HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting March 1, 2011
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
MARCH 1, 2011
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., March 1, 2011, the Hon.
Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, Smith, Hatney, Aitken, Johnson, Jackson,
Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: In the interest of time and seeing as how myself and the Administrator are
dealing with allergies or colds, Reverend Hatney’s got to be out of here by 6:30 and it is Joe
th
Jackson’s 40 birthday party today I want to get everybody out of here in a timely fashion today
so I’m going to call the meeting to order. And call on D.J. Daly, Pastor of SouthPoint Christian
Center for our invocation. Please stand.
The invocation was given by the Reverend D.J. Daly, Pastor SouthPoint Christian Center.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Pastor, if you could please come forward. Thank you for that wonderful
invocation. By these present be it known that Reverend D.J. Daly, Pastor of SouthPoint
Christian Center is Chaplain of the Day. For his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated
throughout the community serves as an example for all of the faith community. Given under my
st
hand this 1 Day of March 2011. Thank you, sir.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
A. Mr. R. Omar Salaam. RE: Trailer Sales and Rental’s doing fraudulent business in the
City of Augusta, Ga.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Sherman said his office spoke
with this gentleman earlier part of the week and his intention was to pull it. However, I have not
spoken with him and he’s not in the chambers. So ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: --- we’ll go to the ---
Mr. Mayor: Move along.
The Clerk: --- next item.
1
DELEGATIONS
B. Mr. Scott Hudson. RE: Update of the state of the Old Richmond Academy Building.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hudson and if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Hudson: I’m probably not even going to go to five minutes. I don’t get gabbled
when I go over time they play a commercial over me. I’m here to talk to you today about the
Old Richmond Academy Building. I’m sure by looking at the photograph that you see up there
you’ll recognize this building. I’m really kind of representing a cross section of the community
in terms of us trying to come together with some ideas about how this building can be saved and
re-purposed. For those of you who may not know the history of the building I’m going to give
you a very brief history. George Washington came to Augusta in 1791. He reviewed the cadets
of the Richmond Academy and it was in 1802 that they built this particular building and moved
into it. Now the building and all of its, I guess, accoutrements on the outside, the different,
what’s the word I’m looking for. Design the façade. That’s not exactly original to the building.
It was more of a plain style. This was added in the 1850’s using a style of architecture that was
very popular at that time. But is really, you don’t see very much of it any longer. It was a
hospital building during the Civil War. It was a men’s library after it ceased to become a school
and then of course for those of us who are around 40 years old it was used as the Augusta
Museum. It has been vacant for the past fifteen years and was recently used by the Westabou
Festival as an art gallery. So there was significant work done on the bottom floor of this
building. By Charter the building is owned still and always has been by the Trustees of
Richmond Academy and cannot be sold. It cannot be used for private purposes; it must be used
for educational purposes. The trustees have not been neglectful of this building but it has stood
vacant for fifteen years and anything that stands vacant that long is going to deteriorate. The
building in my opinion and I guess the folks that I’m representing today the building may be
owned by the trustees but it belongs to the people of Augusta. So we need to figure out
something and the trustees simply do not have the funding to do a proper renovation of the
building. Now right now we’re seeing what is some significantly leak damage in the roofing
area. I spoke to Mr. Roberts of the trustees and he said yes they’ve had folks come out and look
at it. It’s got to have a brand new roof it can’t be patch. There are also cracks on the exterior
that extend from the roof all the way to the foundation. This is due to age, settling and of course
repeated leak damage over the years. And I’ll remind you it’s, in my opinion a good thing that
the building can’t be turned over to private hands because that means it’ll never be loft
apartments. The public can always enjoy it. The arts community has a lot of ideas about how
the building can be re-purposed, given back to the community but the bottom line is we as a
community cannot afford to allow the building to get in any worse shape and certainly not in the
shape where it can’t be re-purposed in financial terms. Administrator Fred Russell, he and I
talked about this at length several times. He has some ideas about the possibility of funding and
I am not going to go into that this afternoon. I will leave it to him at the appropriate time. But
thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Scott. Do we have any questions or comments?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor?
2
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Why can’t it be sold?
Mr. Hudson: The building was chartered. This is going back into the mid, late 1700’s. It
belongs to the Trustees of the Richmond Academy and according to what I’m told by the trustees
it is in the Charter that that building and that land remain with them and that it can only be used
for educational purposes.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Well, I’m just trying to figure out if you don’t have the funds right now to
do that I would hate to see it go into disrepair because they can’t do something to move in it.
Because that’s a great piece of property ---
Mr. Hudson: It is.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- and it could be utilized for something else if funding couldn’t be and
that’s the reason why I’m asking the question now.
Mr. Hudson: Right and of course it sits right next to the old MCG building which they
own as well. I guess in my estimation being able to find a way to re-purpose that building and
when we’re talking about educational purposes that’s a very, very broad thing. You know this
entire area is historic. Possibly that along with you using MCG as facilities to have special
events which it’s already used for would draw more people into the downtown Augusta put
another building in possible use for our tourism trade because some of that is going to be
educational.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Has any discussion been with Augusta State or Paine College?
Mr. Hudson: No, sir ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: to see if they could use?
Mr. Hudson: --- not at this time. At least not with me. Now Mr. Roberts they have,
they’ve gone in a lot of directions.
Mr. Mayor: I planted that bug in the trustee’s ear and I’ll tell you I was a presenter for
the Mayor’s Institute on City Design in Santa Fe about three weeks ago. We need a design
school in Augusta and I think that would make a great campus for it if we can make that happen.
Mr. Hudson: That would be wonderful.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for your presentation, Scott.
Mr. Hudson: Thank you, gentlemen.
3
Mr. Mayor: All righty, Madam Clerk, moving on.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, our consent agenda consists of items 1-19, items 1-19. For the
benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petition once the petition is read would you please signify
your objection by raising your hand? I call your attention to:
Item 2: It’s for a request for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to
be used in connection with Tailwinds Augusta located at 1501 Aviation Way. Are there any
objectors to that alcohol petition?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay, our consent agenda consists of items 1-19 with no objection to our
alcohol petition.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, gentlemen, do we have any items to be added to the consent agenda?
Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Um, Joe I know you’ve got an appointment, nineteen?
Mr. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Johnson: You got it on consent? Oh it is, okay, no, we’re good.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, anybody else with items to add? Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: I’d like to add item twenty-five.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further additions to the consent agenda? Hearing
none do we have any items to be pulled from the consent for discussion? Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Agenda items seven and eight.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, are there any further items to be pulled for discussion?
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Just for record purposes, item number nineteen, Commissioner Bowles is
appointing Mr. James Germany to the Augusta Aviation Authority.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Brigham: Isn’t that a commission, not an authority?
4
Mr. Mayor: Commission.
Mr. Brigham: It’s a commission not an authority.
Mr. Mayor: It’s a commission not a ---
Mr. Brigham: Is that not a commission and not an authority? I thought so.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Jackson: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. Johnson: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. ZA-R-201 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta Richmond County by amending Section 28-B-8-(K) regarding signs involving
internal lights or other electrical devices or circuits and the standards for certification.
(Approved by the Augusta Commission February 15, 2011 – second reading)
PUBLIC SERVICES
2. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 11-07: request by Douglas A.
Delise for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with Tailwinds Augusta, LLC located at 1501 Aviation Way. There will be Sunday Sales.
