Voir dire is the opportunity to examine the jurors before their appointment as regards to their integrity and balanced approach.
The time is short to apply this much needed process to the candidates for city council. A problem facing us, The Other Dunwoody, is that many of candidates are former insiders of the Pro-Dun proselytizing organizations. These organizations promoted the idea of cityhood without a great deal of respect for the truth. Of course, this is the nature of marketing.
Now some of these individuals are marketing themselves and we can expect them to be no more forthright with accurate information than they have been in the past. Yet they are selling themselves as the best option for various council positions. Do their recent past actions recommend them for these offices?
There are some serious questions that deserve considered answers:
Were they on any of the task forces and if so did they operated in the open? Did they publish agendas before meetings, minutes afterwards, disclose source information under consideration and produce timely reports? What is their explanation for why this was not done (we know it wasn't)? Does their answer speak to the character you wish in a city leader?These two organizations did not operate to the level of integrity, openness and respect for the citizens that are a minimum requirement for a city created in this, the new millennium. Those who participated in these organizations have much to answer for, especially if they seek city office. If they evade these questions, or seek to hide behind the herd ("the committee decided", or "the task force reported", etc.) they are not qualified for any city position.
Were they a member of either of the Pro-Dun organizations? If so, what was their role? If not a member did they support either organization and in what fashion?Were they a member of the non-profit organization formed to lobby for cityhood and if so, what was their role? This organization was required by law to file a Campaign Contribution Disclosure Report 15 days before the vote, yet it was e-filed on July 9th. What is their explanation for this negligence or incompetence and if they tolerated it in this organization why are we to believe they will not tolerate the same in our city?
Were they a member of the Pro-Dun organization that issued an RFP for city services, accepted bids and eliminated one bidder? What was their role in that organization? Do they, or any of their relatives have business or social ties -- past or present -- with either of the companies under consideration? Do they, or any of their relatives work for these companies? Have they in the past? We already know this is true for one candidate. Are there others?
If they were a member of the Pro-Dun organization that commissioned the Carl Vinson Study, what interaction did they have with the CVIoG? We already know that the CVIoG was told to include $1.5 million in the budget as a contingency for lost HOST funds to PCID. Who, and we deserve a name here, spoke with them on this matter? Who gave them guidance to include Georgia Power franchise fees under 'other franchise fees', making what is little more than a miscellaneous category the second largest source of revenue? What other guidance were they given and who made those choices?
Unfortunately the uncontested mayoral position will not receive scrutiny.