Good morning, everyone, and welcome to a special call meeting of Ops, the um County Operations uh committee.

Uh we welcome you here today, and I'm sorry that we're getting started a little late.

I was behind a stall car for a minute.

But um we'll get the meeting started.

My committee members here with me today is Robert Patrick, Commissioner Robert Patrick, and Commissioner Ladina Bowden.

And uh with that, we're gonna start with we stopped started with the rules on last meeting.

So let's start with first today.

Really then, blue but rules.

Okay, we should be able to finish the rules today.

Okay, and uh with that, is Shannon here?

Oh, okay.

I thought I saw John for a minute.

But he's just visiting it to show the baby.

Not to work.

Okay.

Okay, Shannon and um you're doing the channel.

I am prepared to support the central staff in our discussion, and I brought our updated notes.

Oh, okay.

So I can gladly support.

Are we starting with the charter review or the standing procedural rules?

We're starting with the rules.

And uh we left off with Shannon.

The last conversation or the we left off with unanimous consent Tuesday.

I'm sorry.

We left off with the uh discussion of unanimous consent.

The committee, I don't think came to a consensus.

There is a request what page of we are page seven of the document titled Items for discussion in the ops committee.

And that is unless uh otherwise required by law.

Any preliminary item may be actually the bond.

Is that what we that's my page seven?

It should be a orange uh header number four unanimous consent.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yes.

Um Tuesday, the committee was having discussion over the processes for putting items onto the consent agenda.

However, we did not have a consensus as to where we wanted to land, whether that would require um five votes, a unanimous seven unanimous board or a two-thirds majority.

Okay, yeah, I remember discussing that.

And I thought that we talked about um two-thirds majority of five votes.

I think we stayed with five votes.

Okay.

Yeah, we were still discussing, and and uh just to say it again.

I guess I'm more can comfortable with the idea of unanimous consent, as and it's the seven uh people.

We do that currently right now with the consent agenda itself, and I think probably it's just a good thing to stick with us, just for consistency.

You know, okay.

Now, uh, are we talking here about um commission items because that's where the discussion led last time, not on.

We talked about discretionary funding for commission items, not the general um consent.

I mean, for so you're so you all are saying even with commission items that you want to put in, put on.

It needs to be unanimous consent.

Yeah.

And then if there's a question, and we do this already in practice, hey, I'm comfortable with this item.

Let's have a discussion and pull it from that consent agenda.

Okay, I'm fine with that.

Okay, okay.

So this is so the committee is gonna keep the languages as unanimous, full board consent.

Can I remind the committee of one item, madam chair?

Uh-huh.

As I followed the discussion, there were two points that did not come up this morning that I think are relevant.

One, I know you're saying unanimous consent, but the alternative was five votes, not two-thirds, to make sure that it was a full five required instead of the seven.

And I realize Commissioner Patrick's pushing for the seven and seems to have support with the other committee members.

The other issue that came up that you've not discussed this morning is the notion of ward courtesy and expenditures from discretionary funds or district funds in some other form.

We often see on the agenda a commissioner bringing before his or her colleagues an item that is from their own budget and they're looking for support to just move it through as a body.

And those I understood were the topics of discussion for this committee here, that unanimous consent might be a rubber stamp formality.

Um if you only have four, realize a commissioner would not be able to push their individual item through because while you have a quorum of four, you cannot get to five.

You certainly can't get to seven.

So I just thought I'd remind you of those nuances that were entered in your discussion previously.

That's what I was discussing earlier when you're dealing with our discretionary funds, and it's not for approval.

And and I think that I'm looking at two separate things.

You got the consent agenda where we consent that an item is uh moved to the agenda, then you have the items for recording only, and those are our discretionary funds.

And so I looked at those separate.

Okay, and let me let me just say this, and this is what I looked at those separate, because if I'm taking money out of my discretionary funds, and it's for recording only, would that be inclusive of what we're talking about on the consent agenda?

I I think you're really addressing an issue of placement on the agenda itself.

You should not have the items in the preliminary section, it should be in the consent section.

However, when you are spending funds, it is not the same as recording, for example, where you record an appointment and you're not looking for a vote, it's placed so the clerk knows to include it in the minutes.

You are looking for a vote.

A vote.

The practice and custom of this body is you will support each other if the district commissioner chooses to spend 25,000 of the funds in their district, the other commissioners support that.

Normally, your discussion is really limited to a commissioner wanting to join in and also offer funds or understand the initiative.

But you would have to make sure that goes to consent.

An easy way to leave the language this way, madam chair, is to remember that you could have a motion to move the item to the consent.

If it was mistakenly placed in preliminary, you could have a motion to move it to consent to resolve remove that requirement.

Okay.

Okay.

That would solve the problem you're identifying.

And my understanding is that is exactly what you discussed earlier, with a little more detail today.

Right.

Okay.

That was only my concern if it was our money.

And you have unanimous consent.

For any reason, you may not want me to spend my money.

And if I don't have unanimous consent, I can't spend my money.

Is that correct?

Yes, and I understood the issue to be more an issue of a matter of attendance.

See, you can have a quorum for a board meeting with four commissioners.

But you could never meet this requirement from the preliminary section, even if all four present that day agree to support the commissioner, it can't move forward.

Okay.

It would have to be moved to the consent section, and then the four votes would be sufficient.

Okay.

Now, if you're saying unanimous meaning seven, you know, anything in the preliminary section would be held because you'd have to wait until you had all seven commissioners available to support it.

Okay.

And I just want to reiterate my position from yesterday.

For me, unanimous is whomever is present, because at any time we may not have seven commissioners, although majority of the time that we do, the majority of the time we do.

Um, but then the other thing for me was this was primarily to address items, for example, maybe walk-ons, because when it's on the consent agenda, there's already a consensus that everybody is gonna vote to support it, especially because it's usually something discretionary or anything that we would apply ward courtesy to, but items that may be perceived as urgent, walk-ons, and because we don't normally do that, what I understood this to do was make sure any emergency or walk-on items would not get added to the agenda and voted on same day unless there was a unanimous consent to do so.

What I understood this to do was make sure any emergency or walk-on items would not get added to the agenda and voted on same day unless there was a unanimous consent to do so.

This was just to address anything that was not previously placed on the calendar in a specific area so that we knew how we would vote, whether consent preliminary or previously heard.

I I would ask you to consider, given the comments we've heard two amendments to the language in front of us.

The first one would be um in line three, which starts the unanimous consent of the commission.

You would change that to insert the word between the and commission present, and commission would change to commissioners to specify unanimous consent of everyone present.

That resolves an issue of whether or not you only have four, five, six if everyone present you have to have four to have a quorum.

If everyone present agrees, then that would satisfy that sentence.

Okay.

Could you repeat that language just again?

Sure.

On the third line between the and commissioners in sort, insert the word present.

Okay.

And change commission to commissioners.

And then the second component is to Dr.

Bolton's comments.

Um if you look at the very next sentence or the next phrase, a motion for action on a preliminary item must be made by a member who has obtained the floor and properly seconded.

If the presiding officer hears no objection, do we want to add language here about walk ons so that this will be limited to walk-on items in the preliminary section, or is this for all items in the preliminary section, including those that are walked on that day?

Because if you're walking it on and you want to vote that day, you should be asking that it be immediately placed in the consent section.

We have the other text over here because this is not the exact okay.

Okay, what it I think our chief of staff wanted to chime in.

I'm gonna ask that you come to the table so they can hear you.

You're gonna come on, come on, come on.

Come on.

Well, DC TV's not gonna capture you, is the issue.

They want you to speak into a microphone.

Thank you, Mr.

County Barney.

Oh okay, thank you.

No, I was just saying maybe we just add some language to the end to to um to capture that walk-on language, because that I think that's a real um uh possibility that you want to be able to deal with.

Okay, okay, thank you.

We can come up with we I will work with the central staff law will work with central staff to come up with language.

What I'm not certain of um from this committee is are you saying this is limited to walk-ons, or is this the broader question of all preliminary items and walk-ons?

Any item that has not previously been heard, it sounds like yeah, so preliminary and walk-on.

But you said there's language if it was in the preliminary preliminary section.

What was that language where we could make the request to move it to consent?

I I don't know that we would need that here.

That would be a motion that we could always help you with if that motion was necessary.

But for language just to specify the point that Dr.

Bolton made, if you'll join me, um Chief of Staff May, on the very first line, we can qualify it after the words any preliminary item.

We'll place a comma and we'll insert the phrase including walk-on items.

Okay, and then another comma behind that, and the remainder of it stays the same with the uh previous correction that it's those present.

Right.

Is that fine with you?

Um and Commissioner Terry's joining us on the um on the line.

And good morning, Commissioner Terry.

Okay.

Yes, good morning, madam chair.

I'm here listening and uh I'll wait to have any questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is that fine?

I'm good with it.

Yes, I'm good for that discussion.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, so we're gonna move on from there.

And I'm going to uh go to the switch over right quick to the charter review uh committee because we're gonna come back, but for right now, our um uh director Keisha Smith is here and Keisha.

Oh come on now.

Uh-huh.

She came um last two, she came Tuesday, and uh we didn't um address the issue, and she came back this morning, and uh Demetrius reminded me that you were in the um that you were here so we appreciate you here, uh Director Smith, and we're going to section two of the Charter Review Commission, where we discussed uh language um about the hold on a second reapportionment plan name and eliminate VTDs within the body of the organizational act.

Now, do y'all remember that where we have in the organization act where we have a list of all of the precincts and everything, and really wanted to get input from uh director Smith and to give her opinion as to whether it should be included or excluded and any questions that anyone may have.

So you want to discuss uh section two?

Yes, ma'am.

I will provide some background um regarding VTDs for the uh Ox Committee's consideration.

Um so when the department receives approval from the Board of Commissioners to change precinct boundaries, our office sends the information to the state reapportionment office.

Um they in turn give uh information, they give that information to the Census Bureau.

And so once every 10 years, uh the Census Bureau uses a snapshot of our precincts to define VTDs.

They are very similar geographically to our precincts, but may differ uh from the precincts.

And so their staff provided two reasons, at least two reasons.

First, they may differ because the lines may be tweaked slightly according to the census um block requirements, and then another reason is because VTDs are from a snapshot in time, and so you may recall um I've since I've been here, we've presented boundary changes twice, but they are not reflected in the current uh reimportionment of they they collect the information and leading up to the census, they you know, we provide you know, continue to provide um any changes.

And so we anticipate that the next change to VTDs will take place after the 2030 Census Bureau, uh census activity.

So with regard to any recommendation, I would say that we our voters uh I don't think that they would get their information from the charter in terms of where they are to vote their polling location.

Um technically, I think that that's what I think VTDs are more of a technical tool and and staff, you know, uh and their explanation of things and my review of things.

I feel that it's technical, um, but we would not use that for any outreach on our end.

What we would do and will do is communicate anything that is an outgrowth of this body's work to our uh voters, but we want them to come to us for information about their polling locations.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

So in a nutshell, it really doesn't matter whether they're in the charter or not, because your people generally would not go to the charter to get their precinct, and then you you all would be on top of if there's any changes, getting that to our voters.

That's correct, yes, ma'am.

Uh does either one of you all have question come in?

Um, I think if the director is comfortable with it not being there, then doesn't seem to be a reason to have it there then.

Okay, yeah.

Outside of the chart charter, where else would this information be archived?

You you all keep record of this?

We don't reference the VTDs.

Okay.

That's something that, like I said, the uh reimporsion department with the state of uh Georgia uses our information to provide to the census, who then I believe establishes the VTDs.

So that's not something that we that's not a tool or data that we look at for any of our operational um activities in the department.

Okay, and this next question may be for county attorney.

Do we know whether the state refers back to our charter for any reason to get that information in order to implement out of whatever initiatives or programs or anything that they may need?

I I don't know that the state does.

I do know that um what director Smith has described is what I've witnessed being used, the numbers that come from the decennial census would then be analyzed and used to determine how this will work.

Only the state could make these changes if if we change our charter, we're still gonna have to rely on what the state says.

Um, and this is not a change just as noted from our document.

This is not a change that that we would make independently, we would work with the state to make the change if we wanted to change our language in the charter this way.

But the the fundamental issue is the numbers are supposed to drive the district lines.

And I'll I'll just confess this.

I only recall one time the lines moved.

Um, and it doesn't mean that's the only time, but district one's lines moved back around early 2000s.

Um other moves of the line may not have been as significant.

It was very significant then because the incumbent commissioner was no longer in district one.

Okay.

And the reason that I ask about that is just simply because um if we don't know where else this is archived, even if we aren't using it, I just would prefer the information be available somewhere else, not just with the state or census or what have you.

Because in recent years, you know, since 2020, we've had a lot of advocacy organizations to pay attention to information like this, and then I know there are some concerns with who's in the White House now, and some boundaries that have been changed in other areas.

So we do have organizations that are watching this.

I don't know the extent to how they know how to use it or if they're using it, but just having it available could mean the difference between us getting into a back and forth with someone or an organization versus just making it read it readily available.

There should be no question about the statistical data that is driving the decision making.

That's kept by the federal government, it's collected by the federal government, and quite frankly, Commissioner, it's used for an awful lot of the business federal, state, and local level, well beyond voting.

It dictates an awful lot just in terms of analysis, allocation of funds.

Uh it's used when you look at census tracts, it's used to identify medium household income, which drives eligibility for any number of things.

All of these various areas rely on this data, and it's maintained by the federal government, and it is specific to when the census results were released.

Those are the results that are used until they're changed by the feds.

So again, I can't tell you what the state looks at and if they look at what we have in our charter, but the numbers driving everything are not a point.

If it's a factual issue controlled by the federal government, it should not be a point of contention.

We can all go back to what was collected, what was published, and that dictates the answers, the analysis of those numbers.

The Supreme Court will argue different.

Okay.

I I just want to say I support just keeping it in there.

It sounds like it doesn't hurt anything, and it doesn't impact our ability to do what we need to do locally to protect our voting, our voters and our voting system.

I'm I would think that you're looking more of this as a point of reference if we ever need it.

And so, or if we would ever desire to use it in any manner, we will have it as a point of reference.

And with that, um director Smith, it really doesn't matter whether it's in or not.

So in your uh opinion.

And in my opinion, no, because we don't reference it, but um are you saying you want it somewhere other than within the House Bill 1250?

Because that's where the data is housed, right?

Yeah, so even with some of our local legislation, we will restate or make reference to what is at the state level because it it just makes it that much easier for us or residents, anybody who wants to see what's happening locally.

So even if it is housed somewhere else, this is our information, so I think we need to archive it somewhere.

And I would defer to the legal department, but I imagine GIS would have access to that information as well.

As long as it's somewhere within our governing authority and we know where it is.

Okay.

Okay.

Um maybe as a medium point, I do I do see the value of what you're saying.

Maybe there's something here that references uh the department that would maintain it.

And then um if GIS could put together a map that has the census data and the VTD and any other kind of uh voter-based data accessible to the public.

I think that would still accomplish what you're thinking that's reasonable.

And again, it's called out in the charter where to find it.

Yes, I think we have consensus on that, Shannon.

Okay, I'm sorry, what was your ass?

Um, you want to restate?

Uh basically, uh, rather than having all the VTDs listed, let's just say that they are housed in it by a certain department, and that it's on their website, and ideally speaking, I guess GIS would be the right place to have it, and then it has VTDs, it can have census, any other data that's used for determining voting or what is a community, uh can be listed in that section as well, and then it's just easily referenced at that point.

Is there any reason why you wouldn't want to just maintain it within the chatter?

I mean, if it doesn't make any difference, it's uh fair point.

I mean, you know, I'm not uh I'm not a hurry.

Okay, yeah, I mean, is there any reason why you don't want it?

Maybe it'll utilize a couple of more sheets of paper, but it's online.

I can let it and it's a reference wherever else you go, you know it's in the charter.

You know, so what difference does it make just to leave it in there?

Okay, yeah.

I'm good.

Yeah, if you might uh when the um just add this when the VTDs do change, technically should um the charter change to update those numbers.

I know they don't change frequently, but if it's my understanding that they're defined by HB 120, right?

And so I think referencing that would be in the channel, yeah.

In the charter.

Yeah.

And then you have the reference, and then you have where it changed.

Well, you can go to reference it.

So I I like just keeping something as a reference, especially if it doesn't make much difference.

Is it anything?

Yo, are you okay with that?

Um I'll be fine.

Okay.

Is it anything you want to say?

Um, no about I think that makes sense what y'all just discussed.

Thank you.

Okay.

So um now, what about the the age update the requirement of members to comport with state law?

State law said that you must be a resident for a year to run for office, and that you have to be 25 years of age.

I mean 21 years of age.

I think in DeCab County, you have to be a resident for one year, and you have to be 21, I mean 25 years of age.

So what are y'all's thoughts on that?

I think if you look, well, no, I ain't gonna even say that.

Page okay.

Page 19 of uh this document.

Subsection.

I said this document, but okay.

Um I mean, I'm fine going with what state law says, just paralleling that 20, okay, Ted.

I mean, not Commissioner Terry.

Uh yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I just um bumped an email from uh attorney Welch on April 2nd, um, where he did weigh in on uh suggestions um uh about sort of the state law and the org act.

I don't know if Attorney Phillips has that available.

Do you I can pull it with you?

Give me the date again, Commissioner Terry.

Yes, I just bumped it in the emails.

Hopefully, it's at the top of your inbox.

Okay.

I I can tell you as a general matter, just in reviewing our notes for this item, in order to make those changes, you would have to go back through the general assembly.

That is not something we would be able to do.

So this would really become a legislative agenda item where we're asking the general assembly to make these changes.

Should we as we go as we go forth?

I think all of these are gonna be legislative agenda items because we've already dealt with home rule.

And so uh Commissioner Terry, could you while um while he's yes, it looked it looked like um attorney Walsh was suggesting that um that we cannot make the age higher than 21, but we could make it lower than 21.

Um so it seemed to me that um the best approach was to mirror what the state law allows for the other um uh statealized offices.

Okay, well, I I don't see how it could be lower than 21 when the state has said 21.

But my thought was we have to also think of the maturity level of um the individuals.

I'm not saying that 21 year olds are not mature, but it's a lot to comprehend.

But I will go with whatever the uh would whatever the committee or the um commissioners um okay, madam chair, and commissioner terry, I I read Deputy Welsh's email to simply point out the limits um that we could ask for without creating a problem with the existing legislation.

He's he's citing OCGA 4521 in other state law, and as I understand his point, he doesn't expressly say it this way.

We may have to talk to the General Assembly about this because we are looking at a potential necessary change because we say 25 in our org act, and now there's state law saying we can't go past 21.

Oh, they say we can't go past the action.

That's that's what he seems to be analyzing in his email.

Commissioner Terry, are you reading it the way I am?

Yeah, that was my understanding, and uh that's right.

Yeah, I think for that as well as the residency requirement of being 12 months, it seemed like that was sort of the um, I think the I think it's the ceiling if we're gonna define it as that.

Was that something was that something approved in this legislative session?

Because it seems like it was my understanding that you had to be 25 to run for uh office in DeCab County.

Is that not correct?

Somebody tell me.

That's what our org act has listed, and that has been the law.

I can look back at where the analysis from Deputy Welsh came from.

He's been driving this project with the commission, but the email that Commissioner Terry's pointing out, Deputy Welsh was responding to comments from Commissioner Terry and pointed out that the state law they were discussing, OCGA 4521, would cap the maximum age at 21, and the county couldn't go above it according to his analysis, and it would cap the residency requirement at 12 months, and we could not require a longer residency requirement.

I just want to make sure that I'm not contradicting what Commissioner Terry was presenting.

Well, maybe we that seems to be your.

Yes.

Yes.

I was um yeah, I'm I'm good with um just mirroring what the state law says, uh, minimum 21 years, and then just the 12-month residency requirement.

It seemed like that was where Attorney Welch was going, that we'd have to let it very set it at state law, but it was possible we could make it lower, but um, I'm I'm good with it being 21, as the state law says.

I think that we should probably hear from Attorney Welch.

We come back to this issue because I'd like to have a clear understanding.

Okay.

Yeah, I would like to have a clear understanding.

So I would think we want to look uh uh speak back with Attorney Welch, because I've never heard 18.

I I I would like to beg your indulgence, madam chair.

Attorney Welch is out on leave.

I just asked that you allow our team as the law of the partners to examine his analysis, and you seem to be questioning where is the law coming from that's creating this analysis, and you want to have a clear identification of the source of the law.

Yeah.

And why 18 would be permissible?

When was this law implemented and the like?

I received those questions, and I just asked that you give us a chance to provide that.

Okay, great.

Okay, okay.

Okay, so we'll come back.

One quick thing.

Could you also find out how they came up with what we currently have in the code as the minimum age?

I'm just curious to know how we got to where we are.

Um, and now state law changed.

Right.

Right.

Yeah, because yeah, I mean, if it's this election, it's 25.

So, I mean, you have to be 25.

And this is that not true, uh, Commissioner Bowden, because y'all are running now.

Well, I'm 41.

Should we put it up to 40?

No.

But I'm saying that um with current law, it uh in the cab as I understand it, you have to be 25.

Uh so if he's saying that there's no that that the cap is 21, then I would assume it had to be passed in this legislation.

And of course, it couldn't be implemented this fast.

I would assume.

So, yeah, so I'm interested in finding out about that.

So we can come back to that rather than spend a lot of discussion.

Just to be clear, yeah.

Matt's second on this project is actually in the consent decree mediation today.

Okay.

Otherwise, we would have the answers in the room.

We'll get them to you.

Yeah, we're not criticizing y'all as a lot of problems.

Okay.

And it it isn't explicitly stated here.

I'm sure it's probably in 45-2-2 OCGA, but in our charter, there's no mention of being a registered voter in order to run for office.

So if that's something we can make sure to include in here.

I don't know if there's an amount of time you have to be registered, but you should be a registered voter.

Dr.

Bolton, there are always um two levels of analysis on qualifications.

One comes from state law and one comes from local charter.

We're reviewing what's in ours.

I I would ask that we look at state law to see if that requirement's already present in the state law, because it may be.

I just don't know sitting here.

So that's what I started with.

It may already be in that code.

Sure, but I'm I'm just suggesting we'll add that to the that'll be a third question that we need to answer for you before we revisit this in discussion.

Okay.

Okay, and I yield back.

Well, my thoughts are, you know, I thought my thoughts are that.

I mean, you should be a registered voter to run for office.

But if you're a citizen and you won't run and you're not a registered voter, then the voters should deal with that.

What would you say?

Uh yeah, I I think that you shouldn't be disqualified from running if you're not a registered voter, because you can register to vote.

And it may be something that make you dive in to what you're running for at any particular hour, any particular moment.

So to be excluded from running for office because you're not registered to vote when you can register to vote.

I think it's not fair.

No, that's a part of it.

When we registered, they didn't add when we qualify, they didn't ask us if we were registered, and if you were not, you were given the opportunity to do so.

Is that a requirement or is that just a uh so of course we want all eligible you know uh individuals to register to vote.

So that I'm not sure.

I haven't looked at the statute to deter to understand whether it's a requirement or if you just have to be a citizen, which you know is one thing, you know, that um qualifies you to register.

So I don't know the language and I don't know.

Yeah, but we would like for everyone to register if they're eligible.

So, but you can look at that.

We we will look it up.

I'll just remind you of voting is not mandatory, it is a privilege.

And there's no penalty if a citizen elects not to participate, even though they're eligible.

Right.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Just preclude them from it's a penalty for David Scott and uh I know you're that's from the not from, yeah.

I mean, that's what the voters will decide, not from him, but we're not talking about politics.

You know, so yeah, yeah.

David is a good guy since we said that.

Okay.

So let's move on to let's move on to our 10 minutes and yeah, you can leave.

And I do want the record to reflect that the elections director was here not for money, but to uh but to educate us.

So thank you for coming, uh Director Smith.

Okay.

Okay.

We're switching to the stand-up procedure rules.

We've got 21 minutes on that.

Okay, we're not switching yet.

We're gonna go to the 10 more minutes that's left.

We're gonna stay with the child of review since we're on it.

Okay, so we're coming back to that.

So the next one, Shannon, is on page eight, the next one after running for election as section five, chief executive.

Update the eligibility requirements for the CEO position comport with state law.

Section five.

Update else requirements for CEO position.

Yes, ma'am.

That is on page 21 of the larger packet.

And so what are we updated?

What are they looking to update it to a month, 21, 30 years?

And um resident of Cap County at least five years.

So as I was uh the CEO must be 30 years and have been a resident for five years, is that the current requirement?

Okay.

That is our from what I am my understanding is that is our current requirement.

It seems that the charter review committee was making the recommendation to reduce it to comply with state law.

Okay.

Okay.

So I I would just say that I would maybe you know, I would probably be more comfortable to reduce if we're going to reduce anything, the age um limit to we could reduce the age limit to 25.

But uh I would want to keep the residency there for five years, uh, so that whomever would be our chief executive officer, they would have been within the uh county for a minimum of five years, hopefully have knowledge of the workings of the county.

And um, but I don't have any problems with reducing the AIDS limit somewhat.

What are y'all's thoughts?

Those are just my thoughts.

Uh to me, this seems very similar to the previous section, and and maybe we're best waiting for those other answers to come along, because it seems like they would inform these questions as well.

Okay.

Um, and then move on to the next section with the rest of the comments.

Okay.

Okay, uh, Commissioner Terry.

Uh yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with what uh Commissioner Patrick uh just stated.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're gonna come back to that.

And the next one is uh six uh provide a mechanism to address multiple vacancies occurring at once.

But there's temporary vacancies resulting from the suspension of the CEO of our board of commissioner members ensure a vacancy will be filled.

Expediently expertise, these changes affect methods of selection in terms of office.

What are y'all's thoughts?

Can we have um either Shannon or County Attorney talk through what was recommended?

It seemed this section, section six has quite a few changes to the vacancy.

Uh section A, there is uh an addition for temporary temporary vacancies created by suspension of a CEO or uh commissioner pursuant to OCA law 4556, and now herefore amended shall be filed as provided in the section.

In section B.

There has been a strike through of spelling out 180 days, just including the 180.

Continuing on the top of page 22 for Section B to CAP County within 15 days.

There's a strike through of spelling out the days of any vacancy shall call for a special election to fill such vacancy for unexpired terms.

Such election special election shall be held.

It looks like they had crossed out no less than 29 days or no more than 45 and amended it to be in accordance with chapter two, title 21 of OCGA code as now here and for after amended.

I guess we would need to know what those codes are.

We we can pull those.

I can tell you a fundamental part of what's here.

Um Chief of Staff May is probably uniquely qualified to address because what we've done in the proposal is codify what occurred when he was presiding officer, and we had the suspension of then CEO Burrow Ellis.

It was not here, and there was discussion with the governor, the attorney general, the county attorney's office about what should happen and what we've what you'll see in that paragraph is in fact what occurred.

I think that's a fair summary, Mr.

May.

Absolutely.

Um the reading in the county attorney's office spent a lot of time trying to under uh OV Brantley was here at that moment.

Um the reading of the charter, um, we felt that it spoke to that, but it just wasn't clear, you know.

Um, and so you had the the the temporary vacancy, how much time is left remaining in that as well, and where the governor landed uh in that scenario by reading our charter as well as state law is that he would make the selection of the uh interim CEO, but he appointed me because I was a presiding officer.

Um, although we believe that our charter should have um rule today.

So I think this this line right here explicitly spells out what would happen in the in the um in the event that there is a vacancy in the CEO's office, how that would be.

What line are you speaking of?

Uh it's the um it's on page uh 22 uh under subsection three.

Um it's added in in the red uh underlined section.

In the event a temporary vacancy occurs as a result of the suspension of a chief executive, the presiding officer of the commission shall exercise the powers and duties of the chief executive for the period beginning on the date of this suspension occurs and ending with the unexpired term of the suspended chief executive until the office of the suspended chief executive is vacated by operation of law, or the suspended chief executive is reinstated, which could occur, which uh whichever occurs first.

Okay.

So this I think does uh explicitly state what happens if um, and we pray it never happens again, but that um that something like that does happen.

Okay.

Are y'all fine with that?

Makes sense.

Yeah.

Uh I would I would like for us to consider one thing because this explicitly says well, I guess this is inclusive.

It says as a result of the suspension of a chief executive.

And I was just fine.

Suspension is a broad term.

I automatically think if there were something to occur that forced them out on the negative side versus the positive.

Well, I guess it's all negative.

If they were to become terminally ill or something else were to happen, but all of that is included in suspension.

So never mind.

And and and what about if resign or sus if they resign or suspended?

Suspension is different than a vacancy.

One of the fundamental components that led to this construct was it a vacancy.

This speaks to Well, if if I may, madam, presiding officer, the fundamental problem was there was no way of identifying if or when the CEO would come back.

Right.

Because health-wise, he was prepared to come back on any day.

Mr.

May's, Mr.

May's role could have been much shorter at the point that the governor reinstated him, he came back to office and literally walked up to the sixth floor and resumed his duties.

We didn't know how long that would be.

So holding an election and all of that did not make sense.

That was the problem.

Right.

I think Dr.

Bolton's point is a very significant one.

We have to be careful about limiting this to suspension, because if there is an extended absence of the CEO, for whatever reason, and I'm just gonna state this the way I feel it.

I beg everyone's indulgence.

God forbid we have a CEO go into a coma or something like that, where there is a question from the healthcare professionals and as a technical legal matter, how long will the CEO be unavailable and who's running the county government?

That's not a suspension.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

I I'm concerned that this would not apply, and we would be back where we were before, which was a legal analysis of who should assume the duties, and hopefully we would all agree because a very real concern when Mr.

May was the presiding officer, is whether or not the governor and attorney general disagreed with the law department.

And ultimately we all landed in the same place, thank goodness, because it would have been quite a nightmare if we had a difference of opinion.

Even when you talk about a coma uh a coma, you know, they could be in a coma a week.

You know, that's something that we can't determine, and they could resume office.

So I think that we have to think about that.

And um, you know, but I uh I don't think that you can say if they're in a coma or if it's something irreversible.

You know, I mean, that has to be determined, but I think that we should be able to to deal with that if it comes up based upon the uh medical diagnosis, a prognosis of that person.

Madam Chair, I used that as an example.

Right.

I I was trying to give an example of what Dr.

Bolton's saying that I think is something for the committee and the commission to think about in terms of a recommendation of change here.

Any vacancy beyond a very limited period of time is the concern that I hear Dr.

Bolton saying we need to make sure we're expressly addressing.

Even if we're not sure how long it's gonna be, by way of analogy, there are rules for taking leave beyond a certain amount of time.

If I call in sick tomorrow, I notify my supervisor, get approval.

They may ask for a doctor's note.

If I'm going to be out for 12 weeks, federal law says I need a certification from a health care provider to hold my job under the Family Medical Leave Act.

So just by way of analogy, I would invite the committee to think about is there a period of time you're concerned about how broad do you want it to be, and then allow us to work with central staff to come up with creative language to fit whatever your desire is.

And I think it we have to look at the prognosis from the doctor, because we can't say, I mean, do you say if somebody's out for six months?

Is that they vacated the office?

You know, I mean, if they were just elected, they out for six months and they vacated the office.

I think some contingencies you're not gonna be able to put in writing.

Because it's which is why I pointed to an amount of time.

Yeah.

Here you have in in the section that chief of staff may read from language that is qualified based on the cause of the vacancy, and that cause is not broad enough by the comments that Dr.

Bolton made.

So instead of pointing to various causes, perhaps you could point to a minimal time period lapsing when the presiding officer would assume the duties and ask the General Assembly to make that change.

Okay, that's one other question, and I'm gonna take it from them.

Now, suppose a person is physically incapacitated, not mentally.

I mean, does the same thing apply?

Well, that goes to the term vacancy.

You may have a CEO that elects to work remotely, and they say, Yes, I'm not coming in the office, but I'm not, my office is not vacant.

I'm available.

A person who's not physically able to come in the office by analogy would be doing the same thing.

And they would very likely, he or she would take the position.

They're performing their duties, even though they're not able to physically come in the office.

So that that's an issue of how we define vacancy.

There may be a legal dispute on whether or not the office is vacant if under the construct you're presenting.

Yeah, so you know, I mean, okay.

And I think it's this is gonna um require further discussion.

Yeah, I agree.

I was gonna suggest if the legal department could look into Commissioner Bolton's concerns that she raised for any reason that there's a vacancy, what is state law say existing?

Where do we need to sort of tighten it up so that we have the best representation for the residents through the CEO's office?

And we may want to look at what does other jurisdictions do or say, but I would okay.

Um I would even go as far as to see not just what the state is doing, but federally, because fun fact, y'all know Kamala Harris was acting president for about 12 hours because Trump had surgery.

So you know, when they put you to sleep.

Biden I'm sorry, but the last name was the vice president.

I meant by Joe Biden, not Donald Trump.

Excuse me.

Y'all scratch that from the record.

Um, that's what I meant by excuse me.

But yes, so when he had surgery, they put him to sleep.

And then, you know, during that time, if decisions needed to be made, of course, it was her responsibility to do that.

So I wouldn't necessarily put a time limit on it, but broaden the language to be inclusive of any form of incapacitation, so that we know if decisions need to be made, then it would be the presiding officer who would step in and do that.

Okay.

I yield back.

Okay.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Okay, so uh that's all the time that we have on the um charter review.

And how much more do we have on the charter review?

We have okay, that's a for charter review specifically.

We have quite a few sections to still go through.

Okay.

And we're still having uh uh uh special calls on Tuesdays.

BOC I mean on BOCs.

Yes, ma'am.

Make sure that we get through this.

Okay.

And uh okay, so let's go back to rules.

We have how 21 minutes for that.

And where are we starting back on rules?

We page.

We were on page.

Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me.

We were still consisting.

Well, we had just finished uh unanimous consent on page seven of the document dated um March 9, 2026.

Um following that was a discussion on time limits, but that was we dealt with that at ops on Tuesday.

My suggestion would be on page two for the document March 9, 2026.

There is still further discussion needed on proposed um on a quorum of four more page if you want to.

That's page two there's a question of do we want to change the current language and we're on uh five I'm sorry we get on five on page two four quorum, and that is compelled to be the attendance of meeting of members of meetings if necessary, subject to the policy of the commissioners established by its rules.

The clerk should miss his payments directed to any commissioner for purpose for the purpose of compelling the attendance of such commissioner at a meeting of the commissioner the supremacy should stay the clerk for that purpose, not less than two hours and service for the commissioners that we said.

Oh, I see what it is.

I think that four and five is similar, four and five is similar, wouldn't you think four and five is similar, wouldn't you think?

Oh, would you think county attorney?

I mean I think it's a Dr.

Bolton, I'm sorry.

The way I'm reading this, I think it's related to the question, County Attorney that I had for an agenda item previously, and I don't remember what that item was.

But whatever we were voting on, there were I believe at least four no votes.

The motion was to approve, but the majority of the votes were a no, and I was under the impression, well, if we have four no's, then that agenda item essentially has been denied and should be dropped off the agenda.

However, it was communicated to me that no, the um the approval was voted down, but we would still need to make a motion for a denial if in fact we wanted one, but this is saying we don't have to do a second vote for a denial if you have four votes of no, even if the motion is for approval, if you have four votes of no, that constitutes a denial, and then the agenda item can be removed.

No other action would need to be taken.

That's five.

Four, just the majority, the quorum.

Dr.

Bolton, I think it's important to note the qualifier that is there, non-zoning item.

Okay.

For non-zoning items, yes.

And I would support that if we have four no votes.

To me, that that says that it's essentially a denial.

I I do want to caution the committee that the application of this rule, if you elect to have this rule implemented, would still be contingent on proper phrasing of motions.

If you have, and I don't remember the item, but I know we've had that discussion many times, Dr.

Bolt, not you and I, but the commission in the midst of consideration of an individual item.

What was the motion and the result of the vote given the motion?

Where does that leave us?

So if a commissioner moves to adopt an item, pass an item, gets a second, and a vote takes place, and the vote is three yes, four noes, then the only thing that's happened is you did not have that motion pass.

A motion to deny it is necessary right now, and this language specifies that a motion to reject it with four no votes takes it off the agenda and it's over.

And that was not clear because you didn't have that rule.

Right.

And and I would argue that this is reasonable because we could always based on discussion, there would be a consensus whether someone may want to defer the item, and then in that case, there could always be a substitute motion.

