Dear, Ms. Shellnutt, Superintendent, Messrs. Cardell, Brown and Henry,

As you are aware I recently stated in a letter to you dated October 2, 2007 in which I expressed my sincere gratitude for the opportunity I was provided in the recent hearing in regard to the challenge to the candidacy of Monte Brown for the office of fourth district councilperson in the upcoming city of McDonough election. Additionally I thanked you for the professionalism in which the hearing was conducted and the courtesy which you extended to all parties involved. I feel that all of you approached the hearing with a complete attitude of fairness, integrity and sincerity which ultimately led to your decision on the matter.

Accordingly, I also stated my appreciation to Councilman Brown and his attorney for their candid and apparent complete disclosure of all pertinent facts as related to both evidence and oral testimony which allowed you the board to make an intelligent and informed decision. However, I write to you now out of a genuine concern that perhaps all of the facts were not properly revealed and or disclosed by Councilman Brown and his attorney.  I am well aware that my opportunity for appeal has passed, however I am not sure that a timely appeal in this case would have made any difference as I assume that the appeal would have been to superior court alleging that I was in disagreement with the board’s decision. Neither I nor the board could have known that any of the evidence or testimony given by Councilman Brown was anything other than true and correct in accordance with the oath of which he swore at the hearing.

Councilman Brown's attorney brought up a valid point in that perhaps more investigation could have been done into the councilman's affairs as they relate to public records and or personal interviews, additionally a news cast by an investigative reporter for Fox 5 news which aired after the hearing caused me to look deeper and thus beyond the evidence and testimony given before your board. Several issues now concern me in regards to the information with which you were expected and in fact demanded by Councilman Brown's attorney to disseminate and thus make your decision regarding the validity of his candidacy.

My first concern is that Chairman Cardell confirmed the existence of Bistro 41 in addition to councilman Brown's role as partial owner and managing partner, when councilman Brown testified under oath before the board at page 78 and 79 lines 1-14 Board of Elections and Registration Transcript  (BERT):

Mr. CARDELL:  Councilman Brown, the Board is to understand that Bistro 41, LLC as you just stated, that there was other people involved in that, the investors.

THE WITNESS:  Right, there were investors.

Mr. CARDELL:  You were in the business?

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. CARDELL: You were the man that was operating it?

THE WITNESS: I was the managing partner.

MR. CARDELL: You were the managing partner?

THE WITNESS: YES.

Mr. Highsmith further confirms the dates of operation of the Bistro page 88 lines 1-4 BERT:

Q. So, the business was operational then from April '04 until roughly February of '05?

A. The business started in March.

On June 21, 2004 approximately three months after Councilman Brown testified before the Board the date that he had started the business, he submitted a STATE OF GEORGIA FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (attached) under the Ethics in Government Act, where he swore under oath or affirmation in answer to the question:

SECTION II - FIDUCIARY POSITIONS

Name all fiduciary positions held by the candidate for public office or the public officer.

A fiduciary position is any position imposing a duty to act primarily for another's benefit as officer, director, manager, partner, or other designations of general responsibility.

A business entity is any corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited partnership, enterprise, franchise, association, trust, joint venture, or other entity, whether profit or nonprofit.

I held:

X- No fiduciary positions in any business entity

He further swears at:

SECTION 111 - DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IN BUSINESS ENTITY

I held:

X-No direct ownership interests in any business entity.

Councilman Brown admitted in the investigative interview that he had answered falsely concerning his fiduciary or direct ownership in a business entity on the Ethics statement and that he had intended to file an amendment.

Thus, the question for the board would be: Is councilman Brown currently serving his term under a valid or invalid Ethics in Government Act statement and if the statement had not been amended as of the date of his qualifying for the upcoming election would he be an invalid candidate at this time, not unlike and in fact similarly as would be in accordance with:

O.C.G.A. 45-2-3. Persons failing to obtain commissions ineligible for reelection. 
Persons who, after an election, fail to comply with all the prerequisites of the law in order to obtain commissions or certificates to discharge the duties of their office shall, by reason of such failure, be ineligible for reelection to the same office at the next election.


My second concern is in regards to councilman Browns and the Bistro 41 bankruptcy filings (attached) as they relate to the hearing before the board. As noted above, Chairman Cardell confirmed with Councilman Brown the role of investors in the business, however in the Bankruptcy filing under STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS:

Item 21. Current Partners, Officers, Directors and Shareholders

a. If the debtor is a partnership, list the nature and percentage of partnership interest of each member of the partnership.

Although Councilman Brown describes himself to Chairman Cardell as "the managing partner" and acknowledges that there were other investor/partners. He states that there were NONE on the bankruptcy question.

Item 10. Other Transfers

a. List all other property, other than property transferred in the ordinary course of the business or financial affairs of the debtor, transferred either absolutely or as security within one year immediately preceding the commencement of this case.

Although Councilman Brown describes the sell of the business as well as his transfer of interest in the building and leasehold improvements at page 85 lines 15-25 BERT. He states there were NONE on the bankruptcy question.

Item 23. Withdrawals from a partnership or distributions by a corporation.

If the debtor is a partnership or corporation, list all withdrawals or distributions credited or given to an insider, including compensation in any form, bonuses, loans, stock redemptions, options exercised and any other perquisite during one year immediately preceding the commencement of this case.

Although councilman Brown describes the transfer of the enjoyment and benefit of the building along with all leasehold improvements to some of his investor/partners (insiders) at page 85 and 86 lines 7-11.  He states there were NONE on the bankruptcy question.

As you can see the multiple conflicting answers given by Councilman Brown while sworn under oath or affirmation on at least three different official documents (one being the transcript from the Election Board hearing) and one investigative interview can only draw one and only one conclusion/question:

What is the TRUTH?

It seems apparent that your board cannot be assured they were allowed to make the best decision regarding the proper execution and application of the elections law and certainly were not allowed to make the best decision on behalf of the citizen/voters to whom you have sworn to serve and protect. I pray you will additionally recognize that councilman Monte Brown and his attorney without question deserve the opportunity to bring clarity and resolution to the undeniable conflicting information as they have provided.