Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Transparency still missing

November 24, 2013

We would like to know more details about why — after years of litigation — the Fulton County Center for Regional Growth’s two subsidiaries dropped their civil lawsuit against a pair of fired......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Nov-24-13 6:31 AM

Good editorial, LH. Keep up the good work. Nope, nothing to add, just thought I'd give you a pat on the back.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-24-13 7:34 AM

Follow the money - not one thin dime should go to CRG until they come clean - they are either abysmally incompetent or irremediably corrupt. It's quite obvious that "clearing the air" would be a major embarrassment to them which could well result in some of their members being either dismissed or prosecuted.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-24-13 8:00 AM

Transparency?? Ok, which is it, a Public or Private Sector entity? Why is that such a hard question to answer? Simply put, if an entity is for-profit it's Private, if it's non-profit it's Public. So...which one is it??

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-24-13 8:43 AM

Why not talk to the members of the board that allowed us to be in the position to be taken for all of this money? Someone at least should be standing before the people that they represented explaining how this was actually allowed to happen. If the people that benefited from the theft cannot be held accountable someone else should explain why!

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-24-13 11:33 AM

Perhaps if they came clean there would be to many big-wigs in the county that would be involved.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-24-13 1:14 PM

All non-profits are not public. The Nathan Littaur Hospital comes to mind with an unpaid Board of Directors, a charter or by-laws that state its purpose of community betterment, and I assume it has a federal IRS exemption number.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-25-13 6:54 AM

Yes Hill, that's why I added the caveat 'simply put'. That which you described is known and identifiable as opposed to CRG. The question I have is who makes the designation of 'for' or 'not for' profit and why is that not clear? Did that ambiguity create a direct money pipeline into these two men's pockets? Sure sounds like it.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-25-13 8:41 AM

I doubt that the FC Board of Supervisors would have given them $40K for legal fees if they were for profit. The interesting part is that once a member of the CRG Board the members suddenly dummy up. Normally long winded Mr. Swanger is an example. Its almost like they swear an oath of secrecy.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-25-13 5:47 PM

WHY??? Don't the lawyers who did not mention these two dogs on the paper work in this fiasco dummie up and have their INSURANCE COMPANY pay back this $3M........thru errors and OMISSIONS!!!!! Any 1st year LAW STUDENT could file these papers.....jmo

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 9 of 9 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web