District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 21, 2011)
3. Motion to reject the bid provided by Mr. Jay Jahn, owner of Tailwinds, and approve the
agreement with Tailwind Deli, News & Gifts, Inc. of Wilmington, North Carolina, for
Airport Concessions. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 21, 2011)
4. Motion to appoint the following individuals to serve a four-year term on the
Construction Advisory Board for their respective trades: Mr. Rick Pinnell – HVAC
Contractor, Mr. Greg Bowles – Residential/Light Commercial Contractor, and re-appoint
Mr. Chris Booker – Architect, and Mrs. Doris Harrison Residential Builder. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 21, 2011)
5. Motion to approve the 2011 Health and Wellness Grant and an amendment to the 2011
Cooperative Agreement with Central Savannah River Area Regional Commission (CSRA
RC), related to the senior services programs operated by Augusta Recreation and Parks.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 21, 2011)
6. Motion to approve Amendment 1 to the Airport Janitorial Contract. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 21, 2011)
5
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
9. Motion to approve Resolution to authorize the Tax Commissioner to accept various
forms of payment for property taxes – O.C.G.A. 48-5-9.1. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee February 21, 2011)
FINANCE
10. Motion to approve accepting $3,000 from the 4-H Military Account of the Georgia 4-H
Foundation as replacement funding for Extension Agent Betty English to conduct and
coordinate 4-H Programming at Fort Gordon. The $500 monthly replacement funding will
run March 1, 2011 through Augusta 30, 2011. She will be dedicating 10% of her time to
complete job duties associated with this project. (Approved by Finance Committee
February 21, 2011)
th
11. Motion to approve a resolution of selected dates (changing the April 25 date to July 6,
2011) for building closure regarding the implementation of furlough reduction for 2011
and to declare those dates “unpaid days of rest” in accordance with O.C.G.A. 36-1-12 and
15-6-93. (Approved by Finance Committee February 21, 2011)
12. Motion to approve a budget resolution and grant agreements with the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and Signature Authorization Letter dated February 23, 2011 for the Augusta
Sustainable Development Implementation Program. (Approved by Finance Committee
February 21, 2011)
13. Motion to approve coverage on Public Official Liability Insurance with Landmark
American Insurance Company for $64,948 for April 19, 2011 to April 19, 2012. (Approved
by Finance Committee February 21, 2011)
14. Motion to approve the continue purchase of Workers’ Compensation Excess Insurance.
(Approved by Finance Committee February 21, 2011)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
15. Motion to approve the 4115 Burning Tree Lane change order to Jeffery Harris
Trucking Inc. in the amount of $24,500 for the removal of 220 LF x 36” of failed CMP and
installation of 220 x 36” LF of HDPE. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
February 21, 2011)
16. Motion to approve supplemental agreement with B&E Electrical in the amount of
$258,212.30 for the Gordon Highway Adaptive Signal Project to install a traffic signal at
the intersection of Jimmie Dyess Parkway and Harper Franklin Avenue as well as provide
signal connectivity with Gate 1, install pedestrian facilities and intersection modifications
as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 21, 2011)
17. Motion to approve an Option for the purposes of acquiring a Right-of-Way between
William C. Howard, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in connection with the
Traffic Safety Improvements Project, in fee simple, consisting of (200 sq. ft.) more or less;
and (N/A sq. ft.) of permanent easement, more or less; and (N/A sq. ft.) of temporary
construction easement, private, at the purchase price of $1,000.00. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee February 21, 2011)
6
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
18. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held February
15, 2011 and Special Called Legal Meeting held February 21, 2011.
APPOINTMENTS
19. Motion to approve the appointment of James Germany to the Aviation Authority
representing District 3.
APPOINTMENTS
25. Motion to approve the following Ex-Officio Commission appointments to various
Augusta-Richmond County Boards, Commissions and Authorities: Commissioners Jerry
Brigham, Board of Health, Joe Jackson, Augusta Aviation, Wayne Guilfoyle, Greater
Augusta Arts Council, Matt Aitken, Planning Commission, Alvin Mason, Library Board,
Grady Smith, General Aviation, Corey Johnson, Board of Education, J.R. Hatney, Family
Connection, Joe Bowles, Richmond County Hospital Authority, Joe Jackson 9-1-1
Emergency Board, Bill Lockett, Tax Assessors Board, and Joe Bowles, CSRA Regional
Development Authority. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Bowles)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 2]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1, 3-6, 9-19, 25]
Mr. Hatney: Madam Clerk, I abstain on alcohol, please.
The Clerk: That motion carries with Dr. Hatney abstaining on the alcohol petition.
Mr. Hatney: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, let’s go to the pulled agenda items first.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
7. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code Title Two Sections 1-
7-11 through 1-7-21 to amend the personnel system; to repeal all code sections and
ordinances and parts of the code sections and ordinances in conflict. (Approved by the
Augusta Commission February 15, 2011 – second reading)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, I believe this was yours.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My primary concerns with agenda item number
seven the personnel system is what we are trying to do with the Personnel Board. We are trying,
7
attempting to change the Personnel Board where the Administrator would make the final
decision on any appeals brought before that particular board. And if that’s not enough if the
defendant or if a Commissioner, myself or any of my colleagues wanted to appeal the
Administrator’s decision even though he works for us we can’t tell him what to do. We’ve got to
go to the Superior Court. And I feel like my colleague Dr. Hatney. Something’s wrong with
that. So I would like to ask the Administrator to explain to us what his intent is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. And just to clarify this was not done just with the input of the
Administrator. But, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think what the intent is, is to provide another level of
appeal for the employees. As you stated they would go through the process at this particular
point in time they would go to the Personnel Board and the personnel board made a decision that
would be binding unless one or two, one of either the parties appealed that to the Administrator.
Then at that point I would take a look at that and determine based on a review of the file, not
another hearing whether or not I agreed with the decision on the personnel board itself. The
intent is to make sure that we give the employees as fair an opportunity as we can. I think some
of the members of the commission had mentioned that this might be a way to approach it based
on some of the personnel board hearings that we had. Some of which were discussed as recently
as last summer where there didn’t seem to be a real great deal of consistently in their decision.
In addition to that my decision could be approved by or could be appealed to the Circuit Court
similar to what that situation is now where you could appeal from the, from the personnel board
decision. Part of the concern in what you just stated was that you know the commission itself, a
commissioner or the commission itself in my understanding in the way this works now on the
way it should work in the future you know as a body you can, you currently can appeal. But
individual commissioners cannot do that. And if that’s what I heard you say you know I disagree
with what you’re attempting to say there.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Russell, excuse me. Mr. MacKenzie ---
Mr. Russell: I’ve got the floor if you don’t mind, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Russell: I’d be happy to yield to the Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: He’s yielding the floor to you, Commissioner.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Russell. This is for the General Counsel. Mr. MacKenzie,
will you please read that portion, what I just spoke of about the appellate process for someone
that appears before the Personnel Board? If the defendant want to appeal it, it goes to the
Administrator. The Administrator decides what the verdict is. If the defendant doesn’t concur
with the Administrator’s act then either he or she or myself as the Commissioner would have to
go to the Superior Court. And my question is this. The Administrator works for the
Commission. Now why would the commission not have the authority to override what the
Administrator has done without having to go to the Superior Court? It seems as if ---
8
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Lockett ---
Mr. Lockett: --- we are suing each other.
Mr. Mayor: --- your time’s up on that.
Mr. Lockett: I’d like to get an extension, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: If you’d like to be recognized for your second ---
Mr. Lockett: I’d like to be recognized for an additional thirty seconds to give the General
Counsel the opportunity to respond to my question. Since when does the Commission have to go
to the Superior Court to get a decision that the Administrator has made. Where does the
Administrator get that power from?
Mr. MacKenzie: I’d be happy to respond to your question. And just as an initial matter
this item seven actually doesn’t include those provisions. I think we might be a little bit ahead of
ourselves. You’re probably referring to some of the provisions that are in item eight. Item seven
is actually just the bylaws that are anticipated. Even the personnel policies and procedures
manual is not approved at this point in time number seven is actually related to improving the
process as far as giving guidance to the personnel board on the bylaws. But to get to the heart of
your question there is a state law procedure that’s in place with regard to the right of government
generally to appeal. And that’s whether you have a personnel board or whatever the last step in
your employee disciplinary appeals process is. Either party has the right to appeal that to
superior court. That’s if even if the Commission was the final step the Commission would still
have the right to appeal to superior court. The source of the legal authority for that is the state
law provision to say that whatever the last step is either you know the Commission or the
employee can appeal to superior court. But you’ve raised a number of other issues too and I
don’t know if that addressed the one issue I’d be happy to address some of the others as well.
Mr. Lockett: For the sake of time you didn’t address it. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Let me ask a question as it pertains to how we operate now and the
difference in what you are proposing. What is the real difference there because right now I do
believe that it is almost that way with the exception of the Administrator would have to present
to the Commission for the final rendering. And from my perspective I do believe that should
remain that way and I think we’ll keep ourselves out of harms way in a lot of areas.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie?
