The two sides in the Swan Drive-In Controversy stepped towards resolve this week. On one side, Mayor Donna Whitener seeks a lease for the theatre based on fair market value of the theatre’s property and new language in the insurance claim to repair the screen. On the other side, Council Member Michael Eaton seeks to repair the screen with the existing claim check and the language of the claim as it currently stands. Eaton, however, also seeks a new lease for the Swan, but one more graduated. This week, though, Whitener and Eaton seemed to move closer to an agreement.

During the Blue Ridge City Council Workshop Tuesday, Parks Commissioner and Council Member Michael Eaton read a statement concerning the Swan Theatre. Before reading the statement, he said it was a topic he would address as at every meeting until the issue is resolved.

Eaton’s statement summed up the trials surrounding the theatre which have transpired over the last 11 months. Here, he explained the screen was damaged in a storm last April and that at the time, as it is now, the screen was insured by the city. A reversion clause in the 2003 lease bestowed ownership of the buildings of the theatre to the city. As such, the city extended its insurance over the buildings as well as the property, which the city also owns. Reading from his statement, Eaton explained to the council that the insurance

“check (to repair the Swan screen) was not issued at a whim”

and that

“it went through many different people, including the Senior Liability Adjuster, his manager, and even the vice president of the company itself…Their decision (to grant the claim check) was also reached using their own independent engineer.”

As such, the insurance company granted the city the insurance check for the theatre for $265,400.

During last month’s regularly scheduled city council meeting, the motion to move forward with the repairs was passed by a majority of the council, where Eaton, Rodney Kendall and Mayor Pro Tempore Wayne Huffman voted for the measure, Rhonda Thomas and Harold Herdon voting against the motion.

Whitener, however, called a special meeting on March 19th to veto the decision. In his statement, Eaton explained the mayor does not have this authority. He added that, according to page 28 Section 3-22-12 of the city charter, the mayor must sign

“all written contracts, ordinances, and other instruments executed by the city which by law are required to be in writing,”

whether the mayor agrees with the decisions or not. Following council’s decision to move forward with the repairs to the screen, Whitener said she would not sign any of the documents pertaining to the vote until she investigated the issue. Specifically, Whitener said she was not comfortable with the language of the proof of loss part of the insurance claim, which states the damage to the screen was entirely wind damage, incurred by the storm.

“I did talk with the insurance company,”

Whitener said,

“They are re-doing the proof-of-loss statement, which was my concern, because only one percent of the damage of the $265,000 claim is wind. They are willing to add some verbiage in there to make me comfortable with signing it.” She also noted that most of the damage to the screen is deterioration. “And that’s not a valid claim, deterioration,”

she said,

“but this company’s willing to pay it.”

Whitener explained this was an ethical issue for her and needed to be changed in order for her sign the check. “The insurance check will be signed once I get the proof-of-loss statement that has other verbiage,” the mayor said.

But, the ubiquitous Swan supporters also flocked to the workshop, using the opportunity to voice their discontent with the repair process.

City resident Abigail Madison was the most vocal of the group, voicing her concerns about the Swan, but more particularly about the mayor’s recent decisions regarding the theatre.

Madison recited a litany of concerns, which ranged from saying the mayor accused Steve Setser of insurance fraud to implying that Whitener had coerced Setser to pay a higher rent for his property. The mayor answered each concern, explicitly explaining her position on each issue. Madison recalled the last meeting.

“ ‘We’re getting $500 a month when we could be getting $2500 a month (for rent from the Swan),’”

she quoted the mayor, asserting,

“It sounded like there was coercion in that matter, to be able to force him.”

The mayor, though, was firm.

“I didn’t accuse (Setser) of anything… ‘Does he have insurance we’re not aware of? That was my question.”

Whitener said, responding to Madison’s first claim. Whitener said she was concerned that Setser had double insurance coverage. Madison said that double coverage is illegal, but Whitener explained people double cover all the time. In such instances, she noted, insurance companies do not pay 100 percent, but 50 percent of the claim. Madison continued to press the mayor with her concerns. Citing Georgia Code, Madison also accused the mayor of second guessing the insurance adjusters and engineers who had determined the validity of the damage claim to the screen. Responding, Whitener said if Madison had an issue she should take it up with the insurance commissioner. In the end, Madison was cut off when she began to accuse Whitener of intimidating Mayor Pro Tempore Wayne Huffman to not sign the documents to repair the screen at the last meeting. At this point, the mayor and others in the room cried foul, saying that things were getting too personal.

In the midst of the fray, though, resident Lane Bishop proved that Madison’s discontent was not representative of the entire community.

“I personally like to commend you as Mayor,”

Bishop said,

“for being so diligent in what you are doing and being so careful in what you sign.”

Continuing, he recognized that citizens have the right to oppose her, but said

“they ought to be a little more objective, themselves, before they jump all over you…I think you’re taking the right track. I commend you for it and don’t let anyone intimidate you, bully you, or harass you into something until you feel comfortable with it.”

Whitener reiterated that if she had not asked to re-word the claim, she could have been liable if something had come back later on.

“As long as I get everything back (with new verbiage) it will get signed,” she

said.