HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting February 16, 2016
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., February 16, 2016, the
Hon. Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Sias, Frantom, M. Williams, Smith, Fennoy, D.
Williams, Hasan and Davis, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: All right, I think we’ve got everything in order. We call this meeting to order.
The Chair recognizes Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, at this time we’ll have our invocation delivered by the Reverend
Melvin Ivey, Senior Pastor of the St. John Baptist Church, after which we’ll have our Pledge of
Allegiance. Please stand. Reverend Ivey.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll address the additions first. I want to make sure we get them ---
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: --- first. Madam Clerk ---
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: --- I also have a fourth one here or actually a third one.
The Clerk: I call your attention to our addendum agenda. First item is correction to the
agenda to approve the COLA increases for the Richmond County 1945 and 1949 pension plans in
the amount of .5% effective March 1, 2016. Additional information, Mr. Sherman, could you have
Mr. Brown?
Mr. Sherman: On item number 7, I want to add a note or Planning and Development wants
to add a note to the caption and I will read the entire caption or the agenda item. It’s a motion to
approve New Application a request by Michael A. Brown for an on-premise consumption Liquor,
Beer & Wine License and a retail package Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with
Arsenal Holdings, LLC doing business as Arsenal Restaurant & Tap Room located at 1419 Monte
Santo Avenue, District 3. Super District 10. And the note that we would like to add is that the
Alcohol License and Business License will not be issued prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy/Letter of Completion for the building renovations that include a full service kitchen
and inside seating for a minimum of 40 people. And then Mr. Brown wanted to make a statement
about his hours of operation.
Mr. Brown: I’d like to also add that although the alcohol ordinance allows for us to be
open with an alcohol license until about 2:30 for most days 2:30 a.m. we don’t intend to be open
1
past midnight. And our days of operation should be Tuesday through Saturday and we have not
applied for a Sunday alcohol license and we don’t intend to be open on Mondays either excepting
Master’s week.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
The Clerk: Our deletion portion of the agenda to delete item 17, delete item number 21.
And with an addition of item number one. It is the consensus of the Commissioners in Super
District 10 to reappoint Charles Smith the Board of Tax Assessors as Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk: And we have one addition to present a Proclamation, Arbor Day Proclamation
and recognize Mr. Gary Hager.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right, I’m going to come back to you on that one Madam Clerk. At
this time is there any objections to adding the items the correction and the deletions? Are there
th
any objections? All right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, it may not be an objection. Item 15 I think is
the same item is the agenda item is that right?
The Clerk: Number 15?
Mr. M. Williams: Is that the COLA increase that we talked about for the 45?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. M. Williams: So is that ---
The Clerk: It’s a half a percent. We had the decimal in the wrong place. It’s a half a
percent, yes, sir COLA increase per the Pension Plan.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay so the addendum is just correcting ---
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: --- the percentage but number it still should stay on the agenda because
I’ve got some questions I’d like to ask about that and I’m just trying to get some clarity.
The Clerk: Okay, yes, sir, we just revising the percentage amount ---
Mr. M. Williams: Okay.
2
The Clerk: --- to reflect the correct percentage amount.
Mr. M. Williams: And the other objection, Mr. Mayor, I don’t, I don’t agree with ---
Mr. Mayor: So let’s do this, let’s do this all right? We’re going to give you an opportunity
to debate them. Right now what we’re doing is one ratifying the correction, the additions and the
deletions. Is there any objection to the four of them?
Mr. M. Williams: Yes, sir, again ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay but you just said, all right, let’s hold on. You don’t have an objection
what you said is you want to discuss that and you’ll have an opportunity to discuss that during the
time that we address the issues on the consent item on the consent agenda.
Mr. M. Williams: What my question was I don’t know about anybody else’s but my
question was to get some clarity because the addendum item was the same as the item number 15
so if they are the same I’ve got no problem. But I did have an objection and I was getting that one
first, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Right and I understand so Madam Clerk ---
Mr. M. Williams: (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: --- hold on a minute. Madam Clerk clarified, Commissioner, that it is the
identical item. The correction is with regards to the percentage ---
Mr. M. Williams: I understand that.
Mr. Mayor: --- the COLA increase.
Mr. M. Williams: We’re good.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’re good on that one.
Mr. M. Williams: I still have an objection.
Mr. Mayor: All right, very good, state your objection.
Mr. M. Williams: My objection is to the addition to add to this agenda item 1, when you
have an objection you don’t have unanimous consent to add that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, we’ve got an objection to the addition of the following item.
All right we’re just simply going to vote it up or down. All right I’m going to recognize the Mayor
Pro Tem, I’m assuming you want to speak to this matter.
Mr. G. Smith: What he’s wanting to delete my addition on number one, is that correct?
3
Mr. Mayor: He has an objection to adding that to the agenda.
Mr. G. Smith: Marion ---
Mr. Mayor: What we were pursuing is unanimous consent for all of these items. He has
objection so we don’t have unanimous consent.
Mr. G. Smith: --- okay well I want to make it clear with Marion no games going on here.
Mr. Charles Smith is well qualified and no relation to me but you know as rich as he is I might call
him Uncle Charles I don’t know. But I want to see a person that we put on these boards that has
a reputation this man has, the respect for the other people on the boards and people who take it
serious to attend the meeting. How many boards do you look at and you know they would love to
be on there in name but you say when was your last meeting, I was there six months ago. I’m not
into all that and let’s put people on these boards that look out for Richmond County and do the
right thing, that’s the main thing.
Mr. Mayor: Okay so here’s what we’re going to do, this is our posture. Do we have, I’m
going to take them line by line.
Mr. Hasan: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Just hold on a minute, Commissioner, just hold on we’re going to take them
line by line. Is there an objection to the correction to the agenda item number 15? Without
objection. Item 7 additional information to receive it is there an objection? Without objection.
Deleting item 17 is there objection? Without objection. Item 21 request by Commissioner
Williams to delete from the agenda is there objection. Without objection. All right, Madam Clerk,
that’s and this final item here we will be voting on that here in just a moment. There’s objection
to number one and if it fails and doesn’t get support for it to be added to the agenda it goes away.
ADDENDUM
22. “It is the consensus of the commissioners in Super District 10 to reappoint Charles Smith
to the Board of Tax Assessors as Chairman.”
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, the rules don’t say that you have to vote to get approval or
not. The rules say that if you’ve got an objection it cannot be added to the, just one Commissioner,
it don’t have to take six. So those are the rules; I’m not making them up. The Parliamentarian
here he ought to be able to explain that to you that’s why it came through the Clerk’s office to here
and if you don’t have unanimous consent you cannot add it.
Mr. Mayor: Well ---
Mr. M. Williams: Is that right or not? Now I mean if it ain’t right then we’re making up
some rules as we go.
4
Mr. Mayor: --- well I think that we can expand on it. If the Chair of a said committee adds
an item to the agenda they can do that without unanimous consent. If the Mayor places an item
on the agenda the Mayor can add it to the agenda neither which I did but again I think that’s been
consistent that if you want something added to the agenda past the timeline you can call the
committee chairman and they can add it to the agenda.
Mr. M. Williams: Without unanimous consent, Mr. Mayor, are you telling me I can call
the chairman and get it added so I don’t need to bother about even bringing it to the Clerk’s office
(unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Here’s what I’m telling you. There’s an objection that’s been raised. There’s
been an objection raised to the addition of that item, all right? If there was an objection to any of
these items, you could’ve objected to item number 15 and that has been our practice here. I didn’t
make these rules up they were here before I got here.
Mr. M. Williams: And that’s why we’re going to go by them.
Mr. Mayor: You vote on them and you voted on these items and as you voted on them you
decided to add them to the agenda. Now what I’m going to say is that you’re going to vote on this
whether you want to add it to the agenda you can do it or not. And as I understand it six votes is
all it takes to add it to the agenda.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I hear from the Parliamentarian? Can I hear from the
legal counsel that we pay a great salary to give us information can I hear what he has to say before
you take a vote?
Mr. Mayor: You can but I’d rather us just move and dispose of it we’ve got a lot of business
before us today. All right item number one either add to the agenda or not.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, point of personal privilege?
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6 you had your hand up.
Mr. Hasan: Yes sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say for the record the issue that we’re now
adding to the agenda item number one was the consensus of the commissioners in Super District
10. Actually this is not a Super District whether it’s 9 or 10 appointment. This is a consensus
appointment so to say it’s not a district appointment it’s a consensus appointment so six votes from
anyone on this body can make that appointment, I just want to say that for the record.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the Clerk read the caption. It is the consensus of the commissioners of
Super District 10 to reappoint. What I’m hearing is that’s not the case. Is that what I just heard?
Mr. Hasan: Exactly, Mr. Mayor, that is a consensus appointment of the body and not a
Super District.
5
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right then that item’s not added to the agenda. That’s what I just
heard. It was not consented today of the commissioners in the Super District, that’s what I just
heard. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Attorney.
Mr. MacKenzie: The first thing is whether or not this item can be added and what approvals
would be required. There’s actually three different rules applicable to this particular issue. You
know we’ve looked at this before this is also one of the matters being discussed by the Rules
Subcommittee and there’s some language that could be revised to make this clearer. When you
look at agenda item Rule No. 1.07 that addresses the agenda there’s a statement in here that says
you can add an item after the 5:00 p.m. deadline with the consent of the Chairman. However,
there’s another rule which is actually a code amendment that’s not part of the rules that’s Section
1-2-3 that indicates that any item must be added to the agenda by 9:00 a.m. on the Thursday
preceding the Tuesday meeting. And if it’s not on there, it would require unanimous consent of
the members of the Commission to approve such item and add it to the agenda. Then you have
rule 1.1.08 which relates to the consent agenda which clearly would require unanimous consent to
add an item to the consent agenda. So given all that information there is some room for
improvement with respect to these rules. There’s been some inconsistency with the way that’s
been handled in the past. My recommendation would be for the body to make a decision how they
want these rules to read and we can make it clearer.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a point of personal --
Mr. Mayor: All right, I’m assuming you’re raising your hand for a point of personal
privilege.
Mr. Hasan: Yes, I am, sir. I appreciate Attorney MacKenzie making a point of those three
different examples but in terms of when he came to a consent agenda it was very definitive; there
was no leeway in that the consent agenda took unanimous consent. And so are we discussing
adding to the agenda or the consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor: The regular agenda.
Mr. Hasan: But we also had discussed this issue before as well that we it was going to take
unanimous consent so we’ve been down that road in discussing it either way, Mr. Mayor, we’ve
had this conversation.
Mr. Mayor: And to the degree that we’ve had this conversation I thought a very democratic
way of handling it was if you want it on the agenda you voted it up or down it’s as simple as that
and if you want to add it that’ll move beyond the place of debate. All right all those in favor of
adding this to the agenda can vote yea and those opposed will vote no.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, point of personal privilege.
Mr. Mayor: Voting. All right, have we voted?
Mr. Lockett: No.
6
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got two folks not voting?
The Clerk: Yes, they haven’t voted yet.
Mr. Mayor: Is that an abstention?
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4 state your
inquiry.
Mr. Sias: It is clear in our code, extremely clear, that to add an item to the agenda at this
time require unanimous consent. It has not been an issue voting it up or down. It is clear in our
code not in our rules in our code that requires unanimous consent. I was the one who read the
earlier outdated rules about a Chairman of a Committee or the Board adding an item but in our
codified code accepted in 2007 it says unanimous consent. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s close it. They’re not voting.
The Clerk: Do you want to publish the vote?
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to go ahead and publish the vote. Fails.
Mr. Fennoy, Mr. D. Williams, Mr. Hasan vote No.
Ms. Davis, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Frantom and Mr. Guilfoyle vote Yes.
Mr. Sias and Commissioner M. Williams not voting.
Motion Fails 5-3.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Madam Clerk, I want to go to ---
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: --- hold on a minute, just hold on a minute, I’m going to get to you. I want to
go to the third item that was on the list and that was the Arbor Day recognition we’ve got some
folks who are waiting. And what I handed you on that last page and then the proclamation’s there
the last page.
ADDENDUM
23. Proclamation for the recognition of Arbor Day.
The Clerk: At this time we’d like to acknowledge Mr. Gary Hegner along with the Deputy
Director of Parks and Rec. Will you please join the Mayor here at the podium? Mr. Parker, do
you want to come up? Mr. Mayor, are you coming down? In recognition of Arbor Day as the
Mayor makes his way down whereas in 1872 Jay Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board
of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees. This holiday called Arbor
Day was the first observed with the planting of more than one million trees in Nebraska. And
whereas trees provide many basics of life including wood for our homes, fuel for our vehicles,
7
clean air, oxygen and shade, the reduction of soil erosion and the conservation of energy. And
whereas trees are a renewable resource providing us with fuel for fire, mulch for landscaping,
electricity, paper and other lumber and wood products. And whereas our urban forests assist in
filtering water, providing wildlife habitats and offering esthetics which enhance the health and
happiness of all Augustans. And whereas our community’s green space is an integral component
of future development in trees are truly a staple of our community valued by all. And whereas the
trees in Augusta increase property values and enhance the economic viability of business areas
and beautify of our community. Trees wherever they are planted are a source of joy and spiritual
renewal. Now therefore I, Hardie Davis, Jr., the Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim
th
February 19 2016 as Arbor Day in Augusta, Georgia and urge all citizens to recognize the value
of trees to our community and plant a tree for future generations in this recognition to carry are
community forward. In witness hereof I have unto set my hand and cause the Seal of Augusta,
th
Georgia to be affixed this 16 Day of February 2016. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman?
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 5 ---
Mr. Lockett: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: --- state your inquiry.
Mr. Lockett: Could I have a moment of personal privilege, please, sir?
Mr. Mayor: You do.
Mr. Lockett: Madam Administrator, we have a new Library Director that’s out in the
audience. Would you mind introducing her to this body please?
Ms. Jackson: I’m sorry, I didn’t realize a new director had been selected so I’m going to
have to ask you to do that.
Mr. Lockett: I’m a member of the Library Board and in yesterday’s meeting we
unanimously selected a new Library Director. She’s been filling in as the Interim Director for
several months now, she’s doing an outstanding job. Also on yesterday we voted to reopen the
library on Sunday commencing May 1. So now, Madam Administrator, she’s sitting back there
would you please introduce her? Would you stand up young lady?
Mr. Mayor: Would you for the record Commissioner state who she is? Commissioner,
could you tell us who she is?
Mr. Lockett: Ms. Mashell Fashion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Lockett: Thank you.
8
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk: Delegations?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
A. Mr. Henry Bryant regarding a request to waive the rental fee for the Augusta Common
for Recovery & Transformation Celebration.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bryant, if you would as you approach if you’ll state for the record at the
podium your name and your address.
Mr. Bryant: My name is Henry Bryant, my address is 2124 Pepper Ridge Drive, Augusta,
GA. I’m a CARES. What that means is a Certified Addiction Repower and Recovery Specialist,
that’s what that means. I was asking to get the fees waived for the Augusta Commons to host a
celebration for the entire community and surrounding counties including Atlanta, Savannah and
Columbia. Last year I did this out at Lock and Dam. There were about 600 participants that
attended. The Governor had intended to come but he was unable to show up. There was some
speakers from here that was out there and we’re doing it again at the Augusta Commons this year.
Unfortunately, my job is not sponsoring this, they do not believe in recovery like I do. I am
personally in a long term recovery for 21 years, I have not had found it necessary to drink, drugs
or smoke a cigarette and I’m eternally grateful for that. But I’m asking requesting that you guys
at least look at allowing me to use the Augusta Commons. It’s not only going to benefit what
we’re doing, it’s going to benefit Augusta because when an individual recovers people recover.
When people recover communities recover and Augusta’s in need of a lot of recovery right now
with all the stuff that’s going on with the young people. I’m a peer/mentor and I’m needing support
so I’m asking if you would that you waive these fees because there’s a lot of other fees associated
with the Augusta Commons that I’m actually in the process of putting together. It’s just a lot so
I’m needing some help.
st
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1 to speak to the matter.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Bryant, what are some of the organizations that are participating in this
that participated in the program last year?
Mr. Bryant: The Hope House for Women, Battered Women’s Shelter, American Work
Substance and Mental Health Facility, Serenity, Georgia Regional, University of , Georgia Regents
University, University Hospital. There were just a host of people from different agencies. Lamont
Medical Center we had people I had two colleges from Atlanta, Grady Hospital. We had speakers
that came from Savannah, the CSU’s most of the CSU’s, Crisis Stabilization Units, Drug and
Alcohol Units and Commissioners. And we had preachers and we had the Mayor there as a speaker
last year. Thank you.
9
Mr. Mayor: Continue.
Mr. Fennoy: I’d just like to make a motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, I know that this has been a issue that’s been coming up last
year and we somewhat took a notion to address this. And I’d like to hear from Mr. Parker in
regards because when you go to waive the rental fee but you’ve still got police protection, fire,
cleanup and et cetera I was hoping that the Parks and REC Department had a plan in place.
Mr. Parker: We don’t but we are working on as well as Ms. Jackson asked me to do early
on and we’re very close to that. We don’t for this event though. What you’re looking at is a rental
fee at the Common of $500, a cleanup fee of $400. As I understand it in the past when this body
has waived fees, that’s the amount you waived. The additional fees, security, the Fire Marshal
those kinds of things those come to around $60.00 an hour and that’s just depending on the length
of his event.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, may I?
Mr. Mayor: Continue.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Bryant, what is your intent on what fee would you like to be waived
and how many hours are you talking about this?
Mr. Bryant: We’re talking about from 9:00 to about 2:00 a.m. we’re going to be out by
3:00. I’ve also spoken to Lt. Compton he’s actually talking to some of the officers that’s why he
has not gotten back with me about at least donating an hour because they’re going to be there for
a total of six hours. However, I do have and I told him and he was good for that that he’s only
going to put two officers out there because the fraternity the organization I’m a part of, the Masonic
Order 667 are going to have certified people from the security companies that’s going to be there
also. We also have people that are willing to clean up, people from churches people from local
groups who are willing to clean up and help with all of that stuff. And as far as the pay for the
Fire Department and the Marshals I’ve gotten half of that money already.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So what fee are you asking us to waive, sir?
Mr. Bryant: The Augusta Commons fee and the cleanup fee the five and the four.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
Mr. Bryant: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
10
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, I second Commissioner Lockett, Commissioner Fennoy’s motion
if that’s what it was.
Mr. Mayor: Okay all right we’ve got a motion and a second. The Chair recognizes the
th
Commissioner from the 5.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bryant, what day are you talking about?
th
Mr. Bryant: March the 12.
th
Mr. Lockett: March the 12?
Mr. Bryant: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bryant: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bryant: Thank you.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Parker, do we have anything scheduled for that day and other events
scheduled at that time?
Mr. Parker: When Mr. Bryant came and spoke to me initially we held it, we held the
Common for him until the decision was made.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion and a second. Now before Commissioner
Guilfoyle you asked a series of questions about what was being asked to be waived. I want to
make sure the motion reflects the appropriate ---
The Clerk: Cleanup fees.
Mr. Hasan: The user fees and the cleanup fees.
Mr. Mayor: All right, could you restate that Commissioner Hasan?
Mr. Hasan: I think the motion would be user fees and cleanup fees.
The Clerk: The rental usage and cleanup fees in the amount of $900.00 dollars.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Sias: I have no problem with supporting this motion but one thing I want to say is that
we definitely need someone down there to ensure that the cleanup is done and if it’s not done then
11
we’re back to the fee thing. And as soon as possible we need to get that package or procedure to
us so that when we are waiving these fees that we’re doing the same for any events or organizations
that come before us so it’s not a slope event or slope process. So in short we need to make sure
that that cleanup is done because if we waive it and it’s not clean we still do it.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bryant spoke about from 9:00 a.m., 9:00 p.m.
to 2:00 a.m. Two p.m., okay.
Mr. Parker: It’s 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. is the length of his festival.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, all right thank you.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion to waive rental and usage fees on March 12
from a time period of 9:00 to 3:00 p.m. All right all those in favor will vote yea and those opposed
will vote no.
Ms. Davis out.
Motion Passes 9-0.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
B. Mr. Robert Durham regarding Storm Water Fee.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Durham, if you’ll state for the record your name and your address.
Mr. Durham: My name is Robert Durham, it’s spelled D-u-r-h-a-m. I live at 1705 Fairwood
Court, Augusta, Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: You have three minutes.
Mr. Durham: Was that three or five?
Mr. Mayor: Five minutes.
Mr. Durham: Okay. This is on the Storm Water Fee. I’d like to know has the Storm Water
Fee been established as a legitimate fee or tax? I’ve called various Commissioners and received
different answers on whether to pay the fee or not. The City Administrator’s office told me the
penalties, late fees will be sent to a collection agency and it could ruin your credit if you don’t pay.
The Utilities Department said a 10% late fee will be added if not paid and I want to know I saw
Marion Williams on TV on WJBF Channel 6 approximately mid-January encouraging people I
believe he stated that he was against that fee and that he wasn’t going to pay it and it’s a sign of
protest and encouraged other people not to pay it. And so he’s a duly sworn officer of this
Commission. I don’t agree with the storm tax but whether you agree or disagree if I’ve got to pay
12
the bill I’ve got to pay the bill. But Commissioner Williams is an officer of this Commission like
it or not the drain tax was put in he goes on TV it seems like it’s a conflict of interest to tell the
Richmond County public across the CSRA encourage them not to pay the bill. Do I pay it or don’t
I, is it a fee or is it a tax, I’m just trying to find out what’s going on. Who’s going to answer to the
public? This could be ill advised information that was put on the airwaves. who’s going to answer
the public residents when they incur these penalties, financial damages? I’ve called the Mayor’s
office. I was told he would call me. I tried to call Commissioner Williams and all I get was no
way to communicate you couldn’t leave a numeric message or voice message. I called five or ten
times. I tried to call him first, never could get him that’s what set all of this off. But Augusta’s
been around I believe 200 years and where’s the money been coming from in the past for this drain
system? We’ve got property tax, excise, the SPLOST Fund, the General Fund. This is a 15% tax
increase for someone like me using minimal water rates of 3,000 gallons or less. Last month I
only used 1,000 gallons but received my highest bill ever. It went from $42.59 to $48.99. That
combined with every spring and summer they go up 3% with the water rate if you add that now it
becomes 18%. Since they increased and I understand the Richmond County Commission put this
policy in motion that the water rate has to go up 3% a year I feel like circumstances have changed
the so called water storage and the South Augusta problem has been resolved. The drought is over.
The Corp of Engineers has been releasing water at a record rate for a record length of time. The
city isn’t located two or three miles from a river like out west. We have an abundance of water
and the way rates are going up it’s only a matter of time before I feel like the water and sewage
rate, now this drain tax it’s going to be catching up with the property tax. I used to fear and worry
about my property tax going up. I believe it’s up to approximately 50% of what your total property
tax is. When Augusta Richmond County was consolidated it was because of failed attempts of
annexation. The residents of Richmond County were told we would have reduced water rates like
the city had but this has not been the case. Water rates have continuously gone up. The
consolidation of Augusta Richmond County has been a failure in my opinion and it looks like to
me it’s just too easy for Commissioners to take the convenient way out and the answer and
resolution always seems to be raise taxes. Why don’t we do some research and find a way to
reduce taxes for a change let’s use and put to work some creative and enterprising ideas. The only
thing consolidation has done ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Durham, your time has expired.
Mr. Durham: Thank you for letting me speak I got through maybe half of what I wanted
had to say. I think I had some very valid points but at the request of the five minutes we’ll hold it
to that. Thank you for letting me speak.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right. The Chair recognizes Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Durham, I did go on TV and I still stand
behind what I said. I didn’t tell you not to pay; I said I wasn’t going to pay. I don’t agree with it.
I supported it when I saw there was no mechanism put in place to force you to pay. It’s not a tax,
it’s a fee and I totally disagree with it. I think that it’s something that needs to be worked on and
maybe tweaked or worked out but I did not tell you to do anything. I said what I was going to do
and I still hold to that. I just think that a lot of things could have been done we needed something
to alleviate some of the problems we do have in Augusta and it all starts with money. And I agree
13
about the other taxes I guess you call it that we pay Homestead Exemption and other taxes but I
did not advise you to do anything. But I said to the general public that I was not going to pay and
I went by and saw somebody in Tom’s office and I told him that I wanted to pay my water bill but
I was not paying the Storm Water Fee so that’s a decision you have to make. You did read that
they can send you a request letter or have an agency to contact you I guess about what they owe
and it probably will go on your credit I guess if the Administrator’s office told you that.
Mr. Durham: 10% the Utilities told me 10% if you don’t pay it will go up by 10%.
Mr. M. Williams: Well, then you have to do like I do you have to face that music too when
you get to it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Durham, I also want to acknowledge you being able to come before your
th
governing body today. You contacted my office on February the 8 at which point in time my
staff worked with you in trying to answer your questions.
Mr. Durham: I did.
Mr. Mayor: And you were very agitated ---
Mr. Durham: I was.
Mr. Mayor: --- you were dissatisfied with the responses that they gave you ---
Mr. Durham: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: --- but to suggest that you didn’t get an answer or responses is factually
incorrect. They worked with you and made every effort to try to bring clarity and resolution to
your concerns. Again I do appreciate you coming forward today. Thank you.
Mr. Durham: Thank you very much.
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: I’m fine, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you, sir.
The Clerk: I call your attention to the consent portion of our agenda which consists of
items 1-15, items 1-15. For the benefit of any objectors to our Planning petitions once those
petitions are read would you please signify your objections by raising your hand. I call your
attention to:
Item 1: Is a request to expand an existing Family Care Home on property located at 2807
King Street.
14
Item 2: Is a request for a change of zoning from a Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to
a Zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property known as 303 Sims Avenue.
Item 3: Is a request to establish a Group Personal Care Home a Special Exception.
Item 4: Is a request for a change of zoning from a Zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residential)
and a Zone B-2 (General Business) to a Zone B-2 affecting property known as 723 E. Robinson
Avenue with conditions.
Item 5: Is a request for a change of zoning with conditions changing from a Zone A
(Agriculture) to a Zone R-1D (One-family Residential) affecting property known as 2111 Powell
Road.
Item 6: A request for a change of zoning with conditions from a Zone R-3A (Multiple-
family Residential) and a Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to a Zone R-1D (One-family
Residential) affecting property at 719 E. Robinson Avenue.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to any of those Planning petitions? I call your attention
to the Public Services portion of our agenda. If there are any objectors to any of the alcohol
petitions, would you please signify your objections once the petition is read. I call your attention
to:
Item 7: Is a request for an on-premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license and a
retail package Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with Arsenal Holdings located at
1419 Monte Sano Avenue.
Item 8: Is a request for an on-premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be
used in connection with Chong’s Lounge located at 3243 Deans Bridge Road.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions? Our consent agenda consists
of items 1-5 with no objectors to our Planning or Alcohol petitions.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 5.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, agenda item number 10 for
clarification purposes I placed this on the committee cycle. And I spoke with the person who made
the motion, Commissioner Fennoy, and the intent of that agenda item is Brigham Gymnasium
would be number one on this and the others would go in more or less whatever order that the Parks
Director chooses. And so I move that agenda item number 10 be approved with the
recommendation I just made.
Mr. Speaker: (inaudible) pulling it?
Mr. Hasan: Second it?
Mr. Lockett: No, I’m not pulling it I’m just making a motion that it be approved.
Mr. Fennoy: I second that motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Lockett: I made a motion it be approved.
15
Mr. Mayor: It’s already on the consent agenda.
Mr. Lockett: No, I just wanted that clarification that’s all I wanted just clarification.
Mr. Mayor: So it’s not an action needed the commissioner --
Mr. Lockett: It’s just so you understand Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely I do Public Services Chair, Public Safety Chair, I mean just
providing clarity he’s not adding or pulling it. All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner
th
from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t know if I need to pull item 15 or just I did get
clarification on the percentage.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we just pull it?
Mr. M. Williams: Okay, let me pull item 15 then.
Mr. Mayor: Okay anything else, Commissioner Williams? Okay the Chair recognizes the
th
Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, sir. I just wanted to make a clarification on item number 7. If you
would sir I’d like to ask the Clerk a question. Are we going to definitely have all the additional
information to go with number 7 included in here?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, it will be a part of the record.
Mr. Sias: Okay, thank you. I’m good, thank you.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number 11 and item number 13.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number 12 please.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other motions to add or pull from the consent agenda?
Ms. Davis: Motion to approve.
Mr. Sias: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
16
1. Z-15-06-SP – A request by the Augusta Planning and Development Department on behalf
of Denise McKie to expand an existing Family Personal Care Home after construction of an
addition as required by the Augusta Commission on March 17, 2015 for property located at
2807 King Street – Tax Map 097-4-238-00-0. DISTRICT 2
2. Z-16-03 – A request from concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission
to approve with the conditions listed below a petition by Avis Brown, on behalf of Melvin
Coleman, requesting a change of zoning from R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-3A
(Multiple-family Residential) affecting property containing .59 acres and known as 303 Sims
Avenue. Tax Map 087-3-046-00-0 – DISTRICT 2. 1. Limit uses on the property to a Group
Personal Care Home or those uses permitted in the R-1A (One-Family Residential) zone.
3. Z-16-04 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to
approve with the conditions listed below a petition by Avis Brown, on behalf of Melvin
Coleman, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Group Personal Care Home, per
Section 16-2 (d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County a
1. A private room shall be dedicated to the caregiver in a heated area of the residence. This
shall not include areas of the living room, dining room, bathroom or kitchen. 2. No more
than seven (7) clients are permitted to reside in the home based on the spacing requirements
in Section 28-F-3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 3. Residents living in the dwelling
must do so with the intent of living there on a permanent basis. 4. Staff shall review the
criminal activity statistics in one year.
4. Z-16-07 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to
approve with the conditions listed below a petition by James B. Trotter, on behalf of MCK
& D, LLC requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residential) and
Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 affecting property containing 14.50 acres and is
known as 723 E. Robinson Avenue. Tax Map 078-0-004-00-0 – DISTRICT 3 1. No multiple-
family residential development shall occur on this property. 2. Parking lot and security
lighting must be directed away from any existing residential properties to the northwest of
the subject property and any proposed residential properties located to the northeast of the
subject property. 3. Ensure that the property complies with all aspects of the Tree
Ordinance, especially the buffering requirements against existing or proposed residential
development. 4. Site plan must comply with any other ordinances and regulations in effect
at the time of construction. 5. Any new curb-cuts along E. Robinson Avenue are subject to
approval from the Georgia Department of Transportation and Augusta Engineering,
including the requirement for acceleration and deceleration lanes if required. 6. Per
agreement with the developer, all new streets of proposed development must be public and
built to standards of the Augusta Engineering Department for subgrade, base and paving,
riding surface width, use of curb and gutter and right-of-way width. 7. Per agreement with
the developer, sidewalks shall be constructed on at least one side of each new street to
promote walkability. 8. Buffer yards, as required by the Augusta Tree Ordinance, must be
provided. 9. The developer will install 25’ to 40’ cobra head lights every 125 to 150 linear
feet, staggered on either side of any proposed street. Lighting must be installed as each phase
of the development is constructed. Other lighting schemes may be approved by the Director
of Planning and Development on a case by case basis. 10. The developer shall consider
placement of one Electric Vehicle Charging Station in front of the largest retailer. 11. Water
and sewer must be extended from its present location to this site at the expense of the
developer.
17
PUBLIC SERVICES
7. Motion to approve New Application: A.N.16-8: request by Michael A. Brown for an on-
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License, and a retail package Beer & Wine
License to be used in connection with Arsenal Holdings, LLC d/b/a Arsenal Restaurant &
Tap Room located at 1419 Monte Sano Ave. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 9, 2016)
8. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 16-9: a request by Suzann M.
Mischel for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in
connection with Chong’s Lounge located at 3243 Deans Bridge Road Ste B. There will be
Dane. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 9,
2016)
9. Motion to approve accepting the Change Order #4 McCarthy Improvement Company as
approved by the Augusta Aviation Commission on January 28, 2016. (Approved by Pubic
Services Committee February 9, 2016)
10. Motion to approve tasking the Director of Recreation, Parks and Facilities Department
to review all options for installing a transfer switch at all the Recreation Department centers.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 9, 2016)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
14. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held February
2, 2016 and Special Called Meeting held February 9, 2016)
Mr. Mayor: All right. Voting.
Motion Passes 10-0. [Items 1-10, 14]
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
12. Motion to approve One-Year Extension of private probation services agreement with
Sentinel Offender Services, LLC. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 9, 2016)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8 the Finance Chairman.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, Judge Slaby I spoke with him today, him and the Public Safety
Chairman had spoke. I believe his discussion is going to give clarification what the body’s action
to proceed with this the reason behind it.
Mr. Mayor: All right the Chair recognizes Judge Slaby.
Judge Slaby: Thank you. The early part of 2015 I met with my fellow judges and each
year we discuss probation matters and this year we last year discussed the possibility of
approaching y’all with the idea of creating a county probation system. And as a result of that in
May the beginning of June I had a discussion with Ms. Jackson and she recommended that perhaps
the Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, Mr. Lockett, and the Chairman of the Finance
18
Committee, Mr. Guilfoyle, myself, Donna Williams the Finance Director, the Administrator all
meet to discuss the matter which we did. I proposed this to them that I felt that if we did have a
county system that we would have absolute total control over the probation system. It would allow
us an opportunity to oversee properly community service work, give us an opportunity to quickly
respond to procedural changes that might need to take place. We’d have an open door policy
concerning monitory matters and also have control over any personnel problems which we might
have. These are things to a larger degree we haven’t had the ability with with a private service.
Because of that we have met on a number of occasions, the group of us, to review the feasibility.
I obtained information from Athens Clarke County who created their probation system in 2008.
Judge Simpson up there was very cooperative with me, introduced me to their Chief Probation
Officer Mr. Dale Allen. He has been extremely cooperative with us giving us information not only
fiscal information but also problems that they’ve had and hopefully we will avoid when they
created their probation system. The idea behind this whole thing is that there be a cooperative
effort between the court system although this would remain part of the judiciary but include the
Commission. And Clarke County’s Probation System is interesting in that they have an advisory
committee. That board consists of the chief judges of state court and the chief judge of magistrate
court. It also includes ex-officio members which would be our State Court Administrator, the
County Administrator and a member from the Commission that ya’ll would select. The ex-officio
members would give guidance as far as the operation is concerned, probation officers, their
qualifications things of that nature. There would be quarterly reviews not only the operation and
of the office but also the monetary aspect of that office. To me that is very personally very
important to me that we have that continuity and that exchange of information between the court
system and the county if we’re going to have a county operating system. We, Donna Williams
received a lot of good information concerning what it would cost to start this. I think you have
been given that information. As a result of all that I drafted a proposed order that the judges of the
state court and the judges of the magistrate court have signed and it has been given to each of you
all for approval. We would anticipate the actual operation to be March 1 of 2017. The reason that
we are asking for the extension of the Sentinel contracts is to give us some time to establish the
county system. We would not begin hiring until the last six months of the year. It would be on a
staggered basis. The first six months would be getting the mechanics of the thing set up location,
H.R., things of that nature. I view this as being beneficial not only for the court because of the
control aspect of it to the community. I would ask that during this if you approve it during this
phase in period if you could designate a couple of commissioners who would be willing on a
continual basis to work with me as I implement it. It’s going to be pretty task oriented but I would
appreciate that cooperation. Ms. Williams’ estimates based on what her figures and her
discussions with the Mr. Dale Allen and based on our probation office compared to what they have
now it’s going to take approximately to implement it from the contingency budget $332,500
dollars. In that plan that I’ve given you that order it’s broken down and I hope ya’ll have had an
opportunity to look at it it’s broken down in number seven. I worked with a Mr. MacKenzie who’s
given us some excellent clarification on things that we’ve implemented included in there. I
appreciate Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. Lockett’s participation in this. They’ve been invaluable. I look
at it as something that’s going to be again beneficial to the community since most of the people
we have on probation are from this community. The people that I’ve spoke with around the state
and my fellow state court judges there about fifteen courts that are served by county run systems
they all highly recommend that we do this. That whole private probation system the model of it is
changing the implementation House Bill 310 last year. The Georgia Counsel on Criminal Justice
19
Reform is talking about additional changes to that system. I think it’s time that we move into
something we have control of. I would ask that you approve the Sentinel contract on these
conditions that we implement the county policy, the county probation services office and you
transfer the sufficient funds that Ms. Williams’ has recommended from the contingency budget to
the state court budget so that we can get started on this. The document as I mentioned it’s 20 pages
long, it’s been signed by all the judges. It provides the first part the establishment and powers of
the probation services office. It establishes the advisory board. It takes care of the descriptions of
the qualifications for the probation officers, staff, criminal background checks, all these things.
What we would plan on doing is having all probation officers post certified police officers. This
will add professionalism to that probation system.
Mr. Mayor: Judge, can you, thank you I want you to suspend. I know that there are a lot
of questions and I think you’ll probably, you’ve answered most of them I’m confident. All right
th
I’m going to recognize the Commissioner from the 6 and then I’m going to come to the
th
Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First thing I want to say is my hat’s off to the judges
as well as to my colleagues. Per this conversation as well as the community because the mood
around the community is concerned about this issue as well and in many ways they’ve expressed
that they are prepared to as citizens to bear this burden to bring this back in house because they
feel that people in many ways are being treated certain ways they’re concerned about. And so
hat’s off to that part of it and hoping we will approve the Sentinel contract for another year’s and
in the meantime give us an opportunity to bring it back in house. The part that I don’t want, Mr.
Mayor, we’re still in the consent agenda here the consent agenda here we’re looking at and so from
a consent agenda perspective if you’re going to add that information?
Mr. Mayor: So we’re actually on what we would call the regular agenda; these items were
moved out of consent. We’ve already adopted the consent agenda.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, okay no problem, thank you, no problem, I apologize. Okay but just
the same that information around the operating aspect of it we there’s some concerns because I
didn’t expect that would be before us today to look at that a little bit closer to give us an opportunity
to discuss that. And I don’t think that is ready today you know just to be respectful to the judge in
saying that we probably I would encourage my colleagues not to support that part today but the
Sentinel contract move forward with that for another year and in the meantime we get an
opportunity to look at the agreement arranged between the court and the government itself.
Judge Slaby: My only remark to that would be, Mr. Commissioner, that we do that
expeditiously. It’s going to take me a long time to get this thing going and time is of the essence.
So that’s fine, I don’t mind going through that with you all but I think that’s a good thing to do I
don’t want anybody not to have a clear understanding. Again I think we need to expedite the
matter.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4.
20
Mr. Sias: Thank you, sir. First off , judge, I want to thank you for you all and all the work
you all have done on this concept; I completely and totally support it. There was a couple of points
within that information that we received that I wanted that I wanted to talk with you about and just
a little clarification and I’d rather not do it right now. But I will be I’m ready to do it tomorrow or
whatever the time I can first get with you on that. I completely support the concept and to give us
a chance to do that, Mr. Mayor, if we need to call a special if you decide to I’m prepared to come
in and do that but definitely not today to get the continuation part done but to come back and get
the other part and I will volunteer to be one of those folks if my colleagues don’t object to work
with you on this as we go through it.
Judge Slaby: Thank you.
Mr. Sias: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I think we’ve got a we’re ready to make a to take action on the line
th
motion. I’m going to recognize the Commissioner from the 5 but I believe we’re ready it may
not be necessary but I recognize you, Commissioner. I think they’re ready to take action on the
motion.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t be long. Anyone’s that’s paid any
attention to this governing body would know that I was definitely in opposition to renewing this
contract for the past two years. And I received emails and telephone calls over the last couple of
weeks where they wanted to know whether I had lost my mind by sending this with a
recommendation from the committee to the full Commission for approval. But for all of you all
out there that want to know the reason we did this is we were not in a position at that time to let
the public know what our intent was. As Judge Slaby said we have been working on this a long
time and we could not come out with anything until the private contractor was notified. And the
contractor has been notified, this is why we can talk about that today. But I also agree that we do
need we didn’t expect to get 100% approval on this today but we just wanted to know whether or
not primarily if the support is there. We understand that some things are going to have to be
tweaked but we’re ready to move on and I definitely I’m in full support of this. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we go ahead and approve the one-
year extension that Judge Slaby’s wanting.
Mr. Hasan: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, I’ve got a motion and a second to approve the one-year extension.
All those in favor will vote yea and those opposed will vote no.
Mr. Frantom votes No.
Motion Passes 9-0.
21
Judge Slaby: Thank you and Commissioner Sias I’ll be in touch with you tomorrow
afternoon and address whatever you need to be addressed and then perhaps get with the
Administrator to expedite this matter. Thank you.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
11. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Georgia Code Title Four,
Chapter One, Article Two, Section 4-1-7 related to classification of vicious or dangerous
dogs; Section 4-1-8 related to requirement for possessing vicious or dangerous dogs; Section
4-1-9 related to restrictive movement of vicious or dangerous dogs; Section 4-1-10 related to
confiscation; Section 4-1-11 related to violations and penalties; Section 4-1-12 related to
nuisance; Section 4-1-16 related to definitions; Section 4-1-19 related to collar and rabies
vaccination required tags; Section 4-1-21 related to duty of owners to keep animal under
control; Section 4-1-25 related to disposition of impounded animals; Section4-1-26 related
to abandonment of animals; Section 4-1-27 related to cruelty: Section 4-1-29 related to
disposal of dead animals; Section 4-1-36 duty to keep animal under control; Section 4-1-37
tethering; Section 4-1-38 interference with Animal Control officer; Section 4-1-29
registration requirement; Section 4-1-40 compliance; Section 4-1-42 change in
address/ownership; Section 4-1-42 breeding of animals; Section 4-1-43 fees and fines;
Section(s) 4-1-13 thru 4-1-15 and 4-1-44 thru 4-1-50 reserved; and Section 4-1-53 related to
impoundment of straying livestock; to repeal all code sections and ordinances and parts of
code sections and ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for the
other purposes provided herein. (Approved by the Commission February 2, 2106 – second
reading)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate that. Mr. Mayor, I had an opportunity
yesterday to speak with Attorney Bray about some of the language that was entered in
(unintelligible) to board to how we appoint the membership to the board. And one of those things
that concerned me was that and I don’t have a problem with it as much as that we were not informed
but then again I can’t for certain that we probably was informed because it’s in the book. But in
terms of when he made the changes he did not inform us that was made some changes that he
ought to take a look at them. And that was each member shall serve as the pleasure of the
appointing authority and can be removed from the body of appointment for with or without cause.
Now my colleagues may agree with it. I don’t necessarily disagree with it but I just thought it was
something not identified to us to let us know and trying to understand why it was needed and why
did they put that kind of language in there and so that concerned me that’s one thing. While we
have that the other thing that concerned me, Mr. Mayor, and don’t take this personally, Mr. Mayor,
it’s about amendments this is all amendments, modifications or changes to these bylaws shall first
receive an affirmative vote of 2/3 majority of the members of the board, city board. All
amendments, modifications or changes require the legislative authority of the Augusta Board of
Commissioners and the approval of the Mayor before becoming effective. And so I thought that
language I was trying to get some clarity around that as well. Either one of the Commissioners in
22
so many ways veto power being instilled right there they need some clarity around that and if my
colleagues know what’s in that and do they have challenges about it any concerns about it.
Mr. Lockett: Move to approve.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got a motion and a second to approve. The Chair recognizes the
th
Commissioner from the 9 the Administrative Services Chair.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I don’t have a problem with the ordinances itself
but I do have concerns like Commissioner Hasan said with both parts of that. The legislature
already put in place how your boards are supposed to operate and we’re going to go and change
them (unintelligible). And the minds of the Commissioners whether you got a reason or no reason
to replace someone, now if people replace themselves they’re not serving on a board like they’re
supposed to they’re missing meetings like they’re not supposed to and they’re doing some things
to be wrong I think it should come back to this body and not a Commissioner. We inject those
personal things in here and I think we need to be careful about that. We talk about serving within
our district. There are some districts that don’t have the people are willing or maybe able to go
and serve on certain boards especially if there’s no pay at all involved in certain boards you’re not
going to get everybody to do it so sometimes you have to get somebody from another district that’s
still a taxpayer from Richmond County to serve on a board or you can’t find somebody else to
serve on that particular board. So I think we need to be careful about how we do that and that does
concern me that we didn’t think in that same vein about how we get someone to serve as long as
they live inside of Augusta Richmond County. And if we can’t find someone in a particular district
ought to be able to find someone that lives in this community that’s willing to serve when we can’t
find somebody to serve. And the animal board is probably one of those boards where a couple of
districts we’ll be having the most difficult to find and people who are willing to serve and willing
to give up their time because it’s a time consuming event. I don’t want nobody to come just to say
I’m on the board I want somebody that’s going to serve. So think we may have to reach outside
our particular districts, I’ve got four of them so I ought to be able to find somebody outside of the
four districts but a lot of Commissioners only have one district and they may not be able to find
that person in their district that’s willing to give of their time and their resources to come in and
work so I think we need to be careful. I don’t mind approving the ordinances but I think we need
to go back and look at the amendment and if I can make a motion I think one’s already been made
to approve. I hope that’s just to approve the ordinance and not the amendments to this ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Well, Commissioner, I must tell you that the ordinance has a motion to
approve and a second. The reality of it is this is, this should just be the second reading. It was
approved previously; this is the second reading and there was an effort to waive the second reading
but it failed because it didn’t have unanimous consent. And it had all of the approved amendments
and we went line by line during that very arduous process but we got it done. We’ve got a motion
and a second to approve it now and it already includes the amendments with everything that was
duly adopted by the body so unless you know there’s a substitute which we clearly can’t have at
this point because we’re just here for a second reading motion to approve and a second. All those
in favor will vote yea and those opposed will vote no.
23
Mr. D. Williams, Mr. Hasan and Mr. M. Williams vote No.
Motion Passes 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: I believe it’s also appropriate, Madam Clerk, to state for the record I believe
that has a January 1, 2017 implementation date if that’s correct.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, number 13.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
13. Motion to approve funding time line for SPLOST 7 projects. (Approved by Finance
Committee February 9, 2016)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, my concern is not so much the agenda
item itself but it is a question that I had at the committee level as well which was, I asked about an
RFP for a Financial Advisor. As we moved forward I was told by Mr. Schroer if I’m not mistaken
Mr. Schroer that they had already took the initiative to do that. Well, it concerned me now I don’t
know the process or maybe they had the right to do that but I think it’s been quite some there’s not
been an RFP. And since being on the board I had inquired about do we have a Financial Advisor
and they told me the contract had expired so I was looking forward to us having an opportunity to
weigh in on that conversation and only to find out last week at the committee level that that it had
already gone out. Now I’m obviously sure in many ways it comes back before us so first thing I
need to know what is the process just for some clarity for me in terms of pursuing the RFP should
we have been informed or not been informed about that. I’m not trying, I’m just trying to get some
clarity around that issue first the first part of it.
Mr. Mayor: I think that’s certainly a very valid question particularly with regards to those
matters that it would certainly be prudent the provisions of what we’re looking for in terms of that
Financial Advisor may change may expand. And not to at least been granted an opportunity to
inquire the same with (unintelligible) it causes us to hit the pause button. The Chair recognizes
Deputy Finance Director Schroer if you’ll come and speak to the matter.
Mr. Schroer: Good afternoon. Yes, sir, last summer there was a question about when the
RFP for our Financial Advisor had been approved and then a while back we took the initiative at
that time to start looking at an appropriate time to put an RFP on the street. Last year we had two
bond issuances that we were doing one for the airport and one for the URA. Once those were
completed we took, we started the RFP process to go forward with a new Financial Advisor.
Mr. Mayor: Continue.
24
Mr. Hasan: Yes, so my question is is that the normal process that you all take the initiative.
Who has to be informed is that a department level decision that you do to make it happen?
Mr. Schroer: We work with the Administrator’s office. I mean it’s a normal course of
business. If we have some inquiries about that we’ll do that and take the initiative to start the
process for an RFP.
Mr. Hasan: So what if the Commission, I’m just asking hypothetical what if we decided
as a body that we were satisfied with who we had and we didn’t want an RFP did you all take that
away from us in doing that?
Mr. Schroer: No, sir, I mean if you want us to stop we’ll stop.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, you can stop if we want you to stop. I’m just asking for the record.
Mr. Schroer: I believe we can stop, yes, sir.
Mr. Hasan: Okay now for another question let’s proceed as we’re proceeding forward.
Once the RFP comes back how do you go about selecting, who weighs in on that decision?
Mr. Schroer: The process we have now or the process we’re following is staff will, there’s
a selection committee that will review the RFP’s interview the firms and then make a
recommendation to the Commission.
Mr. Hasan: Do you mind sharing if you don’t mind who’s on that committee?
Mr. Schroer: Myself, Donna Williams, Steve Little and Chester Brazzell. The user
department would be Finance, the Administrator’s office and then the Utilities Department as
heavy user they issue the most bonds. So those would be the appropriate people to partake in this
review because they would be the ones working most closely with the Financial Advisor.
Mr. Hasan: Did you mention the Engineering Department as well?
Mr. Schroer: No, sir, they’re not involved in the issuance of bonds.
Mr. Hasan: They wouldn’t be a help under what you were saying the user department. I
would’ve thought the Engineering Department would be the heavy because a lot of business comes
across our desks in the Engineering Department. Most of them that are involved as heavy or
heavier than the Utilities Department.
Mr. Schroer: I understand that, sir, they use, they’re the recipients of the funds. They’re
not involved in getting the funds.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, okay so can that board be expanded in terms of who sits on that board?
25
Mr. Schroer: That would be a question for the Procurement Department but I’m assuming
it can.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, so ultimately you are bringing recommendations to us. You all don’t
do the selection itself does it?
Mr. Schroer: No, sir, within the RFP we the user department would bring a
recommendation to the Commission for approval.
Mr. Hasan: Okay all right, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tim, I’ve got a couple of questions and I thank
Commissioner Hasan for his line of questioning. I got a lot of information out of that. I guess my
question to you is who is our bond counselor now?
Mr. Schroer: I’m sorry.
Mr. M. Williams: Who handles our bonds now who is our bond counselor right now?
Mr. Schroer: It depends on who, currently we’re not issuing any bonds so we don’t have
a bond counsel (inaudible).
Mr. M. Williams: Who handled the last bond counsel we had?
Mr. Schroer: I believe it was Murray Barnes Finister was the Disclosure Counsel and
Dennis Schwartz was the Bond Counsel and then Jim Plunkett was our local counsel.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay and that was on ---
Mr. Schroer: That would’ve been the URA bonds I believe.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay the URA and what else because we’ve got more than one I think,
right?
Mr. Schroer: We have the last the other bonds we issued last year were the airport bonds.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay but we got the URA, the airport and what else?
Mr. Schroer: That issued the current ones, sir?
Mr. M. Williams: Not necessarily now I’m trying to go back on history. I mean you to
help bring me forward to some of the names keep popping in my head who’ve been there for a
long time. I’m trying to figure out how they get there and how long, how do they remain there if
they didn’t come through this body and if this body didn’t vote on that particular issue. The bond
26
counsel’s been coming to us for quite some time now. Now I’m the longest serving Commissioner
up here now, Tim, that’s nothing to brag about its age that’s telling me that, that’s all. But I just
need to know who handled our last set of bonds and how long had they been handling those. Jim
Plunkett is the attorney on the URA.
Mr. Schroer: He’s one of the attorneys on the bonds the issuance, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Schroer: The other ones we’ve been using the rotating three or four firms um ---
Mr. M. Williams: But if we’ve been going out for RFPs then it wouldn’t be a rotating it’d
be a bid.
Mr. Schroer: --- no, sir, under the bond issuance we work with those are professional
contracts so we’ll pull together a team for approval. I believe most of the time those are approved
by the Commission and when we start the bond process.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay, I’m thinking it was Ms. McNabb. What was her position?
Mr. Schroer: Diane McNabb is your Financial Advisor.
Mr. M. Williams: Financial Advisor so the Financial Advisor and the bond counsel they
all work together, is that right?
Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir, we all, it’s a team that works (inaudible).
Mr. M. Williams: It’s a team so how do we select those? I don’t how to ask it, Tim,
because I’m not in Finance. All my money’s in the front pocket; I ain’t got none in my back. I
just need to know how do we get to those points or getting those entities in place because here we
are and Commissioner Hasan was bringing some issues. Here we are going out now and I want
everybody to have an opportunity to either put in for it or serve, not serve. The same entities have
been doing it for a long time and that where I was trying to get to. I’m trying to get to how can we
put it on the table so everybody’s has an opportunity to at least give us a better price, a worse price
or no price something, you know what I’m saying? So if I think Jim Plunkett is someone who’s
been our bond attorney I believe it is for this city for a good while ---
Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: --- and Ms. McNabb has been doing it for a good while but the same
people keep coming back every year. So I want to know how can we put it out there either through
Procurement or whoever so we can make sure we give other people an opportunity to get to that.
You just mentioned a rotating situation that we I guess since they’re professional services we use
this one this time and another time that’s one we had.
27
Mr. Schroer: For bond attorneys for bond counselors there are very few firms that perform
those services mostly are out of Atlanta or out of Charleston and Columbia so we’ve developed a
relationship with local firms out of Atlanta that we’ve been working with over the past several
years. Financial Advisor is a professional service that based on conversations from last year we
determined the best course of action was to offer an RFP. If you’d like to pull the RFP we can but
we do look at who is going to give the best service for Augusta and by having firms that understand
Augusta we do get some economies from them.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, my last question as Commissioner Fennoy always says,
Tim, thank you for the information you helped a lot but we had an agency to come down a year or
so ago that wanted to be a part of this bid process and we had already selected some people we
already had some staff in place. And before it gets out now I hope we would at least consider at
least giving people an opportunity to seek and we save or do whatever we can do help. I mean I
don’t have anybody in mind but I do know there’s several people that we’ve been using the same
every year. And being the longest serving Commissioner it does help me a little bit, Tim, because
I’ve been seeing the same folks you know every year. So I’d like to see how we go through
Procurement and make sure that we got the best bang for our buck that’s all. That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Schroer: If ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Schroer: --- I can respond to that, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Schroer: --- the issue last year came up for an underwriting firm not a Financial
Advisor or Bond Attorneys. That’s one of the ways you can sell bonds either a competitive bid or
a negotiated sale. We have been very fortunate in having some very good competitive bids. The
firm that you brought up last year wanted us to do a negotiated sale and it was not in the best
interest of Augusta to do it at that point in time. So it’s, underwriting firms are another player in
the bond market that you can use if it’s ---
Mr. M. Williams: Like I said, Tim, all my money’s in my front pocket but if I have
somebody to advise me on both sides I can make a decision what I’m going to do with that money
in my front pocket. But if I only hear one side you know that means that’s what I’ve got to go
with so I just think that keeps the price down. That’s why McDonald’s on one corner and Burger
King’s on the other corner it keeps the price down. It makes sure we have an opportunity.
Mr. Schroer: And, sir, that’s why we have Diane McNabb advising us which way to go
either a competitive bid or a negotiated sale.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Tim.
Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir.
28
Mr. Mayor: All right the Chair recognizes the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Smith: If I had Marion’s money in my pocket it’d be full. Tim, what about some of
the local folks? You know I’ve been having construction jobs I’ve had to bond and I deal with
some of these local folks. Do you all look locally to try to get them involved?
Mr. Schroer: There are very few local firms that do the bond that do our bond issuing
counseling.
Mr. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Schroer: We have looked at those but it’s just because of the complexity of some of
our bonds we found it more cost effective to use the firms we have a relationship and that
understand our government.
Mr. Smith: But there are some firms that have been here for quite a while but then there
also some new firms coming in and my thing is as these folks being taxpayers and everything do
we give them a good shot at the process?
Mr. Schroer: If they’re qualified to do the work we can, sir.
Mr. Smith: Okay, well, I think I’d like to see and effort made you know that’s deal with
the people that pay us taxes the tax money pays your salary, my salary, and whatever if they’re
qualified. Now you know we don’t need the wrong people in the wrong place but now we need to
see locally if we can deal locally with people if they’re qualified.
Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith: Okay, thanks.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you. I concur with my colleague Commissioner Smith and his closing
comment but, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask Ms. Sams a question but I do want to ask Mr. Schroer a
question what he just mentioned. Ms. McNabb, what role is she playing right now?
Mr. Schroer: She is our Financial Advisor. She has a fiduciary duty to Augusta to help
best represent Augusta by picking the correct bond firms, bond attorneys helping us do that and
also to determine if is a negotiated sale or a competitive bid are the best ways for it. She works
for us in our best interests.
Mr. Hasan: Yes, I just really I mean I was just interested because I know what
Commissioner actually early on who the Financial Advisor her name unless it escaped me her
name was not mentioned. Okay, but let me just say this here my question is for Ms. Sams, Mr.
Mayor, if you don’t mind.
29
Mr. Mayor: I don’t mind. I will interject since you had Mr. Schroer I have a question for
Mr. Schroer before Ms. Sams answers if you don’t mind.
Mr. Hasan: Go ahead.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Schroer in the event that Ms. McNabb as you say represents Augusta and
chooses bond counsel who is our current bond counsel?
Mr. Schroer: Currently because we do not have a bond issuance going at this time we don’t
have a bond counsel as I said. Dentons was the last, Dentons and Murray Barnes Finister were the
last attorneys on the bond deals.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Schroer: And I, bond counsel is chosen per bond deal. It’s not a retainer like we have
with our auditors or with Ms. McNabb. It’s a pre-negotiated transaction.
Mr. Mayor: I’m fully aware of that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams.
Mr. Hasan: Ms. Sams, I guess you heard my question to Mr. Schroer in terms of how was
that board chosen in terms of the RFP and making that selection to make the recommendation to
us. What does the code say? Is that authority rest in you in terms of potentially expanding that
board?
Ms. Sams: The code under Article 6 states that there will be representatives on the board
from the Administrator’s office, User Departments office, Procurement and anyone that the
Procurement Director sees as bringing some special expertise to the subject matter.
Mr. Hasan: Okay and the answer is?
Ms. Sams: It can be expanded.
Mr. Hasan: It can be expanded okay, okay, okay. Just wanted to know about that. I would
love to I’ll be frank with you I would love stop the process now but I probably don’t have the
support to do it but I just think we should’ve been informed around since it’s been a topic of
concern for us. And that’s no reflection here or here because we asked about this last year and if
we had not asked at the committee level about this we still would not have known up until it came
before us for approval of some sort. And for me I think that’s a bit much that we have to find out
that way and I think we have to find a better way to do things of that nature especially when things
are of a financial nature. So I concur with my colleague Commissioner Smith we need to look a
little closer to home in trying to get some things done. And I know everything we can’t do but in
the meantime if I had the votes, Mr. Mayor, I would try to stop the process the way it is. I’m sure
I don’t have the votes to support to do it though.
30
Mr. Mayor: You’d be surprised.
Mr. Hasan: I make a motion to stop the process, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. M. Williams: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right so let’s hold for a moment. I want to recognize the Commissioner
rd
from the 3, I saw your hand.
Ms. Davis: Mr. Mayor, I’m confused because I know we have this motion to approve the
funding timeline for SPLOST 7 and now we have a substitute motion on a whole different matter
so I’m just a little thrown off.
Mr. Mayor: Okay was that your question?
Ms. Davis:
Well, I was just going to give accolades to the Finance Department and Ms.
McNabb. I think last year when we went through the reissuing of the bonds I think because of this
election process I can’t remember how many millions of dollars was saved, is that correct, I can’t
remember the number I’m going to throw out a wrong number but it was significant. So I
I was going to make a motion to approve the motion that’s
appreciate the work that ya’ll do and
on the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I think that’s certainly appropriate. I think we’ve got a couple of things
to your point that are being discussed and I want to make sure I take the proper one which is the
underlying motion item number 13. I want to get everybody back on the same page and then the
th
Commissioner from the 6 the Vice-Chairman of Engineering Services has a separate matter that
he certainly is bringing before this body to be addressed as well. All right I’m going to go on the
th
end down here and then I’m going to come back to the Commissioner from the 9 starting with
th
the Commissioner from the 5. The Chair recognizes the Public Safety Chairman Commissioner
Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be brief. A couple of years ago we had so
much controversy with our Financial Advisor. Now why have we continued with the same
Financial Advisor? I don’t think it’s that difficult in the State of Georgia to have other financial
advisors. We had conflict of interests and we had so many other things that surfaced a couple of
years ago so why are we taking that same route? Is McNabb the only qualified person in the State
of Georgia? That’s for Tim and Donna.
Mr. Schroer: No, sir, that’s why we’re putting out an RFP to look at the financial advisors.
Ms. Williams: Ms. Sams sent out this request for qualifications to RFP for thirty something
firms. Everybody that, I don’t know how many but there was a long list that was requested to
submit proposals on this. They have since done that and these are actually scheduled to open
Friday, correct, Geri? Okay.
31
Mr. Lockett: Okay, the reason I asked the question is because Ms. McNabb’s name
surfaced. That’s the only reason I asked that question. But I mean she could ultimately be the
charge but as long as we have other people to consider I’d be fine with that.
Ms. Williams: There were five firms that attended the pre-bid conference and as such you
would expect proposals from each one of those five firms.
Mr. Lockett: All right. Well thank you, you answered my questions. Thank you and thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8 you had your
hand up.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, can you tell me what motions are on the floor at this time?
Mr. Mayor: I can but I’m going to defer to my distinguished Madam Clerk to tell me
what’s in front of us.
The Clerk: We had a primary motion Mr. Hasan and Mr. Williams to approve the funding
timeline for SPLOST 7 projects and to stop the process the RFP for the Financial Advisor. There
was a substitute motion by Ms. Davis, I didn’t get who seconded, was to approve the funding
timeline for the SPLOST 7 projects.
Mr. Guilfoyle: If you didn’t get a second I will second that.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Sias: Commissioner Frantom seconded that, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Mr. Frantom, okay, then we’ll do Commissioner Frantom okay was to approve
the funding timeline for the SPLOST 7 projects.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: It’s unseasonably warm in here today. I’m not sure why but maybe we can
get somebody to adjust that.
Mr. M. Williams: I’m trying to be like Commissioner Lockett and I’ll try to make this
brief as I can. But with what’s been told, what’s been said, and I remember Commissioner Lockett
when we brought somebody else in somebody else came in whether we brought them in or how
they got in here but and Ms. McNabb’s been here for quite some time. And I’m not saying she’s
doing a bad job. I don’t have any proof of any of that but I know there’s some history that’s been
repeated for many, many years with that same person doing good, bad or indifferent I don’t care
how you want to look at it. And when we was told there was money saved I’m glad we saved
32
some money. I said to somebody today I remember when our Administrator told us that they found
a million dollars in the government and I said I’m glad of that but I want to know who lost a million
dollars. So if it was lost, if it was found somebody had to lose it. So I’m saying that if we ain’t
got nothing to compare with and we only hear from one source and we’ve got to trust that source
not saying again they’re giving us bad information or not but we get the same source from the
same folks every time and I don’t have anything to compare that with. I need to know, I need to
be able to look to the left and to the right to see who’s doing what, when and where. So I wouldn’t
be surprised when this RFP is opened Friday as to who wins this bid through Procurement through
Finance however it comes in. There’s some things that I totally disagree with. I think it ought to
be a competitive thing maybe it is I’m not questioning anybody but I just know the same folks win
every time and that bothers me. It makes me feel like everybody ain’t to the table. If Grady’s
going to do plumbing work, Tasha, I’m going to be I’m going to be in one of them jobs. He don’t
get them all. He might have a good outfit but he don’t get them all. Somebody’s going to get one
or two.
Mr. Mayor: All right we’ve got, all right we’ve got a substitute motion.
The Clerk: It’s to approve the funding timeline for the SPLOST 7 projects.
Mr. Mayor: All right we’ll take this one first and then we’ll come to the other one.
Mr. M. Williams: To stop the process?
The Clerk: No, sir, this is the substitute motion is to approve funding timeline for the
SPLOST 7 projects. Ms. Davis and Commissioner Frantom.
Mr. Mayor: All right and that’s the substitute motion.
The Clerk: Substitute.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Sias: Thank you. This question is for the Administrator. Ms. Jackson, the SPLOST
timeline did that include the RFP for the Financial Advisor?
Mr. Mayor: Madam Administrator.
Ms. Jackson: No, those are really separate but related matters. This timeline is just for the
purpose of letting you know which projects want to do when and which projects we would bond
out. Doing that is a separate process, actually doing the bond is a entirely separate process.
Mr. Sias: Thank you and so, thank you, Mr. Mayor, with that I would say to my colleagues
if we could let’s not wrap these together. Let’s do the timeline and if there’s a thing with the
Financial Advisor let’s deal with that separately. Let’s definitely keep the timeline on track. Thank
you, sir.
33
Mr. M. Williams: This is confusing, Mr. Mayor, what exactly are we voting on then
because if that ain’t ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Just vote yes.
Mr. M. Williams: --- that’s what I used to do. I don’t do that no more. Mr. Mayor, I need
some clarity as to what we’re actually voting on now because we only have one motion we can
vote on. Do we need to put it back on the agenda or do we need to bring that to a committee do
we I mean if we vote on this and I’m not against the timeline but Ms. Jackson just stated these are
related but they’re separate they’re not tied together so if we’ve got time to do something else I
need to know that as well.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: We have a substitute motion, Mr. Williams, Commissioner Williams, is to fund
the timeline for the SPLOST 7 projects. We have a primary motion is to approve the funding
timeline for the SPLOST 7 projects as well as stop the RFP process for the Financial Advisor.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay, I’m clear then.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, those are the two things that are before us. We’re going to
take item one which is the substitute motion first. All right those in favor of the substitute will
vote yea and those opposed will vote no.
Mr. D. Williams, Mr. Hasan and Mr. M. Williams vote No.
Motion Passes 7-3.
The Clerk: Next item, Mr. Mayor, number 15?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
SUBCOMMITTEE
Pension Committee
15. Motion to approve COLA increases for the Richmond County 1945 and Augusta 1949
pension plans in the amount of .05 percent effective March 1, 2016. (Approved the Pension
Committee February 9, 2016)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had this pulled because I want to know how much money
was that. When you say for the ’45 Pension you’re talking about .05 percent. Can somebody from
Finance tell me how much that would be?
34
The Clerk: Half a percent. Hold up, let’s put it on the screen so everybody can see that
decimal point where it is.
Mr. Mayor: All right so we’re going to put it on the screen and in fact, Madam Clerk, is
this in the notebooks?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, it’s in the notebooks.
Mr. Mayor: It’s under ---
The Clerk: --- number 15 ---
Mr. Mayor: --- tab 15 ---
The Clerk: --- reporting documentation.
Mr. Mayor: --- right under tab 15.
The Clerk: Well, we revised it on our addendum agenda when we made the correction.
Mr. Mayor: That’s right, okay, in addition to that in addition to that what I’d like Finance
Director Williams to do and this is a underlying question that Commissioner Williams’ has what
is that dollar amount in terms of the payout I think that’s what his underlying question is and we
want you to be able to answer that for us okay?
Ms. Williams: The total amount to the plan?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Ms. Williams: Okay. For the 1945 Plan on an annual basis would be $3,875 dollars. The
Augusta 1945 Plan which is also referred to as the Old City Unfunded Plan is $1,009 dollars. And
for the Augusta 1949 Plan the total change in benefits is $32,534 dollars.
Mr. M. Williams: Can I follow up, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, certainly.
Mr. M. Williams: And, Ms. Williams, that’s to the plan. How much will the recipient of
this plan get is my underlying question sure enough now. I mean I understand the plan that will
be contributed but what would each person get?
Ms. Williams: A half a percent over and above their current level of benefits.
Mr. M. Williams: So I don’t know what they get because I can’t figure because I don’t
know if they get $10,000 or $2,000 or $8,000. If I knew what their figure was I could figure.
35
Ms. Williams: I’ll be happy to provide that to you by individual outside of this meeting if
that’s what you need, sir. This ---
Mr. Mayor: No, Donna suspend ---
Ms. Williams: --- okay.
Mr. Mayor: --- suspend. Here’s what I want and I think it will help the Commissioner. In
our meeting there was a chart that you provided that had the dollar figures of what the
disbursements will be, that’s what he wants that’s what he’s looking for and I’d for you to put that
on the screen so that everybody’s who’s here can see that. I think that would be extremely helpful
for him and for the rest of the members of this body, if you’ll do that.
Ms. Williams: Sir, I will be happy to do that but what I also need for this body to
understand is what the plan document currently allows and should this body decide to do
st
something different they can but they cannot do it today to be effective on the March 1 check.
This action today to approve one-half of one percent which is allowed for in the plan document is
the only course of action that is available to you today because that is what is in the document. To
do anything outside of that you would have to amend this document which is an ordinance passed
by this body and you would have to go through the procedure to amend those ordinances with a
first and a second reading and to amend the plan document. So I’ll be happy to provide that
information to you. I just need everybody to be aware of what is available to them today.
Mr. Mayor: We’re fully aware of that ---
Ms. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: --- that’s how we got here.
Ms. Williams: That would be the cost to the plan at various levels of increases should this
body decide to take a different action and amend the plan document.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right, I want everybody to fully understand that the action that’s
before us is the half of percent, okay, that’s where we are and that’s the only action that we can
take today but you fully see, Commissioner Williams, what that disbursement will be. The Chair
st
recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Donna ---
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Fennoy: --- what this actually means that if I’m getting a $100.00 a month then if we
approve this then I would get a $100.50?
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir.
36
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion to approve.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
st
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1 who has the
floor and then I’m going to come back down the line.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, I think that before we approve this action we should look at other
options that we can take in order to provide more money to our retirees. Fifty cents on a hundred
dollars I mean if they get $1,000 a month they get five dollars. I don’t think that’s being fair to
our retirees and we ought to look at all options before we decide to vote on it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, here’s what I want to do. I know there are a lot of questions. I
couldn’t agree with you more. All right, Finance Director, I’m smiling at you too. What would
be the effect what would be the effect of us suspending action today on this matter?
Ms. Williams: The plan document calls for a Cost of Living raises for them to be on the
st
March 1 check.
st
Mr. Mayor: Okay and if they of us suspending action on it, it says on the March 1 check
they don’t receive that until our next pension meeting at which point in time we could take up
separate action based on the chart that they just saw. Is that not true?
Ms. Williams: I believe that would be the case.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Williams: I would question the purpose in delaying the increase that is allowed for
when you could always pass the increase that is allowed for and then come back should you desire
to do something different and add to that amount.
st,
Mr. Mayor: I’m quite okay with that as well. All right, Commissioner from the 1 are
you satisfied?
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I have nothing further.
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay very good. All right the Commissioner from the 9 you had a question.
Mr. M. Williams: I already heard a motion.
Mr. Mayor: You had a motion which I’m going to come back to.
Mr. Guilfoyle: (inaudible).
37
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Guilfoyle had a motion to go ahead and approve. Really I think
whatever half percent or whatever that’s going to be is very, very small to our retirees and if we
can do that what they won’t realize it, I mean most of them won’t know it’s on there. And that’s
no fault of Ms. Williams that’s just the way this thing worked out. And I think we need to go back
and look at it and see and we’ve got some information laid up on this dais this afternoon about
borrowing money from the pension plan and stuff so we need to look at what we can do for the
’45 and the ’49 and all our retired I guess. But I don’t have a question. I’ll go ahead and support
the motion that Mr. Guilfoyle made to it.
Mr. Mayor: All right we’ve got a motion and I don’t know if I ever heard a proper second.
The Clerk: Commissioner Frantom.
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8, state your
inquiry.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I would just like some clarity from what Commissioner Williams just put
out that we borrowed money from the pension plan.
Ms. Williams: That does not happen.
Mr. M. Williams: No, I didn’t say we borrowed money from the pension plan you was
listening but you wasn’t hearing it like my Granny used to tell me. I made a statement we got
some information on the dais laid up here that talked about borrowing money that the pensioner
could borrow money from the plan.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right.
Mr. M. Williams: So, so ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right, okay.
Mr. M. Williams: --- don’t ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, sir, it’s just that I’m on the pension committee I’m the one that goes to
jail not you.
Mr. M. Williams: Better you than me.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I would just like some clarity from our colleagues to have a clear
understanding. With this pension committee it involves three different plans the ’45, ’49 and the
current plan. Anytime that the 1945 Plan in 2010 we followed and adopted the Southeastern CPI
which is the index where the cost of living is. It was only the fair and equitable way about doing
this. Well if you look at 2010 it should’ve been a three point something percent and it varied from
year to year. Well, this year it just happened to be one half of a percent. Next year it’s liable to
be considerably higher or you know it might remain plain. But anytime you affect the ’45 Plan
38
you have to be in consideration of the ’49 Plan as well as the I believe it’s the GEMA Plan, is that
right?
Ms. Williams: That’s the only plan that’s currently open ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right ---
Ms. Williams: --- yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- so just to put you know $50,000 in one the ’49 Plan you have to be
considerate because it has a lot more retirees than in the GEMA Plan that has a considerable
amount of employees. It’s just not fair to do it for one without doing for all and that’s the reason
why you have to take in consideration about the actions this body’s talking about.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion and a second. All right, the Chair recognizes
th
the Commissioner from the 5 for an inquiry, state your inquiry.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the Mayor’s Conference I had an
opportunity to speak with people in Atlanta dealing with pension plans and they were well aware
of the plans we have here in Augusta Richmond County. And I indicated to them that have some
whose retirements are so low until they need to get food stamps in order to survive. And they said
the only way the only thing you really can do to play catch up with them is to increase the cost of
living allowance. Now we talk about the Southeastern CPI well that’s good for those people that
retired with a decent pension but when you’ve got people that retired with a pension which was
very insignificant they will never ever catch up. And if I was one of those retirees and you offered
me .5% that would be an insult. And I go along with Commissioner Williams and Commissioner
Fennoy we can do better than that. I’ll support this agenda item but I do believe that we need to
go back and revisit this and do whatever is necessary to give those retirees the money that they
rightfully deserve. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right we’ve got a motion and a second to approve the COLA
increases. Voting.
Mr. Fennoy out.
Motion Passes 9-0.
The Clerk: Item number 16?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
16. Motion to agree to debar G&P Construction, Hauling and Environmental, LLC. In
accordance with the Procurement Code, a suspension was issued to G&P Construction,
Hauling and Environmental, LLC on January 12, 2016. G&P Construction filed a timely
39
appeal to the Procurement Department on January 15, 2016; the Procurement Department’s
response to Debar G&P Construction for 6 months and email notification of Hearing before
the Administrative Services Committee. (See Exhibits: 1, 2, 3 & 4) (No recommendation from
Administrative Services Committee February 9, 2016)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right we’ve got a couple of things here. I’m going to, the Chair’s
going to recognize the Attorney to give us clarity on what our current position is with regards to
this matter and then I’ll address the body.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure I’ll be happy to do that. Procedurally you have an appeals process
where the Procurement Director has issued a decision to debar a company which has taken place
in this instance. There was a hearing at the last Administrative Services meeting where the party
appealing that decision was given an opportunity to provide a presentation which she did. There
was another presentation provided for by the Procurement Director. The process also allows for
the person appealing make a request to be heard for a five-minute period before this body. It’s my
understanding she did not do that. About the timeframe this should otherwise be treated like any
other agenda item where you would consider the matter. You can make inquiries if you’d like to
question the person appealing as well as the Procurement Director. You can do that as with any
other item. This is the place where the decision is made to either uphold or not uphold the decision
made by the Procurement Director to issue a debarment for this particular company.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right, the Chair recognizes the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Smith: I was just going to say that you know the lady unfortunately made a mistake
but really the Procurement Department you know went ahead and let her start a business or start
working here in Georgia with, you know, with a South Carolina license. And I think now they
probably learned before they issue out contracts or anything else the first thing that ought to be
checked is who the company is and are they licensed, do they have the proper insurances and
everything else and which I’m sure they probably do mainly the insurance because I know in the
construction field most of the time when we go down and bid jobs in certain places some of the
first three or four things they want to know. So then she turns around and wants to sue for not
being compliant. I just think, you know, we took the right action with Ms. Sams and in doing
what’s right she shouldn’t be allowed to perform any work in this county until she meets the
standards and specifications to create where there won’t be a law suit or somebody that, you know,
just misunderstands what’s going on and thinks it favoritism or one of the other. I think this was
an oversight but I think we need to learn from it and anybody that comes before Procurement needs
to have proper licenses for even being allowed to bid anything.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Attorney MacKenzie, if you would just do me this small kind favor just
kind of restating where we are.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure. Here is the place to make a decision with respect to this issue. The
motion in front of you is a motion to debar this company. You can seek further inquiry if you’d
like to do that from both the party that’s appealed that decision as well as the Procurement Director
or you can otherwise discuss the item as you would any other commission item and make a
decision.
40
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, I’m going to recognize the Commissioner from the 8 to give us a
position on what this body would like to do.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I’d like to make a motion to agree to debar G&P Construction.
Mr. G. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right we’ve got a motion and a second to debar. The Chair recognizes the
th
Commissioner from the 6 state your inquiry.
Mr. Hasan: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, my question is for Ms. Sams.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Sams, if you’ll approach.
Mr. Hasan: My question, Ms. Sams, my question is you heard what was suggested by my
colleague’s motion and second. If that is upheld if it goes the way that the motion on the floor,
would that does the debarment start effective today or does it go back to the time that you originally
made your ruling.
Ms. Sams: I’m going to let the Legal Department answer that because my recommendation
th
to you was from February I think the 12.
Mr. Mayor: Attorney MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, the answer to that question it would be effective to date that would
be the decision was issued by the Procurement Director unless you overturn the decision to debar
and then there wouldn’t be an effective date.
Mr. Hasan: Okay what day was that you’ve got, Ms. Sams?
thth
Ms. Sams: It was to begin on January the 13 and it was to end on July the 13.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, okay so in other words in essence it’s already started.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hasan: All right thank you, ma’am, that was my question.
Ms. Sams: You’re welcome, sir.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 5.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Sams ---
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
41
Mr. Lockett: --- this six months, was that arbitrary or is it written in stone that if this is
approved that it will have to be for six months?
Ms. Sams: Well, no, sir, it’s not written in stone that is has to be for six months. In fact,
it’s written in stone that it can be up to five years.
Mr. Lockett: Okay, it gives a maximum timeframe but it does not give a minimum.
Ms. Sams: No, sir, it does not.
Mr. Lockett: Well, how did you and your department go about determining that six months
would be appropriate?
Ms. Sams: Because when we reviewed all of the information received from the various
departments during our due diligence we thought six months would be appropriate, an appropriate
amount of time giving G&P an opportunity to look at the way that they administered their
administration of their business, to get business licenses that are required, to address, justify
reasons or determinations that we made and I thought that would be a fair time for her to do
everything that she needed to do and come back to us for reconsideration.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’ve got a motion and a second to move forward with the
debarment. Any further discussion?
Mr. Hasan: I do have one more question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: State your inquiry.
Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am to Ms. Sams I mean I’m looking for it now and I apologize give
me ten seconds if you don’t mind. Back to Commissioner Lockett’s question Ms. Sams and I
apologize. I’m think I’m looking at what you sent me around this issue of suspension disbarment.
You said they had a minimum of six months?
Ms. Sams: No, sir.
Mr. Hasan: I think that was Commissioner Lockett’s question. I could be wrong and,
Commissioner, I apologize to you in advance. He was asking did you have any options than six
months and you said and then you told him no sir it could be up to as much as five years. What
his question was asking on the lower end was there any options.
Ms. Sams: Okay, I don’t I think I don’t remember the options the lower end of the options
that could’ve possibly been 30 days or more.
Mr. Hasan: Okay and that was his question.
42
Ms. Sams: It could’ve been 30 days or more but we wanted to give her an opportunity to
(inaudible).
Mr. Lockett: Yes, I understood.
Ms. Sams: Okay. So the answer to your question, Mr. Commissioner, would be 30 days
or the minimum of 30 days up to five years.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, so can we, Mr. Mayor, can we, thank you, ma’am. Mr. Mayor, can I
make a substitute motion to make it 90 days as opposed to six months?
Mr. Mayor: Certainly it’s well within your rights, Commissioner, to make a substitute
motion. We have not taken action on the motion at this point but you’re well within your right to
do that. All right suspend. All right, Attorney MacKenzie, I want to just make sure that again
we’ve gone from an Administrative hearing to now the Commission taking action. Based on what
I’ve heard we’re now to handle this matter as we would any other item on the agenda which would
include receiving a substitute motion, is that not true?
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay all right let me have everybody’s attention. I want us to be on the same
th
dais this afternoon. Commissioner from the 6 state you motion.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion to debar ---
Mr. Mayor: Substitute.
Mr. Hasan: --- substitute motion to debar G&P Construction for 90 days.
Mr. Lockett: I second that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ve got a substitute motion to debar for 90 days and a second. All right
st
the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have a problem with that but I think that we need to allow
this firm an opportunity to get their certifications. If they, if we debar them for 90 days then if
they don’t have their certification that’s really not going to help out. If they could get their
certification within 90 days and we debar for 90 days, I don’t have a problem with them coming
back and doing the work for the city.
Mr. Mayor: All right, everybody just hold on a minute here, hold on. Madam Clerk, do
you have the substitute motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
43
Mr. Mayor: Okay, just hold for a moment. Okay, all right, okay, here’s what we’re going
to do. All right okay we are going to I think it’s certainly appropriate now that we’ve opened up
this box we’re going to here from the petitioner and then I’m going to here from the Commissioner
ththth
from the 9, 5 and the 8. All right, we have a Ms. Pearson?
Ms. Pearson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Pearson, I’m going to give you two minutes.
Ms. Pearson: Thank you for the opportunity and I did not have was not given enough time
to submit my appeal to speak so I thank you for the opportunity. But I have conformed to
everything that was asked of me. I am a licensed Georgia Demolition Contractor and I have been
submitting, I have submitted my paperwork for my Asbestos Abatement License. I was told by
the city that I could continue to do asbestos abatement as long as I worked up under a licensed
Georgia contractor and I did that. So I have complied with everything that was asked of me. Ms.
Sams said that they asked for my paperwork and I refused to give it in the last meeting but I have
my email that I emailed everything that I have on my company all of my licenses all of my
certifications to Ms. Lori at the landfill and it was contained over 20 documents proving that I do
have certifications. And I tried to explain that to Ms. Sams so I have here for her.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you so much, Ms. Pearson, we do appreciate it.
Ms. Pearson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you so much. All right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner
th
from the 5. Okay he waives all right I got your hand on this side I’m coming back this way. The
th
Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I just got a statement. Procurement has been
dealing with this for quite some time and Ms. Pearson and others I have spoken with before. I’m
going to lean to what our Procurement Officer has done and suggested to us hopefully that we give
have given enough time for Ms. Pearson or anybody else to get the necessary documents they need.
Ms. Pearson was here before us in committee and I chair that committee. She said she was told
stuff. If she don’t have something some documents where somebody signed off on that I mean
you can be told, Ms Pearson, probably anything but if you’ve got documents that says you were
signed off that may persuade my thinking a little bit. But if Procurement has researched and done
all the stuff they’ve done I’m going to support what Procurement has brought to us and that’s six
months, not five years that it could’ve been, not twelve months that it could’ve been but six months
is more than fair. And some of that time has already expired has gone by already if you’re going
back to the January date is that right?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay well I just wanted to make that statement, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay we’re going ---
44
Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, I think the Attorney needs to verify a statement that I had given to
Mr., her son when I said he stated that he received some information from me and that information
was on suspension and it was a minimum of 30 days. But for debarment there was no limit as I
originally stated and it’s up to five years.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, can I respond to that?
Mr. Mayor: --- hold on, hold on.
Ms. Sams: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: All right I think that’s certainly appropriate for the clarification.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Here’s what I want to do though. We still have a lot of business in front of
us. We’ve got a substitute motion that you offered ---
Mr. Hasan: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: --- I’m going to take action on that and okay ---
Mr. MacKenzie: Just a quick clarification.
Mr. Mayor: --- all right the Chair recognizes Attorney MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: If you do 90 days which would be three months that’s actually technically
according to our Code of Suspension so it would be my request if you want for the substitute
motion it would be a motion to suspend for three months consistent with the language in our code.
You can’t debar for three months. You can only suspend.
Mr. Hasan: Can I have some clarity on that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: That was crystal, that was crystal.
Mr. Hasan: Not in a real sense, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6 state your inquiry.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor can he say that again?
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, I’ll be happy to. Our code has a distinction between suspension --
-
Mr. Hasan: Right.
45
Mr. MacKenzie: --- and debarment.
Mr. Hasan: Okay.
Mr. MacKenzie: If you looking at a three-month period ---
Mr. Hasan: Right.
Mr. MacKenzie: --- it’s called a suspension not a debarment and I think the substitute
motion was to debar for 90 days.
Mr. Hasan: So what’s the ---
Mr. MacKenzie: I’m suggesting that you modify your motion substitute motion to be a
motion to suspend for three months.
Mr. Hasan: --- okay so my question to you is what is on the lowest, what’s the lowest they
can be debarred?
Mr. MacKenzie: The lowest period recognizes by the code would be the period of time
where the suspension is pending before the decision a final decision is made by the Commission.
Mr. Hasan: And what time is that? If she’s debarred on a minimum level what would that
be?
Mr. MacKenzie: It would be suspended and it would be for the period of time that it takes
for her to get in front (inaudible).
Mr. Hasan: What about debarment?
Mr. MacKenzie: The debarment period is anything over three months.
Mr. Hasan: So I can say 91 days?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney?
Mr. MacKenzie: If you want to use the term debar use 91 days or you could use (inaudible).
Mr. Hasan: Okay it don’t matter. I was just (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Suspend. All right, we have professionals who work for us. We bring them
forward and have them work on these things. They then provide recommendations to us. We then
move beyond hearing and receiving those recommendations to transforming them, not receiving
them and certainly not accepting them. Now I am not a procurement professional but I do know
that Ms. Sams knows the procurement code probably better than any of us sitting in this room.
46
She has made a recommendation to debar and that motion comes with a series of facts and exhibits
that are all in your Tab 16 that were in the Administrative Services Committee as the Chairman
just indicated a moment ago. And for us to debate whether she is accurate in her assessment I
think is improper. We have a motion that was made by the Finance Chair that is consistent with
item 16. The Chair of Administrative Services has also come and said that he supports the
recommendation made from Ms. Sams. And then we have a substitute motion which calls into
question the professional we’ve hired who makes the decisions and then makes the
recommendation. I don’t think that that’s appropriate. What I would ask the Commissioner from
th
the 6 to do is to withdraw his substitute motion if you would just this one time ---
Mr. Hasan: But Mr. Mayor ---
Mr. Mayor: --- if you would go with me just one time.
Mr. Hasan: --- Mr. Mayor, I don’t have a problem to do that but let me show now what
happened here now because that’s not fair to me.
Mr. Mayor: Hold on, hold on, hold on, I’m not, all right, and I’ll clarify. I’m not suggesting
that you are singularly calling in the question, Ms. Sams, her professionalism or her ability, I am
not and I would never ever suggest that. But we’ve reached a point where again we spend a lot of
time re-debating issues that we should not be re-debating issues and the recommendation that’s
been made and we’ve got a motion and a proper second and I would hope that we trust the people
who we’ve hired to do the right thing. And in this case we’ve gone back and you’ve got volumes
of data that says this is why I’m making this decision, volumes of data so much so that you’ve
only got a snapshot. The notebooks, voluminous notebooks, I wouldn’t even want on my desk but
again I want everybody in the audience to understand I am not singling out the Commissioner from
th.
the 6 His questions are accurate, they’re certainly valid and appropriate because we’re trying to
help a petitioner. We’re always trying to help the petitioner because I want people in Augusta to
know we are open for business, we are here to do business and we want you to do business in
Augusta but we want you to do it properly we want you to follow the law, the laws of the State of
Georgia, the laws of the city. We want you to do that and clearly what’s been brought from your
committee says that didn’t happen and as such ---
Mr. Hasan: Can I get 30 seconds, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: --- I’m going to give you an opportunity ---
Mr. Hasan: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: --- and (unintelligible) to say that I’d like to go back to the underlying motion
th
that the Commissioner from the 8 has made.
Mr. Hasan: Okay and I’ll be respectful of that, Mr. Mayor. I withdraw my motion but let
me say for the record.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
47
Mr. Hasan: I was just how we got here is Commissioner Lockett asked the question what
was the minimum. But Ms. Geri Sams is an absolute professional but by her own admission when
she said that six months was the minimum and she said she misunderstood the question and now
we’re actually at a point that actually it could three months and one day for debarment so it became
we all learned something from that. And so she done a great job in consulting with counsel and
they put us on notice there’s some errors with the suspension to debarment. So I think it was
natural benefit it wasn’t a question it was a question of clarity where she kind of misunderstood
Commissioner Lockett’s question and you could see he didn’t refute that and that’s how we got to
this point. There were other options that she overlooked at the time so we all make mistakes so
we all learned something from just happened it wasn’t a question of professional at all.
Mr. Mayor: I couldn’t agree with you more, Commissioner, and again I want this body
and this general public to know ---
Mr. Hasan: I withdraw my motion.
Mr. Mayor: --- you and I agree on this, we agree 100% and I’ve learned a lot myself here.
All right we’ve got an underlying motion and we’d like to vote on that now.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, I’ve had my hand up a while now.
Mr. Mayor: You have, you had it up for a while.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you. I’m glad you realized that.
