothing but disorganization and petty arguments if she were to become Mayor.
Brookhaven4u November 20, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Phil, let me you educate you again. Appears you don't grasp how the city works, nor from your post do you understand what a tie breaker actually is. "IF you do not get a 2-2 vote in the Council, the mayor has no vote. Pure and simple. Do YOU understand?" Phil if you do have a 2-2 council vote, the Mayor actually does have a vote. For your reference, that would be called a tie breaker vote, and in our city that tie breaker vote would be from the Mayor. You have RCW vote what way our founding fathers would like. They just need one more. Outside District 2, there is actually district 3 & 4 whose vote counts the exact same as Jim Eyre (And RCW from district 1 vote has the same pull as Eyre). So if District 3 and/or 4 get CNDB, our founding fathers have the quorum to run this city. Hypothetically, you are District 3 Council Rep. You want some $$ for a capital improvement for a sidewalk. How do you negotiate? Get District 1 on your side, you are done. With J Max, all you have to do is approve RFP for Comdex Consulting (Quid Pro Quo) and you get your sidewalk. Otherwise, you have to negotiate with 2 separate districts. With Sandy, no pay to play, District 3 Council is better to work with all council members.
Jack of Kings November 21, 2012 at 06:00 PM
Oh--I get it. Sorry. I have to live in your fantasy land of suppositions about no one having integrity. No one thinking for themselves. No one really representing their constituents. Now I understand your Land of Oz. I just do not buy it, B4U. Try selling it to someone else. Try giving it away for free. No takers? There are smart people out there, B4U. Hard to sell a cock and bull story. Point, Set, Match.
Roger That November 21, 2012 at 07:05 PM
Someone claiming to be Sandy Murray called a friend of mine. She says she talked to the woman and that it sounded like her (Murray), but when she dialed the number back it was someone else. Is Sandy borrowing cell phones to directly call voters?
Eddie E. November 21, 2012 at 07:12 PM
If the TRUE WILL OF THE PEOPLE is to elect those you hold in such disdain, how on earth could it be defined as 'hijacking'? What a sad and misguided concept.
hmm November 24, 2012 at 02:52 AM
Max is a good communicator who knows how to listen. And great experience and relationships with Dems and Republicans in local and state politics. Sandy does not have the communication skills or temperament to be mayor. She also doesn't have a strong background of business, government or community involvement.
don Gabacho November 27, 2012 at 07:05 PM
"....show me where it is documented that a contributor to a campaign who..."---Filamon More of your contrived double-talk. No burden of proof on the public, whose public trust it is, required in the USA. The law is that those seeking or holding a public trust must shun the mere potential for conflict of interest which Davis rejected by his own rationalization---and thus admission---long published here in the B'Patch for allowing political campaign contributions by a vendor (or anyone else for that matter) at a function of governance.
don Gabacho November 27, 2012 at 07:10 PM
"It takes a big man to admit that there is nothing out there that says a contributor to a campaign who has not received a contract awarded by the recipient of the contribution is confirmed as a Pay to Play transaction."---Filamon The definition of "Pay to Play" is irrelevent to Davis' breech of the long-standing legal precepts of the USA on 'conflict of interest." Note: I said "of the USA" and not of Mexico. "By George, I think you got it!" I believe you do too. But your function is, in part, to deflect justice; not embrace it.
don Gabacho November 27, 2012 at 07:16 PM
Tell us how citizens residing between Ashford Park and Chamblee were allowed to vote on being incorporated or not into a city (in their case Chamblee) but citizens of Ashford Park were disallowed to vote on being incorporated into a city (in their case B'Haven)?
don Gabacho December 03, 2012 at 05:19 PM
"DO NOT let the 'No City' crowd hijack the election."---A Resident The "election" was and remains an unacceptable farce.
don Gabacho December 03, 2012 at 05:25 PM
"She also doesn't have a strong background of business, government or community involvement."---Low and Behold She certainly doesn't have such "community involvement" as having been a member of a so-called "citizens commitee," instrumental in the imposition of this City of Brookhaven, that had a State Representative on the committee also. This is not a matter of the 'conflict of interest' inherent and, legally, to have been shunned---much less embraced. It is a matter also of 'corporatist' governance.
don Gabacho December 03, 2012 at 05:45 PM
"Mike Jacobs...worked hard to give us more of a voice in our local government."---John Galt As long as it is his and his hanlders' no matter the number of mouth pieces. BTW inventing and imposing a local government originating with, and ultimately subordinant to, a central authority is not "local government." It is 'corporatist' government.
don Gabacho December 03, 2012 at 05:48 PM
"Now I understand your Land of Oz."---Filamon Yet again: Tell us how citizens residing between Ashford Park and Chamblee were allowed to vote on being incorporated, or not, into a city (in their case Chamblee) but citizens of Ashford Park were disallowed to vote on being incorporated into a city (in their case B'Haven)?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »