DeKalb County Ops Committee Special Call Meeting – Charter Review & Rules – Feb 12, 2026
DeKalb County Operations Committee Special Call Meeting – Charter Review and Procedural Rules – February 12, 2026
The Operations Committee of the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners held a special call meeting on February 12, 2026, beginning at approximately 2:30 PM. Chair Marita Davis Johnson presided, joined by Commissioners Ladina Bolton, Robert Patrick, Ted Terry, and Commissioner Massaia (via Zoom). Staff included John Madison and Matthew from the Law Department, and later Chief Operating Officer Zach. The meeting covered two agenda items: a review of proposed charter amendments from the Charter Review Commission (CRC) and a discussion of proposed changes to the Board's standing procedural rules.
Discussion Items
Charter Review (First 30 minutes)
- Section 9 – Powers and Duties of the Commission (Ward Courtesy): Staff explained that current language requiring pre-approval by the district or super district commissioner does not match actual practice (public vote). The CRC recommends clarifying that no planning or zoning ordinance shall become effective without an affirmative vote from the district or super district commissioner. Commissioners Bolton, Patrick, Terry, and Massaia expressed support for the cleanup language. The committee agreed to adopt the clarification as a home rule item.
- Section 14 – Powers and Duties of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO): The CRC added language stating the CEO manages all internal and external relationships and represents the county in intergovernmental matters. Commissioner Bolton raised concerns that this could exclude the board from legislative interactions, citing the 2025 NACo meetings where commissioners were not involved in planning. Commissioner Terry suggested adding language recognizing the board's legislative agenda. Commissioner Massaia recommended that external legislative communications be a board function, not the CEO's. Staff proposed to draft new language incorporating these concerns and noted this change would likely require a referendum. The committee agreed to have staff revise language and recirculate.
- Section 16 – Chief Operating Officer (COO): The CRC clarifies that the CEO can delegate all powers to the COO and removes a limit of two administrators. Staff opined this does not change powers. No objections were raised; the committee approved as written (home rule).
- Section 17 – Veto Power of CEO: The CRC proposes adding that items not vetoed within eight business days become effective. Staff noted this already exists in current charter (Section 15B). Commissioner Massaia argued it should be explicitly stated in the relevant section. After discussion, staff confirmed the language already exists, and no decision was reached; the item was tabled for next meeting.
The charter review session ended after 30 minutes; further discussion will continue at the next special call meeting on February 19, 2026.
Standing Procedural Rules (Remainder of meeting) Staff presented a proposed Policy Review Methodology for commissioner-initiated resolutions or ordinances that affect county policy. The process includes: initial consultation with central staff, comprehensive analysis (best practices, fiscal impact, equity, environmental, legal review), report to sponsoring commissioner, then agenda placement and committee review. The methodology would not apply to appropriations, appointments, or district-specific initiatives.
- Commissioner Bolton supported the process but urged adding preliminary departmental feedback early in the review. She also favored a two-sponsor requirement for legislation.
- Commissioner Patrick agreed that departmental input was helpful (citing the blasting ordinance) and suggested the process be required, not an optional either-or.
- Commissioner Terry supported the proposal, recommended adopting it immediately rather than waiting for comprehensive rule changes, and opposed raising the sponsor threshold, noting that state and federal legislatures require only one sponsor for introduction. He also suggested creating an annual work plan through retreats to prioritize policies.
- Commissioner Massaia advocated for an attestation that the resolution has been reviewed by central staff and relevant departments, and does not conflict with state or federal law, within 48 hours of submission.
- COO Zach recommended adding an operational review by the COO or designee and county attorney under staff analysis.
- County Attorney Dan welcomed early legal involvement to identify limitations.
The committee agreed to incorporate departmental input, operational review, and annual retreats (up to two per year, after budget adoption) into the policy. Staff will draft language to add the policy review methodology to the Board's procedural rules (rather than as a separate resolution) and bring it back for adoption.
Key Outcomes
- Charter Review: Section 9 (ward courtesy) approved as cleanup. Section 14 (CEO external relations) to be revised with board legislative agenda language; likely requires referendum. Section 16 (COO) approved as home rule. Section 17 (veto) tabled for next meeting.
- Procedural Rules: Committee approved in principle a Policy Review Methodology for commissioner-initiated legislation, to be added to the standing rules. Staff will incorporate feedback (departmental input, operational review, annual retreats) and present final language at a future meeting.
- The next special call meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 19, 2026, at 1:00 PM to continue charter review and rule book changes.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning, everyone, and um I'm Marita Davis Johnson, chair of the ops committee, and I must apologize to everyone for being a little late getting started this morning. But um my um commissioners that serve on the committee with me is Commissioner uh Ladina Bolton and also Commissioner Robert Patrick. And uh with that said, um we're going to begin our meeting. And we also have um Commissioner Ted Terry here with us today. So welcome. Okay, so uh with that, we're going to these special call meetings that we have. We discuss the first 30 minutes, we discussed the charter review, and afterwards we we will discuss uh standing procedure rules, and we alternate that at each committee meeting. So with that said, uh John uh Madison will be will help us begin our discussion today. Good morning, commissioners. Um today we're going to begin with charter review. You have two documents for charter review. You have the memo from the law department and then a copy of the charter review itself, a red line copy of the charter review. So we're going to begin on page 12 of the memo and page 23 of the red line version. So page 12, we start with, and what we're doing today is going over section four of the memo, which is CRC Charter Review Commission recommended changes that may or may not need state action, depending on final language. Um the law department recommended that we uh adjudicate these items first so that we could understand exactly what we needed to send to the state delegation. Um so that starts with section nine powers and duties of the commission. Um is again on page 23 of the red line, page 12 of the memo. The substantive changes uh recommended by the Charter Review Commission are clarified. The planning and zoning ordinances must have an affirmative vote from either the district or the superdistrict commissioner where the subject property is located. Uh, it also changed the maximum penalty for ordinance violation to comport with state law and simplify it subsection 18 regarding fixing, levying, and assessing license fees and taxes. Um as far as the changes, the main change here relates to courtesy and changes the requirement for pre-approval to a requirement that the district or super district commissioner vote for a zoning item in order for it to become effective. This can likely be considered a cleanup item. Uh former CEO Thurman supported this change. Current CEO Cochrane Johnson uh seems to be indifferent, but does request clarification on the language. So, and just to to frame the discussion a little bit, remember that we're looking at two questions. One, whether you all can act on a particular item within your home rule powers, and then if not, if it is going to take state legislative action, is it at the level that will also require a referendum? Okay, that generally turns on whether it affects powers within the commission. And so the the section that we're talking about today, section four, are where um cleanup items were requested by the Charter Review Commission. But in the opinion of the law department, whether or not this affects powers is going to uh be determined by exactly what language is changed, if any. So I think this first one is a really good example of why we're needing direction from you all before we can determine which path this will follow. Okay. So ward courtesy is what we're talking about here. As we all know, um, the language around ward courtesy that it currently exists in the blue book doesn't match the process that you all actually undertake. What it says now is that no planning or zoning ordinance shall become effective unless approved prior to consideration and adoption by the governing authority by the member or members of the commission representing the district or super district. Well, the problem there is what is approved prior to consideration and adoption mean. You all approve by voting in public. So how do you approve before you approve, right? In practice, you all have long simply voted, and the majority follows the will of the district or super district commissioner in most instances. So the idea here is that we would modernize the language to match the exact process. So we're clarifying the recommendation from charter review is that it would say no, and I'm on the top of page 24, that no planning or zoning ordinance shall become effective, and here's the new language, without an affirmative vote from either the district or super district commissioner in whose district the subject property is located. If that's the language you all agree to, I I believe this is simply a cleanup item. It doesn't switch any powers, it doesn't adjust powers between you all and the CEO. It truly does change this language to match the practice that has long been used by this board. So as we go through this section, that's gonna be the question. How do we want to clarify what have we interpreted it to mean before and what will it mean moving forward? Right. Um yeah, I think that um and I'm gonna hear from my commissioners, and then if uh commissioner Terry has a comment. Um yeah, I'm fine with that. Uh because the um I'm fine with that change. Um is it any comments from commissioners?
openpublica.com