One of the three candidates who qualified to compete for this year's open at-large seat on the Winder City Council has dropped out after learning that because his wife holds a city-issued Special Event Facility License for her business, he cannot hold an elective office in Winder.
John Perkins, an owner of Adamson and Perkins Appraisal Services Inc. on Church Street, said the city clerk notified him of the code provision, and he talked to city attorney John Stell, who informed him of some steps he could take in order to legally hold office.
But Perkins said he and his wife Lee, who is the sole owner of the Constance Manor event venue, decided not to take those steps.
The recently adopted article in the code about licenses for special-event facilities regulates the serving of alcohol. That article states: "It shall be unlawful for any elected or full-time paid appointed official or employee of the city or his or her spouse to hold any license under this article.”
Perkins said he is disappointed that he cannot hold elective office in Winder.
"It's discouraging, but at the end of the day, after discussing it with my wife, we are not willing to do some of the things required to make me eligible at this time," he said.
Perkins’ withdrawal leaves two candidates in the race for the at-large seat of David Maynard, who is running instead for mayor.
The two remaining candidates are Tim Bolt, the owner of Master Tech Auto on East Candler Street, and Larry Evans, the owner of Evans Jewell Box.
The election is Nov. 8.
To read the full story, pick up the Sept. 14 edition of the Barrow Journal.
I am personaly against the sale of alcohol and will always vote against it when given the opportunity, but that is beside the point.
It is morally wrong to have a law like this, morally reprehensible for such a law to exist and should be challanged in court, if not by perkins then maybe some other bootlegger will step up.
The entire city council needs to be voted out along with the mayor for having a law that restricts the rights of the people.
So I'm with a dimes difference of this one.
If you look at this very seriously … it might be a good law. This means the council members will not have a business purpose for running for the position.
It works for me. And I really don’t care if you agree with me or not. So keep your negative remarks to yourself unless you have a better idea …
I believe the council persons should be from the working Joe class ... not the rich and greedy few. There are JUST as many smart people from the working class as are the rich or business owners. Being rich or owning a business does not afford someone being smart or do the right thing for the voters while in office. I want someone to represent me and not their own agenda. That is your and my taxes they are spending.
Thanks
Phil
This law probably came about sometime in the past because of abuse i.e. someone probably voted for something on council that would have benefitted them personaly instead of abstaining from the vote.
Instead of dealing with that person they put in a blanket policy(law)...deal with the problem dont create another problem down the road by some B.S. law like this.
There is no legitimate reason to deny citizens their right to run for public office in a free election, only if you are trying to narrow the field.
The last poster said he was an electrical engineer who works out of town and couldnt devote the time necessary for a post on the council,probably a wise decesion.That is no reason though to keep someone else out of the process who does have time to devote.
I dont know perkins but he should have had a fair chance at the position and to let the voters decide whether he should be in office not let some lawyer decide.