HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-05-2000 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
September 5, 2000
The Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:02 p.m., Tuesday,
September 5, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also present were Randy Oliver, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of
Commission; and Lee Little, Attorney’s Office.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Saxon.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITION:
Miss Augusta
Ms. Goldei Baysa
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, we’d like to introduce to the Commission
today Goldei Baysa, who is a 21-year-old sophomore at Augusta State University. She’s
pursuing a BBA in marketing, was born in Manila, Philippines. She has lived in Hawaii,
California, and Japan. She is a concert pianist. She has taken piano lessons since the age
of seven, classically trained since an early ago. Goldei aspires to have a career in the
music industry as a promotions director for a recording company. She’s also an active
member of the Philippine-American Association of the CSRA, as a Philippine dancer and
spokesperson. As Miss Augusta, Goldei plans to devote cultural diversity into early
education and music and the arts curricula. She believes these programs will teach young
children respect for cultural differences and help children resist any negative bias or
prejudice that could develop during their later years in a child’s life. Gentlemen and
ladies and gentlemen of the audience, I’d like to introduce to you the new Miss Augusta,
Goldei Baysa. Goldei, is there anything you’d like to say to the Commission today?
Ms. Baysa: [inaudible] As you all know, the Miss America system [inaudible]
platform. My platform is my [inaudible] for diversity [inaudible]. Growing up in so
many diverse cultures and having such a diverse background myself, I believe it’s
important [inaudible]. As the City of Augusta, we have become a city of cultural and
[inaudible] diversity. I think it’s important to incorporate that into early childhood
education curricula, and I ask if there any way I can assist you, if would you like me to
be there as an entertainer, I am a concert pianist, or if I can speak about my platform, of
there is any way that you can help encourage the Richmond County Board of Education
or the Columbia County Board of Education by implementing this curricula into their
2
programs, feel free to call me or [inaudible], and I look forward to each and every one of
you throughout the year. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Goldei. We wish you the best. We know you will do
well in Miss Georgia and represent Augusta at Miss America. Thank you very much.
A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have a delegation?
DELEGATION:
Mr. Willie Jones
RE: Appointment to Transit Board
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Willie Jones in the Chamber? Okay, let’s move with our
addendum agenda, then. He’s not here.
Addendum Agenda:
Deletions from the agenda:
Item 17.
Item 59.
Clerk: Our addendum agenda, as printed. Item 58 had been requested to be
deleted, but Attorney Flanagan is here today, so we will ask that that item not be deleted.
Item 58. To delete Items 17, 59 and 61.
Mr. Oliver: 61 is asked to be deleted because my understanding from Mr. Revell
was there was an understanding reached on Friday; however, the other attorney contacted
their client and that did not work out as of this morning, and we thing that the two
additional weeks will provide both parties an opportunity to put the facts together better
and in a more equitable manner.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting any of those items?
Mr. Kuhlke: I object to Item 17.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have an objection to 17 so it remains on the agenda.
Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I want to ask on Item -- the additional deletion, that was 61?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
3
Mr. Mays: The parties representing 61, I don’t have a problem with this deletion,
but since the party is here, we need to make sure that they also understand that they are
delayed.
Mr. Oliver: My understanding from Mr. Revell was that the attorney that
represented this individual in this matter has also withdrawn from this case. Beyond that,
Mr. Mays, I don’t know.
Mr. Mays: The young lady was here. That’s why I’m [inaudible], I mean that’s
something the attorneys can work out, but in all fairness to the person that’s here, the
attorney has dropped off representation and I think we need to give courtesy whether or
not they have another attorney or want to represent themselves or whatever because the
attorney can speak for one side, that’s the side of [inaudible], but I think in all fairness to
the individual that’s here maybe she needs to explain [inaudible] and go ahead and be
represented by somebody else or to object to the deletion and move on with it.
Mr. Mayor: Let me make inquiry on that point, Mr. Mays. You are --
Ms. Ngo: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Are you ready to proceed or today or would you prefer to have a
two-week continuance?
Ms. Ngo: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting this item after hearing from the
petitioner? It’s been requested to be deleted, so if there is objection to deleting it, then it
stays on the agenda and we proceed with it.
Mr. Oliver: Harry Revell was the one that requested that it be deleted in light of
his conversation with the attorney that represented this individual and due to the fact that
he felt that the information could be put together in a better form with a two-week delay,
but it’s up to you all.
Mr. Mayor: Well, she’s here and she’s ready to go.
Mr. Mays: In all fairness, Mr. Mayor, and I can respect the deletion, but I think
[inaudible] and I mentioned this at committee meeting the other day where you all had to
be on very serious business, was that if there is a situation that we need to be advised of
by our own attorney, then I don’t have a problem with us deleting it, but I think we need
to have some legal advise in reference to 61, if that much turning is going on. Because
there was a lot of sidebar in that committee. The committee, some of us at least, were
trying to figure out whether or not a compromise would work out, and you know, at some
point I think some of the legal discussion needs to be discussed with this Commission.
4
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s get some of the legal discussion right now and see where
we are with this.
Mr. Mays: I mean I think we are going to do it legal and maybe since we’ve got a
legal session, that needs to be added to that point, and we be advised of that, but as a
Commissioner I don’t want to go out on a half edge of where I’m hearing we postponed
something and an attorney making another decision and the person whose rights are
involved saying that they want to pursue. I think you’ve got a lot of conflict going on
with this one issue.
Mr. Mayor: Well, could you give us a status report on this aside from any
attorney-client privilege?
Mr. Revell: Yes, I will. On Friday we had what we call an agreement between
the license holder and her attorney that we would recommend to the Commission today.
This morning, though, he called and said their side would not honor that agreement. And
because we had an agreement, there were certain issues, Commissioner Mays, you’ll
remember about the number of machines, whether they had amusement game permits or
not, and you remember there was a question about the lease which was apparently
confiscated. Those are the things the Sheriff’s Department needs time to develop and
flesh out and make sure there is no conflict in the evidence on that, if you will, how many
machine, whether they were permitted. That’s why --
Mr. Mayor: So the Sheriff is not ready to proceed today; is that what you’re
saying?
Mr. Revell: That’s correct. That’s why it’s our recommendation that it be
postponed. So now we have to go back and get those things out of the evidence file in
the Sheriff’s Department. Except for the fallout on the agreement, it would have been
accomplished today.
Mr. Mays: Well, definitely I want to respect our side and anybody else’s side.
That’s why I thought we needed to hear from the legal side. The way it was sounding
was though ?? a petition because her attorney, you know, had dropped off the scene and
was not representing her. But then if our side is not ready, that’s what needs to be
discussed, and we’re not ready. Not on the part of the participant. I think maybe she
needs to understand that we are not ready to hear that side ?? postpone it. My only
question, Mr. Mayor, is it limbo in the case of a business if the petitioner is ready and we
aren’t ready, then is there any current status if the business needs to operate on or do we
?? Because you’re talking about a business holder that’s there, to us, to be represented.
We have counsel. We have the law that’s there to be ready. And what is that person
doing, the petition holder do, and that needs to be discussed in legal or be discussed in
public or somewhere, but some direction needs to be given to the party that is the
petitioner so they can proceed in business, are they out of business, or what do they do so
they don’t get raided, busted, or just close their doors. At some point, that kind of thing
needs to be heard.
5
Mr. Mayor: Let’s get --
Mr. Oliver: ?? until you took action to the contrary, so they would continue to
operate as they have in the past. Correct me, Mr. Revell, if I’m incorrect in that regard.
Mr. Revell: Correct.
Mr. Oliver: They would continue to operate until you took some action to the
contrary in the manner in which they continue to operate.
Mr. Mays: That was all I was trying to ??, so the parties would have direction on
what to do, because we don’t want a person that is ?? here, go out and open the doors to
their business and then tomorrow morning read that you have a raid. I just think in
fairness they need to know that since we’re not ready.
Mr. Mayor: I think they’ll probably continue with business other than the
activity that led to the raid, and there shouldn’t be any problem with that.
Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, maybe then that’s not a question. Continue that till
December ?? the raid, the question is whether they got a license or not. So I’m saying
does a person operate an arcade which they paid a business license for or do they not?
Because Mr. Oliver is saying they continue operation, but saying they continue with the
exception of that then that’s a difference in that terminology. I think the Sheriff ??, the
attorney, maybe y’all want to take it someone and ?? but for us to make a decision about
a business, we need to know specifically what the law is telling us to do, other than to just
postpone it, because we won’t be back here for another two weeks. That’s not a fair
situation, whether a person is right or wrong, to leave them in because they’re hanging.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Mays, my understanding is that at best, that this particular
business was caught between the change of the ordinance from 9 machines or less to 3
machines or less and at best -- and I say at best because there is some contention that they
had more than 9 machines -- but at best they had someone between 3 and 9 machines.
That change in the ordinance dropped that requirement to three and the question that may
well be before you ultimately is whether they had knowledge of that and had to apply for
an arcade license, which they don’t have. I don’t think that it is a point in contention at
all that they can have no more than -- they can 3 or less machines at this particular point,
and that business would continue to operate with 3 or less machines adhering to all the
other requirements of state and county as it relates to this types of machines and devices.
But that’s what I mean from the standpoint of license continuing with three or less
machines.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, for the record, I mentioned this in the Committee meeting
and I mentioned this in the previous Commission meeting related to this item and the
Committee meeting. I asked specifically and I’ve looked at my minutes to make sure of
that. If I need to get a tape of the Committee minutes I’ll do it. This was one of my
6
nightmares, though, and I asked specifically of legal counsel did we have any people that
were caught in this balance of this 9-game/3-game. I also begged us not to move with
waiving a second reading on the ordinance because I felt we were quick-drawing it,
because we were changing the ordinance every week with the number. I said you’re
going to get some phone calls and what came out in the process last week was the fact
that these folk had called our offices to find out whether they were legal and they were
told that they were. Now I just think that -- I’m putting that in again officially for this
record, to a point where we make a rule, we sell a license, ?? we don’t have to like the
business, don’t have to patronize it, don’t have to have it anywhere on our moral radar
screen, but to a point where we create a law, folk buy a license, then something should be
behind when we put a city seal there.
Mr. Mayor: That’s a point well taken, Mr. Mays, but the issue here is whether
we’re going to take this up today or put it off for two weeks, and we need to move ahead
with that. Is there anybody who objects to deleting this item from the agenda today?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I object because I have not gotten an answer as to
where you leave us, operating ?? business license, maybe I’ll get that before we move on.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll leave it on. Now we have some additions to the
agenda, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
1. Motion to accept a pass-through grant in the amount of $10,000 from the
Governor’s Discretionary Fund to Communities in Schools of Augusta
Richmond County.
2. Consider a request from Mr. Calvary Baptist Church to hang three banners
at the following locations for the period September 6 through 18, 2000:
Merry Street at Wrightsboro Road
Laurel Street at Wrightsboro Road
Holley Street at Wrightsboro
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any objection to adding these two items to the agenda?
None heard, so they are ordered added to the agenda.. Our consent agenda?
Clerk: Our consent agenda, Items 1 through 57:
FINANCE :
1. Motion to approve a request from the Augusta Metro Chamber of
Commerce for sponsorship of a corporate table in the amount of $350 for
the Women in Business event and the transfer of funds to cover the cost
from the Census account to Commission Other account. (Approved by
Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
7
2. Motion to approve sale of 9,344.44 square feet (0.21 acres) of County
property to Louise Coleman for the sum of $1,750.00. (Approved by
Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
3. Motion to approve the purchase of a Tool Carrier Loader for the Public
Works Department – Maintenance Division from Southern Power &
Equipment Company for $86,995.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-093).
(Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
4. Motion to approve the purchase of a Tool Carrier Loader for the Public
Works Department – Landfill Division from Southern Power &
Equipment Company for $95,145.00 (lowest bidoffer on Bid 00-093).
(Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
5. Motion to approve the purchase of two Truck Mounted Street Sweepers
for the Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Stith
Equipment Company for a total of $265,314.00 ($132,657.00 each) (lowest
bid offer on Bid 00-103). (Approved by Finance Committee August 28,
2000)
6. Motion to approve the purchase of a Sewer Rodder Truck forthe Utilities
Department – Construction Division from P & H Supply Company for
$64,770.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-099). (Approved by Finance
Committee August 28, 2000)
7. Motion to approve the purchase of a Tractor with a Brush Cutter for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Jenkins Tractor
Company for $37,232.20 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-100). (Approved by
Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
8. Motion to approve an increase in the Board of Elections budget in account
number 101-01 4110-52.33111 to cover the bill for publishing ads in the
amount of $5,557.65 for Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax and
General Obligation Bond (funded from General Fund Contingency).
(Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
9. Motion to approve the purchase of a full page ad in the September ’00
issue of the Georgia County Government Magazine “Family Album”.
Funded from Promotion Account. (Approved by Finance Committee
August 28, 2000)
* Full page $500
* 2/3 page $365
* ½ page $300 (island)
* ½ page $275 (horizontal)
10. Motion to approve Adoption Agreement for the 1998 Augusta Money
Purchase Plan. (Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
11. Motion to authorize the volunteer organization of Animal Control to
establish a checking account funded by contributions to the Animal
ControlAnimal Welfare/Volunteer Fund with the submission of quarterly
reports. (Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
12. Motion to approve funding for the creation of fulltime presiding judge of
Juvenile Court and for an associate Juvenile Court judge. Cost to be
8
determined and funded from General Fund Contingency. (Approved by
Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
13. Motion to approvea request from the Sheriff’s Department to expend
$40,000 for warehouse-stored shelving, office furniture, equipment, etc.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
14. Motion to approve agreement with SAS to collect insurance premiums
effective September 1, 2000. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee August 28, 2000)
15. Motion to approve agreement with the University of Georgia for Mystery
Shopper Program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
August 28, 2000)
16. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Hyde Park Neighborhood:
Florida Road (Tax Map 88-1 Parcel 36), Florida Road (Tax Map 88-1
Parcel 37), Florida Road (Tax Map 88-1 Parcel 38), Florida Road (Tax
Map 88-1, Parcel 39), Florida Road (Tax Map 88-1 Parcel 40), Florida
Road (Tax Map 88-1 Parcel 43), (District 2, Super District 9); and waive
nd
2 reading. (Funded from General Fund Contingency) (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee August 28, 2000)
17. Pulled from consent agenda.
18. Motion to approve a request from the License & Inspection Department
to appeal the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to deny the
Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structure at 938-
940 Parks Avenue (Bethlehem Neighborhood, District 2, Super District 9).
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 28, 2000)
19. Motion to authorize the Human Resources Department to use the services
of Select Benefit Consultants to perform the enrollment process for our
employees during this year’s Annual Enrollment and future New
Employee Orientations. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee August 28, 2000)
20. Motion to approve change in use of $130,000 in Community Development
Block Grant Funds from replacement of roof at the Byrd Warehouse to
the Construction of a new facility at 1891 Old Savannah Road. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee August 28, 2000)
21. Deleted from the agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
22. Motion to accept counteroffer to purchase 0.14 acres from Eugene and
Lois Andrews in fee (Tax Map 34-1, Parcel 309 & 311) for a purchase
price of $18,152.62. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 28, 2000)
23. Motion to approve amendment to Underground Right-of-Way Permit to
Qwest Communications Corporation for installation of an additional
9
1,344 feet of fiber optic cable on public right-of-way. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2000)
24. Motion to approve for the amount of $8,250.00 to James G. Swift &
Associates for consulting fee for engineering and surveying services for
1,600 linear feet sewer line (Funds available in Account No. 507043420-
5212115/89800240-5212115). This line complements the Boykin Road
Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee August 28, 2000)
25. Motion to approve bid award of construction and payment in the amount
of $66,116.88 to Blair Construction, Inc. (Funds available in Account No.
507043410-5425110/80000001-5425110) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee August 28, 2000)
26. Motion to approve execution of Local Government Project Agreement
with the Georgia Department of Transportation. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2000)
27. Motion to approve to authorize the Department of Public Works and
Engineering to extend an offer of employment to selected candidate for
the Project Manager position in the amount of $48,000.00. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2000)
28. Motion to purchase 0.86 acres from William and Martina A. James in fee
(Tax Map 34-1, Parcels 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306 & 307) for a purchase
price of $33,842. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August
28, 2000)
29. Motion to approve award of contract to Gannett Fleming, Inc. to conduct
Environmental Site Assessment investigation at Goldberg Brothers
property located at 421 Dan Bowles Road for a cost not to exceed
$150,000, funded by Account #101041110/00098486 and reimbursed by
EPA under EPA Assistance Agreement No. BP984866-99-0. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 28, 2000)
30. Pulled from the consent agenda.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
31. Motion to approve one-year extension of the lease agreement between
Augusta Richmond County and the Unitarian Universalist Church of
Augusta regarding property for the use of Fire Station 9. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee August 28, 2000)
32. Motion to approve $5,000 for interim improvements to Animal Control
facility for painting floors, three exhaust fans and two metal doors.
(Funded from General Fund Contingency) (Approved by Public Safety
Committee August 28, 2000)
33. Motion to approve $18,000 in funding to renovate offices for ARC
Indigent Defense. Funded from General Fund Contingency. (Approved
by Public Safety Committee August 28, 2000)
10
34. Motion to approve bid award # 00-109 to Network Data Services for
$183,000.00 from 2000 computer equipment budget. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee August 28, 2000)
35. Motion to approve Mutual Aid Agreement between Augusta Richmond
County Fire Department and Savannah River Site Fire Department.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee August 28, 2000)
36. Motion to approve the appointment of Commissioner Andy Cheek to the
EFSP Board of Directors, which is coordinated through the United Way.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee August 28, 2000)
37. Motion to approve funding for the creation of fulltime presiding judge of
Juvenile Court and for an associate Juvenile Court judge. Cost to be
determined and funded from General Fund Contingency. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee August 28, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
38. Motion to approve extension of grant with the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources for the New Bartram Trail from June 30, 1998 until
June 30, 2001. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
39. Pulled from consent agenda.
40. Pulled from consent agenda.
41. Motion to approve SPLOST Phase III funding to match National Park
Service grant for dredging canal and related improvements in the amount
of $182,704.52. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
42. Motion to approve promotional activities during Try Transit Week,
September 10-16, 2000. (Approved by Public Services Committee August
28, 2000)
43. Motion to approve a lease agreement with the United States of America
for space for an Automated Weather Reporting System at Daniel Field.
There is no cost to the City for this facility. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 28, 2000)
44. Motion to approve the award of the contract to GFI-Genfare in the
amount of $321,018.00 (Bid Item #00-070) for the upgrade of the existing
fare collection system. Funds are available in Acct #546091210-5422410
and 799114210-5422410. (Approved by Public Services Committee August
28, 2000)
45. Motion to amend a lease agreement with Fore Augusta Foundation to add
.28 acres of property adjacent to the Augusta Aquatics Center to leased
area related to construction of the First Tee Golf Course with effective
date upon Commission approval. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 28, 2000)
46. Motion to approve a request by U. Vanessa Song-Rogers for a retail
package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Savin Haven
located at 3333 Mike Padgett Highway. District 8. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
11
47. Motion to approve a request by U. Vanessa Song-Rogers for a retail
package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Savin Haven #1
located at 3763 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
48. Motion to approve a request by Sun Cha Palmer for an on premise
consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with Top
Lounge located at 2925 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a dance hall.