But if there is no substitute and there's really no consensus of wanting a deferral through the discussion after the vote, I mean after the motion and second is made, we take the vote and it's four no votes, then that would send a clear message to me of a denial.

You could subsequently have a motion for reconsideration.

You could have a request that an identical item or similar item be added back to the agenda for consideration.

For the substitute motion you're talking about?

No.

You have the no the no vote.

It is removed from the agenda.

And after the meeting, there's private deliberation one-on-one, and two of the no votes change their position.

The sponsoring person could move to have it reconsidered.

Okay, you're saying the updates.

Items are sitting on your agenda longer than you really care for them to sit.

Yeah.

Well, just to uh qualify that some items are sitting on the agenda longer, because with some other items, it just takes longer to get through.

Yeah.

So commissioner um.

Okay, Commissioner, and then we'll go to Commissioner Terry after Commissioner Patrick.

I am still uh mulling this one over.

So if Commissioner Terry has something to say, please let him.

Okay.

Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, I think I'd be concerned about the implications of a agenda item not, you know, not receiving the four votes.

Because you know, it might be something simple as, oh, we need to change something.

Um so there might be situations where not passing an item isn't rejecting the item.

It's just saying we don't like the version of it.

And if we got to a point on legislation where it needed some more work, the majority wasn't ready to pass it, but then it automatically from the agenda, then we'd have to start all over, basically.

And so it could create a situation where we just actually have end up end up having more legislative bureaucracy because we'd have to kind of keep putting agenda items back on the agenda.

Um, presumably the the goal would be if the agenda item just really is not necessary, and I think I think this is the way it is now.

If the if the board the majority just doesn't agree with it, whether out of principle or whatever might be, then the option simply to withdraw it's is is always there.

And and so that I think I feel like we've had that before where a vote failed and then the next vote was a vote to withdraw, and then and then it was withdrawn, and then it's not on the agenda anymore.

Okay, well, I think that some of the things that um that you addressed, um Commissioner Terry has already been changed in the rules because we've changed the way that uh we're talking we we changed the way the resolutions are being presented.

We've already changed that, and does that uh that also includes legislation?

Wouldn't that, yeah?

So the process, that process has changed, and we have already identified in previous sections that process.

So are you saying now?

I mean, because this should work in conjunction with what we've already dealt with, and so you're saying that and and as I understand what Commissioner Bolton is saying, that once we've received four votes after the process that has already been uh after the process that we've already gone through, um if it's denied, it should be taken from the agenda.

And what I understand, Commissioner, I mean, um County Attorney Terry is saying, Terry Phillips is saying, um, is that it could be brought up for reconsideration and all that, but we already have a process that we have to consider that we're going through and bringing legislation to the board that should eliminate just bringing legislation to the board without it being um, I think without it being vetted, and so once it gets there, it has been vetted, it has gone through the the proper procedures, and so you can always bring something back on reconsideration, but you vote, you go back later, and talk to two commissioners and say, well, I'm gonna, I mean, you know, I want to change my position.

Well, you can always bring it back on reconsideration, but it has to be a point where this is dead on a rival if if it's if it's keep coming up.

Okay, madam chair.

I I've received this as a proposed option to what Commissioner Terry just pointed out.

It appears just in observation that the practice has been for many years, only the sponsoring commissioner would move to withdraw an item.

Right.

This gives a mechanism for someone other than the sponsor and commissioner to remove the item from the agenda.

And I I with all due respect, I see Dr.

Bolton nodding.

That's what I received as really the goal of adding this to the rules is to create that mechanism.

And you could have under the construct following your discussion, hopefully accurately, you're gonna get at least two other commissioners to support bringing legislation before you add it, is has been discussed.

If that's adopted, you could still have a four-three vote.

Does it come off?

Only three voted to approve it.

It's been discussed at nauseum, it's been through the process.

You have the operational impact considered first.

Law says we have the legal authority to do it, should you as a body vote to do so, but you got four commissioners who say no.

We vote no.

This says it goes away at that point.

And just to be clear, this language came from Commissioner Long Spears.

I was just iterating my interpretation of what she suggested.

And if it goes away, how long does it go away?

I mean, as your commission with the central staff and consult the clerk where there may be clerks' implications.

Right.

And number two, remember, we're trying to think of this in terms of a matrix of rules that all have to work together.

Right.

So thank you for explaining that, Madam Presiding Officer.

That's really important for all of us to remember.

Okay.

Um, Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I lost audio for a minute, so I might have missed part of the discussion.

Um I think I was just thinking about the the larger implications of any agenda item that might fail being removed from the uh the agenda.

It could, I mean, what if there was a contract?

What if there was something that you know was of importance to the county and you know the votes weren't there?

And you know, it just seems like the the current process works if an item doesn't pass, it either gets deferred or withdrawn, and sometimes a deferral just means it needs to be worked out.

So it just seems like the options to remove items from the agenda exists if a motion fails, and the body in discussion says, you know, we're just we're not having it, we're not interested in it, and so do the next motion can be to withdraw.

And then so that so it just seems like everything we need to address agenda items that should not move forward and discussion exists currently.

Um I would just again be concerned about the unintended consequences of a vote failing and then it being automatically withdrawn.

It just it just seems that that would create more inefficiencies in the legislative process.

Okay, and you may have uh missed what we talked about, but there's already from previous uh recommendations, uh the process in which legislation would come forth um before it's presented to the board.

Yes, so Commissioner Terry, I think that you said it very succinctly, succinctly.

Could you sort of repeat that the process because you can always um work through the um work through the different components to put it back on the agenda?

Um with the recommendation um the different um commissioner Terry, okay.

Commissioner Terry, you I mean, Commissioner uh County Attorney Phillips, are you listening to me?

Yeah, I was just saying that there's uh avenues that has addressed getting legislation to us, and so with those avenues, uh I think that many of the things that Commissioner Terry addressed is addressed through those avenues.

Agreed, Commissioner.

Yeah.

So yeah.

Um, madam, madam chair.

Okay.

Um, just real quick on that point.

Um, so I I think you're referring to the discussion um in the last or maybe two committee meetings ago about requiring three commissioners to add an item to the agenda.

No, I think that everyone consented to two, wouldn't it?

Two, rather than the three.

Yeah.

