Future Mayor of Brookhaven-- All Powerful or Perhaps Something Less?

There has been much discussion about recent disclosures by certain mayoral candidates of campaign contributions from potential future contract bidders for Brookhaven services.

Calls of "Corruption!" to "Who cares?" has resulted in a great deal of misinformation being disseminated. "Pay to Play" sounds clever, but also sounds like setting up a Straw Man for the immediate needs of a hotly contested mayoral race.

How Powerful Will the Part Time Mayor of Brookhaven Be?

The Mayor only has a vote on contract awards should there be a tie in a vote by the four council members. Sure, there will be discussion of each RFP and input by the City Manager and the Mayor and, in some RFP's, the police chief, but when it comes to the actual contract award, the Council members that represent us are the ones that have final say.

One of the benefits of forming a city is to take advantage of very local representation through these Council members and the residents' ability to give quick feedback on what goes on at City Hall. We had little transparency and feedback offered to us with our Dekalb Commissioners and the County CEO. It was this promise of transparency that was one of the beneifts to having a City. Does anyone doubt that there has been more scrutiny on what is going on even before the City has been launched? And this focused oversight is just beginning. 

The point is that if a mayoral candidate who has accepted a campaign contribution from a potential vendor actually becomes Mayor, there is more oversight and a need to justify should that vendor win a contract. But the Mayor will not unilaterally award any contract. Pure and simple. Big hat, but not a lot of cattle.

To suggest that a mayoral candidate receiving a contribution is corrupt and/or unethical is more campaign spin than anything. Three of the four council members would have to come to the conclusion that a contributor winning a contract was in the best interests of the City --using variables such as costs, expertise and referrals. Any untoward influence and/or demand by the mayor to award a contract to a particular vendor would be rejected by the council members. And the transparency required on the contract awards would support that independence by the council members.

One could say it is insulting to these future council members that anyone would believe that these new public servants would merely "roll over" for any mayor. 

Accepting a contribution from a potential vendor is legal, but may, in the end, prove to be a poor investment for the vendor given the hurdles of disclosure and the individual decisions by the four council members charged with protecting the interests of their constituents.