Mr. Mayor: I have all right.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you I just want to say 20 minutes ago I was going to withdraw my
second after the Procurement Director gave us an explanation there’s a difference between suspend
and debar. I have the upmost respect for Procurement and so forth but we just and I did understand
what you said when I asked you the questions about the minimum and the max but my colleague
thought I didn’t understand you but I did understand you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: All right, voting.
Mr. Lockett: What’s the motion, Madam Clerk.
Motion Passes 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay here’s where we are. The Chair would like to entertain a motion to go
into Executive Session. There’s a matter that’s been brought to my attention and I want to try to
speak to it in Executive Session. It is not on the agenda but we need to address it and we need to
address it now. All right (inaudible).
Mr. Smith: So moved.
48
The Clerk: Who was that?
Mr. Mayor: All right, that was Commissioner the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Lockett: I second.
Mr. Mayor: We should do it now, we should do it now. All right Attorney MacKenzie.
ADDENDUM
24. Motion to approve going into an Executive Session.
Mr. MacKenzie: That would be a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss personnel.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Hold on a minute. Everybody’s moving and we hadn’t voted yet.
Mr. M. Williams: We ain’t voted yet and we ain’t got a second yet.
The Clerk: Yes, Mr. Lockett seconded.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lockett seconded it. Okay, voting.
Mr. Guilfoyle out.
Mr. Frantom votes No.
Motion Passes 8-1.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
Mr. MacKenzie: Meeting affidavit.
Mr. M. Williams: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: All right voting.
The Clerk: I need a second.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
Motion Passes 10-0.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4 for a motion.
ADDENDUM
25. Motion to approve the request of Fire Chief and EMA Director Chris James to rescind
February 9 action of the Commission to approve his resignation and severance pay.
49
Mr. Sias: Move to grant the request of our Fire Chief and EMA Director Chief James
th
to rescind his resignation and rescind the Commission’s February 9 action approving his
resignation and severance pay.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and a second. Voting.
Mr. Frantom, Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. G. Smith vote No.
Motion Passes 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Item 20, Madam Clerk, I’m sorry, Item 19.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
19. Motion to approve a one-time transfer from 2016 contingency fund in the amount of
$20,000 into the Animal Services Department 2016 budget to facilitate educational
community outreach initiative relative to the February 2, 2016 approved Animal Services
Ordinance. (Requested by Commissioner Sean Frantom)
th
Mr. Mayor: All right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 7.
Mr. Frantom: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We discussed this item about two weeks ago about
the need to educate the public on the ordinance and now it’s officially passed and starting January
1. It is crucial that over the next ten plus months that we educate the people and tell them what
this is about. This is a big issue for our community and it’s important that we get it right, it’s
important that we focus on the branding and make sure people are educated on this item. Now
Ms. Broady talked about putting billboards up and doing many different things and she felt like
the $20,000 dollars was sufficient. And I think a few of my colleagues want to talk about linking
things with non-profits. This is a department this is vital to our community and if we’re going to
try to link this amount with other things I just don’t think that’s the right image. It doesn’t portray
the right message to the people or the animals that we’re supporting moving forward. So I would
hope I’d like to make a motion to approve the $20,000 dollars.
Ms. Davis: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right I’ve got a motion and a second. All right the Chair recognizes the
st
Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I’d like to make a substitute motion that we send this back to committee.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, I’ve got a substitute motion to refer back to committee with a proper
second. We’re going to deal with this first and then we’ll see what happens. All right, voting.
50
Ms. Davis, Mr. Frantom and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No.
Motion Passes 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Item 20.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
20. Discuss a proactive cautionary approach in dealing with the Ford Motor Company recall
of Ranger Pickups due to faulty airbags. Plan to immediately discontinue the operation of
any such vehicle in our fleet until appropriate action can be taken. Identify the number of
vehicles involved and determine an interim replacement strategy. (No recommendation from
Finance Committee February 9, 2016)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8 the Finance Chair.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, this is actually an item that Commissioner Bill Lockett had put
on the Finance and this is his.
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay all right the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 5.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Ford Motor Company has recognized that
there’s a major problem with the airbags the 2004 through 2006 models that the Takata airbags
will in many instances explode. And we seemed to be concerned about the passenger side airbag
but that explosion of the airbag sends shrapnel and other things throughout the vehicle so you don’t
have to be the driver of the vehicle, you can be a passenger in the vehicle. And when I brought
this before committee I know a couple of my colleague indicated that they drive Ford vehicles and
they’re not concerned about this but the Ford vehicles they’re driving are not year 2004 through
2006. We’re talking about 23 vehicles I believe and I think we need to take a proactive stance on
this the same as we did when we had the water advisory the other day. It was said it’s better to be
safe than sorry and I would hate for any of our employees to go there and play Russian roulette
with these vehicles. I understand that the recall is supposed to be made definite if there is a problem
sometime next month. But I said during committee would you want your mother, your mother-in-
law, your girlfriend to ride around in a vehicle that could arbitrarily the airbag could explode on
you. And I know it was said earlier on that well you’ll just have to be more careful when you drive
but most accidents don’t happen on purpose. That’s why they call them an accident. And I think
we really need to take a proactive stance. It may provide some short term hardships. The Deputy
Administrator admitted at that time they could put new vehicles on our and I’m not quoting them
now but on a fast track. And we need to get them because these vehicles are old I mean they are
2004 through 2006. I just think it would be the right thing to do and but those of you who are in
opposition to it I just pray to God that we don’t have one our people to go out and get hurt and
then we’re sorry because we didn’t take action. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4.
51
Mr. Sias: Thank you, sir. Ms. Jackson, what is your recommended action for this issue on
its entirety? Excuse me thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to ask the Administrator a question.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. Madam Administrator.
Ms. Jackson: Our strategy one is based on a couple of factors, the first factor being at this
point we have not been officially notified that there is a problem with these vehicles. We suspect
that there is based upon problems that we had with the passenger side airbags with these vehicles.
And in the event with the passenger side airbags was made known to us to be faulty we
discontinued having riders in the passenger side of the vehicle. For the driver side issue what
we’re trying to do is park as many of the vehicles as possible and make alternate arrangements.
When we cannot do that we will make, when we can’t do that we may be able to expedite our
replacement schedule for those vehicles so we’re just trying to put together a hodgepodge of
approaches to make sure that we can assure the safety of our workforce.
Mr. Mayor: Continue.
Mr. Sias: Well, Ms. Jackson, I’m going press a little bit. I want I’d like to a straight out
recommendation as to what we do.
Ms. Jackson: At this point I hesitate to give you a complete recommendation because I
haven’t had a chance to consult with Legal counsel about their recommendations of this. So I
don’t have an explicit recommendation for you for that reason.
Mr. Sias: Okay, thank you, however, if I may follow with one more real quickly.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Sias: But you have in effect you all have actually affected a plan as you say where
you’re parking ‘x’ number of them right now. And out of that concerned group what percentage
what you say have been parked?
Ms. Jackson: Sir, to be clear I didn’t say we had parked them already I said that would be
our strategy moving forward.
Mr. Sias: To kind of take some out of service.
Ms. Jackson: Park as many as we can if we can find other vehicles in our fleet to replace
those ones that are currently in use. We’ll try to park as many as possible and acquire other
vehicles with new vehicles from among departments and things like that. There may be some
possibilities we have to work out a strategy to make that happen and I’m not saying that that has
been done already, sir.
Mr. Sias: Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: All right the Chair recognizes the Mayor Pro Tem.
52
Mr. G. Smith: Can I ask Ms. Jackson?
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely.
Mr. G. Smith: Ms. Jackson, is there anybody checked in to what it would cost to replace
these bags say with the Ford Motor Company locally or a private firm if this, how many vehicles
are we talking about?
Ms. Jackson: Right now we’re talking about between 19 and 24 vehicles. I understand
that the problem has been that Ford does not have the parts in to do that. There are specific parts
for airbags even for those passenger side airbags that we got the recall earlier. We’ve only been
able to replace three of those because of the lack of availability of parts from Ford.
Mr. G. Smith: How about has anybody discussed maybe disconnecting the airbags until
we find out the proper procedures going to be taken to correct it?
Ms. Jackson: We’ve been advised of that places us at legal risk.
Mr. G. Smith: Okay, what’s our legal risk when we sell those 19 vehicles? Go ahead.
Mr. MacKenzie: Our research issues actually came up at the committee level and there’s
actually no law requires that you disclose or repair ---
Mr. G. Smith: Dump them on somebody else?
Mr. MacKenzie: --- a used vehicle that has that, however, it is our recommendation that in
the event any vehicles were disposed through our normal disposal process that we would include
notices to anyone who buys them so they’d be aware of the potential risk associated with the
vehicle subject to recall.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess my question would be to the Attorney
or Ms. Jackson whoever can answer it. Don’t we have or don’t the Ford Company have a
responsibility to make these vehicles safe that they sold us that we got people riding in? Can’t we
go back and look what we spent with them? We don’t know I’m hearing that we don’t know
exactly which ones or if the ones we got you know is defective or not. But if they are, it looks like
the Ford dealership Ford Corporation if not the dealership ought to have some responsibility to
make these vehicles safe that they sold us that we paid for. Now if we didn’t pay anything we
might not be able to complain but we bought these cars we ought to have some ground to get
something back through our Legal Department or somebody versus sitting here saying we got they
done dumped them off on us because they came from the dealership with those defects there ought
to be some legal step that we can make or request. Even if somebody gets hurt God forbid
somebody does get hurt but if they do we ought to be able to handle that in a different way. So
can Legal speak to that and tell me?
53
Mr. MacKenzie: Quickly there’s really two issues that you raised. One’s a warranty type
issue or responsibility from Ford and or the seller of the vehicle to maybe fix the vehicles,
compensate us for not being able to fix them, things along those lines. They have issued all of the
appropriate notices in accordance with the required laws to make us aware of the both the problem
with the driver side airbags as well as a potential problem with respect to the passenger side airbag,
I said that in reverse but they have complied with those requirements and they are going through
the process to issue the recalls on all of that. I think the second question you asked is more along
the lines of liability whether or not Ford will be responsible in the event that there’s harm to our
employees or to other third parties who may be riding in the vehicles. And there’s a lot of legal
issues out there and cases relating to that that there is liability if there’s a defective product. The
question that would come about is what knowledge did we have of potential risk and whether or
not there would be any liability to the government. We did look into this issue in detail. It’s my
understanding that we have taken some measures to minimize the use of the vehicles. We have
not received an official notice that the affected airbags are subject to the recall and until that
happens I don’t think there’s really a lot more we can do because they might not be subject to a
recall. There was a question relating to shrapnel coming out from the passenger’s side airbag even
if there’s no passenger. It’s my understanding these vehicles are equipped with a driver’s and
passenger seat sensor and in the event of a crash if there’s no person in the passenger seat that
typically the airbag in the passenger side does not activate which would minimize any risk of
shrapnel flying towards the driver’s side in event of the absence of a passenger.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can follow up. I would have my lawyer to contact the
Ford Motor Corporation on my behalf if I had one of those vehicles that I purchased. Now if I got
it, somebody gave it to me or I found it on the side of the road it may be different but if I purchased
like this government had purchased then somebody ought to be sending something to the Ford
Motor Corporation to get some clarity that we have not got yet. But like Commissioner Lockett
said we’ve got people driving these vehicles and if there’s no problem then they need to tell us
there’s no problem. But if there is a problem this government has the same authorization or powers
to send a letter to the Ford Motor Company or to the dealer through GMA or whoever we bought
these vehicles through to know that we potentially have people driving something that may or may
not be unsafe. So we need some clarity. You can’t wait until something happens and do that so if
I had one and I don’t drive a, yea I do, I have, I said I don’t drive a Ford I got a Ford truck, Mr.
Guilfoyle, and you laughed at it but it’s got 200,000 miles on it and it’ll go anywhere. But my
point is if we have bought these vehicles we ought to be made sure that the Ford Motor Corporation
not just the dealer but the corporation knows that we have a concern and it’s probably greater than
the average taxpayer because the average taxpayer may have one or two we got 24 of them so
somebody needs to tell us something. Somebody needs to respond back and let us know that they
are or they are not safe that’s all I’ve got, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you so much. All right, I think we’re ready to move on to the
next item a lot of good discussion a lot of good discussion.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion on this.
Mr. Mayor: Okay then I’ll entertain it.
54
Mr. Lockett: I move that the Administrator’s recommendation be adopted.
I think
she indicated that they would review the possibility of parking some of the vehicles et cetera,
etcetera. I hope the Clerk got her comments that she made so that would be my motion.
Mr. Hasan: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right motion and a second. Voting.
Mr. G. Smith votes No.
Motion Passes 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Item 21.
APPOINTMENTS
21. Motion to approve the appointments of Mr. Frank Middleton to Board of Tax Assessors
to fill the seat currently held by Renee D’Antignac and Juanita L. Burney to the seat
currently held by Charles F. Smith effective April 25, 2016. (Requested by Commissioner
Marion Williams)
Mr. Hasan: I thought we took it off the ---
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry, we did, we deleted that. All right, Item 18.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
18. Motion to approve the termination of Mark Johnson, Director of Environmental Services
Department effective immediately. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. M. Williams: So moved.
Mr. Hasan: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second. The Chair recognizes the Mayor
Pro Tem.
Mr. G. Smith: Well, you know, I was going to, I read over some of this and in the middle
of this there’s some conversation about, you know, when did we start by looking down hard at the
down in this direction instead of following the paper trail as they say and come up somehow, stop
midway up the ladder and then we’re going to barbeque somebody down that started the process
and then blame him for what all happened. And effective immediately we got a guy that you know
resigned and just because he didn’t get accepted somewhere else we’re going to take him back. I
mean is this you know what like pick and choose how we treat people that work here in this
government? I think this is terrible just finding out about this and then all of a sudden we’re going,
you know, dismiss a good employee that’s got an outstanding record but yet one guy that didn’t
55
want to be on our team as we say he gets to go up there when he finds out when he’s gets up there
information they received and said no we don’t want you. So the safest thing to do is come back
home but yet we’re going to sit here and try to barbeque a good employee or crucify or whatever
word you want to use instead of finding out like Paul Harvey you say and now you know the rest
of the story. So let’s give the man a chance and due diligence and get the correct information
before we go messing with people’s lives and turning them out because I guarantee this man won’t
be on the market long I can tell you that. So ya’ll can take it and smoke it however you want to.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Engineering Services Chairman Commissioner
Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion. I just recently received
some information and I’d just like to refer this to committee to give myself and my colleagues an
opportunity to look at the additional information received, that way I’ll be in a better position to
make a determination.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I like that, that sounds good. All right, I’m going to go down the line.
th
The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8, Commissioner Guilfoyle. I’m going down
the list.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, Mark Johnson has been waiting here trying to protect and fight
for his job. I mean the decision that some has made based off a three-and-a-half-minute
conversation in Legal and three pieces of paper I don’t think we’re doing giving him his due
process. To give him his due process he needs to get up and speak on what he knows to show, it’s
not evidence but facts pertaining to this. And everything that’s in the book I believe he’ll clearly
explain, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right, I’m here to work with ya’ll in this matter. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Johnson if you’ll approach.
Mr. Johnson: I first want to start ---
Mr. Mayor: Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. All right, I just want for the record Madam
Clerk I’ve got a couple of motions. I know you’ve got them written down I’ve got I had a motion
and a substitute have you got both of those?
The Clerk: I didn’t get a second on the substitute.
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion second came from down there?
The Clerk: I have the substitute from Mr. Fennoy but I didn’t get a second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Fennoy made a substitute.
Mr. Hasan: He didn’t get a second.
56
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right so all right I hadn’t taken any action on it but I thought there
was a second so you failed to receive a proper second for that though so it disposes of itself. All
right, the Chair recognizes Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, you have five minutes.
Mr. Johnson: First and foremost I’d like to say thanks for the opportunity to speak but this
process has criminalized me publicly. It’s hurt me professionally, it’s impacted my family and it’s
based on an investigation that was not thorough nor complete. I’ve been accused of deception,
misrepresentation and at the end of the day you’re questioning my honesty and my integrity and
that’s unacceptable. The goal for today is to provide you with some facts that I provided each and
every one of the Commissioners as well as be exonerated of any wrong doing. First and foremost,
there have been numerous items that went through Administration that outlined a new demolition
program all of which were drafted all but one was drafted by me which included explicit
compensation by position or department. This one actually shows the amount. This copy was
th
given to Ms. Jackson originally May 20 so the five minutes is going to be tough but the reality is
Ms. Jackson performed an investigation, an investigation that turned up approximately three or
four pieces of paper. It implied that I misrepresented facts and that nobody knew. I provided you
all documents where all through Administration, Ted Rhinehart knew, Ms. Jackson knew and
when we got down to the end it was based on something subjective not based on fact, not based
on knowledge, but rather something subjective. So let’s stick to the key facts. Number two I was
directed by Ms. Jackson to work with Deputy Administrator Rinehart. Throughout the process,
throughout the process Ms. Jackson was involved directly with Mr. Rhinehart not with me.
Number three is an additional agenda item that I provided that laid out explicit compensation.
Here’s the third agenda item drafted by me with explicit compensation all for the oversight of the
new program. I don’t know another director who steps up and says let me solve a personnel action
problem for the Administrator, let me bring $1.6 million dollars to the table to solve a demolition
program and at the end of the day stands before you challenged on integrity. Here is the fourth
agenda item and the key fact here is that as we’re making all these modifications it’s gone through
Legal, it’s gone through Administration and Administration’s making tweaks. At this point we’re
focused on changing it to administrative authority. We’re changing it to where it’s 15%. Mr.
Rhinehart provides a directive that says fill out a budget, even provides the template of the budget.
I respond with a detailed budget and salary details by position. Ms. Jackson asks for clarity on the
program then Mr. Rhinehart provides Ms. Jackson, myself, Melanie Wilson a copy of his draft
agenda where it was surmised to a single line item but the intent didn’t change. The intent of
compensation has been there through every single agenda item whether in detail or in summary.
Mr. Rhinehart uploaded the agenda item into the system, not Environmental Services. Ms. Jackson
asked Mr. Rhinehart to respond to questions of compensation related to the program but more
interestingly I was asked to respond to that as well. Where at that time I see him out of the office
but please look at the attached detail sheet and the detail sheet had all of the compensation listed.