The proposal to two to two.

Okay.

Well, well, I mean, in any rate, you know, whether it's two or three, um, it's still not four, though.

So the point though is that if if four commissioners um I guess vote no on an approval of an item, are they voting no to the whole thing or just parts of it?

And so I I just I I still see us getting to a point where we're if we if the commission says no to something, what are we saying no to?

But if the rule says it automatically gets removed.

I would think that we're saying no to whatever, no or or yay to whatever is presented before us and the totality that is presented before us.

Now if um there is an amendment or uh you know a substitute, you know, that's different.

But when we vote on something, we're voting on what is the totality of what is presented before us.

Is that correct?

Um there has to be a substitute to change what you're voting.

Yeah.

So we know what we're voting on when it's presented before us.

No, I know.

I and the point I'm trying to make is that you know, there's there's two possibilities, or maybe there's more than two possibilities of why someone would not vote to approve an agenda item.

Either they're just totally against it, or they're they like they like it, but they don't think this provision or that provision, you know, are acceptable.

And so, you know, it it on in the world of legislative policy making, sometimes you just have to put something up for a vote, and if the votes aren't there, then ideally the sponsor would say, okay, well, let me give me a chance to go back and fix it so I can get to a majority.

But if the rules say it just gets taken off the agenda, then it basically makes everything have to start all over again.

Well, and then that we would just we just continue to have multiple agenda items come back over and over again.

Well, I think that it is.

Yeah, I think that if we go through the process, then we will identify before it even gets there.

Uh, two, uh but the process just says two commissioners.

So again, if five commissioners are still not having it, two commissioners could just keep introducing legislation until we get it right.

Yeah, but that's two commissioners to get it to start the process.

The contents of what is in the legislation is going through another process or two before it even goes to the come to uh the commission for a vote.

So I think that this is something that we're gonna need to discuss further.

We we're not gonna uh be able to vote on that today, but there's different layers of getting legislation uh to the commission to vote on.

Um commissioner Bolton.

Uh and I don't want to speak for Commissioner Long Spears, but I do want to make reference to a comment both she made and you made, Commissioner Terry, in a previous meeting, that you guys felt it was disrespectful for commissioners to vote or motion second and vote to deny another commissioner's items.

So in order to prevent us, if there is a majority who says, well, no, I'm not interested in this, nobody made a substitute motion, nobody amended their motion, um, nobody requested to defer the item.

The majority is just not interested in this item at this time.

So in order to keep from having to vote no the first time and then vote uh making the motion to deny the item, this allows the four notes just to have that item fall off of the agenda without feeling like your colleagues are being disrespectful in motioning for a denial.

So I I think this helps with the argument that you had before, because otherwise, if if the board majority of the board doesn't want it, and the sponsor decides, well, I don't want to take it off the agenda, so I'm not gonna withdraw it, then it'll how else will we remove that item if the individual doesn't want us to motion for denial, will not withdraw it, but the majority does not want it.

What other options do we have?

Okay.

I yield back, Madam Chair.

Yes, uh-huh.

And once you give your comments, we're gonna defer it to the law department to get back to the case.

Yeah, no, that's fine.

I know this is more kind of complicated.

Um, maybe just two two things considered for the law department to research is any implications when it comes to administration agenda items.

Um, so just the potential um you know, conflict of a contract coming to the board, and it doesn't it doesn't get the votes for approval.

Does that mean the contract has to basically start all over again?

Um I think there's like some operational things that could get messed up, and it might you know simply be well, we just don't like where this is at.

Um, but then also I will argue that you know, regardless of something being disrespectful or not, um, you know, the the body still can withdraw an item.

Um, and so I'm not gonna take issue with the but with the will of the board saying we don't want an agenda item, and in fact, actually, I I think the board voted to withdraw one of my agenda items um a few months ago, and you know, and I accepted the the result of that, so it's not it's not a big deal, you can't win every you know vote.

Um, but I think the body already has a way to address agenda items that the majority doesn't want to act on um because we have done it recently.

Okay, so commissioner, I mean, um attorney Phillips.

Can you uh get back with us on that and we'll discuss it further?

But I will say that the administration, when you talk about the administration and what the administration bring forth to the commission, they have spoken with the commission before it is placed on the agenda.

And so the problem with our legislation sometimes, no one speaks to the other commissioner before it's placed on the uh agenda.

So therefore, there's no is nothing to consider, but with our process that we've already voted on, it will give us an avenue, just like when the administration puts something on the agenda.

We've talked to it, we've talked about it, we've asked questions, we've gotten those questions answered.

Uh we will have some knowledge beforehand what's going on with the um procedure that we voted on earlier that's given us a process to understand whether the the particular commissioner that brings it forth uh talk with us about it or not, is already going through a process.

Well, we're gonna know about it before it comes on the agenda.

And so it gives the sponsoring uh commissioner and the other commissioners um an opportunity to talk about it and ask questions and uh debate it if necessary uh before it comes to our agenda, and so I think that process that we voted on is very important because it gives everyone an opportunity to know beforehand what is coming to the agenda and what objections from anyone that there are, or what recommendations from anyone before it even gets to the agenda, and so I think that that will have in our timeline, you know.

What I see is, and I'm not the presiding officer, but what I see, and I'm and I'm pretty sure that the presiding officer would concur, is to get our meetings over at a reasonable time so that we can give a reflection, like y'all used to do, Lee.

What we've done, we want to let people know, let our constituents know.

What are the highlights that we've done in our districts, you know, and getting out of there in a reasonable time is dependent on how our calendars run.

And that's the reason I was saying much more things need to be discussed in committee than doing the commission meeting.

And so, you know, that's what I'd like to see is to get us out of there in a reasonable time, taking care of the people's business, but also letting the people know what we're doing in our particular districts, giving us an opportunity to give that because I I think that that's very important.

Did you think it was important, Lee?

Absolutely.

Yes.

Yeah.

So okay, so Terry, come back with us and um we'll have a special call meeting.

Well, we'll have our meeting on the uh the next uh committee of the whole, which is next Tuesday.

And hopefully uh once we get through our agenda items, we'll be able to come back to this.

But if not, we'll have special call meetings each uh BOC.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Looking for a motion to adjourn?

Oh motion to adjourn.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay.