Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the um county operations committee, also known as the ops committee.

I am Commissioner Marita Davis Johnson, and I chair the committee.

My committee members, uh commissioner members who serve on the committee with me.

It's Commissioner Ladina Bowden and Commissioner Robert Patrick.

So with that said, uh, have you had an opportunity to review the uh minutes of uh April the 24th?

I mean April the 21st and uh the special call.

Do we have to do those separate?

What's anyone from clerk's office here?

Does the clerk's office need to be here?

No.

Okay.

So uh with that, do uh have you all had a chance to review the April the 21st meetings and the special call meeting of April the 14th and the special call meeting of April the 16th?

Uh motion to approve.

To approve what uh the motion to approve 0366 072 7252 and 0753.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, those items are approved.

And then um, and so we'll go to the agenda items.

First one is facility management.

Uh it's a change.

Change order 260278.

Change order number one, the contract number 1384 581 on call heating and ventilation and air conditioning, annual contract with two options to renew for use by the department of facility management, recreation parks and cultural affairs, watershed management, fire rescue.

Um to obtain on call headback uh services seeking contract funds increase awarded to B and W Mechanical Contractors Inc amount not to exceed $300,000.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, madam chair.

Uh this request is for fire and rescue to increase funds for the fire stations for their HVAC repairs.

So this is just for BW Mechanical for $300,000.

And so has the contract ended or is it ending?

No, the contract I think is good through July 31st, 2026.

So we just need to increase the funds for BNW mechanical so they can do repairs at the fire stations.

Oh, okay.

Are there any questions?

I do have a question outside the scope of this contract, but related to the repairs.

Um having a conversation with one of the Dunwoody council members who mentioned that I guess there may be some concerns with the library uh HVAC system up in the at the library there.

Um do you guys have audits or assessments on where where things are for other facilities that we're responsible for?

And is there a way to sort of delve into library and libraries in general and then in particular the one in Dunwoody for any HVAC concerns?

Yes, sir.

We can uh we do have assessments done.

There's just recent assessments done on all the buildings.

Okay, and we're reviewing those reports.

Uh we can I can look at Dunwoody Library in particular if there's concerns there.

If you would, and anything you find from that, please forward that over and I can share it with our Dunwoody folks.

Okay, I can do that.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Do you have anything?

Yes.

I just wanted to confirm.

Um, is it that we've exhausted, even though the contract will not end until July, we've exhausted the funds that were approved for this contract, and just to make sure we can get through the end of the term, you're requesting the additional 300,000 just in case, or do we have some repairs that are anticipated between now and then?

Yes, there's repairs by fire and rescue that's anticipated for the fire stations.

Okay, because all other contract funds have already been exhausted.

Yes, ma'am.

This is these funds, like when we request funding, we request funding for uh facilities management use.

We also request funding for um uh parks and recs and also watershed and fire and rescue.

So they they're allowed to use certain amount of the funds, and that's what we're asking for is just for fire rescue.

Okay.

You indicated that it it does cover, it did cover multiple departments, but right now you're only requesting for the one.

Will I and I'm asking this so you don't have to come back in the event that maybe police need something.

Will this carry us through July?

It will clear it carry us through July, but I do want to let you know that you know we just approved had approved 13 and a half million for uh the medical facilities, and we are gonna have in two weeks a change order to do those repairs to HVAC.

We have we have that lined up now, and if it'll be ready in two weeks, and we'll bring that to you to approve that.

That would be for the medical facilities.

So we will be coming back for that.

Understood.

Thank you, sir.

I yield back.

Okay.

You have okay.

Well, um, is there a motion?

Uh motion to approve 0278.

Seven second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay, that item is approved.

The next item is um 26 0279.

So change order.

All commission districts.

Uh change order uh number two to contract number one two four-four three oh eight and change order number one to contract one, two, four, four, three, one, zero uniforms for public safety personnel.

Annual contract refer options to renew police services in E911 to obtain uh work uniforms, ratify, ratifying term increase, and an increase of contract funds and terms through December 31st, 2026.

What is the calls, LLC and Smyrna police uh distributors, amount not to exceed 556,000 dollars?

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Uh this uh is a request to uh um increase this contract.

As you know, we've increased staffing last year, and we're well on our uh way to an increase this year.

We've hired over 40 uh new officers this year.

Nine start Monday that are certified.

So in keeping up with the increase in staffing, we've had to increase our equipment and work uniforms for all of our police officers.

So that is what this request is for.

In addition to the fact that they've raised prices, it's a lot more expensive.

So well, congratulations on the increasing uh offices.

I know that's something that the county loved to hear.

Yes, ma'am.

So good, great.

Do you have anything?

Thank you for doing a great job, sir.

Thank you, ma'am.

Do you have any the same?

Thank you.

Okay, is there a motion?

I move to approve item to 0260279.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, that item is approved.

The next item is 260761.

Um statewide contract, all commissioned districts.

You can read the number, audio visual equipment and related services for use by the Department of Facility Management to obtain audio visual equipment for the MALOF Annex Auditorium awarded to Atlanta Soundworks LLC amount not to exceed 1 million dollars.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Uh facilities management is requesting approval to in our contract with Atlanta Soundworks LLC with an amount not to exceed 1 million dollars.

This includes uh 254,761 and 17 cents on our contingency to ensure the Maloof Auditorium is fully functional and integrated system for broadcasting uh Board of Commissioner and other county meetings and events.

Uh, this funding will allow Atlanta Soundworks LLC to purchase and install AV equipment for the MALOUF auditorium and lobby.

This equipment includes displays, screens, lights, cameras, speakers, and all necessary components to broadcast the board of commissioners and committee meetings.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, committee members, do you have any comments or questions?

Um the only question I have is it's I think we're anticipating being moved in by April.

Do we have a new target deadline for being back at the Maloof?

Okay.

Uh since y'all have a reputation for shooting the uh messenger, I'd like to bring up my more expendable project manager uh Rodney Reese to talk about the schedule.

So um to the specific question.

The latest information we've seen probably gets us into a November time frame.

So uh we'll refine that to the best of our ability, but that's that's what we're thinking.

Okay, and and I will like to say also that I'm I'm planning to bring uh this up in May to discuss the uh time frame in which we walk through the details.

We'll come back.

Um, everyone wants to get back to the MLUF building, but I'm sure we want to get back to a building that is appropriate.

We well, we won't have to come back.

Everything that needs to be done is done.

Uh you know, I'd always stated that we needed to tear down that bill and build a new one, but they decided we need to renovate it.

So um, you know, I think that we need to make sure rather than rush through, we have professional experts that are working through it.

And if we could get through it in April, we would b be in it in April.

So there's a reason why uh we're not uh they've had to move to date back, and so we will hear that reason in May.

And so with that, uh Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Zach, I was trying to, and maybe this is the clerk's office.

I was trying to find the um agenda item, but it's not in my folder.

Do y'all have it in your folder?

But you're talking about the agenda item that we just remain yeah, the actual it should be in the back of the packet.

The back of the packet.

We got added this morning, and so we put the item in the back of the packet.

Okay, great.

Thanks, Shannon.

I didn't go all the way to the back there.

Okay, so um uh Zach or whoever wants to answer.

Um, so is this the standard setup, or are we adding any additional AV functionality for like events or like other kind of gatherings that um could sort of make the space more multifunctional?

I think that's the intent, but let me have uh okay facilities come up and describe it.

I think DC TV is working on a package, weren't they?

Right.

They might have some other ideas back there in the back in the sound booth.

Yeah, those are AD experts back there.

Right, right.

So the process has involved, as a matter of fact, this latest uh round of discussions directly involved um Diamond and her staff to assure that what we got um you know met the needs of um of uh DC TV not only for commission meetings but for other events that we anticipate having there.

Okay, and IT was also involved.

Okay, I don't see the disco ball, Commissioner Patrick, so we'll have to work on adding that later.

Well, you know what?

We wanted to add that, but then that would push it back even further.

Okay, well, that'll be uh an add-on afterwards.

Um yeah, I think um one thing that was interesting when we were at the um uh Brookhaven City Hall uh for that nighttime cowl last year is um they like rent out that facility for like weddings and seminars and conferences, and it's I guess it generates a little bit of revenue for the city because it's a nice space.

So um, I think because we're making the Maloof Auditorium annex really sort of modern, um, if it has that uh the flexibility to be able to be used for other things that um you know could just be good for the community, could be for commit, you know, for commissioners to you know host events there, but also maybe even rent out sometimes.

So and Commissioner, believe it or not, in the past we did uh even the old Maloof Auditorium was uh rented out for for a certain amount of things.

So, yes, the intent is when we come back.

This will be a facility uh that we can uh use for multi-functional space, town hall type meetings, um, and other things in terms of like private events and so forth.

Okay.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh if nothing further, is our motion.

I move to approve item 2026 0761.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay, aye.

That that motion was approved.

And I would like to say, what was his name?

Steven.

Oh, David.

It wasn't that bad.

That's all.

But he's quick, huh?

You see how it wasn't that bad.

We still like okay.

The um next item is uh 260729, board of commission officers, office, commission district, all commission districts request the update the board of commissioners committee area of responsibility.

Is that the change?

That's the change.

Okay, we're gonna wait till the end.

Okay, just yeah, we'll come back on that.

Well, I see that 0842 is the same procedure rules, and so 729 so they're updating the committees.

I know there's change to ERPS.

That's where they're taking on.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, so that's the request to update the board of commissioners, committee areas of responsibility.

Come on, back up.

Okay, I'm sorry.

I will apologize if I'm wrong.

Oh and I acknowledge I'm wrong every now and then.

Okay.

You were wrong, you just adjusted the agenda as you see.

Okay, that sounds good.

That's good.

That's good.

All right, commissioners.

Uh this uh agenda item is intended to make some adjustments to just two adjustments to the um standing committees uh of the board of commissioners.

Um one looking at um animal services, and the second is dealing with fleet management currently.

Those two um uh areas, departments are located within the ops committee, and what we are looking to do is to align their the functionality of those departments into the committees that we believe more functionally meet um their goals and objectives um as a department.

So we're looking to uh make the transition from um ops for animal uh enforcement services and place that in the ERPS committee, the employee relations and public safety committee.

We feel like the animal services um animal enforcement services, of course, is alignment with public safety.

And uh the other item again is fleet management, and uh we are recommending that it um be transitioned from the ops committee to PWI public works and infrastructure committee, and I will answer any questions you may have.

Okay, I don't have any problem with that.

Would you have any problems with PWI?

No, it it uh these do seem to make sense.

So do you have any problems with okay?

Do you have any?

Okay.

Um yes, so you said the animal services, animal enforcement services.

Oh animal enforcement services, okay.

And then would that also where would so would lifeline because it hasn't lifeline been an ops?

Would that get moved over to ERPS as well?

Like just all things animals or we all things animals, uh, animal can and the animal enforcement aspect of that.

Um the uh yeah, we'll keep the um the shelter um can remain there as well, but the enforcement activities of it is an alignment with that.

So we did, I mean, I think we last year we had an ERPS, and I guess it was ops asked her to take this on, but we had the lifeline audit discussed in ERPS.

Um so I was just trying to understand the thinking of should we keep the the different like it seems like one animal system?

I mean, I think they kind of play off each other.

I mean, I assume that lifeline coordinates with animal control and you know there's some interplay there, but um just a just a thought.

No, so it does that does make sense.

Um director Fulham does manage it all, so to keep them all together does does make sense on the on that particular aspect.

So there's not a breakup for for that.

What do you think?

Are you saying keep enforcement and operations together?

Yes, but place um place them within the um uh within ERPS committee.

Why the operational aspect of it?

Because it's all managed, and it would it would help particularly on the operation side.

You have chief uh director fulham that is responsible for all of that, so to keep him kind of focused in the same committee area would make sense.

Okay.

You're good with that, and of course, where we see it being necessary if something does need to go to the operations committee, that's something we can agree on as committee chairs.

Absolutely.

And you all have set a precedent of that as well.

Yeah, and I think that the um last discussion was an ops because it was, I mean, herbs, because it was requested to be moved to herbs.

But I'm good.

Yeah.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh apologies, I'm eating my lunch down there.

Um and I just heard this come up.

So I just want to make sure I'm clear on this is that all things animal services will then go to ERPS.

But if the ops chair decides that she or he or they need to hear it, then we just hear it in two committees.

Is that what y'all decide on?

I mean, I would think that the committee based upon what um least said would be in ERPS.

And there's and and I'm fine with that.

At first, we talked about the enforcement piece.

Okay.

But um, you know, I mean, if the operational piece, and I'm you know, I'm fine with that if if if she would like to deal with the operational piece also.

So that would be the proper committee for it to be in ERPs.

Okay, so all things animal services will be in ERPS.

I I think that makes the most sense, and I can give an example like transient sales, what we passed a year and a half ago before you guys joined the board.

Um there are pieces of transient sales that impact both enforcement and the shelter.

And so if they were separate, I think it would just be messy and there would be oper a risk of um systemic breakdowns, if you will.

But if it's all in ERPs, I'm down with that.

Thank you very much.

I yield back.

Okay, thank you.

I'm fine with that.

Okay, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0729.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

That item is approved.

The next item is um okay.

So we'll do a child review and um chatter review as well as uh the standing procedure rules.

And we it's one 24, so we have about um 45 minutes left for the committee.

I can't believe we got through all of that, didn't I?

Are we good?

Uh we don't have any more.

Okay, good.

Okay, commissioners.

Um, do we want to deal with charter review first and then standing procedures, or how do you want to do that?

Okay, I mean, it really doesn't matter.

Okay.

Let's stand procedures is first.

Let's let's run through standing procedures and I'm gonna have Shannon um, she'll be my support, and then we'll run to charter review.

Um, before we um really jump in and deal with um the standing procedures, I just wanted to the um central staff.

We've been discussing kind of the approach moving forward to help uh land the plane for the standing uh procedural uh rules um and and get the recommendations moving forward ultimately to the full board.

Um and uh y'all are really really close, I believe, to to getting um that moving forward.

And uh so we just want to make sure that we're helping to facilitate that conversation.

We know the transition from John um temporarily to Shannon here as well.

We just want to maintain the momentum that you all have really put forward.

Um what you all are receiving is the blue book essentially in a tracker.

It's it's tracking um decisions that you uh will be making, uh have made, and are awaiting maybe even further information as well.

Our goal is to make sure that we as staff can fully track the decisions that you've been making.

We've been taking notes, but we believe in this in this format, we can all kind of really find where we are, what decisions have been made, what are the next steps and give uh continued clarity for that.

So what you will find on uh this tracker is you'll see the section.

Again, literally, it's line by line of the blue book as you have it.

If you were to open up your blue book, it will match exactly what's in each uh row of this column.

So you have the section.

So on your first page, you have section.

Um section one is meetings and attendance, and um you'll see um subsection one is presiding officer and all of that, and it will just go through that um through the end of this um tracker uh as well.

We really want to utilize this as kind of us moving forward um to address this.

Um we are not going out of order, we're not starting over, but we're starting um really um the start to move our way all the way to the end.

Uh it may look like uh it's a lot more than it is, um, but actually, as we move forward, you'll be able to follow and see how we are uh moving forward with this.

Okay, thank you.

And these um that you've added, and I think we had a some of the some of the items in the blue book was not at issue.

Yeah, exactly.

And I think that those need to be designated, the ones that were not at issue, because if not, we're having to start over to discuss those items that were not at issue.

Absolutely.

And so I I wouldn't want to do that.

Yeah, so what we always say.

If they were not an issue, and I'll let Shannon um just speak just a moment for the kind of the historical documentation that you were able to pull and include in the tracker, then I can go from there.

Yeah, previous iterations of the documentation in ops that I was able to review, um, did highlight specific specific sections that commissioners had raised concerns about.

Right.

Um part of our concern was the documentation thus far, had a lot of conversation uh from previous meetings, which is good for a historical record standpoint, but out of concern to make sure that we were not missing anything, uh, we thought it would be beneficial for the committee just to see it all laid out in front as well.

We can adjust this to just focus on um areas of concern and highlight them this way.

But one question that raised out of that documentation is if I'm missing something, how do I know that section 1A is also not an area of concern?

Okay.

Okay, let me say this.

On the comments of each one, that's the reason Commissioner Bolton was able to say we had a consensus on this.

Because in the con each comment, it stated what the resolution, if there was continued dialogue or whether or not there was consensus that we accept this.

That's reflected in this sheet as well.

So you can comments where can Yeah, I mean, I understand that.

The only thing that I don't want to do is to go over the whole blue book again when all of the commissioners have gone over the entire blue book and pointed out their issues of concern.

And if no one had an issue of concern, then we go back from the beginning of the proof blue book, that means that this process is gonna be extended for much longer than what we had previously uh discussed, because we were about at about three three or four rules left that we was discussing, but if we go back to issues that were not in contention, it's gonna put us, you know, I absolutely agree with that.

We um in here, um all we have to do is just notate what's not been in contention in those blank areas.

So we know most of either the blank areas or either not in contention or there has not been a decision moving forward.

Okay, um, but everything that we've found that there was discussion around is reflected in here.

So you would either see complete, meaning that there was consensus uh around the original language or complete, and you all thought that there needs to be some change in language, and then you'll see what that change of language is in the comments as well.

So if there is something shaded, regardless of what the color is, there's been some discussion as we've seen there.

We just want to make sure that we're adequately reflecting what you all have discussed in there.

And so that's the reasonable reason for the track.

So what we'll go through is when we we'll see what there was no contention.

We'll you'll see that in the next uh version of what we'll see.

Okay, so why don't we do that before we start discussing the blue book and start on the charter review to give y'all an opportunity to either shade it or put no contention uh however you want to do that so we can look at this and see which areas that we really need to concentrate okay on okay so one of the thing I would ask you all to just to make sure because you all know specifically we have the notes where there was concerns because I believe you put out um at the beginning of this to the commissioners to to read the blue book and share any areas of concern.

Am I correct in that?

And we cut it off.

And y'all cut it off.

Yeah, exactly.

There's no more, right?

Exactly.

So we're not trying to bring up brand new things that hadn't been discussed.

Yeah, and before we cut it off, we went back and said, you know, whatever you have contentions or objections or concerns, send it to John.

Yeah.

And so that's where we were.

So if I said John, because we understand the position.

And so I would just like for it be noted that what portions are not in contention.

So when we come back to this, we have a clear understanding in a tracker where we are and what we need to discuss.

Absolutely.

Got it.

Okay.

All right, cool.

Thank you.

So we'll discuss um the charter review.

Okay.

All right, so charter review.

Um Shannon is um, she's passing out the packets.

Okay, hold on, one second.

I'm sorry, I meant to ask a question about the um the standing procedural rules.

Can I ask a question?

Okay.

Um, Commissioner Long Spears had brought up the uh possibility of go ahead and making some like small changes um in a more immediate fashion um on the blue book.

And so um, would it be appropriate?

It's not like Terry Philchess is gonna work on this possibility, but as we discuss the agenda item next week, knowing we're gonna update the whole blue book, um, I think it would be an opportunity for us to um still have a motion in that discussion period um to just change that one rule on the five minutes and three minutes.

Um is that something that we're saying, didn't you say that you would have seven for us to present that at the next meeting, but it's understood that that would be one of the changes to the blue books, but we are voting to change it now.

Yes.

But it would be yeah, okay, definitely.

Madam Chair, if I may the direction I received earlier today about Commissioner Long Spears' suggestion on changing individual commissioner speakers times was to provide two things.

One, whatever's necessary for an immediate change at the meeting on the 28th as a temporary item just to get you through that meeting, in addition, whatever's necessary to make that a permanent change to the blue book going forward.

You ask for both, Commissioner Speaker.

That's correct, yes.

I'm mistaken correctly.

No, sir.

You nailed it, nailed it on the head.

Okay, so you're saying a temporary change for one meeting?

No.

Yes, in case it the idea was to give Commissioner Spears, who I understood was making the proposal to the body today, both options, and if she felt it's gonna take too much to get this as a permanent change, I needed to tell her how to make it a change just for the meeting.

I wanted to make sure both options were available.

No, actually, you're close.

Um, but what I was suggesting was to make the first time to speak of five minutes, the second time to speak of three minutes, no third time, effective at the meeting on the 28th, and then moving forward.

So it'd be the 28th, May, whatever, May, whatever, June, blah, blah, blah, as it goes on.

And then ultimately be wrapped up into the procedural rules.

It's just uh like an immediate action to hopefully reduce the length of our meetings.

Right.

Thank you.

Yield back.

Right.

That was my understanding of the two.

I stand correct.

That is a permanent change to the standing procedural rules that will become effective immediately if passed by the body the morning of the 28th.

Right.

Five.

Five.

Thank you.

That's what I thought.

Okay, five.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Would that need to be an agenda item to come from the ops chair and be placed on the agenda?

Thank you.

You can do that, but I frankly understood that orally, Commissioner Spears made that motion for next week's meeting.

If I misunderstood that correct me, but that's what I understood you to be doing.

It doesn't matter to me, honestly.

I just think the easiest uh solution where it will become active at the next meeting is the important piece of that.

And whatever, Madam Chair Watts.

I I would offer this to the body then.

Please accept it as an item that was presented at the Cal this morning.

Okay.

It is now being discussed at committee, and that will facilitate a vote on next Tuesday.

Oh, perfect.

That's yeah, good point.

Because yeah, we're talking yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

Okay.

Right, but I just want to clarify.

Will it still need to show up on the agenda so we know when to vote on it?

Yes.

Okay.

And I I trust as everyone be nice to me.

Yes, we are adding an agenda item, and we are providing it to the clerk, hopefully sometime today, tomorrow morning, because it was orally presented today.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

And can it come from the ops chair?

Because that's something that was previously presented that we wanted to do it just hadn't been formalized yet.

I heard Commissioner Long Spears say that she didn't have a problem with that a moment ago.

It doesn't matter to me.

If it's better if it comes from her and we all vote on it, let's do it.

I mean, that's fine with me.

So okay.

We'll we'll take it from ops, but it was fine with me, either way.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um, so we're about to talk about the um charter review.

Did they yeah, they gave us up on the child of review.

Okay.

All right.

And just a note, we'll help to produce that agenda item with um as a law department to make sure that it reflects everything that has gone on today was discussed this morning, walked on uh orally, um uh firm through this committee, and uh and and we'll move forward with that.

All right, charter review.

Um charter review uh commission recommendations.

Um commissioners, I believe we left off at section six vacancies.

Uh you all um came forward with your uh recommendation on that, and that should lead us to section page.

That's on page um that's on page eight, um, where you finished, and we should be on page nine now.

I had a question about section six, section nine powers and duties of the commission.

Madam Sure had a question on section six page nine.

Uh I got twenty-one on the um on this one.

Okay.

So which one are we looking at?

Are we oh I see there's two it's the memorandum of what?

The memorandum, yes.

And it's nine of the memorandum is where we're starting from.

Nine on the memorandum.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

So you have a question about the previous section, isn't that correct?

Yeah, I was just wanted to clarify because um when we had the vacancies in district three and seven um last two years ago.

Um the didn't they pass a state law that kind of clarified when the special election would have to take place?

I think that was representative traper.

Sorry.

Commissioner Terry, the state law changed on the amount of time that was required.

The issue previously for us was we we could not do it quickly, and now we have a I believe a 29-day runway based on change in state law that will be that will facilitate getting that done.

Okay, and so that is that the chapter two of Title 21.

That's the new.

I honestly don't know off the cuff, but you are correct.

That was addressed.

Okay.

Okay, so the so the important thing is that if there is a vacancy, it's very it's unlikely there'll be a long vacancy, um, like what happened um two years ago.

The goal is to avoid such a long vacancy, and the fundamental issue was when it can be placed on the ballot and how it can be added to an election.

Okay.

So the change should facilitate making that quicker.

Couldn't promise it.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, and I think that you know the discussion came up with the vacancies of the two seats before.

And there was a reason why the um the director.

Elections, Keisha could not put it on sooner because other elections was going on, and qualifying was going on.

And that's the reason it took so long.

But ordinarily, it may not have taken that long if the vacancies had not occurred when they did.

Madam Chair, there was a fundamental timing issue which required us to hold the election separately.

Separately.

And that would have that was frankly cost prohibitive and beyond cost, I think the elections team just simply could not accommodate it in terms of equipment, space, polling locations, and the like for two districts, including a super district.

Right.

So the shorter runway should prevent us from having to do that.

That is the goal of the legislative change.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, going back to nine page nine, section nine powers and duties of the commission.

Is that what we were at?

Uh all right.

The um the Charter Review Commission um recommended providing uh provided the BLC with the ability to establish community engagement programs and gave the BLC subpoena power to make inquiries and investigate the affairs of the county and its departments.

Those changes would be made in section nine.

Um and um the amendment to include subpoena power to change the powers uh of the BLC.

The CRC recommended um yes to that change, and uh you can see here the CEO's madam CEO's notes um does not support as these changes blur the lines between the executive and legislative powers as previously established by the general assembly yeah, so okay.

Okay.

Um on your um actual the um organizational act the edits you'll see under the um additional line subsection E um is where they would put that language I'm just reading from section 13 powers and duties of the chief executive, subparagraph A.

Members of the commission shall deal solely through the chief executive or his executive assistant in all matters concerning the operations supervision and administration of the various departments, offices, and agencies of the county government.

No member of the commission shall deal, shall directly or indirectly order instruct or otherwise attempt to control the actions of county personnel subject to the administrative or supervisory control of the chief executive.

Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude any commissioner from seeking information necessary to the establishment of policy from any person, including an employee of DeCab County.

Mr.

May has dealt with this from both the commission seat and the CEO's seat.

The construct is that the commission would deal through the executive assistant and CEO to get whatever information is necessary.

That's what's currently in place.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh by commission first.

My committee first.

Do you have any comments?

Uh yeah, Madam Chair, uh, I'm actually comfortable with Madam CEO's position on this item.

Okay.

Um you have any comments.

I know we don't have anyone from the CRC here, but I would be interested to know what prompted them to add this into as a recommendation to the uh review document.

But no, at this time, I don't see a need to make this change.

Um, and I I would not support that change, especially not without a reasonable explanation for the recommendation of the addition.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with my um well, I'm gonna I I support the CEO's position on that.

I think that it would blur the lines, and um I'm comfortable with what our powers are right now.

Okay.

Um, Commissioner Terry.

Um, County Attorney Phillips, in terms of the blurring of the lines, are you simply stating that if the commission wish to communicate or interact with the administration, it must go through the CEO or executive assistant?

I didn't make any statement.

You read that section from the charter.

What would what did you can you repeat what you said?

Well, I read from the org Act to make sure the recommended proposal was being considered in the context of what exists now.

It is a construct that says there's a mechanism for commissioners to go through the top of the administrative branch, both the CEO personally and obviously the executive assistant who's charged with running the day-to-day affairs of the government for the CEO.

Okay, so basically to get whatever info, that's the point.

Right, understood.

Okay, that makes I mean I think that makes sense when you say blur the line.

So I think what we're really trying to get at here is not the current, necessarily the current CEO, it's just a future CEO board of commissioners make up.

And what we're considering, and I was at this meeting where the charter review talked about it, is a scenario where the board of commissioners was trying to get information, and the CEO said we're not gonna give it to you.

And so the the question came up um, particularly around the recycling, um, because there were about two years where um it would have been nice to just really get the information about whether the recycling was being thrown away or not.

And we had heard for two years from neighbors and even the news media that it was, but we didn't get that same response from the administration.

So you know, the the compromise might simply just be um changing, deleting the words um any department office or agency therefore of and simply just say the CEO.

Um, I mean, you know, a lot of governments, particularly the national level, Congress can subpoena all sorts of things, but in this case, the organizational act says commissioners have to go to the CEO.

And so in a future scenario where a CEO doesn't provide information upon request, what is a board of commissioners left to do?

Are they just left to say, I guess we're just never gonna get that information?

Or is there a mechanism really as a last resort?

I don't think this is something that would be used all the time to simply just make sure that we can get information on matters that are you know important to the county.

So maybe that wouldn't blur the line because if we're only subpoenaing the executive, then we're not going around the CEO, we're simply going to the CEO.

Well, Commissioner, I I didn't use the language blur the line, but I will speak to it since you seem to be asking my perspective.

The CEO simply blurred lines.

Understood.

There can only be one boss of the operations of the county, and that is the CEO of DeCab County.

If the departments began answering to seven different commissioners and the CEO, that is where lines could be blurred.

That is how I am reading the statement.

Okay.

I cannot speak for your charter review commission.

I heard Dr.

Bolton say she's curious about their logic.

Right.

I'm not speaking to that.

I am suggesting what's critical in terms of chain of command on a 7,000 member, roughly 7,000 member organization in the complexity of this full government.

I know Mr.

Williams is charged with the awesome responsibility of making sure all the departments run and should be equipped to answer questions with the CEO to this commission.

If the department heads are answering what you ask, answering what another commissioner has asked, and responding to Mr.

Williams, that's where lines could get blurred.

Okay.

But that's the that's how I see it.

All right.

Well, and I'm trying to shortcut our conversation here because I understand that, and I agree.

I agree.

If we were all going around the CEO, then that could cause some chaos.

So to your point though, if the Board of Commissioners, according to the organizational act, must go to the CEO on matters of operational information, et cetera, then instead of the commissioners being able to uh subpoena department heads, offices or agencies, simply subpoena the CEO.

And then that will solve the problem.

Now there's no blurred lines.

The BOC is going directly to the executive branch leader to get the answers.

And so is there are there any concerns with the CEO and the BOC powers conflicting if we were staying within that chain of command?

The business decision of whether or not information should be provided or not provided is the narrow focus of what I read.

Issuing a subpoena is going to a court and getting a court order, which I couldn't speak to between our hear me out, Commissioner, please.

Between our board of commissioners and our CEO, what's being proposed is having the express authority to do that in the org act and asking the General Assembly to write that power in.

That is a business decision for this body to make if they want to ask the General Assembly to do that.

Okay.

Well, so committee members, I think that would, to me, that would be sort of the compromise because if the CEO does she said that she does not support this as this would change chain changes, blur the lines between executive and legislative powers, you know, in the org act.

And so um I think attorney Phillips laid out that going around the CEO to departments would violate the current powers of the CEO.

So I'm simply suggesting that we're not going around anyone, we just go directly to the executive.

And then the rest, I think is still relevant.

I mean, I believe other legislators and members of Congress, I don't think they have to get a court order to subpoena.

I think they can just say we'd like to have a hearing and you know, please show up at this time.

And I guess sometimes people defy that, but it seems like most of the time they'll they'll show up at Congress, right?

I mean, even Pam Bondy showed up at Congress when she was subpoenaed, um, didn't turn out great for her, but the point though is that like if in a future version of this board and CEO, what would happen if a CEO refused to provide information on something that was really important, like maybe the consent decree, something that's has a lot of dollar signs behind that.

Um what how would we handle that situation?

And that that's what the charter review was talking about in that possible scenario.

Uh yeah, I think we have an independent auditor that provides a lot of information to not only the commissioners, but to the uh public at large.

I don't feel that the commissioners should have subpoena power.

I think um I think that I think that um Terry Phillips said it plainly as anyone could say it.

I mean, the CEO is the CEO, and she is the one at this point that runs the operations of the government.

And I think that any time, and I understand what he said to Congress, but it's other different stages that you have to a Congressperson could not demand a hearing and and demand that person to be at that hearing.

There's stages that you have to go through.

And so um I'm um not in support of us having subpoena power.

And I think that there's other means to get information that you feel is crucial that is not being submitted by the CEO or any departments or the auditor.

I think there's other avenues that we could pursue in that narrow case, because I don't feel that that would be the norm.

I feel that it would be extraordinary.

And that if that extraordinary situation occurs, there's different avenues rather than giving us blank subpoena power.

So I uh don't support this, and I'm with my commissioners on that.

Okay.

I'm county attorney.

I just wanted some clarity on how subpoena power would provide any greater enforcement or information than um simply an open records request.

What would be different and what are the pros and cons.

Well, Commissioner, I can gladly develop that in an effort to help today's discussion.

An open records request is limited to records that are available.

The county's not obligated to create records in response to an open records request.

Obviously, if it's just a few keystrokes as written in the law, then you would go ahead and generate the the report.

In the alternative, the way I read the current org act, when information is sought, whether or not a report exists, or you have to pull and create the data by going through information.

What you're talking about is providing information so that commissioners can serve.

Now, what I've not heard in this discussion was anything about the last sentence that I read from the current organizational act.

Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude any commissioner.

That's singular from seeking information necessary to the establishment of policy.

That's a critical component, and I I trust the nature of your discussion and the way I'm receiving Commissioner Terry's comments is sometimes you as commissioners think it's critical to get certain data in your policy making process, and you're trying to ensure that you get that data.

But that's what this provides for.

And the end of that sentence to be fair says from any person, including any employee of the Cab County.

Okay.

Thank you.

I yield back.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um a couple of questions.

The first is the bullet point from Section 9, provided the BOC with the ability to establish community engagement programs.

I'm just confirming that that is not something that Madam CEO does not support, correct?

She her the notation here in red relates to subpoena power.

If I could speak to that, I I think we were asking for additional information on that.

Okay.

Almost reads like the potential for um, I forget what City of Atlanta has.

Uh MPAs.

So you and from my perspective, that was a conversation that I wanted to delve more into.

So I don't know, I'm not sure if CEO was speaking to that particular D, but um, but that is something that I wanted more information on.

All right.

Um the reason I asked that question is, and I'll use the women's commission as an example.

So we established the women's commission in December of last year.

And so that was something that was driven by the Board of Commissioners to be we're still kind of TBD on where it's housed and details and this and that, and for y'all's knowledge, Mr.

May is helping me out.

Thank you very much.

Behind the scenes with that.

The reason that I bring it up is that um my understanding is that currently the commissioners are able to do that, otherwise the law department would have told me I couldn't.

Um, and that you're able to um establish these community councils, which I know we're not trying to go into that, of course, but we do have that power to do so right now.

So I think that should be uh point of clarification from Madam CEO just to see if she is um uh doesn't support both bullet points under section nine in our review.

So that's point one.

Number two is um regarding the subpoena power.

My appointee was a rollover from my predecessor, Commissioner Jeff Rader.

And my appointee is Miss Susan Nugent and was involved with the process from the very beginning to the end, and um still shows up today as we're delivering up here.

We might not see her as much as Mary and Jim, but she's always fallen along with the Charter Review Commission recommendations and where we're at with it and any questions I might have as my appointee.

Um, in 2024 in Q4, October of Q4, I believe, at least per my notes, all of the commissioners then were given the opportunity to review by our ops chair.

You were ops chair then, right?

Okay, by the ops chair to give our feedback on the charter review recommendations.

So I selected five or six different recommendations that I really honed in on to understand it a little bit more.

And I'd be willing to share this with all of you, but certainly the new commissioners, since this was well before their time.

Um, and one area that I did basically write out a rationale for just so I could understand it a little bit more, did some research into it, certainly sat down with my appointee and kind of hashed it out was around this notion of um giving the BOC subpoena powers.

As I was reflecting on my notes from October 2024, uh something funny did jump out, and I do have a note here to you, sir.

Yes, I do.

It says, um, in addition, the 2015 DeCab Organizational Task Force created by interim CEO Lee May recommended amending the org act to best subpoena power in the BOC, but it was never implemented.

I'm not asking you to comment, I just thought it was pretty funny that I I didn't know you back then, by the way, that I ran across that.

However, um, in the research that we did, and this was with um or through the Carl Vinson Institute, is that we did find several strong CEO forms of government that do have subpoena powers.

So those jurisdictions that we found were Wayne County, Michigan, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, Prince George's County, Maryland, and there were others, those were just the three that we found.

And um, I would if you if it would be helpful to you guys, I'd be willing to just share those notes related to this.

Um I I don't want to comment any further on it because I have not had a chance to go back and revisit with my appointees, Miss Snugent, about this item, but I'm still kind of noodling on where I stand, and I know that Madam Chair would like to move on.

Okay.

Thank you.

You know, I would just say this when interpretation of the law comes up in a court of law, you cannot bring a representative from the legislature that passed that law.

You cannot bring them in court to say the intent of that legislation.

No, you can't, it's inadmissible.

You can't do that.

So we've had the charter review.

We can't bring in different people that we want to bring in to give their interpretation as to why a particular section was approved.

You know, you have the document that they recommended.

And I think that the decisions need to be made based upon what we've already done, brought people in, but not from any individual person, because we can bring in the entire uh charter review committee, and I'm sure you're gonna get different interpretations why something was broad from depending on who who you bring in front of us.

And so I think that everyone has the intelligence to research.

I mean, if you got elected, I would think you would have the intelligence to research other jurisdictions and look into the issue as you see fit of other CEO um type of governance, but there could be a little niche in their government that is not in ours, or it could be a little niche in our government that is not in theirs.

Or it could be a little niche in our government that is not in theirs.

So I'm saying that we have the recommendation, and I would hope that the commissioners have the intelligence, since we've all voted in.

And I would assume your constituents assume that you do.

You know, to look at the issues in front of us that have been presented to us to obtain any outside resources, and to be your own independent thinker on this as to what you feel is best for the county, and make a decision.

And so this form of government is the only government form of government, and all of the counties throughout Georgia.

Why is that?

You can ask the different legislatures that initiated this form of government, and I'm sure you're gonna get different.

Why is that that the whole state can vote on people down in Hall County can vote on my county in the CAV being nonpartisan, but then the people's county and home is not partisan.

So now you can ask individual legislatures or legislators why that happened, and you're gonna get different opinions.

So it's up to us to decipher our thoughts based upon the facts as we see and to research and to expand our knowledge as to well, why would they may put this in here?

You know, so that's my thoughts.

Okay, please comment.

Yes, very quickly.

I just wanted to clarify something because I I do hear your concerns about the subpoena power, uh, like it could be abused and you know, you know, willy-nilly sort of subpoenas, but I think the charter review committee thought of that because the first line says following the adoption of an authorizing resolution.

And so I think basically what that means is that the majority of the legislative branch feels strongly that something needs to be responded to.

And in attorney Phillips' case, we can request information, and in my experience, like 98% of the time we get information.

I mean, Zach, you're very good about providing information to us.

But there have been moments, at least two on the recycling and the consent decree where information was not forthcoming, and it actually did take the eternal auditor before we got the information on the recycling, but it took two years to get that information.

So it's it's again, it's not about any past or current CEO, it's just about a scenario where a future board of commissioners, if a majority felt strongly that we just can't get this information, it's really important, they could pass a resolution, and so that way it couldn't be abused if the will of the body, if four votes said this is so important we need to do this, it would move forward.

So I think that would really only be in extreme circumstances.

I don't I don't see it being um abused if it requires an action by the body, and and so, but to your point, madam chair, I wouldn't support committees just being able to subpoena anything they wanted, right?

Like that can get out of hand.

But if there was a resolution, hey, we really need to get information, and then again, my compromise with this language is just simply say the resolution would just be able to subpoena the CEO.

I really don't think that's gonna happen.

I think you know it won't it'll it won't get to that, but this is sort of that backstop just in case.

Thank you.

Could I do a just a quick follow-up?

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right.

So under the um community engagement one, yes, community engagement programs.

I do believe, and y'all please correct me if I'm wrong, page 25 D, in addition to the powers enumerated in subsection A, Commission shall establish one or more citizen engagement programs, including but not limited to community councils, neighborhood planning units, or other initiatives, blah blah blah.

So um please confirm D is an addition to the org act, right?

This is a new one.

It is a recommendation by the charter review to be added.

Fantastic.

I just want to make sure I was clear on that.

And then regarding the subpoena power, um, you know, I am not disagreeing with you.

I think that all of the commissioners were elected and should have the ability to do their own research and make up their own mind.

Um however, I am offering, if anybody would like it, you can let me know, and I can just send you some of the research that I did with my appointee and to this specific item.

And I did research into several of the items of the Charter Review uh Commission recommendations, but this is one of them.

If it would be helpful to you if you are considering your decision.

All right, yield back.

Okay, and and and I would just like to say this, and I got three minutes, and so we're not gonna finish this.

With my appointee, I let them go in.

I did not give them any information, I did not sway them one way or the other.

I asked them to listen to the body, whatever you decided to do, make the recommendation because if I'm appointing somebody to an independent body to give their recommendation, and I'm already telling them what the recommendation is or should be.

I have a problem.

But just to be clear, that's the same.

I wasn't telling her how to vote or anything like that.

No, no, no, no.

Okay, just making sure all clear that.

Well, I wouldn't.

I just said that if you appoint someone to an independent body to give an independent determination, and then you give them your expectations or append opinions.

That's not what I want.

Prior to going into that body, I think it's a problem.

But with in any event, we're not gonna get through this.

And we can take that offline if you want me to further clarify.

So you're clear on engagement with my appointee.

I mean, is your appointee?

And that's the reason they are recommendations.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, can uh point of clarification, if I could.

Uh these two bullet points um was the recommendation uh not to support both bullet points, or are you um separating the two?

That's what's what commissioner Long Spears was asking of the CEO.

Okay, is her comment pertaining to both bullet points or one?

But your vote was definitely against the subpoena power and no vote for the community engagement.

Okay, so make sure.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Do you want to conclude there?

Do you want to keep going in our last two?

Yeah, it's her time.

She's always giving me additional time.

But we don't need it today.

Yeah.

Are you wanting to include the meeting then?

So is there a motion?

Um motion to adjourn.

Second.

Uh all in favor.

Aye.

We adjourn.