Mr. MacKenzie: I’d be happy to address that question. Currently the process for appeals
and these are for regular employees that are not subject to the authority of elected officials.
These would be you know regular employees not including department directors. The process
9
currently is that the department would make a recommendation for example for termination.
That recommendation would go to the Administrator, the Administrator or one of his or her
designees would hold a hearing, a preliminary initial hearing that would hear evidence form the
employee as well as the department. And then the Administrator would make a decision
regarding whether termination was appropriate. The employee would have the right to appeal
within five days to the personnel board. The personnel board would hold a full blown hearing
where witnesses are called by both sides and then the personnel board issues a decision. Then
the both parties have the right pursuant to state law to appeal the decision of the personnel board.
That would be the Commission and the employee. That’s our current process. The process that
is being proposed in the personnel policies and procedures manual would be instead of having
the Administrator make the decision for termination it would be the HR Director. With the same
scenario you’d have the Human Resources, I mean the department make a recommendation for
termination. The Human Resources Director would hold a hearing, receive evidence from the
employee and the department would make a decision regarding whether or not termination is
appropriate. The employee would have the right to appeal to the personnel board within five
days. The personnel board would issue a decision and either party could appeal that to the
Administrator meaning the HR Director or the employee would have the right to appeal that to
the Administrator. The Administrator would not hold another hearing. He would just review the
transcript and the records that were made available to the personnel board and then he would
issue a decision. If either one of the parties appealed to him he would not be involved in the
process at all. That would be the end of the process. And the same as with the first scenario if
either party is displeased the party being the Commission as the legal governing authority for the
government or the employee was displeased with the decision of the Administrator you would
have the right to appeal that to superior court in accordance with state law. I think this kind of
gets to the question that Commissioner Lockett raised which is why would the Commission need
to appeal a decision that was made by the Administrator. And that’s just the interplay between
state law. You would hope you have the Administrator making decisions that you’re pleased
with. But that’s the proposal we have before you. If there’s some other mechanism to modify
that procedure we’d be happy to review that if that’s the will of the Commission.
Mr. Hatney: Just one half a second, two seconds. I still believe that when you have a
one-man authority you wield this authority to one man. I’ve just got some heartburn with that
because I don’t see what’s wrong with what we do now, you know because basically at the end
of the day I just believe that the Administrator’s decision ought to be presented to the
Commission particularly if he’s exhausted all other areas with after the personnel board has
made theirs and we don’t agree with that rather than have him chop somebody’s head off then he
needs to present his recommendation to this body. He did say it’s the governing body so if it’s
the governing body I have some problem going other ways to get around to talking to the
Administrator. We either is or we’re not. It can’t be both.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Yes, sir, Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just need some point of clarification. Are we
discussing item seven or are we discussing item eight right now? Which one are we discussing
because it sounds like ---
10
Mr. Mayor: Seven is the item that’s been called.
Mr. Mason: Everything he’s referencing almost references number eight.
Mr. Mayor: Because I think the line of questioning went to the opening line of
questioning ---
Mr. Mason: I just wanted to make sure I didn’t miss out on eight. We’re not on eight
yet.
Mr. Mayor: We’re not on eight yet.
Mr. Mason: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Motion to approve.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
8. Revised Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual. (Approved by the Augusta
Commission February 15, 2011 – second reading)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, I believe this was your pull.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern is we have a second reading of a
Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual. And I have a difficult time determining. We’re
having a second reading of which one? We were given November 29, 2010 we were given the
thnd
first edition. January the 14 we were given about the fifth edition, February the 22 of 2011
we were given about the tenth edition. And what makes it so ironic is you give us these various
versions of the same procedures manual, it’s not redlined, it’s not dated so how can you tell
whether you’re looking at the February 22 it’s not the November 29 or 2010 edition?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
11
Ms. Smitherman: Thank you. The last full version of the document was provided on
rd
February 3 2011 in that committee book. There’s only been one minor change since then and
th
that change was provided on February 15. And that was just the new page 124, which
specifically details that employees who report directly to the Commission and department
directors do not fall under the Administrators’ authority. That has been the only change. And
rd
the, so the February 3 2011 has been the last and only document for the past month.
nd
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to follow up please. On February the 22 in the p.m.
the Administrator had a copy, this copy to be exact delivered to all the Commissioners. This was
supposed to be the most recent version and now you’re telling me the most recent was February
rd
3? Is that what you’re saying?
Ms. Smitherman: The version that you were provided most recently was the same one.
We wanted to ensure that everybody had it for the upcoming work session, which was on Friday.
It’s the exact same version that was handed out previously.
Mr. Lockett: And we’re talking about efficiency and each time you send 270 pages out
just because you’re not certain that all of us have a copy?
Ms. Smitherman: We didn’t want any confusion and people to say they didn’t have it.
Mr. Lockett: This is exactly what you created. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Okay thank you. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just for a point of clarity because I asked a
th
question of you on February the 15. And you referenced the substitute motion made by Mr.
st
Brigham on February the 1 and you said it was page eleven at that time not page 124. That was
where the substitute motion was captured in that particular incidence. Now we were on page 124
but you referenced page eleven. If you check the minutes you’ll see that that’s an inaccurate
statement. So page eleven is where you said it actually changed. Page 124 had not changed yet.
Page 124 is changed now so that is another change. It may seem minor but there was a change
stth
there. But the point is even on February the 1 and February the 7 and it was until February the
th
15 that we had the actual, and when I say actual it wasn’t even the actual motion it was a
motion that you went back to find out whether, what his intent was and we’ll talk about that a
th
little bit later. So that wasn’t even incumbent until the 15. Everything prior to that to include
th
on February the 7 at Administrative Service Committee meeting one of the issues I had because
what we kept seeing continuously saw was that the city administrator would have final authority
over hiring and firing, organization and all that. That was final authority. Nothing had changed.
Mr. Brigham’s motion had not been captured in that and in fact like I said it was not until
th
February the 15 that there was actually a motion, which did not even capture his substitute
th
motion. It captured yours. And then that was in there on the 15. So there have been some
changes. The only thing we’re saying is this is that we’re bringing up specific things because of
the process. And what’s lost in this whole scenario is that we agree that changes need to be
made. There’s been a bad process that’s gone on to get us to where we are today. So there were
12
some changes going there in reference to that. I do have a question for Mr. uh, the General
Counsel.
Mr. Mayor: Time, I’ll recognize you again.
Mr. Mason: Please do.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mason: When we talked about the personnel board and the way that it actually will
go under the new, under the new guidance, and actually it may be for the city administrator
because he talks about a consistency of opinion from the previous, from the past personnel
boards. I don’t think that there’s a situation to where we’re going to have one system that’s
going to be perfect, I really don’t. So you could make a decision that people may not be happy
with as well as the personnel board could’ve made the decision that people weren’t happy with.
But if you go back to the decision that the personnel board that you referenced last summer the
process worked. The board made a decision and then it was appealed to the next level and the
next level somewhat corrected it if you thought their decision was wrong and it came out to be
right. So I’m not sure why we’re messing with a system that actually worked itself out and now
we’re trying to change that again. And so I don’t know what would be different with you
making the decision and then it going to the personnel, excuse me the superior court versus the
board making decision and then going to superior court. Can you speak to that, Mr.
Administrator?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. What we made was a recommendation on how to both
streamline and look at other models that work. Obviously using the personnel model works just
as well. We made a recommendation if it’s the will of this body on which way to go. From a
staff standpoint we had no preference and whatever you decide we’ll be more than happy to
work with.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just think that ten, I mean putting that onus on one
person you’re going to have enough on your plate before it’s all said and done. Trust me. But
putting that onus on one person versus ten I believe that when we get to a point of getting them
first of all their own lawyer because I think we’re conflicted when we have our legal who
represents this government plus the personnel board who couldn’t make a decision opposite of
that and we’re giving them that legal advice they should have their own legal so that they can get
spun up on employment issues and those sort of things to be able to make employment decisions.