District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 28, 2000)
49. Motion to approve a request by James E. Norman for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with
The Bayou located at 904 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall.
District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 28, 2000)
50. Motion to approve a request by Jingming Zhang for an on premise
consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with China
Garden located at 1535 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
51. Motion to approve a request by Michael Schepis to transfer on premise
consumption beer & wine license used in connection with The Pizza Joint
located at 1032 Broad Street to 1245 Broad Street. There will be Sunday
sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 28, 2000)
52. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for a one-year probation, of the business license held by
Mohammad R. Aslami for Milledgeville Spirits located at 2238
Milledgeville Road for the following violation: furnishing alcoholto a
minor. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 28, 2000)
53. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for a one-year probation of the business license held by
th
Sunny Middlebrooks for Short Stop located at 1714 15 Street for the
following violation: furnishing alcohol to a minor. District 2. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
54. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for one-year probation of the business license held by Cindy
Kim for Pump N Store located at 2159 Milledgeville Road for the
following violation: furnishing alcohol to a minor. District 2. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
55. Pulled from the consent agenda.
56. Motion to approve an agreement with the Family “Y” for joint operation
of the “Garrett Gang” after school program at Garrett Community
Center. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
12
57. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held August 15,
2000 and the Called meeting held August 22, 2000.
Addendum Item 1. Motion to accept a past-through grant in the amount of
$10,000 from the Governor’s Discretionary Fund to Communities in Schools of
Augusta Richmond County.
65 Consider acceptance of pass-through grants from the Governor’s
.
emergency Fund for the following organizations:
Metro Augusta Clean & Beautiful $ 5,000
Hale Foundations, Inc. $25,000
Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors to any of our liquor applications:
46. Motion to approve a request by U. Vanessa Song-Rogers for a retail
package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Savin Haven
located at 3333 Mike Padgett Highway. District 8. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
47. Motion to approve a request by U. Vanessa Song-Rogers for a retail
package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Savin Haven #1
located at 3763 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
48. Motion to approve a request by Sun Cha Palmer for an on premise
consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with Top
Lounge located at 2925 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a dance hall.
District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 28, 2000)
49. Motion to approve a request by James E. Norman for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with
The Bayou located at 904 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall.
District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 28, 2000)
50. Motion to approve a request by Jingming Zhang for an on premise
consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with China
Garden located at 1535 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
51. Motion to approve a request by Michael Schepis to transfer on premise
consumption beer & wine license used in connection with The Pizza Joint
located at 1032 Broad Street to 1245 Broad Street. There will be Sunday
sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 28, 2000)
Clerk: Are there any objections to those applications?
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors, please raise your hand.
13
Mr. Oliver: I would note for the record, Mr. Mayor and Commission, that
Item 59 was deleted. The companion item from Administrative Services is Item 21,
so that would also be deleted.
Mr. Mayor: I believe we had -- do we have anybody here on these others
here, Madame Clerk, on Milledgeville Spirits, Short Stop, Pump N Store? Are there
neighbors or other folks here with respect to these?
Clerk:
52. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for a one-year probation, of the business license held by
Mohammad R. Aslami for Milledgeville Spirits located at 2238
Milledgeville Road for the following violation: furnishing alcohol to a
minor. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 28, 2000)
53. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for a one-year probation of the business license held by
th
Sunny Middlebrooks for Short Stop located at 1714 15 Street for the
following violation: furnishing alcohol to a minor. District 2. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
54. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for one-year probation of the business license held by Cindy
Kim for Pump N Store located at 2159 Milledgeville Road for the
following violation: furnishing alcohol to a minor. District 2. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
55. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for revocation of the alcohol & business license held by
William L. Mantlow for Rack Boys located at 2900 Deans Bridge Road
for the following violations: furnishing alcohol to a minor & serving
liquor without a license. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Are there any people here for those items? Yes, sir, which item
are you here for?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Clerk: Are you here to object, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Are you an objector?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
14
Mr. Mayor: So you represent the license holder?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll pull that item, then, and let you be heard. Gentlemen,
what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I move that we approve the consent agenda as read by the
Clerk less the deletions as noted by you and we add to that the two items on the
addendum agenda, one and two, and also add #65, the pass-through grants from
the Governor’s Emergency Fund to Metro Augusta Clean & Beautiful and Hale
Foundations.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull some.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s make sure the Clerk got all these numbers that Mr. Shepard
threw out and then we’ll come down to you, Mr. Williams.
Clerk: Adding to the consent agenda items one and two on the addendum
agenda and Item 65. That’s consent agenda 1 through 57, adding 65, and one and two
on the addendum agenda.
Mr. Shepard: We had [inaudible] out 54, I think, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull Item 13.
Mr. Mayor: Item 13. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: 17, 39 and 40.
Mr. Mayor: 17, 39 and 40 for Mr. Beard. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Item 30, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Item 30 for Mr. Cheek. Other side here? That one that I pulled,
Madame Clerk, is #55. I think you said 54. It’s 55. All right, we have a motion to
approve the consent agenda, with the additions and the deletions of Items 13, 17, 30,
39, 40 and 55.
Mr. Cheek: Second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
15
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known that I vote No on Item 51 for
Sunday sales.
Mr. Bridges: Same here, Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Cheek: Same here, Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Williams: Same here, Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No on the
Sunday sales portion of Item 51.
Motion carries 10-0. [(Items 1-12, 14-16, 18-20, 22-29, 31-38, 41-54, 56-57,
Addendum items 1&2, 65]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to Item 13.
Clerk:
13. Motion to approve a request from the Sheriff’s Department to expend
$40,000 for warehouse-stored shelving, office furniture, equipment, etc.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I’ve been on Finance when the Sheriff
brought this to us, and my question then was, as it is now, I understand that may be a
tremendous savings and may be a substantial amount of goods for that price, but after
thinking about that, I can’t support taking the taxpayers’ money, even though it may
be a great savings in a lot of ways, but we got a procedure, a process that we go
through and I can’t see supporting or waiving a differentiation from the regular
processes we go through, the bid process to buy whatever equipment we need.
Although there may be something that may be a good deal. A lot time we have to
pass up some things but I just wanted to pull that so that it would not just go through,
and actually he presented to us in Finance, he said that it was a great amount of
equipment that he couldn’t use and maybe they could use in some other part of this
government, but we’ve got a process that we go through and I think that we need to
hold ourselves firmly to whatever process we use to buy equipment or anything else
that go into this government.
Mr. Mayor: Sheriff, did you want to respond to that?
Sheriff Webster: Yes, sir, I would. This got started by a warehouse that I’m
building down in front of the jail. And I have to have a lot of shelving in there for
evidence and also for [inaudible], and this shelving is going to come close to around
16
$40,000 and I learned about this shelving [inaudible] at places and I went up and
talked to the man about it, and he had all this furniture with it, too. And the whole
amount of furniture, a lot of the shelving itself is going to take care of the whole bill,
besides the furniture coming, office equipment coming extra. And there is probably
$200,000-250,000 worth of office equipment up there. And that was the reason I
went for it. It wasn’t that I was trying to get in the office equipment business. I got it
for the shelving itself. And it was such a tremendous bargain I couldn’t help but
come before y’all. It will be coming out of drug funds.
Mr. Oliver: It’s funded with drug seizure funds.
Sheriff Webster: Not out of the taxpayers.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’m going to make a motion that we approve the
Committee action and further that the surplus, if any in the furniture, be
considered for furnishing the Indigent Care office. I’m sorry, not Indigent Care.
Indigent Defense. We’ve repeatedly had discussions of funding and their office
space and the need, in fact the requirement under the Constitution, to provide
that kind of service, and whether you disagree with it or not, I think that’s the
law of the land. And therefore I’d make a motion to approve the Sheriff’s
request.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Mr. Bridges, did you want to speak to this?
Mr. Bridges: Sheriff, I wanted to make sure I understood one thing about it.
The money you would be spending anyway for shelving, and you’re getting the
shelving plus all the other material?
Sheriff Webster: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I don’t think we need to turn down free money and then
some.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I really would like to help out here, but what I’ve been through the
last couple of weeks on policy and procedure, I just want a clarification, either from
our legal people or the Purchasing Department. Is this following procedure? And if
this is following procedure, this is fine. But I just need to know that because I’ve
been chided all week about not following procedure and not following policy, so I
17
want to be able to say one way or the other that I’m following policy or what have
you. Is this -- and I want that from the --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver or Lee?
Ms. Little: It’s not typical but certainly the Commission has the ability to --
Mr. Beard: I’m aware that we can do anything up here with six votes. But my
question is what is the policy and procedure?
Ms. Little: My understanding is that it’s not typically handled this way.
Mr. Beard: Thank you. That’s what I needed to know.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] I think one thing [inaudible] there is going to have to
be some work done on the shelving since [inaudible] and I think the top law man in
the county doesn’t [inaudible], but I’m just wondering if in the motion, Steve, that if
he’s doing that in terms of the [inaudible], that he has to [inaudible] anyway, in order
to make a [inaudible] situation legal within that process, could we not maybe amend
the motion to maybe deal with a best bid type quote on what he’s doing in terms of
[inaudible] but would then allow them [inaudible] to kick in, whereby it does qualify
at that point in terms of getting quotes on what he’s doing, and then you still within
the procedure of dealing with quotes. Now that’s [inaudible], I’m hearing the
Attorney say it’s not typical, but I think with as many Grand Jury investigations as
we’ve got going around, we don’t necessarily need a typical procedure, we need a
legal procedure. And I think that’s what is troubling in terms of where some of the
Commissioners sit. Because this one hits today and we have a summons next week to
answer how we did it. I think that’s the real purpose of it. Some of us, that’s par for
the course on what we did. While I think it’s an excellent savings for the county. Just
as some other things that we made split decisions but we’ve had to be worn out for
month after month after month in order to get to a point. And I’m just searching for a
legal way that this can be done and still stay with the procurement [inaudible]. I think
it’s definitely a savings and we should applaud him for doing it.
Mr. Mayor: You want to restructure your motion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, the way I look at it is the Sheriff found what is
certainly not being offered at retail or being offered through the procurement process.
I see it, Mr. Mays, as an exception to the procedure process, so if we recognize it as
an exception to the procurement process on these facts, I don’t really see that it’s
necessary to amend the motion. I don’t have any problem explaining to anybody that
we’re saving the county money. What about that, Ms. Little?
18
Ms. Little: Yes. I mean this certainly doesn’t fit within the typical process.
Mr. Shepard: I mean --
Mr. Oliver: It’s very difficult to bid used furniture. [inaudible] quality and
there’s a lot of subjective judgment. I mean the other option would be to have
somebody approve it subject to somebody appraising it to ensure the value exceeds
the cost. I would have to rely on the Sheriff in this particular regard because I’m not
certain what is there. But from the things that I have been told, it appears that this is
advantageous.
Sheriff Webster: I can tell you --
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Commissioner Williams, Sheriff, and then we’ll
come back to you.
Sheriff Webster: All right.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to say that I’m in support of the
Sheriff and what he’s trying to do and I think that’s a good effort. But at the same
time, sitting on this board, we’ve got guidelines to go by not just with the Sheriff’s
Department, but every department when it comes to running this city, the operation of
this city. And when you talk about spending $40,000 for any amount of equipment
anywhere, I think we going to waive it this time or we going to deviate this time, then
next week there may be somebody else with some lawn mowers that may be at a good
price and they say well, I got a good price on them. I mean what we going to do? We
going to go by the guidelines that we were elected to go by or we just going to wave
back and forth? I understand saving. I think the Sheriff ought to be commended for
even finding it, but when it comes to this Department, when it comes to this body for
doing it, I think we need to go by what we been going by. We need to go by the
guidelines the way we do business. Mr. Mays mentioned something about the Grand
Jury. I made a trip myself and I still say that we got guidelines and procedures to go
by when we do business with this government and that’s the way I’m going to vote to
do them. If the [inaudible] to do it differently, that’s fine but that’s how I’m going to
vote.
Mr. Oliver: I would note --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, let’s wait and be recognized. The Sheriff had the
floor.
Sheriff Webster: I’d like to say first of all [inaudible] and at the same time I
called Mr. Randy Oliver’s office to [inaudible] let people look at this and see what
kind of a deal it was. Mr. Randy Oliver wasn’t in and I called Mr. Walter Hornsby.
Mr. Walter Hornsby went out there with me [inaudible] that somebody from within
19
the government itself was looking at what we got and what kind of deal it was. And
he went out with me. It was just such a deal [inaudible] hate to pass it by.
Mr. Mayor: Is this the old Marks & Morgan furniture, Sheriff?
Sheriff Webster: The what?
Mr. Mayor: Is this the Marks & Morgan furniture? From their corporate
headquarters?
Sheriff Webster: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I looked at it this weekend, too. Through the store
window. Okay.
Mr. Oliver: I would note that there is a bit of a precedence that we purchased
some equipment from SRS, the Utilities Department. Generators and things like that,
which obviously that was not a bid situation, but we believe that that was very
advantageous for us to procure it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve the purchase of this
furniture. It’s been seconded. All in favor of the motion to approve this, please vote
aye.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 6-2-2.
Sheriff Webster: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Commission.
Clerk:
17. Motion to approve position and authorize advertising for Assistant
County Engineer position at salary grade 52 by renaming current vacant
Civil Engineer position as Assistant County Engineer position and the
reviewing of code change recommendations as submitted with a report
back to the committee in 30 days. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee August 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I had this pulled. I think I mentioned in
Administrative Services that we will possibly be electing a new person in for that
position as Director and I have a little problem with the rush that we’re trying to do in
certain areas prior to people getting on board. And if we’re going to elect that person,
20
select that person either today or the next meeting or whenever we do it, I think that
that person should be given an opportunity to have some input into this. I do
understand, as I was told then that this position, it was one that was already there, but
I have a problem with the grade change. Also I have a problem with renaming of this,
and you just have to wonder some time, and I know we play different little games up
here, but you have to wonder why are we doing this and I would like to know from
somebody are those plans getting out, what is the time length for those plans to be
out? Are we in that need such that we have to do this today? And this is what I don’t
understand, the rush on all of this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, can you respond to that?
Mr. Oliver: There are a couple of things going on. Obviously, Mr. Cheek the
County Engineer, has been very much strapped with a lot of flood and drainage issues
that he’s been dealing with. As a result of that, there are some other things that have
not been given as high a priority as we would like to give those things, and we believe
that it’s critical for a couple of reasons to do that. We also believe that this should
subsequently, as part of next year’s budget, be funded slightly differently, and not be
funded out of General budget but be funded in a different manner. To be an Assistant
County Engineer, because by state law, the state of Georgia requires the County
Engineer to be a Professional Engineer and so in the absence of the County Engineer,
we would like this particular position to be able to function as the County Engineer.
In order to be able to sign documents under Georgia law, the Assistant County
Engineer acting as the County Engineer, that requires the P.E. requirement, and we
believe that that is prudent and proper in this particular case and we believe that this
will enhance the strength of the organization and permit us to make sure that
subdivisions, drainage issues, things like that are addressed not only in a timely, but
in an appropriate manner also.
Mr. Beard: That’s my other question. Why is it necessary now? Don’t you
think it would be advisable to wait until you get everybody on board and then we do
all this changing together?
Mr. Oliver: Not in this particular case. All this would be would be for the
start of the advertisement process. The Public Works Director would be intimately
involved in the selection of the person.
Mr. Beard: Yes, but once you start the process, Mr. Oliver, then you’re going
to have this -- you can’t go back and change the grade, nor can you change the title,
even if you wanted to, because you have started the process. And my next question
would be are they getting this out on time? What is the time limit that they have to
get these plans and other things out? Because that’s what we were told that they
needed this for.
21
Mr. Oliver: The goal is to review and turn around development plans in 30
days. In some cases, they are and in some cases they are not.
Mr. Beard: Are we having a problem with that at this particular time that we
have to speed the process up?
Mr. Oliver: Well, I think that there are a number of things that have to be
looked at as it relates to the overall process that will make it better, but I think that the
fundamental and paramount thing that we need to do is to ensure that subdivisions
and drainage issues are not only handled timely, but more importantly, that they are
handled properly, and I think that Doug Cheek is spread entirely too thin to be able to
do the professional job that I think is required of that office.
Mr. Beard: Well, I don’t think it’s a problem with the need there. I think
we’re talking about the timing of this, Mr. Oliver. And I don’t see any reason why
this can’t come up at another time when people have time ahead of time to thing
about it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and my colleagues, on Item
17 and Item 39 and Item 40, all three, which Mr. Beard asked to be pulled. Mr.
Bridges, Chairman of the Engineering Services Committee, asked me to serve as a
committee of one to work with the County Engineer and work with the License &
Inspection Department in the construction advisory group. One of the reasons is that
Mr. Cheek had been burdened by a lot of growth in this community and we were
getting bogged down as far as plan reviews and so forth, and it’s a complicated way
that we go through this. So I guess for the last six months I’ve been working on this,
I took the opportunity to take the County Engineer, the License & Inspection
Director, and George Patty to Columbia County because we get compared with
Columbia County. This is from developers, contractors, whatever it may be. And we
did that and I think we got some valuable information up there. Columbia County
handles about half the number of plans that we handle in this county. They have
about twice the staff that we’ve got in Richmond County to do their work. It’s taking
us, at best, 45 days to get a set of plans reviewed. It takes them five days. And one of
the problems is that we are just not structured properly. So this recommendation as
far as the Assistant County Engineer, the changing of the ordinance for the
construction advisory group, whereby we are bringing all of the department heads that
are involved with anything to do with construction in this community under the
construction advisory group, which can report directly to Engineering Services, and
the appointment of a consulting engineer to the construction advisory group so that
we can complete the membership there, are all things that are going to help improve
the efficiency of this government as we serve the general public. So I’d like to
encourage my colleagues to vote for all three of these issues because I think all of
them are very positive steps for Augusta Richmond County, and bear in mind, the
22
construction advisory group -- the only thing that they look at is, are the ordinances
that we work under in Richmond County, they don’t do anything with storm water,
they don’t do anything with the construction or anything of this nature. It’s strictly an
advisory group based on the ordinances that we have out there now. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: While I agree with most things that Commissioner Kuhlke has
said in reference to the good and the benefit that the county would derive from this, I
also look at the possibility as he mentioned that this should be a collaborative effort
with all the people, the partners involved from George to License & Inspection to
Engineering and all of this, and that’s why I’m saying that. It should be a
collaborative effort. Right now I don’t see that because we don’t have a department
make a motion that
head yet and so I guess to narrow this down, what I would do is
Items 17, 39 and 40 be considered at the next meeting at that time.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a second. Commissioner Williams, you had your
hand up to speak to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I just want to comment, Mr. Mayor, about we have
been without a department head in that department for a while and I think it’s been far
too long. We are getting closer to do that. I remember when Mr. Acree came and we
asked him just to wait before we restructured, reorganize because of the fact that we
ha a department head, people being interviewed, want to do something. I just don’t
understand, like Mr. Beard said, the urgency of doing it today before anything else.
