Snellville officials will take their bureaucratic infighting all the way to the state Supreme Court on Tuesday, when justices are expected to hear arguments about who has the right to fire the city attorney.
Lawyers for Snellville mayor Kelly Kautz contend the court’s decision in the matter could have broad implications for governments across Georgia. The balance of power in any number of cities could shift, they say, depending on the result.
But local government watchers think the issue is mostly confined to Snellville, where the mayor and council have been at odds for years.
Though Snellville’s charter gives the mayor the power to appoint a city attorney, it does not explicitly say who can terminate that person. The mayor thinks because she makes the appointment, she has the power; council members believe it is their responsibility to terminate.
Kautz wanted to replace city attorney Tony Powell, citing “exorbitant bills” and a lack of communication between him and the council as a whole. But council members voted to keep Powell as their attorney.
Last March, a split Court of Appeals sided with the council, 4-3, saying, “because the charter does not expressly provide that the mayor (or any other officer) has the sole authority to terminate the city attorney’s employment, that power is vested solely in the city council.”
In a dissent, though, judges said it has long been Georgia law that “the governmental official or entity granted the power to hire a public attorney for an indefinite term necessarily possesses the power to remove that attorney.” Otherwise, one party could keep firing while the other kept rehiring.
Phil Friduss, a governmental liability lawyer in Woodstock, said intended “checks and balances, at times, can create stalemates.”
Because of the Snellville case, cities that could potentially face the same conundrum might look more carefully at their charters and rewrite any pieces that are unclear, said Amy Henderson, the spokeswoman for the Georgia Municipal Association.
Henderson said other implications should be minimal.
“It really doesn’t have an impact on other cities,” she said. “It’s not a simple fill-in-the-blank model.”
Powell, who is representing council members who hope to keep him in his job, did not return several phone calls seeking comment. He said in his brief before the court that the case is just “one component of a political power struggle” initiated by Kautz “to single-handedly dominate and control the operation of the City of Snellville government.”
“Kautz seeks by court order to elevate her position and authority to that of supreme executive decision maker, with unchecked authority to dominate city government appointments, and thus decision making,” Powell wrote.
Kautz’s attorneys expressed concern for a potentially dysfunctional government if the council’s position wins.
Attorney Phyllis Miller said she was pleased the state Supreme Court had agreed to hear oral arguments on this case.
“The decision of the court of appeals was split very closely,” she said. “I’m hopeful the Georgia Supreme Court will find the mayor of the city of Snellville has the authority to terminate the services of the city attorney.”
It will be several months before the Court makes its decision known.
About the Author