Was that part of number seven attorney to do that?
Mr. MacKenzie: Number seven doesn’t provide a mechanism whereby the personnel
board if they feel they need independent counsel there’s a process in place for them to request
that counsel.
Mr. Mason: I think that would be appropriate.
13
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I’m going to say one thing and then I’m going to recognize
Commissioner Hatney. Commissioner Mason and I had a great conversation before this meeting
began as I’ve had with a lot of different Commissioners individually. And I think there’s
definitely consensus that we need to fix the issues facing the local government. You know we
had a little storm blow in but I know in speaking to everybody individually that we will get these
things ironed out. I think that ultimately we do and it’s, we’ve spoken of it many times the
Charter’s a flawed document. It basically doesn’t give clear direction. What I would like to
propose in moving forward is that we have a meeting of the Commission because I think we’re
the ones that need to fix it. We’re the ones who have to deal with it every day to where we
identify those issues within the Charter that continually cause us problems, send those on to the
Carl Vinson Institute and ask for their input on helping us to put this document in order.
Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: This is to the General Counsel. Mr. or Andrew, general counsel, item seven
and eight are you saying to me that these two items will they be individually or collectively has
no bearing on the Charter?
Mr. MacKenzie: The question you’re asking is whether or not these two items will have
any effect on amending the Charter?
Mr. Hatney: Any effect on the Charter, yes, sir.
Mr. MacKenzie: Then the answer to that question would be no.
Mr. Hatney: Ain’t got no effect on the Charter when the Administrator’s been given
some authority to something he don’t have now.
Mr. MacKenzie: Well, and the reason I say that is the word administrator, the
administrator’s office is not in the consolidation act that created the consolidation of the
government. The Office of the Administrator was actually created in 1980 by Act of the Board
of Commissions at that time. The Consolidation Act has terminology in it that essentially says
any other law therein affect that are already in place that aren’t in conflict with the Consolidation
Act will remain in force. The Office of the Administrator will remain in force from 1980 and is
st
still in force. I believe it was May 21 1996 the Commission unanimously approved delegating
hiring and firing authority to the Administrator and he has continually had that.
Mr. Hatney: That’s written somewhere?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, I actually have available if you’d like to see a copy of it an
attachment where the Commission at the time took that action.
Mr. Hatney: My only question was how do you or how do you justify making these kind
of changes? You can name them anything you want to and it does not in no way impact that
authority that governs this government ---
14
Mr. MacKenzie: I think part of the ---
Mr. Hatney: --- particularly when you’re given new directions and new duties whether it
was done in 1980 or 1880 when your changing the scope of a persons job it changes the
operation of your whole government.
Mr. MacKenzie: To answer your question the source of authority would be the law that
passed in 1980 which is consistent with the way the government has operated for the last fifteen
years. This document seven and eight mostly eight is a slight modification on authority that the
Administrator has already had in force for some time. It basically modifies it so that he has a
different role in the employee disciplinary fields process and also has exclusive recommending
authority, which I think we’ll talk about probably a little later. It doesn’t fundamentally change
the authority, which was established in 1980 for this Commission to delegate duties to the
Administrator. The Commission in 1996 determined to delegate hiring and firing authority.
Mr. Hatney: That was my concern. If this body has to delegate that function you’re
talking about that’s a change to the Charter. That means that because that authority is incumbent
within this body.
Mr. MacKenzie: The 1980 Act actually provides that the Commission by ordinance or
resolution can delegate duties to the Administrator. An ordinance or resolution only takes six
votes and not eight.
Mr. Hatney: So you say you’re going ---
Mr. Mayor: Well, and Commissioner Hatney that gets to why you know when we’ve got
a document that people can argue both ways and we’ve got an opinion from the legislative
council that I’ve got the authority. So if y’all don’t keep me happy I’m going to start firing
people in a hurry here. But, but it’s unclear obviously if you can argue both sides of it.
Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Motion to approve.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I’ve had my hand up for five minutes. I know you saw me
because you looked at me.
Mr. Mayor: But I saw Commissioner Jackson first and so I will be coming back your
way. We have a motion and a second to approve. Commissioner Lockett.
st
Mr. Lockett: Mr. MacKenzie, I’m glad you referenced that May 21 1996 document that
I’ve been talking about for weeks now. I think it was quite clear that this had the intent and of
the consolidation they indicated that they felt that no one person especially a person that was not
elected should have so much authority. This is why they set up the form of government that we
have now. And again I’m not an attorney but you might want to go to the Georgia Municipal
Association website and they have document on there that explains exactly what we’re trying to
15
do. We’re trying to give the Administrator the authority without changing the form of
government and that is not permissible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir.
Mr. Mason: Point of privilege.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Just a question here in reference to that May 1996 meeting. It’s kind of
funny we use intent when we want to use it and then when the intent was clear we’re not even
paying attention to that. But in any case in 1996 and that vote was taken it was 10-0 I
understand? Somebody’s got the paper. It was 10-0?
Mr. Hatney: I thought it was 9-1.
Mr. Mason: Okay, now was that ever made an amendment to the Charter?
Mr. MacKenzie: No, it did not.
Mr. Mason: No, it did not. Did it ever come by way of Ordinance?
Mr. MacKenzie: I believe it was an ordinance, yes.
Mr. Mason: Exactly but it was never made an amendment to the Charter, right?
Mr. MacKenzie: No.
Mr. Mason: Now normally isn’t that standard operating procedure?
Mr. MacKenzie: It depends on what action is being taken.
Mr. Mason: Well, we know what action was being taken. You know what action was
being taken on that document. Would that not be considered, would that not be appropriate
procedure to do an amendment to the Charter on that particular action?
Mr. MacKenzie: On that particular action no.
Mr. Mason: Why would you say that?
Mr. MacKenzie: I say that because the source of authority creating the Office of the
Administrator would be the 1980 law that was created by home rule, actually by the Board of
Commissioners of Richmond County. That was the source of authority for which the
Commission in 1996 pointed to. And that’s actually a local law as well and it says that they can
delegate duties to the Administrator by ordinance or resolution I believe. And that’s what they
16
did was through the ordinance they delegated the authority to the Commission, I mean to the
Administrator.
Mr. Mason: And that’s your opinion on that?
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s my recollection of reading the record as well as the minutes from
stth
that meeting. I think it was May 21. I’m not for sure it may have been May 19 but I think
another meeting may have occurred that day (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: And I’ll just say you know at some point and Commissioner Mason I
discussed it, I keep hearing discussions about 1980, 1996 you know it’s 2011. We need to start
looking forward in my opinion. And I know that we do despite difficulties we might have we do
have a group that can work together to do that. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, a roll call vote, please.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to say this for the record. I think
you’re absolutely correct. And you know I sit and listen and observe and I think we’re all trying
to get to this destination. And we’re all just trying to figure out how to get there together. And
you’re right we have a good group of guys up here. But I will say this. This is called a lot of riff
and I think controversy not only it’s probably because more of the media than it has with us.
They make it seem like we have a lot of controversy but we haven’t. Primarily I think that the
biggest issue is we’re very comfortable with the roll that the Administrator have and have had in
the past. And I think even when it comes to the Personnel Board with changing something that I
think gives it it’s not the best system but it’s probably the best that we’re going to get. And I
think with that being said if that was probably left alone and we just done away with that change
and left things as it were we’re probably wouldn’t have so many issues. We have some other
technical things that we need to deal within that policies and procedures manual but that was one
of the key components. And I think with that the department heads and directors need to be
under the auspices of the Mayor and Commission. I don’t think that needs to change. I think
certain things we need to have oversight over. With those two things being said I think that we
can get beyond everything else but we really need to look at those two items. And I think you
have resolved that one as what Commissioner Mason mentioned earlier but that personnel board
that will probably be the only other major issue that I see personally that is probably stopping us
from moving forward with this item. And I think that’s something that you know we all need to
just consider here. But I think that’s where we are now. And I think that’s probably the brunt of
us up here so I just wanted to speak that into the record so we can understand we want to try to
get this thing worked out. And I think we just have maybe one possibly two items that we need
to get through. And if we can come to a consensus on it I think we can move forward.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
17
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Hatney: One other question, please, to the Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Attorney, for my health would you please explain to me how you make
the decision when we are making these changes whether or not you need six or eight votes. How
do you make that decision?