We kind of put the wagon in front of the horse and will end up doing what we’ve
been doing for a long time. That’s going in the opposite direction. But those are just
the comments I wanted to make.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a comment on Item 39, in particular. One of the
things I remember from the Committee meeting last week was Commissioner Mays
mentioned the term consumers on some of these boards, and that would be the
citizens that have to live under the rule and different things that these boards do
within our city. I remember very well the fact that the Zoning and Planning board
was at one time made up of developers and those associated with the real estate
industry and the things we suffer from this day from that kind of situation, and I
would like to see certainly on this construction board that we do include a seat or two
for consumers, citizens that live in neighborhoods and communities that are built by
23
these folks, where their ideas and needs will be addressed early on so we don’t have
to address them when these decisions come to this board.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Bridges: I make a substitute motion that we approve Item 17.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second to 17. Any discussion on that motion? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] original motion for three numbered items; am I
correct?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Mays: And the substitute deals with just one? Okay, I make my
discussion very brief. My [inaudible] colleague is correct, I did phrase that
[inaudible] -- first, before I do anything, let me say that I think we can appreciate the
expertise of Mr. Kuhlke, and I think the intentions are well intended in terms of trying
to make this a smooth process. This Commissioner is committed to the increased
staffing professionally of the related department so that we can make sure that we get
our work done properly and both sides benefit in the process. Those that do the
building and those that do the buying. I think we do have a couple of unanswered
things. I still stand by the fact that with the amount of criticism that we take and
we’re talking about being compared to Columbia County. That’s all well and good.
We do live here. There are some unique problems that maybe we have that they
haven’t had. We’ve been down this battle in terms of what’s built, what’s not built,
the war that we had over the concrete curbing versus the cheap asphalt curbing.
We’ve had a lot of situations where I think that at least 23 organized neighborhood
are watching carefully where we put people who make decisions on what they buy.
And that’s the point about the consumer. I do think that if we’re going to reorganize
Public Works, that you don’t start in the middle of it. You’re going to elect a Director
regardless of who you select. You’re going through that whole process and you deal
with it at that time. The other thing is I think we need to be fair and honest and I
think the question needs be answered as to, quite frankly, where does this board go
from here? I guess I’m the great author of that statement that there are no court house
secrets. Now it’s been a rumbling that at some point that once we get this board up
and rolling, then the process that Planning & Zoning does, in order to skip and speed
through it, then we’ll do some things administratively that we aren’t doing now. I
have no problem with speeding things up so that they are done conveniently, but I
think you speed them up so that they are done efficiently. We’ve got enough gap
problems where certain areas have dominated this county for too long. And I think
24
not to even want to consider dealing with the consumers on this board, I think the
unanswered question as to what powers later on, because we can say that’s not on the
agenda today, but I can guarantee you there is going to be a move to come back and
say all right, we’ll soon bypass certain stages that we are going through now. And
that we don’t deal with it through Planning & Zoning, we deal with it through the
Administrator’s office, and then we pass it on to the Commission. Now that’s no
court house secret. Now I think that board ought to be explained to where, not only
where it is, but how it’s being designed, it ought to be explained about where it’s
intended to also go and what’s the next step of it. Now that hasn’t been answered. If
that can be answered, that’s in there, I’m not saying I’m against it. But I think all of
its true colors ought to be explained in terms of its make-up, also whether -- its not
only short-range intentions, but what are the long-range intentions in terms of how we
do the process now versus where it’s intended to go. Because I think when we start
changing in the name of quick doing things, that’s why we were changing ordinances
a few weeks ago on arcades, that’s why we have had to go back and reconsider things
that we’ve done, Mr. Mayor, and I just think that to a point, if you’re going to select a
director today that heads a whole ball of wax, then there needs to be a total
reorganization of Public Works, there needs to be a proposal from that Director and
the Administrator as to how you line Public Works up from top to bottom and cover
every aspect of it. Not just the things that the builders want, but the things that are in
those neighborhoods that those folks that are trapped in these chaotic situations who
watched us spend millions of dollars per year and see no relief in sight other than the
fact of what we got on sales tax dollars and what we’re going to deal with with GO
bonds. I just think we’re working with it quite backward in here and as my good
friend, the late Margaret Twiggs used to say, something in here doesn’t really smell
right about the make-up of how we’re doing it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve Item 17.
Mr. Beard: Point of order.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Beard: My motion covered all three. We have a substitute covering one?
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Beard: Which comes first?
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion would be voted on first, and after that then
we would go back to the original motion and 17 would be included or not included,
depending on what happens to the substitute motion. Your motion with respect to
Item 39 and 40 stands. There is a motion on the floor to approve Item 17. All in
favor of that item, please vote aye.
25
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 4-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which was to delay
action for two weeks on Items 17, 39 and 40. Any discussion on that? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve seen the need in the department [inaudible] and
I’ve long been an advocate my seven and some-odd months here on this board of
right sizing and putting critical skill positions, staffing those critical skill positions. I
still don’t, at this point, see where a two week delay would impact this. I believe it’s
something we can come back and get a unanimous vote on in two weeks. Everyone
realizes the need for the position. I think that the new Public Works Director deserves
a chance to give this a once-over and give it their approval before it’s submitted to
this board.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? All right, we call for a vote on the
original motion. All in favor of Mr. Beard’s motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to Item 30.
Clerk:
30. Motion to approve Environmental Management Associates proposal to
verify site conditions and conduct feasibility study for three parcels of
environmentally impacted property for a fee not to exceed $9,950.00
funded by Account #101-04-1110/52-13118.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I read the back-up and perhaps I scanned it too
quickly, but why are we doing this? This is still owned by a private entity?
Mr. Oliver: They propose to give it to us. And we obviously don’t want to
take it if there are environmental problems, and I think that this is the best $9,950.00
we spend, because we are either going to the conclusion that the remediation clean-up
cost is going to be great and we do not want it, or alternatively we’re going to come to
the conclusion that it isn’t as bad as some people may think and that it represents a
good deal. So one thing I think, though, is we need to before we start on this, and Mr.
Wall and I -- and I won’t put Lee in this position -- I think we need to have a contract
26
with them that gives us the option to purchase it because I don’t want to spend the
$9,950.00 without having that commitment, but we need to do this if we have any
interest in the property. The only way that we would not want to do this would be if
you gentlemen had no interest in this property at all.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, that was my concern, that whether we find
contamination or not, that we not be encumbered to pay for clean-up costs at any
point in the future and that we make sure it’s clean before we buy it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask Mr. Oliver is that going
to be included, you said, with the contract?
Mr. Oliver: I ‘d make it -- I would make it subject to it. I would make it
subject to having an agreement, our sole option to purchase the property or to be
given the property so that if we come back and find the environmental assessment
very favorable, that they couldn’t just go out and sell it someone else after we’ve
spent almost $10,000. That would be my recommendation.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, did you want to say something?
Mr. Shepard: As long as the motion incorporated the contractual
recommendations made by the Administrator, that’s all. Does the motion include
that?
Mr. Oliver: I’d put that in there. As long as the maker of the motion --
Mr. Cheek: I agree.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion? All in favor of the item, vote with your
green light, please.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is 55.
Clerk:
55. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for revocation of the alcohol & business license held by
27
William L. Mantlow for Rack Boys located at 2900 Deans Bridge Road
for the following violations: furnishing alcohol to a minor & serving
liquor without a license. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee August 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Is there a representative from the Sheriff’s office here? Would
you like to fill us in on this one, please?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. [inaudible] underage drinking at Rack Boys in the
2900 block of Deans Bridge Road. The deputy stated that once they got to the
location, they observed several individuals inside of the building through a glass
window, and as they approached the door, the owner of the business -- correction, the
bartender, manager of the business ran over to the door, locked the door, and went
back to the bar. They stated that while they were trying to get inside the business,
they observed the bartender take alcohol from behind the counter, throw it into a trash
can and cover it up with a towel. A citizen eventually opened the door, the bartender
never did open the door for them, a citizen opened the door. At that time they went
inside. I think at least about nine individuals were charged with underage drinking.
They were tested on the [inaudible] and they tested positive for alcohol. There was
other individuals inside of this location that was also under the age of 21. He only
had a beer license at this location so they seized the alcohol, which he was in
violation of that also. And charged him with obstruction. And he was also showing a
pornographic movie by satellite dish and they cited him with a nudity ordinance also.
And that’s why we asked that this license be revoked.
Mr. Mayor: And that adult who was cited was an employee of the company?
Mr. Berry: Yes, sir. He’s the one that was always there whenever we got a
complaint or whenever we went to this location.
Mr. Mayor: So this is not the first time that you’d been called to that
location?
Mr. Berry: Right. Two weeks prior to that, we went to this location. I was
conducting an undercover operation, under age, using a 17-year-old to request alcohol
at different locations. This same individual served this individual beer and the
individual was only 17 years old. So he was cited by the State and given a verbal
warning, a written warning by the Sheriff’s Department probably a week before this
incident happened. So he was aware of under-age person could be inside this
location.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions for the sheriff? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just to get on it the floor. Mr. Mayor, I move
that we support the Committee’s action on revocation.
28
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to move ahead with the revocation. Does the
license holder have somebody to represent you? If you’d come up here and give us
your name and your address for the record.
Mr. Boyd: My name is Justin Boyd and I’m representing Rack Boys bar on
Deans Bridge Road. This allegation of showing pornographic material is not true.
One of the patrons in the bar at the time came up and they have a remote for this big
screen television. She got it. The last recall, I was --
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, sir, the revocation is not for showing pornographic
material --
Mr. Boyd: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let me finish. The two issues before this group for revoking the
license are furnishing alcohol to a minor and serving liquor without a license. And
those are the two things you need to respond to. Those are the issues on the table
today.
Mr. Boyd: [inaudible] pornographic material, I think I should straighten it out.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve already straightened it. You said they didn’t do it. So
let’s move ahead now with furnishing alcohol to a minor and serving liquor without a
license.
Mr. Boyd: I did not have a license for the liquor, but the charge of serving
minors, no, sir I did not do that. There are people that have identification that they are
21 years old [inaudible]. I told them [inaudible] that the establishment had already
been cited for that and if they bought this alcohol it was not be served to no under-age
patron in there and if they did they would be charged with contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. That’s what happened. The employee, a couple of weeks
before that two undercover people come in there. [inaudible] do you have
identification, she said no. So I asked the other person if he had identification and he
said, well, I just got a telephone call from my boyfriend, I got to go. That’s how that
happened. I did ask her for an ID but I didn’t receive one. That’s exactly what
happened.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Y’all have any questions for him? Any discussion? We
have a motion on the floor to revoke the alcohol and business license held by the
Rack Boys. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
29
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
Clerk:
58. Z-00-76 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve with a condition ‘That the only commercial use of
this property shall be a beauty shop; and that at such time as this use shall
cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone R-1A (One-family
Residence)’ a petition from Lloyd C. Hooper requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast right-of-
way line of Alexander Drive, 1,046 feet, more or less, north of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Washington Road and Alexander
Drive (1064 Alexander Drive). District 7 (No action vote taken by the
Commission in meeting held August 15, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty here? Someone from the Planning Commission?
Mr. Speaker: This is approximately 1000 feet from Washington Road and I
guess you could say it’s a mid-block location. The basis for the Commission’s action,
I believe, was the fact that the adjoining property, which is similarly situated, was
zoned in a similar manner a couple of years ago for an antique shop with certain
conditions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Flanagan, you’re here representing the petitioner?
Mr. Flanagan: Yes, sir. My name is Doug Flanagan. I’m an attorney and
my office is [inaudible] Richmond County, Georgia. I’m here representing Mr.
Hooper. We’re asking you to vote yes with the Planning & Zoning Commission to
approve this. I’m going to give you [inaudible] background on the property. I know
everybody was [inaudible] two weeks ago. My brother was down here because I was
not available. And I know the County Commission [inaudible] I know y’all have
been by the property. Mr. Hooper’s property is about 337 across the street from the
back driveway where the Kroger supermarket is. Mr. Hooper stands out on his
property and he sees the back driveway of Kroger, [inaudible] dumpster, loading the
trailers, things like that, servicing Kroger. Mr. Hooper has lived there 38 years on
this property. His next door, Ms. Timmerman, who lives directly next door, who also
talked to y’all, she does not object. Mr. Hooper had this property up for sale for about
five years. [inaudible] zoning, and as y’all know, the Eckerd’s is right on the corner
and that takes two lots and there’s four extra lots on that side. On the other side, of
course, you’ve got the Kroger and then comes on down. We’re asking for this
exception as approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission, I think there were
some questions, my brother told me, last time about a septic tank system and
[inaudible] we do have plans for y’all to look over. I am going to pass up to y’all to
30
look over. They’re going to have to cut two trees. The parking lot will be gravel. The
property will basically remain the same. If you drive down the street, the actual
exterior of the house is going to remain the same. There’s not going to be any --
except for painting and cleaning up a little, the outside of the house will remain the
same. We ask that you do consider this to be rezoned. We think it is good for the
neighborhood. I think that since the rezoning has gone on the road down there,
Alexander Drive is going to be widened, possibly to four lanes. [inaudible] at the
bottom of the road, on the left hand side, there are some other businesses, D’Antignac
& Merritt Heating and Air Conditioning, where they park their trucks. We also have a
garage down there. We feel the best use of this property based upon the commercial
zoning of Washington Road and where we are is for the concurrence to approve it.
There will be a small sign similar to the Hilton Head style. We did have an artist’s
rendering as well as some photographs, if I may start here on the end, as to what it
would look like. And I know some of you have been out by the property. You know
the house sits sideways on the lot. It doesn’t sit lengthways on the lot. It sits
sideways and kind of like a double-car garage. The people that would like to
purchase the property are here, if you’d like to hear from them about what their plans
are. They have been in this kind of business for years. We feel it is an ideal location
in the neighborhood. We’d also like to let you know that when Mr. Hooper bought
this, we understand there are some objectors that are not happy with it being rezoned,
and we understand they have the right to come down and object and we’d like to let
you know the Mr. Hooper has this property for a long time, 38 years, and when they
all wanted to build apartment houses or Kroger or the Eckerd’s or the condos, seems
like everybody else in the neighborhood did not come and object. He’s been here a
long time. With that, I’d like for you to hear from Ms. Timmerman. She lives next
door, directly next door, and she has owned her house for 40 years.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Timmerman, if you’ll come to the podium and give us your
name and your address for the record and then say what you want, please.
Ms. Timmerman: I’m Mildred Timmerman. I live at 1076 Alexander Drive.
I’ve lived there for 40 years. This property next to me, I have no objections to the
request that these people have made.
Mr. Flanagan: We’d also like to hear briefly from the young lady that would
purchase the property. Would you state your name?
Mr. Mayor: Has this sale been completed or is the sale subject to the zoning?
Mr. Flanagan: It’s subject to the zoning.
Mr. Mayor: So these people do not own the property?
Mr. Flanagan: No, sir. [inaudible]
31
Mr. Mayor: They have a contract to purchase it?
Mr. Flanagan: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here today? Could we get a show of
hands first for the record? We have five?
(5 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Is there a spokesman for the group? Okay. Come up and give us
your name and address for the record.
Mr. Ediscue: I’m Stanley Ediscue. I live at 2539 Commons Trace in
Alexander Commons. I’ve got some photographs also that would dispute Mr.
Flanagan’s assertion of a 337 feet distance from the property to the Kroger.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ediscue: We presented petitions when we were here two weeks ago.
There were 125 petitions representing 185 homes in four subdivisions, ours and three
others, that are single-family residences, totally excluding the apartment complexes
that are intervening. I did some analysis, and excluding vacant homes, that is
unoccupied home that for one reason or another no one is living in them, we had 96
individual homes sign these petitions out of 173 total homes. So that’s 55 percent of
the occupied homes represented signed the petition. If you just go by total numbers,
we had 72 percent sign it from the homes of people. We have appeared here, this is
the third time that we’ve had representation to oppose this. Our feeling is that this
type of request would be better delayed and handled after the widening, after the
properties have a chance to see what they can be developed into. We have a big
unknown with the widening. There are rumors of their taking one side or the other, a
lot of the roadway, and it seems unfair that the person in the door, the first
homeowner in the door, would have that kind of advantage that the other homeowners
wouldn’t have to get their property zoned the way they wanted to. And that’s what
we’re asking, is that you all consider that if you would.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any other objectors wish to speak? Gentlemen,
what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Flanagan: I’d like to briefly respond if I can.
Mr. Mayor: Come back to the podium. I’ll give you 30 seconds.
32
Mr. Flanagan: Mr. Hooper has had this place up for five years. This is the
first offer he’s had on it. He lived there with his wife, who is now deceased.
[inaudible] he’s had it up for sale for five years [inaudible] one-time variance, has to
be used as a [inaudible]. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Would Mr. Patty or Mr. Flanagan refresh my memory, at least,
what the zoning of the adjacent contiguous properties are? My recollection was this
sort of skipped over some residences between this location and Washington Road.
Am I wrong on that?
Mr. Flanagan: That is correct. [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Would we leave a zone of residential between this subject
property and the commercial that remain on Washington Road?
Mr. Flanagan: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: What’s the gap zone, is my question.
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] similar conditions [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going, I’m facing a similar situation to this on
Windsor Spring Road, if not sooner, then later. My question is, I guess, to the people
objecting. How many live in single-family homes on Alexander Drive and how many
live in the gated communities that have been built there? You have gates up
[inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: I don’t know how many homes are on Alexander Drive.
Mr. Cheek: I mean that signed your petition that are in objection to this?
Mr. Speaker: We were able to get 125 actual signers.
Mr. Mayor: Do you know how many of those 125 live on Alexander?
Mr. Speaker: No, we didn’t go to Alexander Drive. We went to the other, the
four total other residential communities. Homeowner communities. Those behind
the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
33
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] it’s a private road but there isn’t no gate across it,
I guarantee you that.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone is free to go up and look at the property at any time they
wish and draw their own conclusions.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] block that is obviously residential. I don’t
understand how the Planning Commission arrived at this recommendation and I need
some help. To me, this is worse than the situation than Washington Road and East
Vineland where we denied that [inaudible] and that was for professional zoning, and
you’re talking about a B-1 zoning in the middle of what is obviously a residential
[inaudible].
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] there’s going to be some transition [inaudible].
[inaudible] still have the depth on this lot [inaudible]. The fact that there are
[inaudible]
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] there have been a lot of changes in there [inaudible].
They are allowed in B-1. There are a lot of things in B-1 that you wouldn’t want
[inaudible]. B-2 is where the heavy commercial [inaudible] used car lots,
entertainment establishments and things like that. There are a number of things in B-
1. [inaudible] hardware stores and [inaudible] .
Mr. J. Brigham: Do you feel like this is setting a precedent?
Mr. Patty: I feel like it’s setting a precedent for [inaudible] revert back to
[inaudible] and I think it does send that message [inaudible]. I don’t think it sets a
precedent that [inaudible] B-1 or B-2 [inaudible].
Mr. J. Brigham: Do you know if the other properties [inaudible]?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. [inaudible], if you would come up. You need to be by the
mike so we can get you on the record.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
34
Mr. Speaker: There’s no visible business there up the street up behind Eckerd.
Where the property is zoned professional, not business, according to the county
Planning Commission staff report that I got a copy when the item first came up.
Mr. J. Brigham : [inaudible] if I’m not mistaken. [inaudible]
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] building [inaudible] allowed in B-1 zone. B-1 allows
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, anything else?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner . Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Patty, if you will, I done got
confused. I heard four or five times about property being there already and distance
and now I’m confused on all that. Is there a piece of property in that area that is
already zone B-1?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. The property, one property removed, one property north
of this property is zoned B-1 with the stipulation that it can be used only for an
antique shop for professional use.
Mr. Williams: There is already a precedent set, I mean, it’s already property
in there. Next question is that, is there a agreement or some sort of written document
that if this property is not carried through as a beauty salon that it had to revert back
to the original zoning?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. The owner has agreed to the proposed stipulation and
[inaudible] property change hands it [inaudible] the prospective owner would know
that [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: But it will not be transferred [inaudible], right?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible], but if the use [inaudible] at that point, they couldn’t
reopen it. No one else could reopen it [inaudible]. There is nothing [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: What you’re saying, the ownership of the business, it can
continue to be somebody else’s salon if they so desired, they sold it to another salon
person, it still could have to remain the business that is going in there?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s all.
35
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, do we have a motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t believe we do.
Mr. Bridges: Given the fact that I think there is a precedent already set
here, I make motion that we concur with the decision of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Cheek: Second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. It’s been seconded. Did you want
to discuss that, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: No.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll move on to Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just briefly. I’m very concerned about neighborhoods
and the preservation of the quality of life in neighborhoods in Augusta. My other
concern, though, too, is for homeowner that live on Alexander Drive. A lot of times
we have these road widening projects like we had on Windsor Spring Road, we have
homeowners that are left with little or no yard and they’re left with a mess and not
able to sell the property, and so we need to provide an out for homeowners in there,
and it seems that professional use or this like type of business use would be
appropriate and there would still be little impact to the community, and I support it.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we deny.
Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion to deny it from Mr. Jerry Brigham. Is there a
second to that?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second. Discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Cheek obviously hasn’t been by these lots.
They’re 400 foot deep. It’s not going to be [inaudible]. I realize that the road will
take some 40 to 50 foot of their front property [inaudible] it will not be a [inaudible]
of homes, which I have a number of them in west Augusta that I represent, and I
represent those people that live in those patio homes as well [inaudible] and I am as
36
concerned as anybody that sits on this Commission about the buffering of
neighborhoods, no matter where those neighborhoods are, whether they’re in east
Augusta, west Augusta, south Augusta, southern Richmond County, or wherever, but
my concern is that this is an attempt at this point in time to change the face of a
neighborhood prior to we knowing what’s going to occur once the development of
that roadway takes place. And I think that until that happens, I think we have to sit
where we are and support the majority of the people who live in the neighborhood.
The other thing that this reminds me of is a question that we discussed last year in
Olde Town, with the beauty shop and the professional zoning. I was hoping that we
would have had some kind of recommendation of changes out of Planning & Zoning
within the last year, which did not come, to the best of my knowledge, but given the
fact that we are having to deal with B-1 zoning, even with stipulations, it’s going to
put the precedent in place to continue to put B-1 neighborhood business in these
properties and I’m not in a position where I can support that at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek for rebuttal.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, if you will drive on Alexander
Drive from Riverwatch to Washington Road, the left hand side of the street has
homes very close to the road, and they taper gradually away from the road, having
more distance from the homes and the road. And frankly, I’ve driven that road and
walked Rock Creek and everything else in that area and driving in the apartments.
I’m very familiar with it. I feel for these homeowners, but I think we need to provide
an out for those live on that side of Alexander Drive.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to deny the petition to rezone this
property. We’ll take a vote on that substitute motion. All in favor of the motion to
deny, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Mays, Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote
No.
Mr. H. Brigham abstains.
Motion fails 3-6-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion. Any discussion on the
original motion? The original motion is to approve the recommendation of the
Planning Commission. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, I believe, is #60.
37
Clerk:
60. Consider appointment of Interim Fire Chief.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, do you have a recommendation on this item for us or
is your recommendation still the same as it was the last time?
Mr. Oliver: My recommendation that I made before still stands.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Just a moment. Mr. Henry Brigham, yes, sir?
Mr. H. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Oliver: Yes, for several reasons, Mr. Brigham. I had recommended that
Mr. Rogers be appointed Interim Fire Chief, and I would recommend that whoever
you appoint, that it be for a period not to exceed 90 days or until a new Fire Chief is
retained. I would note that I have gotten resumes in. There are almost 50 people that
Human Resources has sent up who they have deemed to meet the minimum
qualifications. By the first part of next week, I should be done to 8 to 10 candidates
for the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem and myself to conduct phone interviews, and
hopefully by the end of the month we will be down to three.
Mr. H. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lee Beard?
Mr. Beard:
Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a recommendation here and I
make that recommendation based on -- the person who I am going to recommend is
the Senior Chief in charge over there. I don’t know why our Administrator
[inaudible] because he also has a letter [inaudible] which stated that the second person
in charge over there, Deputy Chief Rogers, did not want it and he had indicated that
and I think that if that had been brought out at the last meeting and the question that
Commissioner Kuhlke asked our Administrator, we wouldn’t be in this -- we would
I’m going to recommend that Deputy
have this over with and not going into it.
Chief Scott be appointed as the Interim Fire Chief until we select a Fire Chief,
permanent Fire Chief, and if that’s within 90 days I can add that to it. I don’t
mind the 90 days because at the rate we’re going, we ought to have a Fire Chief
within 90 days. But I would like to have all the information when we are given,
to the Commissioners.
Mr. Williams: Second that.
Mr. Mayor: A second to the motion. Okay. Any discussion on the motion?
Start here with Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
38
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification on the motion. If I
understand the motion correctly, this will be for 90 days, if at the end of 90 days we
still do not have a Fire Chief, then this motion will come back before us, whether to
continue the appointment as Interim? Am I understanding that correctly, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, that’s the Chair’s understanding of the motion.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: The appointment is for 90 days, and unless you extend it beyond
that, the Interim title expires at the end of 90 days.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve heard the Chief mention before both of these
gentlemen that have served in the higher capacities in our Fire Department, and being
recommended. I’ve heard Mr. Oliver talked about Chief Rogers and his qualifications
and his recommendation surely speaks very well of his abilities. My concern is that
these individuals that have served in these high positions are now disallowed from
competing for these positions. This is an opportunity for people within our
government who have lived in this community all their lives to aspire to the highest
position within that field. I would like to see if the maker of the motion would agree
that we waive the educational requirements that these gentlemen, if they so wish, can
compete on a level playing field for this position.
Mr. Oliver: I would note, Commissioner Cheek, I understand and empathize
with that. I strongly recommend against it for several reasons. I believe that not to
have that educational requirement -- as I mentioned, we had almost 50 people who
did -- and I believe that to take the Fire Department forward the way that it needs to
be done, I think that it’s going to take someone that not only possesses a degree but
experienced in both Fire and EMS.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, further the Chair will not allow that amendment to
the motion because it’s not germane to the motion. The motion is strictly to appoint
an Interim Chief and not to set the qualifications for a permanent Chief. You need to
take that up as a separate issue.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll be glad to consider that. Any further discussion on the
motion? We have a motion on the floor to appoint Carl Scott, name him the Interim
Chief for a period of 90 days, not to exceed 90 days. All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
39
Mr. J. Brigham votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 61.
Clerk:
61. Discussion: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department for
a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or revocation of
the license held by Loan T. Ngo for Oriental Gift (Millennium Solutions)
located at 3706 Mike Padgett Highway for the following violation:
operating an arcade without a license. District 8. Super District 10. (No
recommendation from Public Service Committee August 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we have two options before us. At the beginning of
the meeting we had a request to put this off for two weeks, request by our counsel,
and then we had a request from the license holder here to go ahead and proceed with
this today.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we postpone for two
weeks..
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to postpone. Gentlemen, any discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I make a substitute motion that if we are postponing it based
on advice of our legal counsel, then obviously something that we, the decision
makers and policy makers need to about that’s legal. My substitute motion is
that it be referred to the legal session and add it to that legal meeting and to seek
the advice of counsel that it be put at the end of this particular meeting or at
some subsequent time that we come out of legal session.
Mr. Williams: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to pass this on to our executive session, the
legal meeting. Discussion, gentlemen? We’ll go ahead and call the vote on the
substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion from Mr. Mays, vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
40
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: So what we’re going to do is meet with our legal advisor on
agenda item 72 and then after that meeting we will take up the item one more time.
Thank you.
Clerk: Item 62.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to take that up at the end of the meeting. Move on
to 63.
Clerk:
:
63. Select voting delegates for the fall ACCG & GMA Pre-Legislative
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, October 9-11, 2000.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard?
r. Beard: I would like to nominate for ACCG Mr. Jerry Brigham and
M
for GMA in Atlanta the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. That’s Commissioner Mays for the GMA. Any other
nominations?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move they be closed.
Mr. Mayor: And these two are elected by acclamation. Is there any
objection? They are unanimously elected.
Clerk:
64. Select voting delegate for National League of Cities Conference, Boston,
Massachusetts, December 5-9, 2000.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, anybody going to Boston?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to nominate Mr. Beard.
41
Mr. Mayor: We have Mr. Beard’s name in nomination. Any other
nominations? If there are no objections, we’ll elect Mr. Beard by acclamation.
Mr. Beard is elected.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take up 67.
Clerk:
67. Consider appointment of Director of Public Works.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver?
Mr. Oliver: I think that you had three excellent candidates that were
interviewed. And I think that any one of the three can do the job. I think that none of
them are not qualified to do it. However, upon reviewing the applications, talking to
the candidates and exploring their work history, my recommendation would be Mr.
Jack L. McDonald. Mr. McDonald had 20 years with the Corps of Engineers. People
with the Corps or coming out of the military concern me usually a little bit in that it’s
either their way or no way. However, Mr. McDonald has had four years of
experience with a local governmental entity and in that time I think that has buffered
him in such way that he now knows that there are other alternatives and other ways to
do things other than the Corps way or the Corps mentality. And my recommendation
would be Mr. McDonald.
Mr. Bridges: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to appoint Mr. Jack L. McDonald
as our new Director of Public Works. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve studied the situation, our strengths and
weaknesses in our Public Works Department, and I would like to nominate
Teresa Smith to take that position and that instead of being penalized, that she
be offered the same wages we were offering this other individual and we would
waive the 15% penalty for our Director of Public Works. In my opinion, she has
the right stuff to correct the problems and get us going in the right direction.
Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Mayor.
42
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Motion and second to appoint Teresa Smith Public Works
Director.
Mr. Oliver: Would that be the same salary that Mr. Murphy was being paid?
Is that what you’re saying, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Oliver, this is something I plan to bring up later on. I think
that those people that we choose within our government should not be penalized for
being here and they should be paid the same thing we’re offering people from outside
of Augusta.
Mr. Oliver: At this point, and you haven’t been through the process, but for
example with the Animal Control Director, there was a range and then there was a
number discussed. I mean there have been no numbers discussed with any of these
candidates. The only think that has been given them in the way of information is that
this is the range.
Mr. Cheek: Well, as long as, Mr. Oliver, my concern is that we don’t cap this
at the 15% and end up paying people, penalize people that have served us for a
number of years for being here and as long as it’s the same range we would have
offered the person from the outside.
Mr. Mayor: You want to give Teresa Smith the opportunity to negotiate her
salary just as any outside candidate would have been able to do; is that flexibility
what you’re talking about?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, that she be offered that same range, that same window that
we would offer someone off the street.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, a point of order, and I’d ask the Chair to rule.
Ordinarily when we have nominations we vote in the order of the nominations being
made, which would be Mr. McDonald and then [inaudible], but the way the motions
were made, one is a substitute and one is a motion, and ordinarily you take the
substitute first. What is the order of voting on the nominations with these two?
Mr. Mayor: Well, what the Chair would do, just as you stated, we would take
these up in the order in which they were nominated, so if anybody wanted to
nominate somebody else, they are certainly free to do that. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. These were offered as motions and
not nominations. I think there’s a difference in those two.
43
Mr. Mayor: I don’t believe there is, because this is an appointment, just like
we appoint somebody to a board. We’re appointing a department head. It may have
been stated as a motion for the record, but in the scheme of things --
Mr. Cheek: We made motions and not nominations, though, for this and so
there is, I would consider a difference. Can we discuss that with the parliamentarian?
Mr. Mayor: Well, we can ask the parliamentarian on that.
Ms. Little: [inaudible] take them in the order of nomination.
Mr. Mayor: She recommends that we take in the order in which they were
nominated and the Chair will abide by that unless the Commission would like to
overrule that. You can do that with six votes.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d ask for a roll call vote.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to overrule the Chair?
Mr. Beard: No, I don’t want to overrule the Chair, Mr. Mayor, but I want
something clear from her.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Beard: That is [inaudible], the motion? And that’s what we were doing,
motions. At the beginning of this. Can we change this in the middle of the stream
unless we have six votes?
Ms. Little: [inaudible] distinction between treating this as a typical
nomination procedure which is where you take the person who was nominated first
and vote on that and then --
Mr. Beard: But that is stated at the beginning of the procedure and that was
not stated, so we went into this with motions. Now are we changing this without six
votes? We just going to change it?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think we’re changing anything, Mr. Beard. This is the
way we do appointments.
Mr. Beard: No, but that wasn’t the beginning of this one.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the semantics may not have been the same but you’re
making an appointment and we taking them in the order in which people are
nominated.
44
Mr. Beard: I want a legal opinion, Mr. Mayor, if you don’t mind.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the opinion she just gave you.
Ms. Little: Certainly I would recommend treating them as nominations, with
all the typical nomination procedure, but of course the body has the ability to do
differently if you so choose.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I understand what normally we do this as
nominations. We probably should have done that as well. It was a motion. As one of
the makers of that motion, I have no objection to taking it in the form of a motion,
that is the substitute motion and then coming back to the regular motion. I guess
that’s just what I have to say in that regard. I think to be consistent we probably
should take it as a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think this is an election. All the times we elect
either committee chairmen or whatever we elect, I think the rule has been that we
went in the order of nominations, so I would say if that’s the maker’s position we
don’t have unanimous consent to change this as far as I’m concerned from anything
other than the election which it is, which we ought to follow our election rules, which
was the first candidate nominated is first considered and then the second candidate
nominated is considered.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I change my motion to a nomination if the
seconder would agree?
Mr. Mayor: The motion that you make now belongs to the body. Once you
make it and its seconded, it would take unanimous consent to change the motion.
Mr. Bridges: Do I have unanimous consent on that?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I don’t want to make a long issue on this, but it comes
back to what I’ve always stated, if we’re going down the road and doing something
and just let’s follow the procedure. I know we’re going to vote on this anyway and it
doesn’t make any difference if four votes going to select whether it’s a motion or
whether it’s a nomination. But I’m saying when you start off saying, when you start
the procedure, we ought to continue that way, and to me, we’re making an issue out
45
of something that really doesn’t make any difference because four votes going to
change it anyway, but to me again, it just, whatever we are doing, let’s follow that
way because you started that way and we’re going that way, but we can vote
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, as far as that particular [inaudible], I personally don’t
have a preference. I think you ought to follow a procedure, whatever it is. If we’re
going to listen to the parliamentarian in that manner to deal with the nominations,
then I can live with that. But I would like to ask, I guess on a point of order, if we --
and I guess I’m basing this if we end up in the nominating process, without any
motions being out there, then I think one question does need to be asked because there
was a nomination of one person, the motion was seconded. There was a nomination
of another person, a motion and a second. There was also a stipulation that went along
with that person’s nomination. Now I think if we’re going back to the nominations,
then we need to decide are we voting on names or are we voting on one name and one
name with a stipulation? Because we do have a difference in that process. And if
that’s the case, then I’m prepared to address the stipulation in the item that I placed on
the agenda under Item 71, which is to discuss wage and salary compensation plan,
which covers the fact which we are dealing with these provisions that do not allow at
this point under our rules of [inaudible] to be able to negotiate under the same system
as people who work for this government as opposed to those brought in from the
outside. And I just need to know some clarification, because if it does, I still want to
know where we’re going with 71, whether or not that will even be addressed or not,
and that depends -- and my thing is this one is not just to deal with the motion that’s
on the floor as it relates to Teresa Smith. My argument is that it relates to everyone in
these departments of where are selecting, because this just happens to be today where
we are dealing with a Public Works Director and I applaud Mr. Cheek for putting that
into the particular motion. But there is a morale situation that I had mentioned earlier,
this morning, as it exists with people who work with this government to a point that
whether we give them what may be the maximum of any range, the only thing I think
that people are asking to be done is that we play by one set of rules, and that if a job is
to be done, to be qualified to do it from within, that they be given the same chance to
negotiate on the same sheet of music as you would somebody coming in from Des
Moines, Iowa or Butte, Montana.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you’re getting ahead of us here. The Chair interprets
the nomination of Teresa Smith to include the proviso that if she is the one who is
selected that her salary would be negotiated as would with any other candidate. And
that would certainly be the intent of any election to hire her and that’s the message
that would go to our city Administrator and I think Mr. Oliver understands that.
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to make clear, that’s all. [inaudible]
46
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely.
Mr. Mays: Her nomination is with the provision. It’s related to her.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely.
Mr. Mays: My provision on 71 deals with government in general.
Mr. Mayor: Right. And we’ll get into that after we deal with this. Is there
any further discussion on the election, the appointment of our Public Works Director?
We’ll take the names up as they were presented. The first person nominated is Jack
McDonald. Nominated or moved, however you want to term it. All in favor of Mr.
McDonald, please vote --
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I asked for a roll call vote.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, Mr. Brigham. Madame Clerk, if you’ll put it forward.
Clerk: This motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, was for Mr.
Jack McDonald for Public Works Director.
Roll Call Vote on Jack McDonald:
Mr. Beard – No
Mr. Bridges – Yes
Mr. H. Brigham – No
Mr. J. Brigham – Yes
Mr. Cheek – No
Mr. Colclough – No
Mr. Kuhlke – Yes
Mr. Mays – No
Mr. Shepard – Yes
Mr. Williams – No
Motion fails 4-6.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the next candidate, Teresa Smith.
Roll Call Vote on Teresa Smith:
Mr. Beard – Yes
Mr. Bridges – No
Mr. H. Brigham – Yes
Mr. J. Brigham – No
Mr. Cheek – Yes
Mr. Colclough – Yes
Mr. Kuhlke – No
47
Mr. Mays – Yes
Mr. Shepard – Yes
Mr. Williams – Yes
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take 69, 70 and 71.
Clerk:
69. Consider the appointment of Ms. Gayle Bentley to the Richmond County
Board of Health as recommended.
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the appointment of Gayle Bentley to
the Board of Health, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk:
70. Status report on proposal from Caryl Sumner, PC, Attorney at Law.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, what I’ve done is I’ve asked for an update and she’s
given it to us and I’ve passed it out to each Commissioner. If there are questions that
need to be answered, I’ll try to answer those at this time. Otherwise, you can read this
proposed -- her report. And the final report is expected at the end of the month from
her.
Mr. Shepard: I move we receive Ms. Sumner’s report as information.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection ?
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We receive her report as information unanimously. Item 71. Mr.
Mays, we’ll continue your discussion of the wage and salary compensation plan. You
have the floor.
48
71. Discuss Wage and Salary Compensation Plan.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Herculean job to try to deal with this [inaudible] of
how we spend our money and how we deal with negotiating salaries and making sure
that we can bring in or upgrade people for the best value of our dollar. But there has
been a lot of concern [inaudible] throughout this County. For some time now since
we consolidated, on this particular matter, do we put our folks who are there in a
position that are doing a job [inaudible] and we select and if candidate A happens to
work for Richmond County, and by no means am I saying that [inaudible] that that
entitles them to some automatic [inaudible] in terms of money. But I think if you’ve
got candidate B, if you’re going to offer X amount of dollars to do the same job,
regardless if that person is male, female, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, regardless of
what their beliefs are, I think if you’re dealing with a job, then I think it’s sending a
clear message to those who work, and we’ve talked a lot about upward mobility and
career paths in the government, that if they are good enough to make the ranking
system, that you considered [inaudible], then I think it’s time that they come out from
under this veil, quite frankly, of penalization. Because one is [inaudible], they would
not stand up and protest, they would do their job, if they are promoted, if they are
upgraded to department head, they take them in stride and you don’t hear a lot of
barking about it. But I think deep inside there is a message, and which we need to
seriously consider. And that being the fact that if it is worth X number of dollars for
someone who is outside of this system to take a job and do it, then it should be worth
the same amount of money for someone in it, or at least to have the leveraging point
to do that. Maybe there might be extenuating circumstances. There might be times
when we might offer a person or may want to offer a person more on the inside than
someone who is coming in from the outside. But at this point, I think there is a
barrier, particularly where we deal with our department heads and supervisors and
that level, that restricts us from being able to, if we wanted to, all things are basically
equal, then the only thing tilted is the playing field. And I think that looking at Item
71, it helps us to address and to bring this into a situation as to where the negotiations
can be dealt with, whether you’re in the system or without it. Right now there is kind
of a standing joke that none of them will put down on paper or say anything about,
but it’s kind of like if you want a particular job, and you’re going to be upgraded, two
things are considered. One, is it worth the responsibility, knowing that you can’t
move past the first point in your salary level because of what is said within our
guidelines, or is it easier to quit Augusta Richmond County, taken your chances on
coming back and apply, then that gives you the same ground level that someone has
from the outside. And that’s why I’m putting it on here today. It’s no big secret
[inaudible]. It’s one that some of us have discussed for some time. It’s definitely one
that our employees have discussed for quite a while. And I just think it’s something
that we need to move ahead and to level the playing field so that when we attract
And I make a motion that we so do.
people, that we play by one set of rules.
Mr. Williams: I second that.
49
Mr. Mayor: Motion we so do what, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: That that position, Mr. Mayor, the wage and salary ordinance
which so restricts that if you change in order to give us the flexibility to do just that.
Mr. Mayor: I see what you’re trying to do, but I think we need to have a clear
statement of exactly what you want to do on the record.
Mr. Oliver: Is this only applicable to department directors, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I want to give you, Mr. Oliver, the same flexibility up and down
the board and my reason for saying that is we are hiring some high level number 2’s
and number 3’s around here. And if the salary level is going to be different, then I
think in all fairness, then we ought to put a stamp at the bottom, if you work here,
don’t flip the sheet over that’s on your board in your department and apply. Because
it doesn’t mean the same thing.
Mr. Oliver: Remember this, the policy that was adopted by the Commission
says that you can hire somebody [inaudible] candidate up to 10% over the bottom of
the range, and that if it’s above that, it must come forward with an agenda item, and
the same thing would apply to the in-house candidates on the promotion rules, that
they can come through an agenda item process before they do that, and in fact that has
been done on two previous cases, these two individuals within the payroll.
Mr. Mayor: We’re getting out ahead. The motion has been made and
seconded, but I’m trying to get it clear for the record.
Mr. Mays: If I can clear it up any better, is that Mr. Oliver is directing that
you can put forth an agenda item, but why do you deal with an agenda item to
circumvent or to break a rule, when it’s simpler to change a rule that’s basically been
unfair.
Mr. Mayor: And what do you want the rule --
Mr. Mays: What’s happened, Mr. Mayor, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist. If
we look back at people where we’ve hired from the outside, is that we go back and we
check these [inaudible] now let’s cut to the chase on this, what we’ve done is that
everyone that we’ve brought in, basically has come in higher-- and I don’t have an
objection to that. Sometimes that’s needed to attract certain folks in order to get them
within in the system. But none of these have come in in the levels where we’ve made
the offerings to our own people.
Mr. Mayor: What do you want the policy to say? You need to state that in
your motion.
50
Mr. Mays: What I want to do is basically take the rule out, Mr. Mayor. So the
Administrator or HR, they can negotiate from the same sheet of music.
Mr. Oliver: So you want to allow us to negotiate all salaries with any
employee or potential employee as long as the salary is within the range?
Mr. Mays: That’s basically -- that doesn’t say you have to do it but it allows
you the right to do it.
Mr. Mayor: So that’s the motion?
Mr. Oliver: I don’t think that’s a good idea.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Hold it a minute. Is that the substance of your motion? Do we
have a second to that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so we have a motion and a second on the floor.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a couple of comments.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: And what I observed, and I wasn’t here, but from when the city
and county merged together and I’m sure there was a lot of moving back and forth,
you had a bunch of employees that were going from one department to another one
and different department heads and we was not at that time able to pay and give
salaries that probably was deserving, even back at that time. But since this time,
some 4 or 5 years now, I think we’ve grown a lot, I think we’ve learned, I think we’ve
got some people in places that are able to do some things, but I think our employees
are being mistreated to have to not strive to try to do the best employee they can
because they feel like their salary is not going to be competitive with somebody who
comes up on the outside. And the last two or three appointments, positions that we
tried to fill, we’ve brought people in from the outside, even some who have worked
with this government before and come back and making more money than they ever
made before. Well, life is almost a money game, I guess you could say, because it
takes money to do everything we do. Everybody wants to make a decent salary, and
if we got an Administrator who got the flexibility to deal with our people in-house,
that’s going to build morale, that’s going to give us better employees, that’s -- I think
that’s going to enhance this government a great deal. I still hold to my truth I been
saying about holding people accountable. I don’t think we ought to just pay
51
somebody. We got a lot of people that are getting paid probably too much now but
we got some people doing a great job that ain’t getting nothing, and I don’t think it’s
fair to have them be penalized if you want to grow, if you want to further your
education or apply for advancement and then be held down because you are already in
the system. And I’m in agreement with Mr. Mays in what he said. I don’t know the
language that we need to put in there. I’m sure Mr. Oliver can come up with the
language, and I’m not just talking about the top position, but like Mr. Mays, there are
number 1’s, there are some number 2’s, there are some assistants that we have passed
over. We are looking for good employees. I feel from day one that this government
ought to be the top paying entity around this town and other businesses and other
corporations be trying to match up to get our employees. But we are losing our good
employees to other businesses and other industries because the same folks are making
money and the same folks that are doing the work ain’t making nothing. And it’s
time out for that. I say again, I second Mr. Mays’ motion. I don’t know the wording.
Mr. Oliver is a smart man, I’m sure he can come up with something that we can do to
alleviate this thing and have it worked out where our employees would feel like they
are not [inaudible] got the advantage because they in-house, they got the experience,
we know them, they have worked for us for a number of years, and we know what
we’re getting. A lot of times we don’t know what we’re getting until we got it, and
then it’s too late.
Mr. Oliver: Might I interject, because this is a grave and important issue that
you’re going to take, and we don’t want any misunderstanding. If you give me an
opportunity to come to you with two or three suggestions for the next meeting so you
can formally adopt something, rather than to just adopt something where there may be
unclarity or uncertainty.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’m not quite sure what we’re talking about
doing, and I would like to make a substitute motion to ask Mr. Oliver to come
back to us with two or three different scenarios that address what Mr. Mays is
talking about doing and at the same time, not exactly knowing what Mr. Mays
wants to do, I’d like to know the pros and cons of each scenario, Mr. Oliver. But
I’d like to make in the form a motion because I can’t really vote on what Mr.
Mays has put forth right here because I don’t know what the impact is.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and a second. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Kuhlke, I wonder if you would make an amendment to
that motion that Mr. Oliver bring that back, but bring it to the Administrative
Services Committee which would oversee this?
52
Mr. Oliver: This is going to take a little work to put together and I would have
it done to get it in [inaudible] by tomorrow, so I’d like to, if we’re going to Admin
Services, not be at Monday’s meeting but two weeks from Monday. That will give
me an opportunity to make sure it’s right. Because as I say, this is something that you
need to make sure everybody clearly understands and it’s clearly set forth as to what
everybody wants to do.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll accept that amendment.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the substitute motion? None
heard.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I continue on?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: I think it’s -- I agree with some of what Mr. Mays has said.
We’ve seen where we’ve got, particularly on the professional level, with engineers
and other degreed people that have left the job with the government. They’re doing a
great job and they leave the job to get more money somewhere else. And doing the
same work. And it’s not just Atlanta. We’ve seen them go to Atlanta, but we’ve seen
them go locally as well, and I think when they go locally to another position paying
more money doing the same work, I think that tells us we need to look at what we are
offering for salaries for these positions, so I think it’s a needed thing, but I think in
regard to changing our ordinance or our procedure on this, I think it’s something that
we need to look at closely and make sure it’s done right and properly and worded
correctly, so I think to bring it through the Administrative Services Committee and
then back to us is the proper way to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I agree with both what Mr. Kuhlke has said and Mr.
Mays. My concern is the loss of institutional knowledge from those that work within
our system. Since I’ve been here, I’ve seen some engineers that leave and went to the
private sector that took with them a great deal of knowledge and experience about the
operations of our water works. We have got to get to a point where we support our
employees by giving them the opportunity to both rise to the top and be compensated,
as they would if they were in the private sector in a similar field, or in another city of
a similar size. And I would support us doing that. I don’t see -- maybe there was a
time for it -- but I don’t see the need now to penalize our employees by giving them a
lesser pay raise or salary because they’ve served the people of Augusta all these
years. I think it’s time to remove that and to move forward with compensating our
employees fairly.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
53
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Beard had his hand up.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I do agree with both speaker on this. I think Mr. Mays
was to be commended for bringing this to the forefront at this time. I also agree with
Mr. Kuhlke that we really need to look into this and I think [inaudible] to the
Committee levels and [inaudible] from that and I think that if our Administrator can
bring us something back that, some scenarios, this will also give us time to talk to the
other members of the Commission and the Administrator and possibly some of the
Directors, and this will give us time to really plan this and work this out, so I’m in
agreement with the substitute motion that we bring this back to Administrative
Services Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to agree with Mr. Williams, I
really don’t know what I’m getting in the first motion and I think we are going to
have to have some study. I do commend the maker of both motions for bringing this
to our attention and I think that one other important part of the study, Randy, should
be an analogy to what we call the environmental impact statement. When you are
going out and doing something in the community, you determine the environmental
impact of the study and [inaudible]. I suggest that there be a corresponding financial
impact statement on this suggestion. It seems like to me that we’re talking [inaudible]
expenditures, so if we’re going to talk reforming this process, let’s not overlook the
financial impact of what’s been proposed today. Are we going to have a budget that’s
going to come up this fall and we’re going to have to vote on that again, we vote on it
annually. I just don’t think we can overlook the financial consequences and I would
commend you to include that in your report.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, do you know it’s amazing how smart and clear we can
be on some days and how on some days we don’t understand anything? It’s a real
clear motion. It only levels the playing field. But since I got my lucky tie on today, I
been pretty good today, I haven’t lost, my good namesake on my side over here,
[inaudible], I’m going to break it way down so there’s no misunderstanding. Unclear.
Not knowing where we’re going on it. I don’t have a problem in [inaudible], I don’t
want the Administrator to think I’m beating up on him. But I’m going to say this.
You don’t have to go back and get another Ph.D. to add on to what I’m talking about.
In two weeks, whether y’all put it back on, I’m going to put it back on. The real
question in this is, if you don’t know what this is about, some gentlemen, it’s unclear,
talk with some of the people who work for you some time. They’ll tell you real clear
what this is about. Talk to some of their families. They will tell you what it’s about.
54
And they’ll be able to explain it to you. I been in this chamber long enough, Mr.
Mayor, now to where one of the reasons I fight so hard for some of the old
pensioners, some folks can’t understand, it’s unclear, why do they want this? It’s
because we underpaid so many of them so bad for so long, is why they fight for little
things like their little insurance benefits, what they getting out of their pension
money, and it’s the same thing that our employees who work for us ask us to do. But
I’m going to make it real clear, gentlemen. I’m going, if it is okay, we don’t even
have to vote on the motion I made. You all have achieved, by making a substitute
motion, some of your minds have come around a whole lot in six days. It wasn’t even
there six days ago. So you know I think I’m a pretty good teacher on that respect, Mr.
Mayor, so I’m going to withdraw mine without any prejudice and I’m going to
support the substitute motion. But I just hope that the Administrator in all of these
studies, we don’t need a whole big study, this has nothing to do with money, because,
and I’m going to clear this up because you want to talk about a budget problem, if you
pay all the folks that you bring from somewhere else whatever you decide to pay
them, that’s what you going to pay them. The thing is not what you’re paying them,
it’s a matter of who you pay. And where they fall. The numbers you work out in a
budget, which common sense tells you, simple arithmetic does that. There’s no
budgetary impact. It’s a people impact. It’s decided upon where they work and being
in the system versus no being in the system. Gentlemen, Mr. Mayor, personal
privilege, I’d like to withdraw mine. I didn’t know I was going to even get that far
today on it. You going to negotiate with the Public Works Director on the scale that
you negotiate everybody else on. My lucky tie done got that one. I’m going to stop
while I’m ahead. But in two weeks, I’m going to bring Item 71 back. It may be under
this number or another number, and I’m going to let it get voted up or down. Y’all
can help me with it or y’all can hurt me with it. But it won’t be a personal battle. It
will just send a message to your employees as to whether or not you want to play with
them and play the same game and continue to do it. That’s the clear message. If you
haven’t got it yet, ask some of them when you leave this building and stop along the
street sometime and ask them what they think about it and ask them whether or not
they’re fair.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Just as a point of order, I would not that
you cannot withdraw a motion. Once it’s been made, it is on the table. And we do
have a substitute motion we’ll vote on first.
Mr. Oliver: I need to make sure I’m clear on one thing, so I do what the body
wants. The question I’ve got is do you want this to come back directly to the
Commission in two weeks, or do you want it to go to Admin Services?
Mr. Mayor: The motion is for Admin Services.
Mr. Oliver: Okay, Admin Services, two weeks from Monday?
Mr. Mayor: As soon as you have it ready to send to Admin Services.
55
Mr. Oliver: That will be two weeks from Monday.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. I don’t need to speak.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, point of order. You know, in terms of withdrawing
my motion, since we are making a lot of rules today --
Mr. Mayor: We’re not making a rule. That’s an established rule.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask the Parliamentarian, because we had two motions and a
second before and we changed that whole process. They were out there and they
were allowed to get on the floor, which we turned around and withdrew. Now the
only thing I’m saying is just withdraw it. We took two of them off the floor a few
minutes ago, and I ask her again, make a ruling on that one.
Ms. Little: I understand what you’re saying, but typically when there’s a
motion --
Mr. Mays: No, no, darling, don’t give me typical here. Give me a legal
opinion.
Ms. Little: Okay.
Mr. Mays: I want a legal one, not a typical one.
Ms. Little: You’ve got a motion and a second. You can’t withdraw the
motion after a second has been given. You’ve got a substitute motion and a second
that followed it. You’ve got to vote on the substitute motion first.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Under any circumstance?
Ms. Little: In this circumstance.
Ms. Mays: Whoo.
Mr. Shepard: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called.
56
Mr. Mays: Is this National Lawyer Bail-out?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, I just called for the question. If you want to debate
that --
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. We’ve had plenty of discussion on
this so we’ll go ahead and start the voting. All in favor of the substitute motion,
please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have two, potentially three public hearings ahead of us, plus
our legal meeting, so in view of the hour, the Chair will declare a five minute recess
and then we’ll come back and deal with these remaining items.
(Brief recess)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call our meeting back to order. The next item of business
is Item 66, an appeal hearing.
66. Consider appeal hearing requested from Mr. Tom Beck, Director of
Augusta Recreation & Parks.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck, if you’ll come up to the podium. Let me state for the
record before we start this, that the issues before us in this appeal were spelled out in
a letter that our Administrator, Randy Oliver, wrote to Mr. Beck on August 14, 2000.
Those are the issue before us today and those are the issues that will be addressed
during this discussion today. Mr. Beck.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Do you have a point of order, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes, sir. I need some information.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. H. Brigham: It’s my understanding -- when you make an appeal it has to
be public? I was under the impression that when you deal with personnel matters it
was normally done in closed session.
Mr. Mayor: That is correct, but when there is an appeal to a personnel issue
from a discipline as Mr. Oliver did in this case, the employee, in an employee’s case
57
would appeal it to a public meeting and the Personnel Board. Department Head
would bring it into public meeting and this board.
Ms. Little: The appeals hearing part is public. Any production of evidence is
public. Your deliberations, in fact your decision can be private or in legal session.
When you vote, that also has to be public.
Mr. H. Brigham: Well, he’s had the hearings up until now?
Mr. Mayor: This is his first hearing.
Mr. Oliver: There is no hearing, Mr. Brigham, up to this point. Effectively
you serve as the Personnel Board in this particular case because of the way the rules
are defined.
Mr. Mayor: And after the information is presented, you have the option of
discussing this and moving forward with it publicly or you can take it into executive
session to discuss it among yourselves and then come back out and vote in a public
session.
Mr. H. Brigham: That’s the law?
Ms. Little: Yes.
Mr. H. Brigham: Okay. I been here 15 years and I don’t believe I’ve done it
quite that way before without the previous hearings. And you’re saying we haven’t
had anybody during that time to want to present themselves, and we’ve always told
them they have to Personnel.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Brigham, if you recall, the difference, the slight difference
here was you all used to hear personnel appeals, but they would appeal from the
Personnel Board to the Mayor and Commission. When those procedures were
changed some three years ago, you made it so that there was no appeal to the Mayor
and Commission. This would be similar to the old appeal from the Personnel Board.
However the difference here is that a Department Head does not have the ability to
appear before the Personnel Board, and rather they have the ability to request a
hearing before the Mayor and Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: And this is the first one since the rules changes.
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Anything else, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Not right now.
58
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck.
Mr. Beck: Always good to be a trendsetter.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, go right ahead.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mays, also I did want to mention that I looked in my closet for
my lucky tie and I didn’t have one in there. But here I am anyway.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I do come before you
here today to appeal the suspension that was handed down to me on August 16. Mr.
Mayor, when I volunteered our Department to become the first Department in city
government to participate in the City’s Character, Augusta’s Character City program,
I did not realize that my own character would be tested the way it has for the last three
weeks. I never realized that this would be the most difficult three weeks of my
professional career, which it has. The weaker parts of my character wanted just to
throw the towel in and pack it, but the stronger parts of my character have prevailed
to this point. And so to say that I’m a quitter, the answer to that is no. And to put
myself through this experience, I think is proof positive of that fact, at least in my
own eyes. So the circumstances surrounding the subsequent suspension as handed
down and outlined in the letter did surface as a result of an investigation by the EEOC
office into three issues, as pointed out in Mr. Oliver’s letter. One was the hiring of a
recreational specialist III position, two was the filling of job vacancies within the
department, and three the discipline of an employee who changed job assignments
without permission. In addition, the question of reinstalling playground equipment at
Wood Park was mentioned in Mr. Oliver’s letter as well. Now I believe, by looking
at Mr. Oliver’s letter, that two of these four issues have been cleared of any wrong-
doing as it relates to the items that are in the letter by the Administrator. So this
leaves me two issues, really, to clarify for you. One is the advertising and hiring of a
recreation specialist III position within the department, and the other is the Wood
Park playground reinstallation. So let me start first with the Wood Park playground
history. A new playground was installed in June of this year by a certified NPSI --
and NPSI stands for National Playground Safety Institute -- installer as per the bid
requirements. After the playground was installed, the question was raised whether or
not the site selected for the playground was most appropriate there for the park.
Much discussion followed, and although there were mixed opinions about whether
the playground needed to be moved or should it stay in the same location that it was
in, it was determined that in the best interest of the city, that it should be moved. The
problem with moving the playground dealt strictly with the cost of the relocation. To
have the installer, the certified installer, independently move the playground and
reinstall it in another location was going to require an expenditure of over $5,000. In
order to get this playground reinstalled with NPSI certification, without costing this
59
government valuable dollars, I contacted the playground equipment company and
they agreed to provide, at no cost, their installer to supervise our maintenance crew to
complete the job and still provide full warranty and most importantly, safety
certification, which we require on all of our modular playground units. I indicated at
either a Committee meeting or a full Commission meeting that the company would
come in at no charge to reinstall the playground, which was the case. It was never
any intention on my part to deceive this Commission by using our crew to complete
the job with in-kind labor, only to save taxpayer dollars in trying to rectify the
situation. Now, on to the issue of hiring the recreation specialist III position in the
department. First, let me try to clarify a couple of things. Number one, this was an
authorized, budgeted recreation specialist III vacancy within the Recreation and Parks
Department. This was not a case of attempting to create a new position that was not
authorized by this government, so due to this fact alone, the issue of position control
has not been violated. Number two, the position was published and advertised by the
Human Resources Department, not by Recreation and Parks, showing the minimum
educational requirements for a high school diploma. Attachment 1, and I believe
you’ve been given a little packet that we’ll be referring to, attachment 1 is a copy of
this notice that was issued for this job by Human Resources. As you’re aware, I
submitted to you recommendations for amendments to educational requirements for
certain job titles within the department. These amendments are necessary to promote
some upward mobility within the department based on experience and performance in
lower level positions, as well as to continue to promote an educated work force.
When I was appointed Director in 1996, the Department had eight employees with
four year degrees. Today, this Department has 19 employees with four year degrees,
so I think my record speaks for itself in that regard. Included in those
recommendations was the job title Recreation Specialist III, in which a four year
degree is mistakenly shown instead of a high school diploma. When I initially
submitted the agenda item, I thought all six job descriptions for Recreation Specialist
III were shown incorrectly, but actually five of the six are correctly shown as
attachments 2 through 7 in your packet indicate. I subsequently made that correction
on the next agenda item, which is attachment 8 in your packet, and it is still pending
your approval. Also in reviewing the last two Recreation Specialist III vacancies,
Human Resources advertised both of these with high school diploma minimum
requirements, which further indicated to me that the advertisement for the Recreation
Specialist III position done in May that is in question was legitimate. Attachments 9
and 10 in your packet are the copies of those two job announcements, which were the
last two Recreation Specialist III positions within the Department. We do not do
those. Human Resources issues those. One of those, attachment 10, is actually for a
Center Program coordinator, which is the same vacancy that was advertised in May
which shows a high school diploma requirement. I honestly thought Human
Resources was aware of the incorrect educational requirement for a four year degree
on that job description and corrected it to a high school diploma as it should have
been. So the real question, in my opinion, comes down to whether or not I had the
authority to change job descriptions for a Recreation Specialist III vacancy. When
this position was advertised, it was always my intention to hire a Specialist III under a
60
Marketing/Special Events Coordinator description. When the position was posted, ad
copy of the Marketing/Special Events Coordinator job description was attached to the
job vacancy notice that every employee who applied for the job had to see and had to
read before they applied for the job. Each employee who applied for that job knew
exactly what job they were applying for. The reason for this change was that the
vacancy for this position was at Belle Terrace Park, but due to our Department
transferring not one, but two Recreation Specialists into Belle Terrace over the last
two years, Belle Terrace, and due to service demands there at the park, and you all
know how busy and how active that park is, with those two additional people we put
into that operation, we were at full strength there. So the area that we are severely
lacking in that I wanted to get strength within our organization, this government and
our department, is where we are lacking the most, and that is in our city-wide services
managed out of the administrative office and specifically toward those areas of
marketing and special events. This position would focus on assisting our special
events and marketing program demands that have skyrocketed over the last three
years, as well as to improve the recruitment and recognition of our most important
resource, our volunteers. This position would also implement a program that many of
you on this board have shown interest in over the last three years, a program that you
approved as a full Commission but we have not been able to implement it yet because
of personnel issues, and that is a city-wide Volunteer Augusta program, that not only
would recognize volunteers in our department but also volunteers across city
government. The need for this position is also justified by the fact that this
department has been directed by you as a Commission to assume management over
the past four years of the Augusta Golf Course, Newman Tennis Center, the Boat
House, the Augusta Aquatics Center, the Augusta Soccer Park, Diamond Lakes
Regional Park, Belle Terrace Swim Center, and the Old Government House, as well
as to manage a $23 million 52-park capital improvement program without the
addition of one single administrator person in our department. The amount of phone
calls, printing, purchasing, payroll, correspondence, facility marketing and additional
events has increased the work load tremendously for all of our administrative staff,
and they have continued to perform these additional tasks without complaint, and I
am extremely proud of them for it. This position would help to strengthen our
department without asking for a new position. Without asking for a new position.
And I stand by that. So the real question again is did I have the authority to fill this
vacancy in this manner? My position is that I did due to the fact that this was an
authorized Recreation Specialist III vacancy, and what I was doing was placing an
authorized position in a job description where the demands of the public can best be
met. Now I have come before you literally hundreds of times over the last four years
with agenda items on issues affecting this department. Literally hundreds of times. If
I had thought this situation, even for a moment, would have required your approval, I
certainly would have done that. And I’d also like to mention the fact that the filling
of this position was never finalized. It was stop and put on hold pending the outcome
of this entire issue. The advertising of this position by Human Resources also did not
discriminate against anyone due to the fact that a person with a degree could apply
just as those with a high school diploma, which did occur in this case. The fact is, the
61
person most qualified for the job, who met the minimum qualifications as advertised,
was selected and recommended. Recommended and selected to fill the position. Mr.
Mayor and members of the Commission, in conclusion, it’s an understatement to say
that I disagree with this suspension. And I disagree with this action that’s been taken
against me and I just don’t understand how it’s gotten to the point where we are here
today. What I’m asking you to do is reverse this suspension and at a maximum
choose the lesser of the options available, if you do indeed feel that discipline is
necessary. Should you feel this action deserves a penalty as harsh as a five-day
suspension, I must take the next five days evaluating what is best for me, what is best
for me in the future as it relates to my career. Should you show a very important
character, courage, and reverse this action, I will look forward to work in the
morning, just as I have for 23-1/2 years, 23-1/2years of my life, with a renewed
enthusiasm to serve you and the citizens of Augusta as your Recreation and Parks
Director to the very best of my ability and to also have a renewed respect for you, the
leaders of our great city, in doing the right thing. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Tom. Let’s hear now from Mr. Oliver and then we’ll
take some questions.
Mr. Oliver: I would express this, and I agree with Mr. Henry Brigham that it’s
unfortunate that these issues have to be aired in a public forum, because I do believe
that Mr. Beck is a valuable asset to Augusta Richmond County and has been a
valuable and excellent department director in taking the department forward. I also
believe, however, in this particular instance, he erred in his judgment. There is no
question that this is a budgeted and authorized position, but rather there is a question
as it relates to the qualifications required for this position and also as it relates to what
this person in this position, the duties would be. I would go back and refer to my
previous letter to Mr. Beck. There admittedly was some confusion as it relates to
Human Resources and the educational requirements that were required for this
particular position. I think that the most enlightening part of this is that the original
agenda item was done, which is not in Mr. Beck’s documents. The original agenda
item requesting that the three requirements be changed was done on April 12, and in
fact the position was advertised on April 16. So while there was perhaps some
confusion by Human Resources and perhaps even Mr. Beck, the generation of the
agenda item indicates that at a minimum there was confusion that was there and that
that confusion was known, and as you well know, that agenda item language for quite
a well, and in fact there was another agenda item that was generated on June 30 that
would have provided for educational requirements of zero, of high school two year
and four year, which by the way, I thoroughly support. The other question that Mr.
Beck brought into play, he moved or created a position that he did not fill, was a
Center Program Coordinator. The Center Program Coordinator helps with the
activities at a particular center, and I see it as a line function. I believe that this is a
total change in the focus of the department, and as I said in my letter, while this may
be warranted, it was done without the approval of the Mayor and Commission. In
other words, I think that to change that focus requires your approval. While I may
62
support that, I think that’s a decision that needs to be made by this body with special
attention, because you were pulling somebody out of a Center and you’re putting
them into an administrative role. Again, while I can say that I think I would support
such an item, I think that that is a decision that needs to be made by this body, and as
I said in my letter, I feel that the position control document is a sacred one, and to just
move people around without approval of the Mayor and Commission is unwarranted.
I would note, as I noted in my letter, the temporary reassignments may be necessary.
For example, for the Georgia Games, Mr. Beck clearly had to take all the resources at
his command and a lot of other people to make certain events happen, so I think that
he periodically needs to be given, as any Department Director does, that flexibility. I
see the playground equipment as being a minor issue in the overall scheme of things.
The only thing I pointed out in trying to be thorough was I think it would have been
better to have said our people were going to do it, because I think it has given the
wrong impression. In looking at the disciplinary aspect of this, I had to look at
previous issues, as well as what had gone on at a particular time, and while I wasn’t
totally comfortable with the five days, I did not feel that the written reprimand was
sufficient. However, upon conversation with the Attorney, he indicated those were
the only two options that were available, because I would have possibly done
something a little bit differently. But based upon those two alternatives that were
given to me by legal counsel, that was what I felt was most appropriate in light of the
circumstances here and in light of the history of issues relating to this department.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Oliver.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I would like to make a statement here and I would also like to
make a motion. I commend Mr. Beck for coming and standing before this board and
Mayor here. But I want to make a motion that we uphold the Administrator’s
decision for the five days that he has given to the department head and that we adhere
to what he has already done.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: And I’m going to second that motion simply because I think that
our Administrator has made a decision and oftentimes we kind of get on him for not
making certain decisions. I think he’s made it. I think that there is a credibility thing
here that we have to support our Administrator in this. Not only our Administrator,
but he was very reluctant in dealing with this. He made sure that all the avenues were
63
approached and that he had a thorough investigation prior to his decision, and I do
commend our Administrator on that, for looking into it thoroughly and having this
investigated by two or three people in coming up with this. So I think that in order to
be effective here and for our Administrator to be effective here, we often ask him for
[inaudible] he has done a thorough job [inaudible] and I don’t see any reason why we
shouldn’t support him on this. I think we have to [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a substitute motion that we reduce
the penalty to a written reprimand and that we reverse the decision of the
Administrator.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. That was Mr. Bill Kuhlke who seconded that?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Any further discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question to ask legal counsel.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Bridges: The two options, Lee, that Randy was given initially, are those
the only two options we can pursue or can the Commission give another form of
punishment if we feel that the five day suspension is too harsh but maybe there is
something that needs to be done?
Ms. Little: In terms of the Fair Labor Standards Act, it provides the five day
as a minimum with an unpaid suspension. So if you wanted to do something --
Mr. Bridges: So more harsh, you could do it, is what you’re saying?
Ms. Little: Yes, you could.
Mr. Bridges: But you couldn’t do anything less harsh than the five days?
Ms. Little: The suspension --
Mr. Oliver: The only way you could do would be if you did it as a paid
suspension, and I don’t think that is a [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
64
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s see if there is any discussion first and then we’ll
move right along. Any discussion on either of the motions? Okay, none indicated.
We’ll call the question on the substitute motion. That is to reduce the penalty to the
letter of reprimand. All in favor of that, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 6-2-2.
Mr. Mayor: The next item on the agenda is our legal meeting.
72. Legal meeting.
?
Discuss personnel.
Mr. Mayor: We have a personnel item on here, and also we have referred Item
61.
Mr. Oliver: We would also ask that Mr. Ellison be permitted to just give you a
quick update on the sludge litigation and on the status of that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any other issues for the legal meeting?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Bridges: What are the issues that are down there that we are discussing in
the legal meeting?
Mr. Mayor: Discuss personnel, which was on here. Item 61. We’ll get some
legal advice with respect to the Oriental Gift Shop. And then the update on the sludge
litigation. Those three items.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I speak to the issue of personnel being brought
up in the legal meeting? I for one, in my opinion, and mine’s not a legal opinion and
I’m not questioning what we’ve done legally behind the closed doors in the legal
meeting. But I’m concerned that a lot of the personnel issues that we bring up back
there could be handled in a different way. I don’t think that issues that we are having
an initial question about a department head or an employee or how a department head
or how an employee was hired should be done in the legal meeting. I think there’s
other avenues that that can be done, and the reason I question that and say that is
65
because we’re spending a lot of time in legal meetings discussing personnel issues
that I think the initial approach should be to ask for whatever Commissioner has a
problem with how an employee was hired or maybe the employee that he expected to
be hired was not done so, I think that it’s appropriate first to go to the EEOC office or
to the Administrator to investigate that, bring that issue back to the Commissioner,
and then if we need to go into legal meeting in that regard, then we can go in there
with the facts and not, many times, innuendoes, hearsay, even outright false
information. So Mr. Mayor, is there a motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor: Not yet, Mr. Bridges. I would say in response to that discuss
personnel was put on here previous to the printing of this agenda, so I have no idea
where it came from or what it is.
Mr. Bridges: And my concern is that leaves a broad brush that we can get in
there and discuss a lot of different things. Unless I know what that personnel issue is
and just the general idea of what it is, I can’t support the full motion, including just
the broad brush of personnel. So --
Mr. Mayor: Is there someone here who would like to say they put -- someone
here who put this item on the agenda that would like to enlighten Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we go behind closed doors
for the sludge litigation and the upcoming question on the agenda and no personnel.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: You know, I don’t know why we can’t discuss personnel back
there. Maybe some time if we did, if we didn’t do some of the other things, we
wouldn’t have to go back there and discuss it. But I see nothing wrong with
discussing it. I don’t even see anything with discussing it out here if you really want
to, but I think that’s the prerogative of this person who is sitting on this Commission,
if they want to discuss personnel, then they put it on here [inaudible]. We put
everything else we want to on this agenda. Now I’m hearing that we’re going to be
selective and we’re going to decide what other people can put on the agenda. If
somebody got a problem with personnel, hell, they ought to be able to put it on the
agenda and go back there and discuss it. And I don’t see why we can’t listen to it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 72 says legal meeting and it says
discuss personnel. It doesn’t say anything about sludge litigation or anything else.
Personnel is what’s down here and I think that we are going into personnel, that is
something we ought to address when we get in there. I understand Mr. Bridges’
concern about the long stay, but that proves that we got a lot of trouble. That proves
we got a lot of things that need to be discussed. I don’t think anybody is back there
66
just because they enjoy being back there, especially in that room. But if it’s down
here for personnel to be discussed, I think we ought to discuss us.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams, for making that point, but we could
not find the person who added that person to the agenda so obviously there’s nothing
to discuss.
Mr. Beard: I added it.
Mr. Mayor: You did?
Mr. Beard: Just say I added it, okay?
Mr. Mayor: Well, could you enlighten Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Beard: No, I don’t [inaudible] to enlighten him. We’ll discuss it in the
room back there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to go into legal session --
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I just make one other comment?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: I just think that the sunshine law is an important law. I think
we’re watched very closely by the news media and whatnot. It has a reflection on the
Commission as what we do, and I think personnel is legal, and it is legal to go back
there and discuss personnel items and use that broad brush, but I just think that the
more correct or proper procedural manner to do that quickly and efficiently -- in my
mind, some of these personnel issues are an abuse of the legal meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I make a substitute motion to go into legal session
[inaudible].
(Tape inaudible)
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] We have a motion on the floor. All in favor, please
vote aye.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
67
Mr. Mayor: As a point of order, do we need unanimous consent for
[inaudible] items added to the agenda? To add on the sludge litigation we would need
unanimous consent, is that right? And we don’t have that.
Ms. Little: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: And I think we had already voted on Item 61 to go to legal. We
did that by majority vote earlier. And personnel, we don’t have enough [inaudible].
We need unanimous consent [inaudible] unanimous consent [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: I make a substitute motion to go into legal session
[inaudible].
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: That item is not on the agenda [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: I make a motion that we reconsider my motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] We’re going to reconsider Mr. Shepard’s motion.
Mr. Shepard: I re-move as previously stated that we go into legal session
for discussion of sludge litigation, personnel, and Item 61.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, unanimous consent.
[LEGAL SESSION]
Mr. Mayor: We will come back to order.
73. Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
68
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to
execute the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? Then I’ll sign the affidavit.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 61, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
61. Discussion: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department for
a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or revocation of
the license held by Loan T. Ngo for Oriental Gift (Millennium Solutions)
located at 3706 Mike Padgett Highway for the following violation:
operating an arcade without a license. District 8. Super District 10. (No
recommendation from Public Service Committee August 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I move that this item be postponed to our next
meeting and that the status of the lady’s license remain the same until that
hearing is held.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: And I’ll yield. I have no problem with us dealing with
postponement as I said earlier, but I did want to hear what was our legal side of it,
because just as you want to protect the rights of any citizen or business owner, you
also want to, in terms of supporting staff or your own legal counsel. However, with
the person being here, you got a motion and a second on the floor. If that person does
not yield and --
Mr. Mayor: I’ll give her the chance to speak.
69
Mr. Mays: -- want the chance to speak in reference to it, and also if we’re
going to deal with the postponement, then I think some instruction of clarity needs to
be given to the applicant in terms of what the parameters are to do within the two
weeks. The do’s and don’ts and hear their response.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Anyone else? Okay. Ma’am, come up
and give us your name and address for the record. And speak into the mike so we can
all hear you, please.
Ms. Ngo: My name is Loan T. Ngo. I’m the owner of the business at 3706
Mike Padgett Highway, Oriental Gift Shop. And I’m here to protect my legal rights.
I had charge of operating arcade without license, and I say that to Richmond County
that I did not have an arcade.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’re not going to hear your appeal today. We’re going to
hear it in two weeks. But if our attorney could explain to you what the status of your
license is for the next weeks, you can remain open and stay in business and we just
want to make sure that you don’t cross any kind of a line during the next two weeks.
Harry or Lee, would one of you like to address her on this point?
Mr. Revell: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Ngo, her license is unaffected by today’s
actions. The question of suspension, revocation, probation is merely postponed to the
next meeting. So whatever she is licensed to do now, she can continue to do unless
and until any further action is taken. Now as I understand it, the video poker
machines that were in her place of business have been confiscated by the Sheriff’s
Department and those will not be returned to her. That’s a matter for the District
Attorney and the criminal process. It has nothing to do with this board’s actions.
Mr. Mayor: Do you understand what the attorney just said?
Ms. Ngo: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we’ll be back here in two weeks and we’ll take up the
issue. Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: The only thing I wanted to ask in terms of their sharing of
whatever evidence or information between the parties concerned, there was a question
that came up and Mr. Allen [inaudible] and I know Mr. Allen is not a part of this
process, but in reference to -- we had asked for some items, particularly one that
related to the lease papers and what has been leased from the company that the lady
had, and it was said in the course of the committee meeting that those were things that
70
were also confiscated. While we’re not in the legal process of the criminal situation,
and I guess that would be up to her to deal with another attorney for herself, but I
think in terms of all fairness, we’re going to delay for two weeks for one side to
prepare, are you allowing that information to be shared that was asked for -- in other
words, we asked the question to produce information, but the information was said to
be confiscated, then by what means are they, Harry, to retrieve that or to share in that
type of information? Do they contact you, do they contact the Sheriff’s Department,
how is that to be done?
Mr. Revell: Insofar as the lease that was mentioned between J.T. Amusement
and Ms. Ngo, we have today been furnished a copy of her license, although the
attachment, according to Ms. Ngo, would list specific machines that are subject to that
lease agreement is still in the Sheriff’s Department custody. That was one of the
things that we were not able, have not had the time to dig out because we thought we
had an agreement. But that will be developed and a full copy of that will be made
available to her.
Mr. Mays: That was what I wanted to ask. We asked the question and I just
wanted to make sure both sides were sharing, if that was there, cause we didn’t come
back in two weeks and we didn’t have it for one side, but one side [inaudible] and I
wanted to make sure that that line was open.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. All in favor of the motion to
postpone this for two weeks, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item. You have a question?
Ms. Ngo: Yes, sir. Am I able to operate my gift shop within that two weeks?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Ms. Ngo: I don’t have any -- the Sheriff’s Department confiscated all the
money that I had in the cash register and everything, so I don’t have anything to
operate my business with.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think what you need is your attorney to contact the
Sheriff’s Department and see how that can best be handled in the interim, but we
don’t have any -- we don’t have any authority over the evidence that was seized by
the Sheriff’s Department because that’s all tied up in the criminal aspect. This is a
civil proceeding. The administrative proceeding with respect to your license. So
71
actually you need to take that up with the Sheriff or the District Attorney or the
Solicitor. Sheriff, who is handling that?
Sheriff Webster: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: That’s an issue with the Courts and not with the city Commission
here. Okay? All right. Item 62.
Clerk:
62. Discussion: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department for
a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or revocation of
the business license held by Michelle Ballington for Lucy’s Love Shop
located at 3241-J Washington Rd. for the following violation: distributing
obscene material. District 7. Super District 10. (No recommendation
from Public Services Committee August 8, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Harry, let me ask you if you would to tell us what we have
before us today with respect to this.
Mr. Revell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. The Sheriff’s
Department has cited this Lucy’s Love Shop for distributing obscene material, and
what I would propose and recommend to the Commission in terms of an evidentiary
presentation today is really two fold. First of all, there is an undercover video that
needs to be shown to the Commission. We’ve got it queued up here. There are some
parts that may be offensive to some members of the Commission, as well as some
members of the public, so we have pointed the television at the Commission, although
members of the public are certainly entitled to position themselves where they can see
it should they so desire. Secondly, members of the Sheriff’s Department are here to
discuss in detail the undercover operation that was undertaken and the devices that
were taken from the property. In my opinion, the single question before the
Commission as to whether any action should be taken on this license is whether the
devices that you will see here designed or marketed as useful primarily for the
stimulation of human genital organs. If so, they are by statute deemed obscene and
by definition meet the State statute for obscenity. It does not have anything to do
with the contemporary community standards. Again, if these devices are designed or
marketed as used primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs, they are per
se obscene and that constitutes a violation of the obscenity statute and warrants some
action by the Commission should they be inclined to do so. So my thought it to make
this evidentiary presentation first. I suspect that will take a while. And then see where
that leads.
Mr. Mayor: Harry, let me ask you one question. Has a Court made a
determination whether these items are for that purpose as you described?
72
Mr. Revell: The criminal charges are still pending. As I understand it, a
speedy jury trial, speedy jury demand, excuse me, speedy jury trial demand was
made. Sheryl Jolley, Solicitor General, will be prosecuting those. But that process
has not concluded. I would say in my opinion that process , whatever the ultimate
outcome of that, has no bearing on the action today. They are separate.
Mr. Mayor: I understand. But a determination by a judicial official, a judge,
might help this Commission in weighing its determination whether something is legal
or not legal.
Mr. Revell: The only judicial determination that has been made thus far is
Judge Allen from Civil Court in an order finding that probable cause exists. Certainly
these items meet that statutory definition of obscene material. The final trial and
ultimate disposition of those criminal charges has not been [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Before we start, do any Commissioners have any procedural
questions? Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Revell, I think I heard you, but just for the record, I
think the Mayor asked should we try to make some kind of decision prior to the
Courts, and I think you said it has no bearing.
Mr. Revell: That’s correct.
Mr. H. Brigham: Suppose [inaudible] a suspension until that was over?
Mr. Revell: Well, of course this board can do anything it desires. Suspend,
probation, revocation. That’s for the board to decide. This board can act, even
though the criminal charges have not been disposed of.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you look like you’re poised to either say or ask
something.
Mr. Mays: I was just going to comment in there, I guess it’s kind of like a
multiple choice case, you know, A, B, C, D, or one of the above, none of the above,
but I think Mr. Revell, in the spirit of democracy, one other thing can be done. I think
that maybe it doesn’t make any different or we can go ahead and hear it where there
may not be any bearing, but I think also there is another side to that, is we can choose
not to hear it. By six votes, too. Now I think that option ought to be put out there in
the open in terms of this still being the United States and the democratic process.
Inasmuch unless somebody has all of a sudden become an expert on the material to be
shown, as to whether or not -- last week I heard we had, Mr. Mayor, in reference to
something that had been ruled illegal. Now this week I’m hearing probable cause.
I’m going to start off by asking the question are we under probable cause mode or are
we on the cause of a jury [inaudible] something illegal? I think there’s a big
73
difference in terms of probable cause and in terms of whether or not you’ve got
something illegal that’s out there. And I think really if the Court situation is dealing
with it up here, we dealt with a ton of stuff of everything today, as I said in
Committee meeting last week, where we are talking about everything from housing to
water to drainage to new Public Works Director, and yet I sit here in terms of a
television screen with the back turned to the public, as to whether or not one person
got a sack of sexual stimulants, plus there’s another box over there on the other side,
and that’s part of my job description to decide whether or not that’s wrong, right, or
indifferent. Really, it’s not quite at the top of my agenda to deal with, but if that’s
what we got to deal with, then we got to hear it. But I really think it has a place in
terms of this Court action as opposed to this Commission’s action, in terms of where
this whole deal is taking place. And that’s the same statement I want to make for the
record that I made last week, because, I mean, you got a Court action going on and we
talked about dealing with probation last week, which there was a motion for probation
in the Committee, and I asked for a definition of probation, because probation could
mean anything. If it’s related to licenses that we put on probation, then what happens
in a probation state is that you continue to do what you are doing, but yet you’re
under a watchful eye, or you’re under the watchful eye until the Court makes a
decision. But then are you under a watchful eye in this case to cease and not to sell,
then that gets us into the business of us determining what’s legal and what’s illegal.
And that was not a clear question to the Committee, because it was divided in terms
of what we did. And I’m not so sure whether we are still that much clearer, if I’m
hearing one that I got evidence that the Judge is illegal and I’m hearing this week that
I got it [inaudible]. And I stand to be corrected. I’m open to being corrected. Maybe
I been hearing it wrong. But if I’m hearing it’s probable this week and I’m hearing
it’s clear evidence last week and the Judge isn’t present to make that decision, I’m
getting a relay of a Court situation, then you know, I’m kind of like you, I think it’s
one that ought to be decided on the floor below this one and get it over with one way
or the other. But I’m prepared to deal with it today when it gets to where we’re
through with it, to go ahead and make a vote.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a different level, a different burden of proof in this
chamber as there would be in the court room?
Mr. Revell: Yes, there are as, as well as the sanctions are different. [inaudible]
is not taking any criminal action against this license holder. I guess an analogy I
could make is perhaps the instance where just today a business lost his license for
selling under age to minors. That is a criminal charge, too. I don’t know where the
criminal charges stand, but this board took action on that license by finding civilly
that they sold underage to minors. So I think the analogy fits here. Whatever Judge
Allen’s order related to the solely to the criminal charges, that being whether the
items to be confiscated and the search warrant to be executed, Judge Allen has no
jurisdiction over what this board does civilly insofar as to whether the license can be
suspended [inaudible]. [inaudible] separate tracks, if you will. One is on a criminal
tract, with criminal sanctions, criminal punishment, whatever might be found there
74
has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here is a civil track, the loss of a license
by violation of a County ordinance. And the burden of proof is not beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Mr. Mays: Can I quickly make one distinction? One difference in that and
you know, I’m going to shut up being lawyer today, I’m just a professional mortician.
You ain’t bothering nobody, that’s all I can be an expert on. Embalming a body and
conducting the funerals. I’m going to stay out your business. And I’m being drawn
into do something that is not my revelation chiefly. But I’m going to tell you this,
there is a difference in what we’re dealing with from this standpoint. On the alcohol
license that we took, there was a clear violation of what was there, there was no
objection, and there was no Court case. This is a situation where you do have a Court
case that’s pending, you got outside parties that’s involved in it, you’ve got a Solicitor
making certain situations that are there, you’ve got the Judge with a laundry list of
things in there, and then you’ve got us on this level. There was not a faint sense of
objection today. That person was basically at the mercy of this Commission in terms
of that violation. So I think you’re making a comparison of apples and oranges. It
may all be fruit, but it’s a different level of fruit because there are two different things
that were alleged there. One was dealing with a clear-curt case where they basically
throwed up their hands, no objection, and the only thing he could basically say was
the lady turned the satellite on on the wrong dish and that’s where the movie came on
in there. But there was no objection to deal with that in terms of whether or not they
had a liquor license. That was readily admitted. He didn’t have one and they served
it. And in fact there was no denial about serving to minors. So it was clear cut in
terms of where that is. But we’re asked to [inaudible] over into a pending Court case
that’s involving two other levels. One in terms of dealing with a Judge, the other one
in terms of dealing with a Solicitor. And I think we --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, if I can correct the record on that, I think the officer
said that there were a number of young people arrested for possession of alcohol by
minors and they also said that the bartender that served them and was selling liquor
without a license was also arrested, so there were criminal charges in that.
Mr. Mays: That’s correct, and this Commissioner made the motion for
revocation.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: It’s in my District and I’m glad I put them out of business, but I
didn’t have to make a decision that I’m unclear on.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I think he’s said about everything I was going to say, because I
was going to question the analogy that you made, and I don’t think that was a very
75
good one because I don’t know what is going to come on that tape, and I wasn’t in the
Committee meeting the other day, and I’m going to be at a loss in trying to determine
what is what and that’s why I was just going to speak to the analogy, but Willie has
already done that.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: It’s going to be very difficult. It’s a difficult situation that has
been thrust upon us because you’re going to have to make a decision if obscene and I
guess you can correct me, Mr. Revell, that we’re going to have to make a decision on
what we see, whether it’s legal or not, the things that we’re looking at. And really, I
didn’t have a problem with the liquor earlier today because the investigator
[inaudible] quite plain on the law that was being broken. This you have got to make
an objective decision on this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham, and then Mr. Colclough.
Mr. H. Brigham: Just one item, I might have said [inaudible] and I really
meant probation, and you have to [inaudible], clear up one level of this action, how
[inaudible] particular point, make a decision, what decision would he recommend,
because he’s going to carry out a lot of this, whether we do it or the people downstairs
do it or what have you. And I don’t know if I’m in order or not, but if the Sheriff
would just kind of clear up what he sees this going, do a probation with it and give it
time to work through the Court, cause can we make some decision and then they
come up with something else?
Sheriff Webster: [inaudible] because we have got to prove to the Court that
we have evidence that we think we’ve got.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I’m going to make a motion. I may not get a second on this,
but I’m going to make a motion.
Mr. Mayor: You have your lucky tie on?
Mr. H. Brigham: I don’t have one. Try to find me one. But I’m going to make
a motion and I’m kind of like Mr. Beard, I don’t know what I’d be looking at anyway.
Well, I guess I do. I would like to move that on the advise of what the Sheriff has just
said, that this body goes on record of putting this establishment on probation.
Mr. Mayor: For a specific period of time?
76
Mr. H. Brigham: I don’t know. What time does he suggest?
Sheriff Webster: [inaudible]
Mr. H. Brigham: Okay.
Sheriff Webster: That’s what we’re here for, to clean it up.
Mr. H. Brigham: To clean it up.
Sheriff Webster: I think there is evidence here today that might --
Mr. Mayor: We don’t want to prejudge the evidence because we haven’t seen
any evidence.
Mr. H. Brigham: Right, right.
Mr. Mayor: Your motion might be just a little premature, Mr. Henry.
Mr. H. Brigham: All right. I’ll try it again later.
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t hear a second. Mr. Kuhlke? I wanted to go with Mr.
Colclough, I didn’t want to overlook him.
Mr. Colclough: I just want to go back to the license issue, the issuing of the
license. And when these people applied for this license as listed here, I was
wondering did anybody question, even before the Sheriff got involved, the type of
novelties that they were going to sell. Federal ID number here and --
Mr. Mayor: They could send us some of the evidence that we’ll be taking
during this proceeding.
Mr. Colclough: But I’m saying that they bought a license and it’s listed on the
license and if I would have novelties and [inaudible] compared with it, too, I would
kind of question what kind of novelties were you going to sell prior to issuing this
license. Can the license [inaudible] respond?
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’re going to start getting into some of the testimony and
evidence here. Rob, did you ask the applicant they were going to be selling?
Mr. Speaker: A business license [inaudible] lingerie, novelties. The sign
permit came into the office and I was curious about what they were going to be doing.
I talked to the lady -- she came into the office and I said what exactly are the
novelties? She said marital aids and similar objects you find at [inaudible].
77
Mr. Colclough: Good enough.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I made a motion that didn’t pass, but I’d like to make
a motion that we put them on 12 months probation and that we make clear to them
that they abide by the state statute as far as their novelties.
Mr. H. Brigham: I second.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I guess the question is now do we have --
Mr. Bridges: Is that a main motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Main motion. The main motion is 12 months probation and it’s
been seconded. All right, I guess we need to move ahead. If anybody has any
procedural questions, we’ll move ahead with the presentation of the case. Harry, you
going to walk the Sheriff’s Department through this?
Mr. Revell: Quite frankly, we [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Well, I don’t think that’s fair to the people who have the license,
because not all of us were here for the Committee meeting.
Mr. Revell: Okay.
Mr. Oliver: [inaudible], the evidence would not be germane. Is that agreeable
to the license holder to place you on 12 months probation without the evidence being
presented. If it’s agreeable between the license holder and the Commission, I don’t
think the evidence needs to go forward. Otherwise, I believe the evidence needs to go
forward and that they abide by State law.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. King: Scott King from Atlanta on behalf of Lucy’s Love Shop.
Mr. Mayor: Is your client interested in 12 months probation?
Mr. King: Our position is, Mr. Mayor, we [inaudible]. We’re amenable to
some sort of resolution with the probation, pending what happens with the criminal
case. In other words, if there is no conviction in the criminal case, we would ask the
probation terminate.
Mr. Mayor: And then with a conviction in the criminal case, you would turn
your license in?
78
Mr. King: We would have no choice anyway at that point because then it’s
determined that we are selling illegal items.
Mr. Mayor: So you wouldn’t fight it, you would voluntarily surrender your
license?
Mr. King: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. King: I would say this. I think we need to talk about the terms of what
probation is. In other words, [inaudible]. As I understand it, the Judge made a
determination of probable cause on five items, and which the Solicitor removed two
of them. And so we’re dealing with, I understand it now, three items. We can’t sell
those items right now anyway because there’s an issue of whether that’s criminal or
not. We have no objection to [inaudible] those three items [inaudible] 12 months and
unless we have a not guilty verdict --
Mr. Mayor: But that would not preclude the Sheriff from going in there
periodically and seeing what you are selling.
Mr. King: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right. Does anybody have any questions, any discussion?
Does anybody want to see anything? We can move ahead then, we have an
agreement. They have agreed to 12 months probation or up -- if there’s a conviction
in the Court, to voluntarily surrender their license. If they’re acquitted, then we move
on from there.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] stipulations on the probation? Can we ask for
stipulations on this 12 month probation?
Mr. Mayor: What stipulations would you like to have?
Mr. Revell: I interpret that, I would [inaudible] clarification, my hearing of
that the motion is that they be on probation so long as they do not sell during the
probationary period any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the
stimulation of human genital organs.
Mr. Mayor: Any device contrary to Georgia law.
Mr. King: Can I respond to that briefly?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
79
Mr. King: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, we don’t know what you might bring in next week. You
might bring in some new items. Absolutely. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I was going to say couldn’t we just confine it to the items, the
three or the five items and let it go at that. They are going to monitor this so if they
go beyond that --
Mr. Revell: The evidence we have today goes far beyond the three to five
items.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’d like to hear what Stoney has got to say. He looks like he
wants to say something. You got something you want to say, Stoney?
Mr. Turnage: We’re getting right back to the same argument we had down at
Sheryl Jolley’s office the day they were arraigned. We were trying to work out an
agreement to put them on probation and they would cease and desist order. We
started going through the boxes and I’m saying what I felt was wrong, against the
law, and what they felt was wrong, then you get to bickering back and forth. I don’t
think there’s no satisfying these people. You know, as far as I’m concerned, 95% of
what we took out of there, we took six of the big bankers boxes full of merchandise
out of there, is illegal. Of course, that’s my opinion. There are certain types of
gadgets and toys if you will, that, you know they can be sold also in different
locations in the county that don’t resemble anything close to what we have here. And
at the time we left these people operating and we took out a majority of the stuff that
we felt was illegal, I didn’t have a problem with them operating under those
guidelines. If they want to continue to operate under those guidelines, that will be
fine. But if they want to start pulling this other stuff out that we’ve already
confiscated, even though we haven’t got ruled on, I’m going to be back every day.
Mr. Mayor: Sheriff Webster, do you have any thoughts or any comments on
the 12 month probation?
Sheriff Webster: We don’t have any problem with the 12 month probation
provided they abide by what the Court rules when we go to Court.
Mr. Mayor: Well, what about prior to that? We keep an eye on them?
Sheriff Webster: We’re not going to bother them if they don’t sell what they
were told not to sell.
80
Mr. King: [inaudible] it wouldn’t make a whole lot of business sense to sell
items the Sheriff’s Department is saying is obscene because they’re just going to
come back in [inaudible] .
Mr. Mayor: So the items that they removed from your business, you are no
longer selling those specific items? You haven’t restocked those items?
Mr. King: We have not restocked it, although we do intend to [inaudible] that
they feel [inaudible].
Sheriff Webster: [inaudible] This was already [inaudible] to them one time
before.
Mr. King: We have no objection to that.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question. In those bags and boxes that you took in,
Stoney, are there more than those five items?
Mr. Turnage: Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. Bridges: How many? How many different items? Not the total number
but just different individual items. Just a ballpark figure.
Mr. Turnage: I was just going to give you the number of evidence sheets we
wrote up. 190 items.
Mr. Bridges: 190 different items?
Mr. Turnage: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: I mean, you don’t have five of the same included in that 190?
Mr. Turnage: No, sir. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Ulmer, you ready to roll the tape?
Mr. Bridges: I was fixing to say, 190, I can’t imagine that many. Maybe we
better roll the tape.
Mr. Turnage: [inaudible]
81
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, the way I understand this motion, is they are on
probation as long as they sell the items confiscated. Now the Sheriff is saying five
items. Bill, what are you saying?
Mr. Kuhlke: That’s not my motion.
Mr. Bridges: What’s your motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: My motion is that they abide by the State’s statute. Now if they
go in every day, I mean we might have a hassle on our hands. If they determine that
these things that they sell, you know, the Sheriff Department [inaudible] that they’re
obscene or whatever, then we’ve got a problem. But it’s not just the five items.
Mr. Bridges: So if, Stoney, I’d just encourage if this motion passes, I think it’s
something y’all ought to monitor to make sure in between now and the Court case
they are abiding by State, by the State code.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Revell, you fall into our line of fire as our counsel today.
Could you recommend that we agree on a specific stipulation and maybe we should
recess while you and counsel for the licensee can work out that language, or
recommend in the absence of that stipulation, that we have a hearing? I mean what is
your recommendation?
Mr. Revell: Well, as I understand the motion, the motion incorporates the
statute, which I’ve read, which I want to read again. And one Mr. Turnage has said, if
he goes out there next week and he sees items that in his judgment are designed,
marketed, used primarily for stimulating human genital organs, he’s going to contend
they’re in violation of their probation. As I understand it, it would be an automatic
revocation before this Board. But you do get into a contest of which items are
obscene by definition and which aren’t. And the license owner’s suggestion that it be
limited to just the three or five that were actually presented to Judge Allen, leaves out
at least scores of other items that the Sheriff’s Department has determined are
obscene per se by statute. And that’s what I envision being the difficulty in
monitoring the probation.
Mr. Shepard: What alterations, if any, do you suggest in this motion that Mr.
Kuhlke’s made? How can we --
Mr. Revell: As long as we’re all, including the license holder, are on the same
page of the [inaudible] of the motion, that is that the Sheriff Department will continue
to monitor them, and if they find other items in there that are either in these bags now
or similar to items to items in these bags now, I think --
82
Mr. Shepard: Well, they’re making a record and we’re making a record.
Can’t you get together on what’s going to be in the record and let’s stipulate to it?
Mr. Revell: The difficulty is I don’t want to get into -- I don’t recommend
getting into an inventory list of all the items that are within the statute, and thus
obscene, because I don’t think the license holder would stipulate to them being
obscene and agree that they are and therefore won’t sell them, that’s the problem.
Now if they’re willing to agree, for example, if we go through items in these bags that
the Sheriff’s Department [inaudible] violating the statute, if they will agree they will
sell none of those, we might be somewhere. But I see a huge management problem
during this probationary period, unless the license holder is agreeing that they will not
sell anything the Sheriff’s Department has concluded violates the statute, and I see a
no.
Mr. King: We cannot agree. [inaudible] anyone other than the [inaudible],
especially the Sheriff’s Department, there has been a judge [inaudible] before the
judge [inaudible] determination.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I’m just wondering, and maybe Harry or Stoney can tell me. Judge
Allen, did he see all of these items or he just saw five of them and said -- my point is
if he has listened or looked at the tape or whatever and seen these items and then he
rules that five or obscene, then where do you go from there except accept what his
interpretation of obscenity?
Mr. Turnage: This is how we do operations like this. When we get
complaints, we’ll go in, we’ll take a look at the inventory or whatnot, and we’ll buy
some items. We bought a total of seven items. And that was right at $140 for those
seven items. Now if we had bought one of each of these, we’d have been on up into
the thousands of dollars. So what we did was we bought some pretty obvious items,
which also resembled a majority of everything else up there, and took those to the
Judge. Just the items that we purchased. And that’s what we had our ruling on. And
he ruled on five out of seven of them.
Mr. Revell: Where I disagree, Mr. Mayor, is that this board does have the
authority to make a determination civilly about whether these items are obscene per
se. I think that distinction is important. [inaudible] criminal jury trial and can’t make
that determination. That’s where I respectfully disagree with him, cause I think it’s a
different track. It’s not a criminal proceeding. It’s a license consideration and
therefore this board can make a determination on its own, whether in your considered
judgment these items are obscene.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we have --in about 15 minutes we have a green space
hearing in these Chambers and I don’t want people coming in thinking they’re going
83
to see green space and see this video tape. So we need to at some point move along in
this. We do not have an agreement for a 12-month probation.
Mr. King: We do under some specific terms.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the specific term is the State statute, and that State statute
is interpreted for us by these gentlemen from the Sheriff’s Department.
Mr. King: And that’s our concern, because we disagree with some of the
items that they --
Mr. Mayor: So then you could not, you wouldn’t agree to the motion as it’s
been stated then?
Mr. King: Not as it’s stated.
Mr. Mayor: We had a hand up down here. Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we’ve kicked this around for about 40 minutes now.
We’ve kicked it around for a little over an hour-and-a-half the other day. The shop is
open to the public. You can go down and look for yourself. You can look at the tape.
If we continue to kick this around, we’re not getting anywhere for them or for us or
the citizens of this community. Let’s view the evidence and quit being scared to look
in the bag and make a decision.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think anybody is scared to look in the bag. We’re just
trying to get the thing settled. Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I just see where this is going back full circle to where we were in
Committee and back out again on the disagreement on the probation. But I think what
was a little bit unclear, just a few minutes ago we heard one statement saying that we
would deal with items that have been confiscated, and then we hear another statement
that says we talk about items that may be of the opinion, and we’re being asked to
make a decision and both of those statements are being presented by our folks, to say
what’s going to be done in it. Now I realize what’s in Commissioner Kuhlke’s
motion is the statute, but that gets us back then into opinion, so to a point to what
you’re really saying is, is quite frankly, if you are talking about 190 items. Let’s just
say 100 items, then based on the opinion of what I’ve heard, that if that’s the case,
and you’re dealing with four or five, you can look [inaudible], you going to cars back
up there in a few days and folks being arrested basically on some other items that
you’re dealing with on opinion. And then we’ve got an argument back again about
84
the probation. So we might as well just go on and look at whatever evidence we’re
going to deal with, and then deal with it both.
Mr. Mayor: You’re absolutely right. Let’s move ahead with this, Mr. Revell,
because obviously they’re not going to agree with the condition that’s in the 12-
month probation motion, so let’s move ahead.
Mr. Revell: Because of your timing, I would perhaps view the videotape.
Mr. Mayor: And I’ll ask the Marshal who is here if we’ve got people
showing up for the green space hearing, maybe they can move into the committee
room for that.
Mr. Revell: Mr. Mayor, I thought that maybe have Mr. Turnage initially give
the Commission an over view of the undercover operations.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible]
Mr. Turnage: After receiving several complaints on Lucy’s Love Shop, 3241
Washington Road, on February 19 I sent undercover people in this location. When
they came back to me, they had several items which they had purchased which they
said was in a closet area in the store. And these items were taken to Judge Allen,
where he gave a ruling on probable cause, in violation of Georgia Code 16-12-80, and
with this ruling, we drew up a search warrant. And on July 21, approximately 10:45,
we executed this search warrant at 3241 Washington Road. We confiscated over 90
different items, and those were 80 different pieces, 180 different pieces, I’m sorry. I
have some of the items here. First I’m going to try to show you the items that the
Judge has ruled on already.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to just pass the bag around?
Mr. Turnage: It doesn’t matter.
Mr. Mayor: Some of the press might be --
Mr. Turnage: This is one of the items we purchased, our undercover people
purchased. It’s called a Cybercock, with balls and virtual touch vibrator. Feels like a
real penis. Cyrberskin material scientifically reproduces the feel of soft skin. Virtual
touch. Texture provides the ultimate experience of sexual pleasure and stimulation.
Solid design for maximum satisfaction. Dual density combines the feel of soft skin
with an erect shaft and real ball sacs. This one here is called a Caribbean. The Jelly
Caribbean. Multi-speed stimulator. These are some of the items that --
85
Mr. Mayor: Now are these all the items that Judge Allen looked at?
Mr. Turnage: Those two particular ones there are. These are some of the
other items that we confiscated. Vibrating Emperor. Better than real pleasure. It’s
all you’ll ever need. Has look and feel of the real thing, only better. Available in 6”
or 8”.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to be honest with you. I ain’t sitting up here all night
and feel these --
Mr. Mayor: Just pass the bag and look in the bag.
Mr. Mays: -- artificial organs. Roll the durn tape and let us go on and make a
motion on it. This is getting to be -- we’ll be the laughingstock of the whole of
Georgia in terms of sitting up here and passing around artificial penises, like we ain’t
got nothing to do. [inaudible] it’s going to end up or down, it’s going to end up in
Court to deal with it, and let’s get [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you just pass the bag up here and let everybody look
in the bag?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] the other folks got a bag of stuff over there they bought
from other stores in the city that are just like that, so we going to sit up here and pass
the same bag around from the other folks. It just seems like it ought to be a higher
priority, ought to [inaudible] other than this.
Mr. Revell: Your Honor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Harry?
Mr. Revell: [inaudible] these items, stipulate these into the record, as opposed
to [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: Will you stipulate in the record that these items were taken out of
Lucy’s Love Shop? You can look in the bag, too, like we are, if you would. We’re
just trying to move the proceeding along here.
Mr. King: We will stipulate to those items.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s just return these to the bag. We don’t need to leave those
up here on the counter. Stoney, if y’all would proceed with your presentation, then I
think we know what’s in the bag.
Mr. Revell: As I understand it, Mr. Mayor, we have stipulation to all those
items in the two bags did in fact come from this shop.
86
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Revell: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Stoney, are you going to give us a commentary? Harry, while
you’re getting to where you want to be on that tape, was that a hidden camera or was
that camera out in full view?
Mr. Turnage: Hidden camera.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Mr. Turnage: Hidden camera.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. King: [inaudible]
Mr. Revell: [inaudible] the devices used for [inaudible].
(Videotape shown)
Mr. Mayor: Stoney, I think we’ve seen enough of the tape.
Mr. Shepard: For the record, that would be fine with me, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Stipulate we’ve seen the tape. That’s the interior of the store?
Mr. Turnage: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, you’ve seen as much of it as we have. If you’ll
note the time code on there, we’ve seen it up to 24625. All right.
Mr. King: We will so stipulate that we’ve seen the tape.
Mr. Mayor: And that is the interior of the store?
Mr. King: And that is the interior of the store.
Mr. Mayor: And those are the items that you had for sale on the day that the
officers were there?
Mr. King: Correct.
87
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. J. Brigham: Do you have anything you want to say to us?
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s see. Is Stoney through with his presentation yet?
Stoney, will you go ahead and continue, please?
Mr. Turnage: After reviewing that tape, that is what led us to carry our
evidence over to Judge Allen, and with his ruling, we drew up a search warrant. I
would like to add, also, a day or two before we actually went in with this tape, with
this camera, these two undercover people, they went in just to check it out and see
what it was. There was a small child in there, about 8 years old, but the doors were
not open at this time. The doors to the closet were not open at this time. There was a
small child in there.
Mr. Mayor: Anything else, Stoney? Are there any questions for Stoney from
the Commissioners? Okay. Let’s hear from the folks from the store.
Mr. King: Briefly, I do not agree with Mr. [inaudible]. One is a legal reason.
I think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that there must be prior
judicial full adversarial hearing for determination of obscenity. That would be
Freeman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 451 [inaudible] 649 85 Supreme Court 734. A full
judicial adversarial hearing where we can bring in people from the community and
say, to interpret [inaudible]. Second of all, I think as a practical matter, we are going
down a very dangerous road if this Commissioner wants to take a position in
determining obscenity or not, because where you’re talking about five items today,
next week you’ve got [inaudible] movie, determine if that’s illegal, next week you
may have to come down a read a book, may have to look at magazines. I think that
there are some [inaudible] in place [inaudible] proper procedures for determining
obscenity and the proper procedures for determining community standards
[inaudible]. I do agree -- I don’t mean to imply or say that this board cannot make
that determination. I just mean to say that I think it’s a dangerous situation.
[inaudible] board to look at [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: That would be fine.
Mr. King: [inaudible] Modern Age.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Mr. King: Modern Age.
88
Mr. Mayor: Modern Age?
Mr. King: Yes. [inaudible] It’s identical to the items that were taken
[inaudible] exact same purpose, you look at it terms of [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: What would you say?
Mr. King: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: And that purpose is?
Mr. King: For [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] You want to go ahead and proceed while we’re
looking?
Mr. King: First of all, we contend that the board [inaudible] essentially what
is going on here is we have a First Amendment issue. A First Amendment of my
client to express herself in terms of items that can be sold to the public, and more
importantly, the First Amendment issue with the rights of the people of Augusta to
buy these items, and trust me, they are buying these items. Very much they are
buying these items. Therefore, the law says that because the board is denying the
license, they will essentially be taking away a First Amendment right. Therefore, we
are entitled to [inaudible] hearing [inaudible]. What we are saying is we have a
speedy trial notice in the criminal case. That Court will make a determination in there
whether the [inaudible] or whether we will stop operating. We’re not going to violate
the law after the court has determined [inaudible]. It is our contention that it does not
violate the law, and if it does violate the law, that Lucy’s Love Shop [inaudible]. I do
have several members of the community who would like to address the board so the
board can hear what the community standards are. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, our attorney has advised us the issue here is not
community standards, but the issue is what the devices are primarily used for, or
designed to be used for; is that not correct, Mr. Revelle?
Mr. Revell: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: So the Chair will rule in this case, then, that community
standards are not relevant to our discussion here today and we’ll move forward from
that point.
Mr. King: This leads me to the second issue, which is, and was discussed in
great detail last week, [inaudible]. My client applied for the license, was very clear
about what she wanted to. This Commission heard it, issued her a license. Shortly
89
after that, the individual who signs permits questioned her about it, asked what she
did, she told him, he issued a sign permit, the City then accepted money from her for
that sign permit, and now they’re trying to revoke the license for the very thing that
she was authorized and committed to do under that license. I think it is different from
the situation you mentioned earlier about serving alcohol to underage minors, because
when they applied for a license, they don’t apply for a license to serve to minors.
You wouldn’t have [inaudible]. In this case, they applied for a license, [inaudible]
doing exactly what you authorized them to do, so there is a second Constitutional
issue here, which is they [inaudible] due process clause to continue to operate under
this license. Before that can be taken away, there must be a judicial hearing, a
judicial hearing for the proper due process procedure to run [inaudible]. And third, a
third concern is the discriminating way in which this statute has been applied,
primarily -- just not from the Sheriff’s Department but just in general. Essentially, the
Sheriff’s Department came through and said [inaudible] these are okay, these aren’t.
These are okay, these aren’t. And I think [inaudible] Modern Age, at least seen what
they sold, [inaudible], said those are okay, but ours are not, and [inaudible] equal
problem with that. My only [inaudible] for this Commission to determine that these
types of items are obscene and these are not obscene, nude dancing in okay
[inaudible], I think the [inaudible] the integrity of this body and bring this [inaudible]
to a situation where this is going to be an issue, it’s going to have to be heard, on an
ongoing weekly basis [inaudible] making these determinations about what is and what
isn’t. So we would ask [inaudible]. We still have no problem with the probation
stipulation as long as we have the [inaudible]. We have some concern with the
probation stipulation that says the Sheriff’s Department gets to determine whether
you are or are not violating this. I have no problem, we have no problem with a
probation situation if this board wanted to say 12 months of probation pending the
outcome of the criminal case and we’ll take these [inaudible] items and let the Judge
[inaudible]. I just think we need a judicial determination on what is and what’s isn’t.
Obviously [inaudible], the device is clearly designed to stimulate [inaudible]. I got
another box full of items that are vibrating devices sitting in our store [inaudible], but
none of those are statutory items. It’s not quite clear as [inaudible]. We would ask
that you not revoke the license today. You either [inaudible] until the Court makes a
determination or issues some sort of probation that [inaudible] deem with specific
guidelines so it’s not one person who [inaudible]. We have guidelines set up that we
know what to follow and we know what to do. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Do y’all have any questions for the counsel? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible], I’d like to address our lawyer with a question raised
by counsel for the licensee. Harry, what about the argument that we have not had a
prior judicial hearing and that we’re in violation of the Freeman v. Maryland?
Mr. Revell: I’m not familiar with that case but with the state of Maryland
being a party, I assume it’s a criminal case. I may be mistaken.
90
Mr. Shepard: Is it a criminal case?
Mr. King: I believe it was a criminal case. The Supreme Court didn’t
[inaudible] in determining obscenity.
Mr. Mayor: But we’re not here to determine obscenity; is that not right, Mr.
Revell?
Mr. Shepard: It’s not necessary to have a prior judicial determination in your
opinion, Harry?
Mr. Revell: I do not think that is required.
Mr. Mayor: This is not an obscenity case.
Mr. Bridges: Harry, what was your answer?
Mr. Revell: I do not think a criminal conviction is required before this board
can act on the license.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, after seeing the video and the items and whatnot, I
would make the substitute motion that we revoke the license.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. This would be a substitute motion. Mr. Kuhlke’s motion
has not been voted on. It’s still on the floor.
Mr. Bridges: Substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: So we have a substitute motion to revoke the license. Is there a
second?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a second. Gentlemen, any discussion on the
substitute motion or any questions for the parties who are here? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a comment. Clearly this has been brought up and
it’s not completely germane to this issue. But these are [inaudible] or equally of the
same nature as those we deem objectionable and certainly these other shops need to
be investigated. If we close this one, they need to have their licenses removed, too.
91
Mr. Turnage: Commissioner, may I add, as we were executing this search
warrant, my team of undercover was at this location. I haven’t seen what’s in there
and I have to try my undercover and the video work from there, but nothing -- if that
compares to what I have here, not of that was in there. He showed me no videotape
of where his people went in and purchased, I see no sales receipts or anything, that
could have come from anywhere as far as I’m concerned.
Mr. King: We have the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine.
Mr. Turnage: Those can be bought from anywhere, too.
Mr. King: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. We’re ready to vote. The motion
is to revoke the license of Lucy’s Love Shop. All in favor of the revocation, please
vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Mays vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion fails 5-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. The original motion is
12 months probation with the State statute governing the conduct of the store during
the period of probation. Madame Clerk, if you’ll clear the board, we’ll go ahead and
vote on the original motion. All in favor of the original motion, vote aye.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: What was the last part of the original motion? Clarity, please.
Clerk: Abide by the State statute.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Beard: And what is that?
92
Clerk: [Inaudible]
Mr. Revell: I think that would be O.C.G.A. 16-12-80(c) that says any device
designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs
is obscene material under that Code section.
Mr. Mayor: So we’re voting on the original motion right now. 12 months
probation.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Just for the record, I think the original motion in terms of all
fairness and good intentions intended is going to take us right back to being here on
multiple occasions, and this is my last time to deal with, so I’m not going to vote for
either motion on the floor. The Court proceeding is where it ought to be handled.
Mr. Mayor: Each member may vote in the way he or she would like to. Or
he would like to.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Beard abstains.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion fails 5-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further business to come before this Commission?
We have a motion to adjourn and a second. All in favor, please vote aye. We are
adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on September 5, 2000.
Clerk of Commission
93