This is the day before the Commission voting. Mr. Rhinehart’s response, “okay I got it”. He got
it. He knew, he got it, he understood, he got it. How am I to be accountable to something when
Administration was in the know, had provided documents in both directions. I sent the budget.
Mr. Rhinehart actually sent a budget back to me and said add $301.00 dollars to salary line which
he did. Mr. Rhinehart uploaded the budget into the system but this was a team effort. It was
Administration, it was Legal, it was myself, and my interpretation of the process was we
negotiated. We started at $1.6 million dollars; it changed to $900,000 we went from $133,000
dollars in compensation to Administrative authority and those changes were done to make it
57
sellable, to make it palatable and make it something we could accomplish in a year but now that
we stand here addressing the concerns of an investigation number one when I was investigated
well actually let’s start ---
Mr. Mayor: You have one minute.
Mr. Johnson: --- let’s go basic I’ve never been provided official notice that there is an
investigation. Number one. Number two all the key players were involved in my inquiry getting
to hear my testimony. Number three Ms. Jackson who is a key part of the process which her
signature is not there got to perform the investigation. When an officer has a shooting in this
county the Sheriff doesn’t investigate, Georgia State Patrol does. The fox can’t watch the
henhouse; the Administrator shouldn’t investigate a process that she’s involved in. And most
importantly it’s subjective. Her opinion of what I was thinking at a time I wrote a memo is
subjective not objective. I have facts that show a history of what was intended not what is reality.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Hold on, hold on, hold on, I’ve got a list right here. I don’t have a screen; I’ve
th
got a list. I’m going to go down that list. The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had this item put on the agenda because in
Legal when this first came out I said then we should do something about this. Ms. Jackson came
in and gave a report whether Mr. Johnson think she should watch it or do the report or not is not
important to me because we make that decision. But what bothers me more than anything is that
not that nobody was knowledgeable of what was in the agreement or what was talked about but
what was approved. Now I’m hearing that Ms. Jackson is a part of this and should and I got calls
from other Commissioners saying when you see this information it’s going to change your mind;
it didn’t change my mind. Everything Mr. Johnson said I think is true. I think everything was there
but the approval was not there. The very next day that it was approved then it got to H.R. I never
seen nothing in this government happen that fast but the very next day it was approved and if the
newsprint had not printed it, I don’t know one of them two which one of them two ladies out there
printed it but if the newsman had not brought it out we wouldn’t have known about it now. It’d
still be going on. It’s been going on since July of last year and I take issue with that. We’ve got
people who was asking for raises and want to be buying back vacation days and doing all kinds of
things and then this was approved. So I’d like to hear from the Administrator who’s been accused
of knowing about this and was a part of this and had no business even in the investigation by our
employee she supervised. I think that’s as bold as you can get.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. M. Williams: I’d like to hear from the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: I know I do too, I do too. I want to hear from everybody who needs to be heard
from today. It’s a very sad day. Madam Administrator and then I’m going to come down the list
58
and go back to the Commissioners. I think if you want to speak now or do you want to come back
after the Commissioners I’ll leave it to you.
Ms. Jackson: I guess I need to ask Commissioner Marion Williams is there a specific
question you want me to respond to, sir?
Mr. M. Williams: Well, to the allegation that was just made that you was abreast of all of
this knowledge and you evidently knew everything that was happening that the newspaper brought
out that you didn’t bring out to us. And if you did I mean I need to know when I got a call from a
Commissioner saying that you was involved and other people involved I said bring everybody on
the table. Whoever’s wrong is wrong so I need to know from you about your involvement and not
your involvement because I see what Mr. Johnson has just gave to us on the screen and you was
knowledgeable about what was happening. But the sign off part of this deal when it comes to
money, car allowances and increases who were given out that this body didn’t have no knowledge
of. And if the newspaper again I said hadn’t brought it out I still wouldn’t know.
Ms. Jackson: Sir, Mr. Johnson is correct in the fact that when he presented the original
draft agenda item it did include the notion of raises for himself and some other staff people within
his department. I was knowledgeable of that agenda item and certainly knew he was requesting
a raise. What I did not know was that the raise had been processed. I found that out on January
nd
22 via a call from Susan McCord. So, yes, the way we would normally do this process would be
once the agenda item was approved the supervisor for Mr. Johnson would’ve gotten with the
Human Resources Department to determine if in fact any additional pay increase was warranted
based upon the additional responsibilities that he was taking on. In the agenda item that references
raises as needed I think the specific language was raises as necessary for employees engaged in
the management and oversight of the program. We did make sure there was money available in
the event that after their review the Human Resources Department determined and recommended
to me that a raise would be in order. There was never any such review by Human Resources.
nd
What we found out was that after what I found out after January 22 was that Mr. Johnson had
submitted a letter to the Human Resources Interim Director advising her that the Commission had
approved the raises. Because she was led to believe that the Commission had approved the raises
she did not submit that for my review and therefore it was processed without my signature. Does
that respond to your question, sir?
Mr. M. Williams: Yes, ma’am, it does.
Mr. Mayor: Okay all right this is how I’ve got it written on my sheet right here. I’ve got
Williams who just spoke, I’m going down to Lockett, then I’m coming back to Guilfoyle.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chair, I have nothing to say.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right. All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the
th
8, Finance Chair.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, you know I’m a little stunned at this point right now because you
know I know that the Administrator did an investigation but what information she had brought to
59
Legal was just the pages basically what I have in here which is two RPA’s and one salary line
item. But one of the RPA’s was four years old and one of my colleagues just brought up in Legal
about something being four years old that was actually approved through the budget cycle by this
body. But during your investigation why didn’t you bring forth that you had or your Deputy
Administrator had in your computers that shows the facts that Mark when you had asked Mark or
ya’ll communicated about displacing this one employee? Seven different times including the day
before the Commission meeting that when Susan McCord had called you, you had asked Ted
Rhinehart to ask Mark how was the salary because Susan had it at $150,000 dollars. Again for the
seventh time that either went to you as far as the breakout in salaries or to Ted that works directly
for you that’s one office over from you and I know Ted believes in communication. If you had to
break out at that moment how do we not know that the entire intent seven times from the Director
that there was never one question either from your Deputy Administrator or from you in regards
to the salary. And then the day after the Commission meeting Ted sends Mark an email clearly
states “everything approved let’s hit the ground running”. Again no question about the salaries
and if Mark’s intent is false or if he mislead anything, I cannot find it in this document whatsoever
because he’s been open and transparent through this whole process. But what’s odd out of
everybody that’s involved Mark Johnson is the one that’s slated to be fired. And if, I told the
Director when she first got on board I said whatever you do stand up and protect your directors.
This time we had thrown Mark underneath the bus but the other directors are sitting back watching
about their jobs, their morale, their employees. They’re concerned because there’s nobody to
protect them. When they come before this Commission they get questioned, second guessed,
everything but as far as back on this findings your investigation that you had done that no formal
email no formal notice was given to the Director. And then we, I do have a question for Andrew,
Mr. Mayor, if you don’t mind.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t mind. Attorney MacKenzie.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Andrew, if we didn’t have a formal investigation, a documented
investigation, did we or did we not because the Director never got any information as far as a
formal investigation from the Administration or from Legal. So his name, his reputation is in
jeopardy.
Mr. MacKenzie: First off I’ll over a cautionary matter what you’re asking for is legal
advice and it’s my recommendation as your lawyer that you receive that in a closed legal meeting
which the law allows for. And as the decision to waive that privilege would be the decision of this
body to make and I’m not recommending you do that but that’s your choice to make and that would
be a decision for ya’ll to make as a body.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Andrew, I cannot bounce around like that because we tried to bring Mark
in Legal last week to represent himself but he was we were told he could not. Now that he’s sitting
here before us in front of this body that’s fighting for his livelihood because he truly believes in
Augusta Richmond County. And if anything the fellow directors are going to get a better
understanding from now on they’re going to have to CYA to protect their jobs and that’s foolish.
That’s foolish when a man or a woman has to go to work to have to figure out a way to protect
their jobs. There should be no job site condition except in that manner. But everything if anybody
takes 30 minutes out of the time as far as my colleagues and read through these 20 attachments
60
you will find that Mark’s name is clear. Now what you will also find is the fallacy within our
government. The two pieces of paper that the Administrator had brought out in Legal to actually
say that the ill intent or wrong intent of Director Johnson, one was four years old had nothing to
do with this program which I find fallacy in that because that’s when you start searching. It
becomes a witch hunt at that point. But then we withhold all this information that’s in her emails
and I find that the fallacy that the, from four years ago did not have the signature of the
Administrator and last year it did not have the signature of the Administrator. We put the directors
or we take the directors out either by a method of pure pressure or being fired. H.R. has been
doing the best they can with the interim that’s in there now but it falls, once Mark sends out the
RPA he no longer, it’s out of his hands at that moment. He don’t know if it passes or get sent back
so how is it Mark Johnson’s fault at this moment because once he signed it and emailed it it’s out
of his hands, it goes up the ladder that the Administrator is responsible for all these departments.
So if anybody that sits here is going to fire Mark Johnson today I would like to hear their reason
why.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right, thank you, Commissioner Guilfoyle. I’m going to her. I’m
going to go to the Administrator first.
Mr. Hasan: That’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Administrator.
Ms. Jackson: Okay, to address Commissioner Guilfoyle’s comments number one lastly
when we were in closed session I was very clear I went through a very detailed timeline that
included many of the same points of fact that Mr. Johnson just enumerated so there was no attempt
to hide any of those. Those were brought out to you in terms of my commentaries I led in on that
date. You also mentioned there were three to four pieces of paper that consisted of this
investigation that is by far not true. I was trying to minimize the number of pieces of paper that I
copied and trees that we killed through this process. I have this entire notebook which consists of
my entire investigation of this matter. I’d be more than happy to make copies of that for any
member of this body that so chooses to see that. In addition, we are not saying that, we have never
said that we were not aware of the fact that Mr. Johnson requested a raise. What we were saying
is that in so composing that agenda item we made funds available in the event that after a review
Human Resources determined that raises were in order there would be money in place to make
that happen. That was the purpose of that. I made that clear in my earlier response and I’ll repeat
it again just to make sure everybody understands where we’re coming from with that. In any
standard professional organization that’s what you do you don’t wantonly grant raises on an
arbitrary basis. You do some form of analysis to determine what’s appropriate. What’s appropriate
could be 5%, it could be 10%, it could 12%, it could be zero percent based upon the additional
responsibilities of the individual is being asked to carry out. In the absence of such a review we
didn’t know what the right amount was for the additional responsibilities that are in question here
therefore Mr. Rhinehart thought it wise to put forth 15% and notify you all as part of that agenda
item that raises could be awarded but there was no specific determination of what those raises
were. In addition, I never had any conversation with Mr. Johnson where I promised I would award
a raise of any specific amount.
61
Mr. Mayor: All right, okay, I’m going down to the south side now. The Chair recognizes
th
the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, sorry about that. First I’d like to refer
my colleague Commissioner Guilfoyle’s opening statement when we started this before Mr.
Johnson came to the podium to say he’s had only three minutes and something and it’s a witch
hunt. Well, truth be told we’ve terminated people within that timeframe. We’ve done that before
so I don’t know why Mark would get preferential treatment. We’ve done that before a.k.a. Jackie
Humphries. She wasn’t there, she didn’t get a hearing. We made a decision in record time so it
won’t be the first time, it won’t be the first time it’s been done. I think in many ways I pretty much
I think I’ve had this conversation with people. I think Ms. Jackson in terms of sharing with her
her knowledge about it I think there’s two different things. I think we’re trying to hinder trying to
tie together that having a knowledge of something is approval. That’s not true, that’s not true. In
the meeting with here she never denied knowing that there was a request for the raise so she never
approved it. And I think and if you look at also the information that Mr. Johnson has provided for
us and (unintelligible) the article in the Augusta Chronicle there was massaging the program
getting it to a point that the Administrator could approve it but not coming before the body that’s
what the massaging was about. So if you’re going to massage the program, get the numbers where
the Administrator can approve it then why not go to the Administrator why go around the
Administrator at that point? That was the purpose of massaging the program. That’s why you did
that so I think it’s disingenuous to say those things and question people’s character as Mr. Johnson
has said he’s concerned about that well you know he knows the process. I don’t think he can say
honestly say when you go back to 2011 and I’ve looked at some things in 2011 when the 44 raises
was given out, when he appealed to the previous Administrator he informed him that he wanted
the raise, he informed him what the staff would look like. He informed him with the RPA form
and that Administrator’s signature is on that form. So he understands the significance of the
Administrator’s signature being on the form. That’s part of the process, you can’t get around that.
And that’s what and the program if you look to your document it was massaged so that the
Administrator could sign off on it so why would you do that and then go around the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right, I’m going to go down to Commissioner Mary Davis.
Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. From what I’ve read throughout this entire book which
is a lot of good documentation with emails and dates and texts it looks like from what I can
understand, Mark, please if you could come up here to make sure I’m not misinterpreting anything
that I’ve read. But that and, Ms. Jackson, that you at some point in these emails you asked for him
for Mr. Rhinehart to take over and work with Mr. Johnson about this program. In the emails of
course it talks about the additional position and increase in positions or for those salary adjustments
nd
which we had in our motion on June the 2.
Ms. Jackson: That’s correct.
Ms. Davis: All right, so I understand that and I understand that you did have knowledge
of these costs increase and positions and salaries and the program costs. My problem that I see on
this is so Mr. Johnson thinks he answering then to Mr. Rhinehart, I mean that’s who he working
directly with, that’s his supervisor in his mind that’s what I’m interpreting. He gets to the end of
62
the motion it comes to us that information is in there but it’s lumped together as far as the
administrative costs. Mr. Johnson had given a more detailed budget for the agenda item, is that
correct, Mr. Johnson ---
Mr. Johnson: That is correct.
Ms. Davis: --- that had detailed items of the salary increases. From what I understand you
nd
thought that would be given to us that day on June 2 of that breakdown of the entire budget.
Mr. Johnson: I believe the entire budget was actually included.
Ms. Davis: Right, okay, so I don’t know if you can answer this, Ms. Jackson or Mr.
Rhinehart, why didn’t get that full agenda item breakdown of the salary breakdowns and the cost
of the program. I know that you’re not Mr. Rhinehart but –
Ms. Jackson: Yes, what Mr. Rhinehart reported to me was that that was not included
because the goal of the agenda item was to get the program approved. We were introducing a new
concept, there was funding that had to be allocated to do that and the goal coming before you was
to get you all to sign off on that concept and approve the funding for the program. Salaries are an
administrative issue that would need to be dealt with through Human Resources so this was not
the appropriate time to do that. I also think I heard a bit of a conflict because when Mr. Johnson
met with me in the presence of others what he told me was that he knew that that specific detail
should have been pulled out of the agenda item that was presented to the Commission. He told
me that he knew that Ted did not include that with the package.
Mr. Johnson: After the fact.
Mr. Mayor: Okay ---
Ms. Davis: Mr. Mayor, can I finish? So okay so but I think, Mr. Johnson, it was approved
in the motion that’s a fact and then there is a fact that then he was told by his supervisor for this
program it’s been approved by the Commission. Since the Commission approved the demolition
program yesterday I’d like to hit the ground running re the implementation actions and therefore
the move to Human Resources from Mr. Johnson on the documentation.
Mr. Mayor: All right, suspend. Commissioner Davis, who are you directing the question
to.
Ms. Davis: I think to Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Johnson: That is correct and so we started moving forward with implementation
actions. We followed the normal course of action where we filled out RPA’s and we sent it to
H.R. That is a standard process. H.R. actually processed the RPA’s. It was, Finance was involved.
They built the budget; they approved the budget and the RPA’s were approved. It was not until
63
thth
January 24 or 25 after the newspaper article that I knew there was a problem. We actually
contacted H.R. to get the signed executed RPA’s to send to Ms. Jackson to resolve the issue.
RPA’s never come back to the user department. We had no knowledge that Ms. Jackson’s
signature was not there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Davis: Okay, Mr. Mayor, just to follow up. I mean I know that there’s a disconnect
here and what I’m seeing is there’s no intentional, you weren’t intentionally trying to, you can’t
write your own check, you can’t approve your own raises. We know that. I don’t believe you
intentionally tried to do that. I feel like, Mr. Mayor, that the disconnect is in the process When it
got to Human Resources, you thought it was you were done with your side and it never went to
the full signature process up to the Administrator and I can’t blame that on Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Mayor: All right, all right, Mayor Pro Tem and then Commissioner Sias.
Mr. G. Smith: You know ever since, who me?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah you.
Mr. G. Smith: Am I in line or what?
Mr. Mayor: You’re in line.
Mr. G. Smith: All right I’m in line. All right the main think that I see and I agree with Ms.
Davis down there is I noticed every meeting since he’s been hired and the other assistant
administrator all of a sudden he’s not here. And when something this serious, where is Mr.
Rhinehart and why isn’t he here and if he’s directly involved we could hear his comments. But I
definitely have to agree once somebody’s starts down here and it goes up the ladder, how is he
going to know where it stops because he’s been dealing with Mr. Rhinehart who is a direct assistant
to Ms. Jackson. And then all of a sudden you know and this case comes up it’s like it got lost
somewhere up there, where, where did it get lost? And she can’t know everything but then I think
this is one of these things where you know who do we blame? And I’m going to tell you it’s not
good as an employee around here I’ll tell you. This is Augusta, Georgia not Salem, Georgia. So
I just think that there’s something that could be done to right this wrong or however if a mistake
was made, hey, let’s straighten it out and let’s together as a team. Every time you make an error I
don’t feel I’m going to point at you and make sure everybody knows. And so if that’s the way
we’re going to play then the rest of the employees are going to know and that’s how they’re going
to adjust their attitude toward Richmond County, Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Madam Administrator, I’m going to ask a question. I just, it’s a sad
day for us in Augusta. My question to you is with regards to the RPA process. How does that
work so when an RPA is submitted walk us through those steps because I don’t understand that?
How is it supposed to work versus how it works right now?
64
Ms. Jackson: Okay, any RPA should be signed by the department head of the individual
whose personnel action is being requested or being attempted to be processed. In this particular
event it would have been appropriate for Mr. Johnson to sign off on the RPA’s for his Deputy
Director and his Administrative Manager who also involved. He is their Department Director. It
goes to Human Resources. They check to see if adequate funding is available. They sign off on it
and there’s, then it goes through a Compensation Manager, they email Finance to find out if
funding is available. The H.R. Director once she is aware that funding is available she would sign
there and then they should be forwarded designed to be forwarded to the Administrator after all
those other signatures have been acquired. On the particular issue related to Mr. Johnson, he in
essence processed his own request for an increase. I would’ve expected that Mr. Rhinehart as his
supervisor would have also signed here and would have in fact originated the request. Because
Mr. Johnson signed it himself and because he did not copy the document, the memo to the Interim
Human Resources Director was not copied to Mr. Rhinehart, Mr. Rhinehart had no idea that this
had gone through. So on the front end it should have been originated by Mr. Rhinehart and signed
by him. On the back end it should’ve gone to the Administrator myself for signature so those are
the two pieces that broke down in this process.
Mr. Mayor: All right here’s my follow up to that. Where’s Mr. Rhinehart?
Ms. Jackson: He is in the office and he just texted me asking me if he could come down.
Mr. Mayor: He probably should, he probably should.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right, I need everybody to hold tight.
Ms. Jackson: And if I can add a little bit of what he told me during this process. Mr.
Rhinehart when he sent the email ---
Mr. Mayor: Did you email Mr. Rhinehart?
Ms. Jackson: I asked him to come ---
Mr. Mayor: Did you email Mr. Rhinehart?
Ms. Jackson: --- yeah but just to let you know he what he reported to me was that when he
talked about implementation of the program he meant getting vendors lined up, working with
Procurement, working with Planning to actually implement the program. In terms of the salaries
right or wrong that was a back burner issue for him and he had not dealt with that at all because of
that, his focus with getting the program implemented so that we could begin the demolition
process.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes Commissioner Sias.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, you’ve kind of in a certain way kind of walked on my
question. But the thing I wanted to get clear in my mind is I’m not so much investigating or
65
interrogating I just want to ask Mr. Johnson and maybe the Administrator a question. And this
could be for Mr. Johnson this is not to interrogate you I just need to get familiar with something.
Mr. Mayor: All right so your first question is to Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Sias: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, yes sir.
Mr. Sias: For a normal regular tractor driving employee and I don’t mean anybody’s
abnormal, if that person is going to get a process personnel action whether it be a pay raise, a
vacation or whatever his or her’s paperwork is that always signed by their supervisor?
Mr. Johnson: No.
Mr. Sias: How does it work?
Mr. Johnson: In that event it’s signed by me and then it is forwarded to H.R. and through
the H.R. process ---
Mr. Sias: Okay, hold it right there. You may be number three line supervisor but you’re
still the supervisor am I correct? We can say director, okay?
Mr. Johnson: It’s signed by the Director, yes.
Mr. Sias: Then the Director is the supervisor or whatever the top person in that
organization where that individual works you sign it, am I correct?
Mr. Johnson: That is correct.
Mr. Sias: Okay so basically what we’re saying then is that the individual don’t get to make
their own decisions or whatever. So it would just be my question from past references what is
your understanding of a director’s at level who has folks they report to? What is your
understanding and that might be a culture that has some flaws in it from the last ten or eleven years
but have you all always been just signing your own stuff and processing it without going through
any kind of a supervisory concern for you as a director or other ones you might know of?
Mr. Johnson: Well, my supervisor is ultimately the Administrator who has the last
signature in that process. So without her signature the raise doesn’t get done.
Mr. Sias: Let me just follow up. But my question is as that tractor driver’s paperwork
came up through the system and to get signed by you or whoever that might be before it goes to
the next organizational part, is that not what you would expect everybody to have to go through
some supervisory process before it hit the processing machine per se? Now I’m just trying to be
clear. I’m just not accusing, I’m just asking.
66
Mr. Johnson: I believe that if you looked historically when you’re talking about a tractor
driver the department head signs it and sends it to H.R. I believe if you looked historically at
RPA’s associated with me I have signed it, sent it to H.R. and it would’ve gone through
Administration.
Mr. Sias: So it goes backwards for you as a director?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir ---
Mr. Sias: I’m just asking.
Mr. Johnson: My supervisor signs it but they’re the Administrator who signs it at the last
step.
Mr. Sias: So when you signed one for the tractor driver, do you sign it at the last step or
you sign it before it gets to H.R., I’m just asking.
Mr. Johnson: Well, unfortunately even the tractor driver has to be signed off on by
Administration I don’t have the ---
Mr. Sias: But that’s not the question I asked you.
Mr. Johnson: --- I understand but I don’t have the authority even as a department head to
issue raises.
Mr. Sias: That ain’t what I asked you.
Mr. Johnson: So you’re asking ---
Mr. Sias: No, no, stop, stop. I’m just asking you about ---
Mr. Mayor: Hold on, hold on.
Mr. Sias: Okay, I’m just asking you about the process not all of that. I’m not looking for
an argument we’re not going to have one. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. All right Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, Ms. Jackson, have you seen the texts that Mr. Johnson provided ---
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Fennoy: --- do you have it with you?
Ms. Jackson: I have the material but I think I have everything that was included in that in
my binder here.
67
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, do you have Attachment 21?
Ms. Jackson: Yes, I do.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and I’m assuming that this is a text from Ted to Mark?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right, Ms. Jackson, before you respond to that I don’t have that
information in front of me. Can you for the record what is that I mean what is that can somebody
put that on the screen or something. I want everybody’s eyes on it; I don’t have that. Okay, what
is the portion above? I don’t know if we’re seeing the whole thing. What is the portion above that?
Mr. Johnson: It’s the previous page. There’s a portion above is an email or a text message
that I sent to Mr. Rhinehart. It was the article that was in the Augusta Chronicle. I see that the
Augusta Chronicle is saying that Mark Johnson’s under investigation, I hope that’s inaccurate.
And then his subsequent response the next morning ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, but there’s a blue section ---
Mr. Johnson: That’s the bottom of this.
Mr. Mayor: --- okay, all right. Is that what you’re referring to, Commissioner?
Mr. Fennoy: I’m referring to where it says right what’s on the screen ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Fennoy: --- that Janice and H. R. have been reviewing a bunch of the salary increases
that she hasn’t seen paperwork on. I don’t know the details as I wasn’t in that meeting and the
meeting on Monday. We’ll see what her questions are. Am I to assume Ms. Jackson that there
are a lot of people that received pay increases that you were not aware of?
Ms. Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right.
Mr. Sias: Call for the question. I withdraw that, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 7.
Mr. Frantom: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just I have to say I’m so disappointed. When you
hear this back and forth going on I mean why would anyone want to work for this government
when they’re dealing with what they have to deal with up here. And, you know, are we
Commissioners of are we the staff? I mean we’ve got faxes here and we’ve got subjective faxes
68
elsewhere and still nobody up here has said why they want to fire Mr. Johnson. And frankly I
must I’m sorry you’re having to go through this, Mr. Johnson. It’s not fair. We’ve got to protect
our department heads, they’re the life of this organization and we got to protect them. And we’ve
got to hold everybody accountable not just one person. And I haven’t seen that the whole time
during this and I know we’re about the hear Ted in a little bit. Obviously we talked about the RPA
system and how that’s flawed and hopefully we won’t have that come again. And the thing that’s
been missing is there’s no respect. There’s no respect from this body for their employees and they
deserve it. They do a great job for this community and frankly it’s disheartening to sit up here and
us attack one individual through the media and then we wait a week and now we’re out here on
the floor discussing this man’s livelihood and it’s very disappointing. And as you’ve seen in the
back and forth, we’ve got a flawed system. It’s flawed and for that reason I’m going to make a
substitute motion that we throw out everything against Mr. Johnson and let him go back to his job
because that’s the right thing to do. We’ve got evidence, we’ve had back and forth subjectively
and he deserves the opportunity to continue to work in Augusta Richmond County.
Ms. Davis: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, I’ve got a motion a substitute motion with a proper second from the
thrd
Commissioner from the 7 and a second from the Commissioner from the 3. All right, the Chair
th
recognizes the Commissioner from the 5.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will definitely will be brief. It’s amazing at
some of the comments that have been made. I can recall when false allegations were made about
Chester Wheeler. He was drummed out and some of the same people that are talking against the
possible termination of Mr. Johnson were in support of it. I can recall when Jackie Humphries the
former EEO Director was, her employment was terminated and some of the same people that are
supporting Mr. Johnson was in favor of it. I can recall when our Human Resources Director was
drummed out of town by many of the same people that are supporting and I can go on and on and
on. And we’re talking about consistently or whatever it’s kind of ironic but that’s not true. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Lockett left off a couple of folks that I’m going to name.
I remember in this government when we fired Ms. Fennoy as an attorney for having the business
on her computer not doing business just having the business on the computer. I can tell you a lot
of other folks that we have done. Now nobody’s got to pick I don’t think up her for Mr. Johnson
or anybody else but my colleague talked about being consistent and doing the right thing and I
think that’s what we ought to do. But when someone implements their own raise and gives other
folks raises that we knew nothing about then I take issue with that. Now if we don’t do something
today then I don’t expect the department head to have any respect for this body anymore. So I
think it’s crucial that we do understand that if a person is wrong, they’re wrong. Now ya’ll might
think this is going to go away but it ain’t going to go away now. I mean if you want put out and I
don’t want to put Mr. Johnson’s record on the line because I can do that too to show you some
other things not just the raises but the car allowance and all that stuff that went into play that
nobody talked about. So if a person is wrong they’re wrong now and if they’re right we ought to
69
support that but I ain’t going to sit here and pick and chose if I heard the Administrator was
involved. Mr. Rhinehart just walked in. I hadn’t heard from him yet but I want to hear from him.
But I ain’t heard nothing yet to say the Administrator was involved knowing about these raises
and she approved it or didn’t approve it but just didn’t sign it. So now if we don’t do something
today you’re talking about a mess or you’re talking about some disrespect that this body’s going
to have we’re going to have total disrespect because we going to be picking and choosing let some
folks go and some folks don’t go. I don’t want to go to the real issue now and I ain’t got no
problem going to the real issue why we ain’t doing what we ought to be doing. So if ya’ll want to
put it all on the table, let’s put it all on the table here now. The Fire Chief we just go through
rehiring because some folks wrote letters about him. They got rid of him because they didn’t want
him now once he left they ended up running him off from where he was. Let’s talk about the real
issue let’s, I’m sick and tired of playing games with old crazy folks. If you’re going to do it right,
do right. Now do you want to hear the history do you want to go back to all that other stuff and
this is the straw that broke the camel’s back. I’m sick and tired of playing folks acting like you
don’t know what’s going on. Folks ain’t crazy no more. It’s 2016 folks can see folks can look at
your vote and tell how you’re thinking what you’re doing. You ain’t hiding from nobody. That’s
stuff coming out and your face shows what you do goes out further than what you say you do. I’m
going to leave it at that, Mr. Mayor, but I’ll tell you I’m sick and tired of this playing games with
folks acting like folks ain’t got good sense no more. It’s 2016; this ain’t 1816.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. All right the Chair recognizes the Administrator Ms. Jackson.
Ms. Jackson: One other question, thank you, one other issue to address for me going back
to Attachment 21. It says Janice and H.R. have been reviewing a bunch of salary increases that
she hadn’t seen the paperwork on. I mention that I just wanted to remind you that I mentioned in
the last closed session we discussed this that there were others, that’s not new information. I
mentioned that during that time period and I also mentioned we would be doing a complete review
of all of those raises to determine if they were appropriate and consistent with the policies of the
organization. This is the only one that relates directly to a department director, however, we will
be looking at all of those across the organization to insure that proper procedures were followed
and if they were not we could wind up taking action in relationship to those as well. So this is the
first of several to be reviewed I just wanted to make that clear.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Administrator, your comments lead me to a question. If I were to
give a directive to H.R. and ask for all RPA’s that have been submitted to H.R. in the last five
months and have them provided to my office tomorrow by 10:00 o’clock, would we find others
that don’t have your signature?
Ms. Jackson: You would find others because as I understand it the volume of RPA’s is
about 150 per pay period so they would be into the thousands probably if you look at the last five
months. So, yes, you would see others.
Mr. M. Williams: They gave themselves a raise, implement for themselves?
Ms. Jackson: Yeah and that’s the difference though is that this is the only one that’s related
to a department director so we started with that one. I will, what I said last week and I say again
70
this week is that we’re going through each one of them one by one to determine if they were
appropriate. And to give you an example some of those RPA’s will relate to somebody who is a
Sheriff’s Deputy who took a course at post and got an increase for having completed that course.
So those are the ones where discretion is not necessarily a factor. It’s by policy if you did ‘x’ you
receive ‘y’. So but we still want to go through each one of those to determine if they all were
consistent with policy. Does that make sense?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Ms. Jackson: Some of those are anniversary date related increases. If you have served ‘x’
number of years with the organization, you get an automatic increase on that anniversary date. So
that would give you some insight into why it’s 150 per pay period.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, sir. I just want to respond to a couple of my colleagues’
comments. As far as the thing that was brought up four years ago about the vehicle allowance I
did bring that up in my beginning conversation that it was approved in the 2012 budget. That was
approved by this body. There was nothing hidden there. If we didn’t know about it then we
shouldn’t have voted on the budget plain and simple. As far as my other colleague talking about
massaging the agenda it was actually done from Ted Rhinehart, the Deputy Administrator, that
reduced it from four pages down to two. That had nothing to do with Mark Johnson. As far as I
stand right here I’ll say that on the record. Mark didn’t do nothing wrong and we’re just trying to
pin him with something. So ya’ll do what you got to do and I promise you he will do what he’s
got to do.
Mr. Mayor: All right, so I’ve got a substitute motion with a proper second.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, point of personal privilege please?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, I would ask you just I want you to hold on to it. Let me deal
with the substitute first.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, if you do that then I can’t get my personal privilege then can I?
Mr. Mayor: You absolutely can. I’ll come back to you I promise you I will.
Mr. Hasan: After the vote?
Mr. Mayor: Well, there’s only a substitute ---
Mr. Hasan: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: --- and that’s the main motion.
Mr. Hasan: Okay.
71
Mr. Mayor: All right, the substitute ---
Mr. Lockett: Can you read the substitute please?
Mr. Mayor: --- I’m going to have Madam Clerk do that.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to throw everything out and allow Mark Johnson to
go back to work.
Mr. Mayor: With a proper second.
The Clerk: Yes, Mr. Frantom and Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Davis.
The Clerk: Oh, that was Ms. Davis?
Mr. Mayor: It was Ms. Davis.
The Clerk: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: All right, voting.
Ms. Davis, Mr. Frantom, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. G. Smith vote Yes.
Mr. Fennoy, Mr. D. Williams, Mr. Sias, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Hasan and Mr. M. Williams vote No.
Motion Fails 4-6.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My point was to my colleague my point in making
that was that the conversation as it was going back and forth in saying they were massaging it was
massaged so that the Administrator would be able to do and sign off on the raise and they
circumvented that process. That’s exactly what my point was in saying that. Also you’re talking
about here once again you’re talking about someone submitting and giving them own self a raise
and not getting it from their supervisor, direct supervisor, which is this case would be Ted
Rhinehart carrying the water that eventually Ms. Jackson signed off on it that is a complete
difference here as she just stated. So those are the kinds of things we need to be mindful of in this
process. Even when I go back here to the one I’m looking at before in 2011 when we had the 44
raises and the raises were given, Mr. Johnson knew for one he contacted his supervisor who
happened to be Fred Russell at that time and sent him a note a note and clarification about the
compensation that his staff would receive as a result of that and then an RPA was generated as a
result of that. We’ve seen a lot of things that have yet to see the level to the Administrator
informing her that we for classification and clarity purposes I and a couple of my staff were
pursuing this raise. That don’t exist, I forwarded that to you as well, Mr. Mayor, that letter does
72
not exist but I can show you that happened in this is June the twenty something 2011 so y’all
excuse me the numbers are getting smaller on me.
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, I appreciate that ---
Mr. Hasan: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: --- let’s just stay with the relevant facts of 2016 and I appreciate you.
Mr. Hasan: Well, I was just showing he understood the process that’s my point, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you all right any other discussion? Okay all right, Madam Clerk, would
you our motion.
The Clerk: The motion is to approve the termination of Mark Johnson, Director of
Environmental Services Department, effective immediately.
Mr. Mayor: Voting.
Mr. D. Williams, Mr. Sias, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Hasan, Mr. M. Williams vote Yes.
Ms. Davis, Mr. Frantom, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. G. Smith vote No.
Mr. Fennoy abstains.
Motion Fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. M. Williams: Madam Clerk, will you put this back on the agenda?
Mr. Mayor: All right, before we move anywhere there’s been a lot that’s been going on
today. We’ve had a very unfortunate matter with our Fire Chief and repercussions associated with
what is perceived to be a communication that we received and that others in what he believed to
have been a new future for him affecting his career opportunities. We now find ourselves with a
similar situation of where there was a motion to terminate an employee. There’s been discussion
as it relates to the Administrator’s knowledge or the lack thereof, the Deputy, and what’s consistent
in all of this is that at the end of the day we have to work together. We not only have to work
together but we have to deliver and provide on government services to the citizens of this city and
we need to find a way to repair this. We need to find a way to not only repair this but how we best
move forward and that requires some changes in how we do business. And as a governing body
we need to be able to have those conversations and those conversations need to be real, they need
to be honest because if we continue forward we’ll continue to injure people in their careers as they
exist today and any future opportunities that they have tomorrow. I for one don’t want to be a part
of a government that does that and I would submit that we need to find a way to work together and
we can’t dismiss these issues. We’ve got to talk about them. Mr. Johnson’s going back to work
tomorrow and this will hang over his head. Chief James will go back to work tomorrow and this
will hang over his head and for us as a governing body to think that it’s okay is wrong. We’ve got
to do better, we got to do better. This meeting is adjourned.
73
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena 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 the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
February 16, 2016.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
74