Mr. MacKenzie: Well, that’s a good question. The answer really lies in carefully
reviewing the different laws in place, the ordinances that create this government as well as the
ordinances and laws that created the Office of the Administrator which were done historically in
1980 regarding reference and also looking at the case law referencing what other courts have
done when someone else has challenged the decision that was made by the government.
Looking at what the result of what the courts have done in those cases extrapolating what the
likely result would be in interpreting the issues that we have to deal with here.
Mr. Hatney: And the reason I asked the question I don’t have seen anybody in there
where you could make any constitutional type changes that doesn’t require eight votes. I haven’t
seen (inaudible). How do you decide when you can do six and when, that’s not in the Charter?
Mr. MacKenzie: Well, just to clarify.
Mr. Hatney: You can go back to 1980 or go back to 1918. It’s not in the Charter.
Mr. MacKenzie: I don’t decide whether or not to take six or eight votes. I look at the
law and give you my best recommendation or what the law says and what the likely result would
be. If it was challenged then you have to litigate.
Mr. Hatney: You didn’t answer the question. Have you, is there someplace you can
point so I can go and read that authorizes you to come to that conclusion that anything that you
deem that you’re going to use six votes for you can do it or otherwise it’s eight. Is there
anything written to that? When you say your best judgment guess you’re guessing on something
that ain’t written nowhere.
Mr. MacKenzie: Absolutely, I’ll be happy to show you all of the resources that I’ve used
to reach the conclusion I’ve reached.
Mr. Hatney: But you’ve got something with six votes in it though, anywhere?
Mr. MacKenzie: Well, I mean it might not say ---
Mr. Hatney: As it pertains to the Charter and I won’t ask you nothing else tonight.
18
Mr. MacKenzie: I have some authority that establishes that this action can be taken by a
resolution or ordinance that would require only six votes.
Mr. Hatney: And I need to see that because I keep hearing that but have not found that
anywhere.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’d be happy to show it to you.
Mr. Hatney: And bless your heart.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion we
have been requested for a roll call vote, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion is to approve the revised Personnel Policy and
Procedure. Mr. Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Unclear.
The Clerk: Yes, no, abstain?
Mr. Hatney: Abstain.
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: No.
19
The Clerk: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Mason vote No.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the regular agenda I believe. Fred, don’t start
coughing you’re going to make me start.
Mr. Russell: Sorry.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got a pocket full of cough drops if you need one though.
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Smith has a lot too.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
20. Update from the Administrator regarding the September 3, 2010 meeting with the
Augusta Housing Authority to address the numerous complaints about the lack of property
upkeep/code enforcement of government-subsidized Section 8 housing and the September
7, 2010 Commission approval of the 90-day trial period of the Augusta-Richmond Count
Neighborhood Special Task Force. (Requested by Commissioner Alvin Mason)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
th
Mr. Mason: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I did call for this agenda item. Back on August 17 if
you remember that I called for a, try to get a consensus here to get a meeting with the Housing
Authority to speak to the situation of Section 8 and different things that was going on out in our
th
community. As it referenced that we subsequently had a meeting on September the 7 with the
Housing Authority to discuss those issues that were brought to the forefront. There was a motion
made at that particular meeting that Mr. Russell and others would get together with the Housing
Authority and come up with a path forward as far as that situation goes. That was about five and
a half six months ago. So I’m trying to figure out today where are we with that because I believe
a motion was made to that affect to do something, to bring forward some sort of Task Force.
20
And so if Mr. Russell can speak to that and try to let us know where we are on that that would be
great.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor I’m going to let Mr. Sherman speak at the end here but
as Commissioner Mason noted there was some confusion on Section 8 Housing versus the
houses that weren’t Section 8. After that meeting staff got together and determined a mechanism
to carry forth with those. Part of the problem was we were losing track of individuals that when
they made complaints if they were Section 8 housing they sometimes complained to us and they
sometimes complained to the housing that, to the housing area ---
Mr. Mayor: Authority.
Mr. Russell: --- authority I’m sorry. What we’ve done is we have a mechanism now that
when they complain to either or they’re not dropped in the middle. They go, if it’s not a Housing
Authority issue it does come back to us and we deal with it from our perspective there and vice
versus. If it’s a Housing Authority issue and we get the complaint we communicate with them
and make sure that we move forward with that. Rob Sherman’s been working with a couple of
the other agencies to bring together the Task Force that we talked about. He’ll be happy to share
that with you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman: Commissioners, this was last September that we presented to you a
proposal to adopt a (inaudible) Services Task Force and there was a budget attached to it at the
time. You asked us to implement it for a 90-day period and see how it goes. Probably a meeting
a two after that, a commission meeting or two after that a Dr. Adam Hoover from the Old Towne
neighborhood addressed to you as a delegation. And they had concerns with a piece of property
it was a house down on Telfair Street that to them was a nuisance property. They continued to
have to call the Sheriff’s Department because of suspected drug activities on the property. And
so we heard that presentation at the meeting and decided that would be our pilot project right
there. Because one of the, I guess the mission of the Task Force is to address issues, code issues
not only through the License and Inspections Department, the Sheriff’s Department, Codes as
well as the Marshall’s Department codes. Address those issues that cannot be resolved in a
standard or a normal process. For instance a code issue we can take them to court and get an
order from the judge and address it that way. But these are, the idea with the Task Force is to
address issues that just sort of fall through the cracks, how do you address them. So that was,
that became our project. So we met with the, a couple of guys well Dr. Hoover and another
gentlemen from the, that are active in the Old Towne Neighborhood Association. We met with
them on a couple of occasions. We found out what their concerns are. So then the Task Force
made up of the Sheriff’s Department, Marshall’s Department and Code Enforcement we had an
inspection of the property and it was an impressive showing. We wanted the property, or the
tenant to realize that he has been identified as possibly a nuisance. So we did the inspection,
there were probably ten sheriff’s cars there; the Crime Suppression Unit was there, a through
inspection of the property. We had a recap meeting after that inspection. This is going on over a
21
several weeks period. We had a recap meeting to determine what was you know what everyone
found the different agencies. We sent the property owner a notice of code violations and of the
issues that the other two departments found. Then I followed up with a conversation. I called
the property owner and asked if she could meet with us. I explain to her what the concerns are
from the neighbors and what we had found during our inspections. And of course there was
some resistance I think you well know. I know that tenant you know that would not be going on
at this property. They were having some health issues in the family but eventually we did meet
with the property owner and her daughter. We explained very clearly and it was a good friendly
conversation. We explained what the issues are with the neighborhood association and
particularly of Dr. Hoover who happens to live across the street. We showed them all the
evidence, the reports from the Sheriff’s Department where they repeatedly have had to go to the
property. We showed them pictures where there was a bullet hole in the front wall and just went
on and on. And she began to realize what we were saying. At the same time we told them that
there was a drug raid going on at three houses behind this property and at this property while we
were having our meeting. We went further to say that if in the event the Sheriff’s Department
has to confiscate the property that’s used for drug activities that it can be demolished. And we
went on to say that the Commission approved the demolition of a property that the Sheriff’s
Department owns now that was confiscated through drug activities. We did all that and we
asked her you know can you help us because that was the whole idea was to present the facts to
her and can you help us in resolving this problem. And she did. Her intents was to, the intent
was to have the person evicted but it so happened that it worked out that she asked the person to
move and the person did move. So that’s, that was how we resolved that particular case. It
evolved from there with the Task Force you know it was set up to you know address the
complaints that fall through the cracks because of the, just because of the situation. But let me
go back. One other thing about the drug activities at the house. The reason that it falls through
the cracks as it was difficult is that this property the tenant was allowing others to come to the
property to sell the drugs. The drugs do not change hands at this property but the initial contact
the first part of the deal is made there. Then the ones selling the drugs go through the house out
the back door down the path the property on the back street on Walker Street where the drugs are
hidden. They run around and they meet them there and that’s where the drugs are transferred.
So anyway we addressed that issue that way. The tenant did move out. The Task Force where I
was going with that not only do we address issues that fall through the cracks but we meet with
the neighborhood association, we get complaints from the neighborhood association. Well the
two gentlemen from the Old Towne Neighborhood again they’re very active in their association.
They’ve come up with guidelines or instructions on how to get the neighborhood association
more involved in caring for the neighborhoods. And so we’re working with them on that and
that is still in the works because the idea is we will meet with the associations we will go over
the, we go over the codes we enforce. The, it’s sort of an instruction pamphlet that we will
educate or what will be called Block Captains so to say who will keep an eye on the
neighborhood streets. We instruct them on how to what to look for. The neighborhood
association will attempt to address the issues with the property owners by inviting them to join
the association and in the event that does not correct the issue then they forward it on to us. We
address it us, the Sheriff’s Department, the Marshall’s Department through normal processes. If
that doesn’t work then it moves on up to the Task Force. Now the Task Force is going to be
made up of volunteers. It’s just part of the duties that the individuals that the Sheriff’s
Department, the Marshall’s Department and Code Enforcement. It’s weren’t not asking coming
22
back to you asking for funding. We’re going to handle it that way. I’ve rambled on a little bit
but that’s pretty much where we are.
Mr. Mason: Great well how are you getting this information out to the general public to
neighborhood associations and things like that. Because there’s been some that have said I mean
we didn’t even know anything was going on. That’s the reason we’re calling and asking you
about it.
Mr. Sherman: Well and again we have met routinely since September. The two from the
Old Towne Neighborhood are revising, just firming up the, what is and I’ll tell you what it’s
exactly called. It’s called the in this case it’s the Old Towne Neighborhood Properties Standards
Rules or Instructions. This will just become a generic instruction sheet that once they get all of it
ironed out then we will be taking it to the neighborhood alliance and the neighborhood
associations will be handing out the brochures and the brochures by the way IT prepared for us
and the print shop printed for us. We’ll be distributing those. We’re trying to get, what we’re
wanting to do is push it back to the neighborhoods. You know these are your neighborhoods.
You’ve got to be involved and participate in keeping your neighborhoods at the standards where
you want to live. And we’re going to do everything we can but we need your assistance.
Mr. Mason: One final question, Mr. Mayor. So right now we’ve just been dealing with
the downtown neighborhood?
Mr. Sherman: Well ---
Mr. Mason: We haven’t branched out any at this point?
Mr. Sherman: --- as far as the Task Force goes that’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: And just to go along with something that Mr. Sherman said. Really I think
Old Towne can be the model. They’ve stepped up to the plate in their neighborhood. One of the
reasons why about a month and a half ago I established the fund with the community foundation
the neighborhood protection fund was for lower income areas that might not have access to the
resources like in Old Towne to do you know whether it’s calling, post calls to give those
neighborhood associations that might not have any money access to the same resources that
they’re getting in Old Towne and other neighborhoods. So I applaud the work of Rob and
everybody’s that’s worked on this. It really, I think once you establish those models then you
deploy all throughout this city. Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Sherman, is this something that could be put
in the water bills to go out to people, the residents?
Mr. Sherman: It probably could be.
Mr. Jackson: I was just wondering the cost of something like that that we could I mean I
think that would be a good effective tool to give to and then some people don’t have our city
water. But, you know, this is good information. Thank you for putting it together.
23
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: I’d like to echo, thank you, Mr. Mayor, on what Joe, Commissioner
Jackson said. Fred, if you could find out what that would cost and get back to us on it. Because
I’d like to at least get this out as soon as possible because it can reach more people than it could
if my breakfast ---
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Johnson: --- or anything that we may have at one point in time. If you could check
into that and get back to us as soon as possible I really would appreciate that.
Mr. Russell: If we can, Mr. Mayor, if I may. If we can’t get the entire brochure in there
we could get with (unintelligible) and send them to the website or something. But we could get
something in there that will make them aware of what we’re doing. We could do that.
Mr. Johnson: I mean, I just think it’s very good information and it kind of helps,
especially those with the numbers on it. At least get that part in there and that’ll kind of help
give them some guidance.
Mr. Mayor: And the great part about it too is that Old Towne wants to help other
neighborhoods. You know they’ve got a great website but that’s to effectively address crime
we’ve got to all work together. All righty, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: I’ll check with Tom, Jerry, we can get the whole brochure in there so we’ll
do that.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank y’all. Can I get a motion to receive this as information?
Mr. Mason: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign of voting.
Mr. Russell: (inaudible)
Mr. Mayor: I feel your pain and I’m just glad it hasn’t hit me yet.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
24
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
21. Discuss the substitute motion made by Commissioner Jerry Brigham at the February
st
1 Commission meeting relative to the approval of the Personnel, Policy & Procedure
Manual and the Augusta Law Department’s modification of the motion. (Requested by
Commissioner Alvin Mason)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Of course we now know that manual’s already been
passed. But that was one of the reasons why I couldn’t vote for that motion that was made by
st
Mr. Brigham on February the 1 was not encompassed in that manual. Not the verbiage he used
th
it was not encompassed in that manual and like I said even prior up to the 15 what we kept
seeing was hiring and firing authority, final hiring and firing authority for the Administrator. It
was finally changed but there was two separate motions and I just want to read for the record the
st
motion that Mr. Brigham made on February 1. Actually it was a substitute motion and he said a
substitute motion to approve with the amendment to allow the Administrator to have the
exclusive right to nominate department heads and that the Commission have the right to either or
reject nominees presented by the Administrator. The motion or the verbiage that, I think it’s Ms.
Smitherman eluded to when I asked her about that question because I didn’t see his motion as
she referenced me to page eleven in that it was encompassed in there. Now she’s referencing
page 124 and this basically states, the verbiage here is that the Administrator shall have final
authority regarding all employment issues but for those pertaining to department directors or
employees who report directly to the Commission, including but not limited to hiring and firing
positions, classification, (unintelligible) organization. My question is this. Ms. Smitherman
made a statement that she went back to get some clarity on Mr. Brigham’s motion. A motion
that already had been disposed of and voted on by this Commission. And then that was added in
to this document without another vote after the motion that changed from his verbiage that he
st
used on February the 1. And from a parliamentary standpoint I need to understand if that’s a
standard operating procedure to do that type of action when a motion has already been disposed
of and then to go back to a Commissioner to try to figure out what his intent was and then add
that in yourself without bringing that back to the Commission for a vote prior to putting it into a
document.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’ll be happy to try to address that. And just to make sure we’re all
st
clear about some of the facts since February 1 I believe that the Policy and Procedures Manual
th
was updated. And isn’t that what was voted on February 15 or the first reading? Is that what
you’re referring to?
st
Mr. Mason: Well, I am referring to that as well but she said it was February 1. What
stth
I’m telling you what we saw on February 1, February 7 which was at Monday’s commission
th
meeting, committee meeting as well it was not placed in there on the February 7 document at
th
Administrative Services Committee meeting. And then the 15 it was there but it wasn’t this
25
motion it was the intent that she went back to figure out what his intent was and then she added
that in there.
Ms. Smitherman: If I may real quick.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
st
Ms. Smitherman: Thank you. Commissioner Brigham made his motion on February 1.
nd
On February 2 we contacted Commissioner Brigham because his motion was unclear. And it
simply said the Administrator had the authority to nominate and didn’t clarify whether that
nomination was for hiring and firing, both or one or the other. So we did call him to clarify what
that motion was. It’s our understanding as Parliamentary Procedure that the manual did not pass
as of that motion because the manual in its entirety was not properly before the Commission due
nd
to the substitute motion. So we did then as of February 2 change Page 11, which included
Commissioner Brigham’s motion as he clarified it in our telephone conversation. That Page 11
was placed in the February committee books and it has been before the Commission as of
rd
February 3. There was some confusion because Page 124 didn’t also exclude those employees.
And in order to make it crystal clear even though Page 11 would trump because it was more
specific we then also changed Page 124 to make it clear that those employees were separate
because they were not under the Administrator’s authority as it was described on Page 11. Page
nd
11 has not changed since February 2.
Mr. Mason: I still have the same question and that’s where the ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Mason, I’ll recognize you for a second time.
Mr. Mason: Yeah, well, I still want to be able to get the answer actually because I didn’t
hear him in terms of parliamentary procedure are you saying that at any given point now that we
can go back to a Commissioner to figure out what their intent is? I don’t care if it’s the next day
or ten days later and try to figure out what that is and then incorporate it into a document?
Mr. MacKenzie: I think maybe to make this clearer the document was I guess complete
st
on February 1 and that version of it. There was some discussion Commissioner Brigham made
a motion to amend part of that document. The document amendment, we weren’t clear on what
to put into the amendment. But the Commission had not already voted on the item. It was then
th
presented back to the Commission. On February 15 was the, I think was the next version the
Commission voted on it. That went through the committee cycle as well as went into the
Commission book. That included that change so and I believe you also had a redline version that
we distributed to the Commission as well that actually showed what the change was that was
made. So it wouldn’t violate any Parliamentary Procedure because it the change was introduced
in writing through the Commission. A complete total version including all the pages was gone
through the normal Commission (inaudible) process and it was also restarted in the sense that the
stth
first reading was not from February 1 it became February 15. That’s why we had the second
reading today.
26
Mr. Mason: So you’re saying you redlined it on Page 11. You didn’t reline on 124 I can
guarantee you that not the one I have. It certainly was not changed in there and that it was
presented to us had previous editions. That why we said from the first place there’s no dates on
any of this stuff, there’s no change numbers. Change number ten, change number nine, dated
th,st
February 9 dated February 1. Give me some dates give me some change numbers. It’s an
appropriate way to do business around here and that it appeared was not happening. That’s why
we had all the questions. We could’ve cleared all this up prior to but I mean people are getting
paid very well and of course the Commissioners take the responsibility but people are getting
paid very well to give us correct documents. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that it
should be dated it should be a change number it should be a version number. And you wonder
why we have all this confusion. In the future Mr. Mayor I would hope that we could get this part
of it right because it’s not difficult. It’s not difficult. We’re expected to do what we have to do
up here and that’s the reason why we have the questions. But I need to hold everybody else to
the same standard as well and do what needs to be done.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Mason. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I’m going to be brief. Mr. MacKenzie, you
being a Parliamentarian when minutes of a meeting are taken and I believe they are verbatim are
you violating any law if you go and deliberately change the comments that someone has made
without bringing it back to this body?
Mr. MacKenzie: Well if you were to change minutes which were the official records of
the Clerk of Commission that would certainly be improper. But in this case that’s not what
happened. We made no attempt to change any minutes, the minutes weren’t clear so we asked
the Commissioner what he meant ---
Mr. Lockett: Let’s put it this way were any adjustments made to the initial comments by
Commissioner Brigham at a later date? Was any adjustments made based on someone from your
office contacting him and saying that I don’t have enough information or something to that
affect. Were any changes made that were not approved by this body?
Mr. MacKenzie: The answer is no because whatever changes were made we presented --
-
Mr. Lockett: Wait a minute now I just asked you a question and you said no and then
you go on and say whatever changes were made. Is it changes were made or no changes were
made. And this is on the record, Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure and that’s one of the reasons I wanted to make sure I’m absolutely
clear ---
Mr. Lockett: Were any changes made to Mr. Brigham’s motion after the fact?
Mr. MacKenzie: We did not change his motion, no.
27
Mr. Lockett: Were any changes, were any words changed? What you have in the
minutes is that what Mr. Brigham said verbatim?
Mr. MacKenzie: Is your question did we copy verbatim the words that he made in the
motion into the document itself?
Mr. Lockett: Mr. MacKenzie, we’re playing games with each other and this is some
serious business because this is on the record. You as an Attorney know that ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner, we’re to treat the department heads and the Attorney
and the employees with dignity and respect. And please just ---
Mr. Lockett: Mr. MacKenzie ---
Mr. Mayor: --- please make it non-personal.
Mr. Lockett: --- with the utmost respect what you all did was it in accordance with the
law, yes or no?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, it was.
Mr. Mayor: Okay ---
Mr. Lockett: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: --- thank you. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I don’t understand why we’re having this discussion.
According to Mr. Mason we removed any items that I made a substitute motion on from the
th
agenda in the meeting of May the, I mean February the 15. That item was removed from the
agenda, it was deleted were not discussing that. We’re discussing items that belong to this
Commission and I think anybody can make recommendations to items that belong to this
Commission. I think we’ve had a general discussion of a lot of Commissioners up here
concerning this item. It’s no longer mine, it belongs to this Commission. And with that I’ll ask
that we move on with the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles.
st
Mr. Bowles: In the minutes from February 1 Mr. Brigham quotes: My biggest concern
is the hiring and firing process our senior executive corp. And I believe that I have a
compromise that the Administrator can live with. I believe that says hiring and firing. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Parliamentarian, Mr. Brigham called for the order of the day.
Could you and then I’ll recognize. Commissioner Hatney.
28
Mr. Hatney: And the reason why I’m going to ask this question is I was always under the
impression that minutes can only be changed at the beginning of the next meeting. There can be
any changes and adjustments it can be done at the beginning of the next meeting not in between
meetings. That’s why you’ve got your minutes mostly in your booklet and in most of the time
they’re the first thing there because you can call for a reading and do some updating or some
changes or corrections at the beginning of the meeting.
Mr. MacKenzie: If I could ---
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: --- clarify. We have made no attempt at any point in time to change any
of the record with regard to the minutes. If we did anything it was ask for clarification before we
put that into the HR Policies and Procedures Manual for the whole Commission to review again
and approve.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. MacKenzie, though once again Mr. Brigham has called for the
order of the day. I’ve not heard that one in quite some time. Could you from a parliamentary
procedure standpoint define that for us?
Mr. MacKenzie: I think that would mean to dispose of the item and proceed to the next
item.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Can I get a motion to receive as
information?
Mr. Johnson: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: All righty, Madam Clerk, let’s everybody take a deep breath and move on to
the next agenda item.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
29
22. Discuss immediate hiring freeze on all non-essential employee positions with
commission approval being required for the employment of essential personnel. (No
recommendation from Administrative Services Committee February 21, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: As this came with no recommendation, would it be appropriate to send it
back to the Administrative Services Committee?
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: --- when we send it back to personnel committee are we saying we’re
going to change the personnel manual we just approved?
Mr. Mayor: No, back to the Administrative Services.
Mr. Brigham: I’m asking what’s the purpose of sending it back if we just approved the
personnel manual or are we going to change that and now I assume this authority for ourselves?
Mr. Mayor: No, that’s just to discuss and so it has not come, it’s come with no
recommendation. So just to send it back to committee. We have a motion and a second.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Aitken, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Smith vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
st
23. Update from the Administrator regarding the request made at the January 21 Work
th
Session and the February 7 Administrative Services Committee for a cost
benefit/savings/analysis/matrix of the proposed reorganization. (Requested by
Commissioner Alvin Mason)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
30
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Mason had asked on several occasions
for an update on where we are with the reorganization and the draft project plan. As you know
it’s a fairly complicated document and we’re at about 200 or so pages now. And unfortunately it
begins to resemble the personnel manual, which I find somewhat scary in the length anyway.
What we’ve been able to do though is provide an excerpt at this particular point in time that it
speaks to some of the major questions that I think Commissioner Mason was asking. And that
was some of the issues regarding the process that we’ve used, the amount of savings that we
anticipate and the, and some of the issues regarding the Planning and Zoning. I believe you
asked specifically about that. And so what I’ve got to pass out today is a, an excerpt of that
project. It looks like we’re looking at about 1.2, three million at this particular point in time as
we look at the savings. As you all know that continues to go down as we as we do not
implement the plan at this particular point in time. Let me share with you though that as we look
at the continuing state of our budget and the continuing state of what’s going on around us we
are continually being notified of state cuts and federal cuts and other cuts that are continuing to
be very worse and worrisome as we look at this project. In addition to that we look at increased
costs that are going up that we never anticipated. The price of gas, the price of food and the
other commodities that we have to use to operate this government continue to rise almost
expeditiously. And that’s beginning to become very bothersome as we look at this whole
project. I fear what we’ve recommended up front is probably not going to be sufficient to get us
to where we are going to have to be at some point in time. As I say regularly this Commission is
facing lots and lots and lots of tough decisions and those decisions are not getting any easier as
we continue to move forward. I would be remiss if I didn’t warn you at this particular point in
time that I and the staff are concerned that the costs as they continue to rise if our revenue does
not increase and we had some good news yesterday. Our franchise fee from Georgia Power was
up a little bit but not enough to get all excited about it. We have some harder questions to look at
in the next couple months then what seems to have kept us talking in the last few. And this is a,
this is something that scares me simply because as a group you’re going to have to decide some
major issues. And those issues I’m going to need some direction on what shape this government
looks like in the future. It’s not going to look like it looks today if we’re going to survive. And
if we can’t find some consensus on what direction we’re going in we’re in for a very miserable
six to eight months and probably a couple years after that. This body needs to wrap itself around
some of those major issues and help the staff and give us some direction to move forward. This
document that I’m going to give you is fairly easy reading but the chart’s fairly complex. What
I’d like to do is give this to you and I think it will answer your questions, Mr. Mason. But what
we need to do is come back together again and talk specifically about this. It’s not something
that I think we can digest today but it’s a start if that’s okay sir.
Mr. Mayor: Does that work for you, Commissioner Mason?
Mr. Mason: Well, yeah I do want to have an opportunity to go over it in some detail. I
just want to just say this. I mean I’m very much concerned as you and the staff are concerned.
That’s the reason why I’ve been questioning this process for since the very beginning. And I
know I know you say we’re down to about 1.2 and I guess we’ll get into a little bit more
specifics on that a little bit later. But I will, yes, Mr. Mayor, I will take a close look and derive
the appropriate questions if any.
31
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir.
Mr. Russell: What I could do, Mr. Mayor, is probably I don’t want to put this off any
further if we possibly can. But sometime in the next 10 days we need to get together and talk
budget and reorg and we need some direction (inaudible). I’ve got recommendations and I have
lots of recommendations ---
Mr. Mayor: Next Monday?
Mr. Russell: --- but to move forward to an action plan ---
Mr. Mason: How about Monday, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I promise you I’m going to be on my best
behavior. This is for our Administrator. Mr. Russell looking at agenda item twenty-three we’re
talking about cost benefits, savings analysis and matrix. I would like to know why we are paying
$625,000 annually for a professional engineering consultant when we have an engineer on the
staff that has all those qualifications? And why don’t we let Mr. Ladson do his job, get rid of the
consultant at $625,000 a year. That would be a major cost savings. There are quite a few jobs
we could save if we did that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: I’m not, which consultant are you specifically, are you talking about Heery?
Mr. Lockett: I’m talking about the consultant that you have at the landfill that you are
using because you get federal funds because of EPA that says you have to have a professional
engineer.
Mr. Russell: Well, I don’t disagree that we could probably let Mr. Ladson do all that but
Mr. Ladson is, I mean we’ve got one person, it’s Mr. Ladson and you’ve got a range of
responsibilities and duties that go way beyond that. You know I think we’re probably at a point
now where we’re we probably got Mr. Ladson working as hard as he’s ever worked anyplace
before. And to you know, I mean there’s, there’s things we’ve got to do and you got to pay for
them and that’s just the bottom line. And you can’t have one person do, a lot of times we have
one person doing two or three jobs. And once you get passed that you’re efficiency goes away
very quickly.
Mr. Lockett: Well, this is then in line with your flattening of the government. You
couldn’t make it any flatter than that. I mean here we’re with a $625,000 dollar annually. We
could hire another five deputies to work with Director Ladson. You know I understand that all
these responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of Ms. Teresa Smith when she was the director.
What has changed so drastically since then? We don’t have the money to pay $625,000 for a
32
consultant just because he or she has the engineering expertise when we have somebody that’s
on the payroll with it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Commissioner Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that’s why it’s so vitally important to listen
to the recommendation of the Administrator to really look at some of these things. And
Commissioner Lockett as we look at things that we all see and we can identify that’s what we got
to start brainstorming on to take this government to the next level. So I look forward to this
opportunity as we go and start to looking at issues that we’ve got to tackle and make these tough
calls that people elected us to do in this city. You know it’s not going to be one or two or us.
It’s going to take everybody up here, it’s going to take everybody out there and it’s going to take
this community to come together to start bridging these kind of gaps to make this a winning city.
So I look forward to that and I think we’ve got the will on this Commission to do exactly what
we need to do. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Aitken. Can I get a motion to receive this as
information?
Mr. Bowles: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I’ve heard ---
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney ---
Mr. Hatney: I’m scared to talk loud anymore. I’ve heard what both of my colleagues
said and but at the end of the day I think a government gets stronger when it builds its work force
with qualified folk to the fact that you don’t have to give no one person no $625,000. That’s just
a lot of money and particularly when you might be able to hire one or two good engineers and
save $400,000. That’s all I got to say.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, sir. We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further
discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Hatney: What are we doing?
Mr. Mayor: To receive as information.
33
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, I believe the final agenda item.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
24. Consider a request from Tomberlin regarding an abatement of penalties regarding the
taxes owed for Asian Ventures, Inc., Tomberlin Automotive Group, Inc., PowerGroup
International, LLC, and Polaris America of Augusta, Inc. (No recommendation from
Finance Committee February 21, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: I thought Mr. Eskola was coming forward to make that presentation.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we rebate the penalties
for the last three years on this item. The same motion I made in the Finance Committee.
Well, I couldn’t make a motion in Finance Committee
.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Lockett: So moved, second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have somebody that would
like to speak to this issue? Yes, sir, Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I mentioned the other day when we were talking about different abatements
and different expense, returns or refunded or whatever about the individuals and discovered that
the constitutional authority can only do up to two fifty. And I really don’t believe that this local
body ought to be giving more money back then the state can. I just don’t think we ought to do
that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: I’ll make that statement of proof. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have somebody who would like to speak to this from
Tomberlin?
Mr. Brigham: They’re not here, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could state your name and address for the record please sir.
Mr. Speaker: I’m Earl Hensley, 3125 Washington Road Augusta Georgia. I’m speaking
for Mike Tomberlin. He’s not present right now. He’s still in China dealing with some business
over there. We have paid the entire amount including the penalties and interest. This has
nothing to do with the property tax people that did their job. We worked with them for the last
34
six or seven months trying to determine the proper amount of property taxes that were due.
During this time we determined that some of the product we make like LSV’s and scooters are
not to be taxed. And they worked with us and the biggest problem we had was we did not know
that there was a free port tax exemption, which would’ve eliminated the majority of this tax that
we were assessed. The particular companies we have like Fire Group International, 81% of its
product is sold outside the state and county. Tomberlin Automotive is 96% sold outside and
Asian Venture 96% is sold outside. And you know we went through this we met with the
thth
property tax people in January 12, 11 and they actually helped us fill out the free port tax
exemption for the year 2011. And like I’m saying the majority of this tax would’ve never been
due or paid if we’d had known about the free port. And we, but during the year to cover one
thing. We did hire an outside CPA to deal with the property taxes (inaudible) as much as
possible. So this was not a part on our part to not pay the taxes it’s just that we weren’t aware of
this exemption and we felt like the penalties are a bit too much.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: I just wanted to say to the young man. That has absolutely nothing to do
with your request. I was simply saying that I do not believe that the City of Augusta ought to
establish itself in a position where at it can turned back to folks more money than the state can.
That’s what I was trying to say. It don’t make no difference who it is.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. And Mr. Brigham could you repeat
your motion for clarity?
Mr. Brigham: We rebate the last three years of penalties. That was 2009, ’08 and ’07.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Mason, Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, I believe that disposes of our final agenda item.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And gentlemen one of the things that our Code of Conduct is we vote on
things, we respect the will of the body and move on. Let’s do that. We’ve got big picture issues
to address. Thank y’all for a good meeting. If there’s no more business to come before the body
we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
35
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 the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
March 1, 2011.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
36