Welcome everyone to the uh the CAD County Board of Ethics meeting for the date of uh Thursday, April 16, 2026 at 6 p.m.

We do have a quorum, and so we will go ahead and begin as I'd like to do.

Uh if the people around the dias here would start introducing themselves, I'll start with our administrators.

Kristen Rogers, Ethics Administrator.

George Frank is member of the board.

Tom Clements, member of the board.

Bob Dallas, Chair of the Board of Ethics.

Shakita Wright, Vice Chair of the Board.

Scott Matthews, Board Secretary.

Mike Adile, board member.

Lauren Florence, member of the board.

Hakeem Hill, you're general counsel to the board.

Elisa Murphy, Ethics Officer.

Thank you all for being here tonight.

The next item on our agenda after this call to order is the adoption of the agenda, which is before you.

So uh if there aren't any changes, uh I'll take a motion.

Uh move to approve adoption.

Second.

There's a motion and a second.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye or raising your hand.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Uh the next item on our agenda is uh part three, which deals with our administrative items.

So uh with that, um we'll start with the approval of the uh minutes which you should have in your package from our last meeting.

So they're from the uh what is it?

Motion to approve the invitation.

Second second.

And by the way, I want to correct.

I was reading the minutes when I said April 16, it's May 21st today.

Um is there any uh further discussion on that?

All right, seeing none.

All those in favor of uh approving the minutes from the April 16 meeting, please signify by raising your hand or saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed like signed.

All right, thank you for that.

Uh I will sign those.

Uh the next is a report of committee.

I don't know of any committees that will be reporting.

Uh is there no?

All right.

Uh next we have our ethics officer monthly report.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

As of um today's date, we have uh a total of 471 new employees trained.

And with regards to the ethics blasts, I'll show those later, but we had at least two announcements of the ethics forum and we're gonna do the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the case.

Welcome back, everyone.

I'm sorry for the delay here, a little technical problem, but we will turn it back over to our ethics officer who will continue on her journey of describing what happened.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I was at the ethics forum again, it's June 5th, 2020 uh 2026.

And Madam Lorraine Cochran Johnson and former Senator or retired Senator Elena Perrin are our speakers.

And we're looking forward to everyone coming.

And I just mentioned that we were uh full to capacity.

Next is the hotline.

Any questions on the ethics forum?

Okay.

I would just note that um Senator Parent will be retiring at the end of her term, which is I guess sometime in early January.

Okay.

Uh with regards to hotline.

We had three involving court issues.

One service of process, court issue involving non-employees, court issue involving uh criminal matter uh temporary protection order.

And uh with regards to sanitation department, we had abuse of company time.

We did for that to the COO as well as the director.

And then we had one where the caller indicated that the officer was being rude, but there was not enough information.

Um, not even the officers' um actual name.

With regards to the open records requests, we've had zero.

Any questions regarding this slide?

These are the email blasts that went out.

This is the was the actual invitation.

Uh we sent invitations out to uh VIPs approximately uh a month before the ethics forum, and we sent the save the date two months out before to everyone.

And this was a notice that I sent out uh at 12 noon on May 12th, just indicating that we're at full capacity.

That concludes the monthly report.

Thank you.

Uh the next item on the agenda is or are there any questions?

I'm sorry, from the board on the monthly report.

All right, we thank you for that.

Uh the next item on the agenda is beginning with the preliminary case A, which is uh Donna Trake Jenkins versus Javon Murray, case number two zero two six-five.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The preliminary uh or the rule regarding this is Rule 7.3, and that is the Board of Ethics rule.

A complaint for violation of the code of ethics, the furnishing of false or misleading information or failure to comply with the subpoena issued by the Board of Ethics must be brought within four years after the violation is discovered.

This matter took place approximately 10 years ago with the document that was presented was in 2019, and it involved Javon Murray, who held a position in the county uh 10 years ago.

And with regards to the invoice and the response to the complaint, the respondent did um did reach back out, and he indicated that he believed it was in retaliation because he believed that the complainant Jenkins is going to jail or prison.

The recommendation is lack of jurisdiction and uh and the statute of limitations is run.

Uh and again the rationale is neither are parties, neither party works for DeK County and is more than 10 years old.

Also, I did verify that there is a court case and it involved the actual uh complainant uh and I'm just relating it back just because that's what the grandson who is Mr.

Murray indicated, and I just verified that there was uh a complaint and an indictment and open case involving his grandmother.

So I am asking for dismissal.

All right.

Um are there any questions of our board members um regarding an ethics officer's report?

All right, with that I'll take a motion on the recommendation to uh dismiss case number two zero two six-five.

We have a motion a second.

Uh is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion to dismiss, certified by raising your hand or saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, like, sign.

The motion carries.

The next item on the agenda is the number five, final evidentiary enforcement hearing.

And you're presenting both together or independently.

Uh together, same facts, same people.

All right, so I'm gonna go ahead and call Diane C.

Moore versus Johnny Mitchell, case number two zero two five-eight, and Diane C.

Moore versus Kimberly K.

Washington case number two zero two five-16.

Thank you, sir.

Initially, these are the rules regarding an enforcement and evidentiary hearing.

These are the most applicable rules.

The final hearing provides an opportunity for both sides to present evidence in this matter.

The ethics officer will present information gathered and may present witnesses.

As the complainant, the person filing the claim, he, she or they will be afforded opportunity to present witnesses and evidence.

The person should be prepared to present their evidence so that the board of ethics can make an informed decision.

As the respondent, the person responding to the complaint, the person or persons will be afforded the opportunity to present witnesses, present evidence, and cross-examine the complainant's witnesses.

Ethics Rule 6.6 testimony.

The members of the board may question any of the witnesses.

All testimony shall be under oath, which will be administered by the presiding officer, which is our chairman or hearing officer.

6.7 is the rights of the witnesses.

Any person who appears before the board shall have all due process rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a witness appearing before the courts in the state.

The board shall be fundamentally fair in its administration of evidence and liberally follow the rules of evidence of the state of Georgia.

6.8 is rights of the respondent.

The respondent has a right to attend the hearing, be represented by counsel or another representative.

Present oral or written documentary evidence that is not irrelevant in material or unduly repetitious and examine and cross-examine witnesses.

This information was provided to the both the respondents.

Not only did I talk to them, but I also sent this out more than one time.

So at least twice they received this information in written form, and they received it also in oral form.

6.10 is deliberations.

Deliberations to the board members are in public at the conclusion of the proceedings concerning an alleged violation.

The board shall immediately begin deliberations on the evidence and proceed to determine by a majority vote of the members present whether there has been a violation.

In no event shall a decision of the board be voted on by fewer than four members.

The board's decision shall be governed by the preponderance of the evidence standard.

The United States Supreme Court now uses a definition that states that preponderance of the evidence simply requires a trier of fact, which is the board, to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.

So simply requires the evidence show that something is more likely true than not.

A public reprimand by the Board of Ethics and or prosecution by the DeCAB County solicitor and municipal court, if convicted, a fine up to 1,000 per violation and up to six months imprisonment, whether the official or employee is elected, appointed, paid, or unpaid.

With regards to the second part of this, these are persons other than employees or public officials, and what their remedies also can be.

That is ethics rule 7.2.

In case this comes up, an official or an employee means any person elected or appointed to the employed or retained by DeCAB County or Agency, whether paid or unpaid, or whether part-time or full-time.

This definition includes retired employees or former county employees during the period of time in which they are later employed or retained by the county or agency.

And the definition which I don't uh need to read, but it talks about who it doesn't involve, such as judges and staff and attorneys, district attorneys.

The code section is the CAB County Code 22A as an Apple, B as in Boy 8.

Are there any respondents present?

Johnny Mitchell and Kimberly King, Washington.

Are there any respondents present?

Johnny Mitchell and Kimberly King, Washington.

Mr.

Chair, it appears that they are not present.

With regards to my witnesses, what I was going to do was just start the opening statement and then have them sworn in, or if you can, if you want to swear them in now.

You have two witnesses.

I do.

And I have the oath up there as well.

Well then let's go ahead and swear them in now that allow you to move forward without me having to interrupt to do that.

Okay.

If you all stand and raise your right hand in your place.

All right.

So it's up on the board.

If I get you to state your name for me.

First, I just want to get that.

I'm sorry, my name is Kevin L.

Buford.

Mr.

Buford.

And your name, sir.

My name is William Lamar Cooper Jr.

Cooper Jr.

Right.

All right, so do you, Mr.

Buford or Mr.

Cooper Jr.

Swear that a testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Right?

David's winning.

All right, thank you.

Maybe seated.

The alleged facts in this matter are Diane Charlie Moore is a complainant and filed an ethics complaint against respondent Johnny Mitchell on August 25th, 2025.

And the co-respondent Kimberly Washington, also known as Kimberly King, on October 15th, 2025, DeCab County, Georgia employed both respondents in the parks and recreation department.

Complainant Moore alleged that on the following dates, May 4th, all in 2025, May 11th, May 18th, June 1st, June 8th, June 15th, June 22nd, June 29th, July 6th, July 13th, July 20th, July 27th, August 3rd, August 10th, August 17th, and August 24th, that Johnny Mitchell was scheduled to work at Sugar Creek Golf and Tennis Center located at 2706 Boulder Crest Road in DeCab County, Atlanta, Georgia, 30316, but allegedly failed to work.

As a result, Johnny Mitchell received compensation for those days, failed to report that he did not work the scheduled shifts and accepted the benefits as well as the compensation regarding those shifts.

Following an investigation conducted by human resources in the parks and recreation department, misconduct was found, and both respondents resigned in lieu of involuntary termination.

The alleged rule violations are DeCAB County Code 22C as in 22A C as in CAT 7, prescribed conduct, engage in any activity or transaction that is prohibited by law, now existing or hereafter enacted, which is applicable to him or her by virtue of his or her being an official or employee of DeCab, and DeCab County ordinance, Section 20, hyphen 186 misconduct.

Misconduct means mismanagement of job responsibilities in county property, intentional improper behavior on the job and deliberate violation of county regulations.

Also alleged Georgia Code OCGA section 16, hyphen 8, hyphen 3, theft by deception.

A person commits the offense of theft by deception when he obtains property by any deceitful means or artful practice with the intention of depriving the owner of the property, owner being DeCab County.

A person deceives if he intentionally creates or conformed another impression of an existing fact or past event, which is false and which the accused knows or believes to be false to fails to correct a false impression of an existing fact or past event which he has previously created or confirmed, prevents another from acquiring information pertinent to the disposition of the property involved, sales or otherwise transfers or encumbers property intentionally failing to disclose a substantial and valid known lien, adverse claim or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of the property, whether such impediment is or is not a matter of official record.

Promises, performances five of services which he does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed, evidence of failure to perform standing alone should not be sufficient to authorize a conviction under this section and see deceitful means and artful practice, do not, however, include falsity as to matters having no pecuniary significance or exaggeration by statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.

Again, these are the penalties.

And I not now would like to call Mr.

Buford.

Mr.

Buford, if you come to the podium, I just remind you you're under oath.

Yes, sir.

Again, state your name for the record, spelling your first and last name, sir.

Yes, my name is Kevin, middle name Lamar.

Just found out that it's the same as Mr.

Cooper.

Buford B U F O R D.

Where do you currently work, sir?

I am currently the deputy director of recreation, parks, and cultural affairs for DeCab County.

And how long have you been in that position?

I have been in that position for coming up on one year.

I started in July of 2025 in that position.

And how long have you worked for DeCab County?

I have worked for DeCab County nine years and 11 months.

In counting?

And counting.

Do you know Johnny Mitchell?

I do know Coach Johnny Johnny Mitchell, yes.

And how do you know Johnny Mitchell?

I know him as an employee of the DeCab County Golf Center.

And do you have a personal as well as professional relationship with him?

No, ma'am.

I had never known him up until the point that I met with him about this matter.

And how do you know Kimberly Washington, also known as Kimberly King?

I know her as an employee of the DeCab County Golf Center.

And when you say employee of the Cab County Golf Center, they were employees under your administration or or your governance?

They were employees of DeCab County Recreation Park and Cultural Affairs working at the Golf Center.

Okay.

And for lack of better words, were they your subordinates?

They were.

Okay.

And were you alerted about a situation involving the two?

I was.

And who alerted you?

The division manager, David Flaherty.

And he was a division manager over the section that they worked?

He his official title was over special uh special property, special facilities, which included the golf center, yes.

And when did if you have a range or a month and a day or month and a year, when did he alert you that there may be an issue with the two involved, uh, Mr.

Mitchell and uh Ms.

Washington?

I can't say an exact date, but it was somewhere towards the latter part of July and the early part of August.

Oh, which year, sir?

2025.

And based upon him alerting you, what did you do?

I told him we need to investigate this immediately.

And what did you need to investigate, sir?

What we decided to do was um before we call in the employees, we decided to check the video surveillance at the uh site.

We also uh made contact with William Cooper and Katrina Archie.

They are our human resource uh officials with DeCab County Parks and Recreation to check check their official time records to see if the time that was noted in the complaint was accurate with what was noted on their time cards.

And was it?

It was.

We actually went back to March of 2025 from March until I believe it was August of 2025 to check the range and see if they had punched in consistently on these days that were in question.

And you determined that they consistently punched in on the days that I mentioned.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And when you say punched in, uh did Mr.

Mitchell, to the best of your knowledge, punch himself in?

Well, we found out through video surveillance that that um did not occur, but his time record showed that he was punched in on all of those days.

Do you know what role Ms.

Washington may have played in that?

Through video surveillance, it was discovered that Ms.

Washington not only punched in herself on those days, but she also punched in Mr.

Johnny Mitchell.

Do you have any proof that he worked on the days in question?

We have absolute no proof, absolutely no proof that he worked on those days.

We checked video surveillance to see if he was there during any of the time period, which was actually a tedious uh task, and we could not discover any video evidence that he was there.

If you look at the two documents in front of you and to the board, these are the time for the audit receipts, it should say time card audit trail.

Does the one document say that, sir, at the top left?

It does.

And then what is the other document that has at least three names on it?

The other document, it says uh person number, it has the uh number of each individual, and there are three individuals, Alexander Terry, Kimberly Washington, and Johnny C.

Mitchell.

And to the board, it looks like this.

And what does it say with regards to Kimberley, Washington?

Do you want to enter those into evidence first or did you want to enter those into evidence?

Well, normally I ask about it then thereafter I admit it, uh ask for it to be admitted.

Uh with regards to Kimberly, Washington, uh, what does it say on her line?

It says inactive payroll eligible in voluntary termination.

And with regards to Johnny Mitchell, what does it say on his line?

It says inactive payroll eligible in voluntary termination.

Now I won't ask you to state their uh actual employee number, but it is listed, correct?

It is listed, that is correct.

To the best of your knowledge, what does involuntary termination with regards to Kimberly Washington mean?

What it means to me is Ms.

Kimberly Washington turned in a letter of resignation in lieu of termination.

And same question with regards to Mr.

Mitchell, what does that involuntary termination mean to you?

It means that Johnny C.

Mitchell turned in a letter of resignation in lieu of termination.

And you indicated that you actually were the one or uh part of possibly a team that investigated this matter?

That is correct.

And you investigated this matter, correct?

That is correct.

And did you submit a letter with regards to what your findings were?

I did.

And what did you say in the letter?

I I can't remember it totally off the top of my head.

Um would this slide refresh your memory?

It would, and thank you.

If I could, if I would be so inclined to read it, it says um Well, no, you don't have to read it, but just look at it, then I'll ask you questions.

Okay, yes.

I'm ready.

Okay.

And did that sufficiently refresh your memory, sir?

Yes, it does.

All right.

Uh, with regards to them, uh, did you indicate that uh due to the activities they both meaning Kimberly Washington and Johnny Mitchell willingly engaged in it?

That is correct.

And to the best of your knowledge, when did you write that document?

Was it at least in 2025?

It was in 2025, yes.

Okay.

And do you recall who you may have submitted the document to at this time, sir?

I believe that document was submitted to the HR director or deputy director along with Ms.

Janet Essex.

And if you could identify who the people are that you just mentioned, you mentioned title, but if you mentioned name and title?

Yes.

Was Benita C.

Ransom at that time.

And director of what Director of Human Resources for DeCab County.

The deputy director with Jodia Haynes, and she was the deputy director of human resources.

And I believe that Janet Essex's title is employee relations manager for DeCab County Human Resources.

I can't say that with certainty, but it's something similar to that, if that's not correct.

And you believe she works for human resources?

She works in the Cab County.

On the document that you were just looking at on page two in yellow and blue.

Can you read what it says with regards to the last two employees?

It says resigned in lieu termination term date 915, 2025.

Thank you.

It says the same for both employees.

And to the best of your knowledge, that involved Johnny Mitchell and Kimberly Washington, correct?

That is correct.

Mr.

Chair, I would like to move exhibit one into evidence, which is the uh audit.

So that's which one of these is exhibit one?

Uh audit trail.

Okay, so is that the exact one?

Top left.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

It contains 33 pages.

Let me look.

Yeah, it does.

Yes.

All right.

There is a motion.

For all 33 pages involving the time card audit trail for Mr.

Mitchell.

So exhibit one has uh been moved to enter into evidence.

Is there any objection?

Hearing none?

So that I would just uh maybe just clarify with uh the witness that uh exhibit one is our records that are done in the ordinary course of business for DeCap County and is that correct?

Yes.

These are documents that are produced in the regular course of business for the CAP County.

Thank you.

No objections?

Uh with regards, thank you, sir.

With regards to the other document.

I want to mark that as exhibit two.

Which one?

Ethics officer exhibit two?

Is that the uh what would the Yes?

Okay.

And why was that generated, sir?

Why was this document exhibit two generated?

Correct.

It was generated to establish and prove that um the process had gone through that um the individuals listed were terminated in accordance with what we um found to be true.

It added up with the evidence that was presented.

And does that document have a name?

I would have to defer to Mr.

William Cooper because it was produced by our human resources department.

So I apologize.

I don't want to give you guys a wrong answer, so I don't know the name of the document, but Mr.

Cooper, more than likely.

Let's turn to, and I would like for that to be admitted and uh and through Mr.

Cooper, I'll ask about the whether this is uh ordinary type document.

Right.

So you're asking that exhibit two be admitted at this time?

I'll ask it through Mr.

Cooper.

Do you have any other documents you want to admit?

I'm sorry.

You have any other documents you want to admit at this time?

Uh not at this time.

I haven't asked the questions regarding it yet.

Okay.

All right, turning to the actual investigation.

Were you involved in hearing the responses regarding Johnny Mitchell when you all spoke to him about these incidents?

I was.

And do you believe that his for lack of better words, not testimony, but his responses were credible?

No, I do not.

And can you tell the Board of Ethics why?

Well, to back up, we started with Ms.

Kim Washington.

We interviewed her first.

Um and Miss Kim Washington, in my opinion, was very um honest.

She was forthright.

You could tell that she had remorse about her actions.

Um after hearing her testimony and her reading her statement, as well as um having interaction with Johnny Mitchell, it was myself and David Flaherty's uh opinion that Mr.

Johnny Mitchell was not truthful in what he stated to us.

May I approach the witness?

Can you identify what I just gave to you, sir?

It appears to be an email from Johnny Mitchell to Elisa Murphy Esquire.

Okay.

You can just put that that one down.

I just need a I just need a moment, Kristen.

Turning to your letter, is that an accurate depiction of what you uh presented to the following people?

Catherine Furlong, Don Gaylow, Janet Exics, Benita Ransom.

Uh let's see, to yourself, I think.

And Paige Singer and William Cooper?

That is correct, yes.

Okay.

I'm going to ask for that to be admitted into evidence, and that would be exhibit number three.

Make sure I get my copy here.

Oh, there it is, okay.

So is it the entire package or just the beginning of page three?

At least on what we have here, you may have something different.

So you're it would just it would just be that letter.

Okay, so what you have displayed on the screen, which is the page three of our and that's what I'll yes, that's what I'll present.

And so that would be exhibit three.

Yes.

Okay, so you're asking that exhibit three be entered?

That's correct.

Is there any objection to it being entered into evidence?

Submitted.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And in your letter, did you mention anything with regards to the inconsistencies with either uh Mr.

Mitchell or Ms.

Washington?

In that letter I did not.

Okay.

And you indicated, according to the letter, that both have participated in acts as it relates to clocking into work that are inconsistent with the CAB County policies and practices.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And the question I asked before that about inconsistencies.

Can you clarify which one is it?

What my determination was in reference to inconsistencies is the fact that both Kim Washington and Johnny Mitchell engaged in practices where there was punching in of an individual that was not at work.

While Kim Washington was the person that actually punched Johnny Mitchell in, it was done at the direction and with the approval of Johnny Mitchell.

May I approach the witness?

Sure.

In front of you, did I just hand you the probable cause report?

Yes, you did.

If you turn on page three.

Yes, it is.

I'm asking that the probable cause report be admitted as well.

Okay, so on the same document, we have exhibit three, which starts at the bottom of page three.

So exhibit four begins on page one and goes to three.

Exhibit three is the letter itself.

Right.

Exhibit four is the whole probable cause report.

Okay, which starts at page one through the end of it?

Yes, to the end.

All right.

All right.

There's a request to admit exhibit four into evidence.

Is there any objection?

Seeing none, it's admitted.

With regards to the amount of days that were in question.

Approximately 16 days.

Did you ever find out whether Mr.

Mitchell paid back those days?

I am unaware of Mr.

Mitchell making any form of restitution to DeCab County in reference to the days that he was paid that he did not work.

To the board, do you have any questions of this witness?

There are no questions.

Do you have a question?

Mr.

Bigger, do you know the total amount of pay that was accepted by this gentleman?

Junior microphone.

I I can hear Mr.

Ferris, and that is a great question.

Unfortunately, we were not able to determine exactly what that amount is, and I'll explain that.

We could only go back 30 days with our video surveillance, the way the DeCab County system is set up, it has a 30-day memory, meaning that if today's date is May the 21st, we could go back 30 days to April the 20th or April 22nd, whatever that 30-day period equates to, and that is it.

It automatically starts to record over after the 30-day memory.

So we couldn't go back any further while there were indications, and we did go back to March from August to March, and while there were indications that this activity had taken place for much longer than the period of the time that we could justify and actually prove we we could not, you know, because we did not have video surveillance and we did not have any witnesses that were willing to testify to the fact that he was not there.

So to to surmise it, unfortunately, we never went back and adequately added up that time because the director at that time had stated that if we allowed them to just leave, you know, if they would turn in their resignation, he wanted to settle it that way.

We never asked for any criminal investigation and we never added up the time.

So no, Mr.

Ferriss, I cannot honestly tell you what that added up to.

Okay.

Well, I wasn't clear who who had the conversation to make that arrangement with these employees.

When we finished the investigation myself and the division manager David Flarity, we turned all of our information over then parks and recreation director Charles Ellis, Chuck Ellis, and he made the determination that if they would resign in lieu of termination and not work for DeCab County again, we would end this.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir, thank you.

I do have a question.

Um do you know what the motive was as to why Ms.

Washington would have clocked in for Mr.

Mitchell?

If you know.

Through the chair, I I can't tell you I can say this that she was very remorseful, and um it took, I didn't get a chance to explain it, but Johnny Davis again was not forthright at all.

And I'm sorry, who's Johnny Davis?

I'm sorry, Johnny Johnny Mitchell was not forthright at all.

Um Miss Kim Washington was, and after we told him about the preponderance of evidence that we had to the end, um that was when Johnny Mitchell decided to say yes, I did have some involvement, but it took us presenting video evidence as well as everything that we had discovered prior to meeting with him for him to be forthright, and even after that, I did not see any remorse on his behalf.

There was a lot of remorse with Miss Kim Washington.

Thank you.

And thank you.

Just one more question.

Did um did Kimberly Washington uh ultimately admit that she clocked him in multiple times and not just one time?

Yes, sir, she did.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a question did anyone decide or did it come about to partner with HR about the amount of money that was paid off to Mr.

Mitchell?

I mean, partnering with HR payroll pay statements to develop the amount of money?

I believe because the determination was made by then director Chuck Ellis to end it at this point.

I don't believe we ever engaged with human resources to discuss monetary repayment or even calculating what that added up to.

Now I will defer to Mr.

William Cooper because he is our HR um representative for Parks and Recreation, but on my recollection, I don't believe we ever engaged in that way, and I apologize.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr.

Beford.

Thank you, sir.

He's subject to recall.

I'm sorry, you you want Mr.

Cooper down?

Yes, subject to recall.

Yeah, no, well, okay.

Thank you.

Don't leave.

We'll be back.

Thank you.

I'm Mr.

Cooper Jr.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

Uh state your name again for the record and spell your last name.

William L.

Cooper Jr., last name C O O P E R.

And are you currently an employee of DeCab County?

Yes, I am.

In what capacity?

I am the payroll personnel supervisor for the recreation parks and cultural affairs.

And how long have you been in that position?

I've been in that position a little over, let's say seven years.

And how long have you worked for the county, sir?

Been with the county 19 years and about three months.

And have you ever had any other position that dealt with payroll?

Yes.

That's been my nature of my duties since I've pretty much been with the CAP.

And how long were you in the previous position?

I spent about eight years in human resources department.

I worked in information technologies for a year.

Worked in work source the cab for one year, and the remainder has been in parks and recreation.

With regards to payroll, how many years have you worked in payroll for the Cab County?

Payroll, I'd say about 17 of those years, probably.

Okay.

And with regards to the payroll, is it payroll supervisor position?

What's your title, sir?

Again?

Payroll personnel supervisor.

And that particular department, uh did you ever have any correspondence or contact with I should say contact with Johnny Mitchell's Kronos entries?

Yes, I got a request from division manager David Flaherty to generate a report for him between the dates of March 2025 through August, the end of August 2025.

And what is Cronos, sir?

Chronos is a timekeeper, uh timekeeping system that the CAP County uses to uh record employee uh time and were you able to review Johnny Mitchell's time during the March and August of 2025 that you mentioned?

Yes, I was and did you see um well let me go back.

You said Mr.

Flaherty asked you to do that?

Yes.

And is he still with the county?

No, he he he has re I want retired from your perspective.

All right.

And did you investigate anyone else other than Johnny Mitchell?

Johnny Mitchell, Kimberly, Washington, and Alexander Terry or Terry Alexander, I'm not sure which one comes first at this point.

Okay, I don't recall that.

And the one document that has blue, white, and yellow, if you would pick that document, this ethics officer exhibit you've identified it as number two before.

Two, right?

Okay.

Can you identify that document, please?

This looks like a report that came from a system that we have called CB 360, which is the HR uh management system that the CAB County uses and looks like a an excerpt from a report that that system generated.

Have you ever seen that type of report?

Oh yes, right.

And is that report with regards to this case?

Was it done in the normal course of business?

I'm how you mean normal course of business?

Was it done because of an investigation of Mr.

Mitchell and Ms.

Washington?

Yes, ma'am.

And if there's any type of um inconsistencies or discrepancies, is that report something that is normally ran in that particular instance or instances?

Yes, ma'am, it is and the last two names on that report, can you state who they are?

Uh Kimberly Washington and Johnny Mitchell.

And the individual that you mentioned before?

Alexander Terry.

Is listed on that as well?

Yes, ma'am.

And he was he was the supervisor of those two employees?

And do you know of any thing that or any involvement that he had in this matter?

Because it says in voluntary termination?

If you don't, it's okay.

Okay.

And so during the time of March of 2025 to August 2025, did you see the Kronos entries with Johnny Mitchell or Kimberly Washington?

Yes, ma'am.

And did you approve it or send it on to payroll?

Yes, we we processed payroll every other week.

And do you happen to know whether Mr.

Mitchell returned any of the money that he was compensated for between March and August of 2025?

To my knowledge, no.

And is it your normal course of business to review the uh the clock ins or the clock outs of each individual within that department?

Yes, ma'am.

And that is your role?

Part of it.

Okay.

And you're also a supervisor.

Yes.

With the payroll.

And you work with another individual, correct?

Yes, ma'am.

And what's her name?

Uh Katrina Archie.

And you all work together, but you are the supervisor.

Yes.

So just for clarity, Mr.

Chair, I've asked for the audit trail to be admitted, and that was admitted.

And now I am asking for that sheet.

With exhibit two.

Which is exhibit two to be admitted, because I told you I was going to do it through William Cooper.

With regards to number three, I believe it's already been admitted.

That's the letter for Kevin Buford.

Yep.

And we'll have a separate letter from the probable cause report when it comes to that.

Which is exhibit four, which has already been admitted.

And exhibit four is a probable cost.

I'm just saying all this for clarity.

So only thing I'm asking for now is exhibit two to be admitted, and that's what Mr.

Cooper just identified.

So there's a request to admit into evidence exhibit number two.

Are there any objections?

Seeing none, it's admitted.

I don't have any other questions at this time for Mr.

Cooper.

I don't know if the board has questions.

Does anyone from the board have any questions of Mr.

Cooper Jr.?

If I may, I have a couple quick.

Mr.

Cooper.

The exhibit number three, and I believe it was stated as well on page four at the very top line.

Do you see that?

Page four.

Yes, sir.

And it says uh Mr.

Mitchell and Mrs.

Washington both agreed to, I assume an offer uh voluntary resignation letter.

Uh I'm on different.

He doesn't have the probable cause exhibit.

You're talking about the pro cause exhibit?

Yeah.

He's asking for the he's referring to exhibit number three, which is the letter dated October 31.

Yeah.

And page four?

Well, just on your copy it may be different.

Basically, it's the same.

At the end of that letter where it says Mr.

Mitchell and Ms.

Washington?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And I'm looking at exhibit two, and it reflects uh they were all three of these people.

The action taken was involuntary termination.

So what exactly was their status?

Or put it simply, do you know how it was reported to the state's employment security agency as fired or resigned?

Well, in voluntary termination, when we do it in lieu of it really is a resignation by action, but by reason it's an involuntary accident.

That's not our rule.

That's uh Department of Labor uh rules.

Those two actions have to be submitted together.

Okay.

Well, I'm just concerned that apparently there has been no effort to get restitution from these people.

And they may, if the agency accepts or interprets the Cab County's report as a resignation, they can promptly get unemployment compensation.

Do you have any idea if that kind of thing happened?

Well, when when the action is in lieu of termination, that signifies an involuntary action.

Okay.

All righty, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any other questions of uh Mr.

Cooper?

All right, seeing none.

Thank you.

Hang around, please.

Subject to recall.

What I'm going to do is turn to my recommendation.

And my conclusion first, based upon the evidence presented and the investigation conducted by the ethics officer, there is sufficient evidence to establish that respondents Johnny Mitchell and Kimberly Washington violate the code of ethics by a preponderance of the evidence.

My recommendation, sir, is an administrative sanction of a thousand dollars each, public reprimand by the Board of Ethics, and for this information and evidence to be forwarded to the solicitor's office.

Right.

So we've heard the administrative officers recommendation to assess $1,000 reprimand by us and to forward this to the solicitor's office, and each of those is consistent with our authority as you identified before.

So where we are now is in deliberations and the opportunity to uh speak thoughts uh ask questions of ourselves or the witnesses or our ethics officer if he would like it this time.

So I guess I do have a question.

Sure.

Uh the there's only video evidence of 30 days.

Is that correct?

I don't know who can answer that.

So that'd be Mr.

Buford, I guess we would probably know that.

Um Mr.

Buford, I believe is going to answer that.

That is all we have is 30 days that we can certify that this occurred.

There is a belief that it went further, but again, we could only certify 30 days because that is all of the video evidence that we have afforded to us.

What makes you all believe that it was longer than that?

Because the report that came in, and again, this precedes Kevin Buford.

I only came over to Parks and Recreation in July, but I found out that there had been reports that this action was taking place prior to our investigation.

And again, we could only go back 30 days in the video, but we believe because of what we saw during our 30-day investigation that we could prove that this more than likely was happening before because of what was said by other employees that were at the golf course.

Okay, thank you.

And thank you.

Any other comments or deliberations, questions?

I have a quick question.

You say a thousand dollars per $1,000 sanction?

Per violations.

What is the total number of violations?

No, um my recommendation is a thousand dollars assessed.

That's our maximum.

Okay.

If it goes to the solicitor's office, they can assess a thousand dollars per count or infraction or violation.

So it could be 32 counts.

Could be 32 count, up to 32 counts.

Yes.

So you just so I'm clear, so the thousand dollars, because the way I read the rule, it says a thousand dollars per violation.

So that's for the solicitors.

Okay.

Let me turn to the actual penalties.

That's if prosecution.

A prosecution by the Cab County solicitor and municipal court, and if convicted, a fine up to a thousand dollars per violation and up to six months imprisonment, whether the official or employee is elected, appointed, paid, or unpaid.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So Vice Chair Wright.

So that's the maximum.

Any other questions?

Thoughts, comments?

This is for both of them, Mitchell and Washington.

That's correct.

So you we we'd have one for one, I mean one recommendation of the same recommendation to the other.

Correct, because we're holding these at the same time.

Yes, is for Johnny Mitchell and Kimberly, Washington.

So I'm not saying $500 each, $1,000 each, public reprimand each.

Right.

And for this to the appropriate says for us to entertain two motions, one for one and one for the other.

That's correct.

So the any more collection.

Quick question.

Is there a minimum amount that takes there a minimal amount that would take this from maybe like a misdemeanor to a felony, meaning in the amount of money that was given to Mr.

Mitchell?

That's a good question.

I don't know if the solicitor will have the ability to forward this to Superior Court or not.

Our only role is to notify the solicitor that this is the issue and to provide our evidence.

Right.

Just in general, my understanding is if the solicitor comes across something that is proceed to be a misdeeanor, misdemeanor, but then they determine during their investigation it's indeed a felony, they then could refer that matter to the district attorney to continue the investigation and then determine whether or not there is going to be an indictment.

Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to make I'm still not here on bidding.

Sorry.

The thing I'm still not clear on is we know the it the record only goes back 30 days, and we know the number of days that the individual was supposed to have worked and was inappropriately clocked in.

What I'd like to find out is how much money that just the going back to 30 days, how much money does that account for?

And if it is a significant amount, then a thousand dollars is a pretty mild sanction.

I realize that's all we can do, but if if the uh illegal activity and and the the uh illegal clocking in uh was significantly more than that, I uh I just have trouble sanctioning them for a thousand dollars.

Do is there any way to find out how much money, even in the 30-day period?

Let me let me pose the question to Mr.

Buford.

Do we or Mr.

Cooper, do you know what the salary was of Mitchell?

If I recall correctly, I think Mr.

Mitchell's hourly wage rate was $17.68 per hour.

So typically work eight hours?

He was a part-time uh worker, so the the amount of time he worked uh hours he worked fluctuated.

Right.

So, well, I mean assuming eight hours is a max, or you could identify what the higher limit would be 17 times eight times 32.

I I would I would suggest that uh the recommendation to the solicitor specifically have exactly the dates and the amounts of money involved.

I think we would have that authority.

That's that's the only way we're gonna possibly get a restitution.

Well, and they may treat each day as a separate offense.

I don't know.

That's our business.

Well, I mean, the solicitor will get the information if we are so inclined to submit it to the solicitor and would continue independently their investigation, starting with your because it becomes a criminal matter, which is beyond our jurisdiction at that point.

Yeah.

But yes, I agree.

Yeah, so we can't.

You still put in there the recommendation that more investigation needs to occur to answer the question of exactly how much is being discussed, at least for 30 days, whether it is beyond that, we don't know because we don't have the testimony beyond the 30 days.

Well, we have testimony that it is beyond 30 days, and we have the time card audit trail.

The statute really just indicates that we just can't have the time card.

That's why the witnesses are here.

And that's for the solicitor to determine.

Right.

So any other questions or comments or if that then none, what I would do is uh first as it relates to uh Johnny Mitchell case number two zero two five-eight is there a motion and a second and then discussions.

And we would do one motion that would contain up to the three recommended items that you have.

Yes.

Okay.

I would make a motion that we uh uh follow what we have discussed and all three penalties uh be imposed, and that the solicitation excuse me, the uh uh reference to the solicitor also uh have attached the specific days and the amounts of money at issue.

Second.

It's just motion and second, and just to clarify that is uh accepting the uh our ethics officers recommendation with the provision of that uh the solicitor investigate more thoroughly the amount of days and money involved with the clocking yes not just investigate, but I I'm gonna just go by what the um statute says of prosecution um of this matter.

I'm gonna ask for uh not just investigation but prosecution of this matter.

I'm sorry, say that loud for me.

I said I'm not just gonna ask for investigation, but prosecution of this matter just pertaining to what the statute says.

Mr.

Chairman, I I want to ask one more quick question.

Do you actually prepare the reprimand and how is that delivered to them?

Or how what happens to the public reprimand?

I prepare the public reprimand and the public reprimand.

I usually disseminate it two ways.

One in the monthly um email that I sent out to 6500 employees, as well as it's always on the website.

The reprimands are currently on the website.

So did you just gist of the language is that the Board of Ethics reprimands in this case the the defendant's what we say we reprimand the exactly what the statute says.

Is that correct?

The public reprimand contains the facts, contains the rule violated in the conclusion, but that's separate from what's sent to normally the solicitor.

All right.

Is there any more conversation?

Or questions regarding the motion and a second?

Do you have any?

Yes.

All right.

There's a motion and a second to accept the um administrators' recommendation, administrative officers recommendation, and uh that we do include with it a a request uh that investigation of what the dollar amounts are involved for the days that at least we have evidence of clocking occurred.

Uh I guess videotape evidence.

All right.

So all those in favor signify by raising your hand and saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed like sign?

All right.

The first one carries.

The second uh one is the one involving Kimberly K.

Washington case number 2025-16 and in that one your recommendation is the same, and that are the three points that are on page or slide number 31 up there.

Um, your recommendations on page slide number 31.

You don't have it up there, but it's to uh sanction a thousand dollars assessed by the Board of Ethics, a public recommend reprimand by the Board of Ethics, and for disinformation evidence to determine if prosecution by the decap counter solicitor in municipal court is appropriate.

So moved.

So you moved for that.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right, is there any further discussion or deliberation?

Questions.

All right.

Seeing none, all those in favor of the uh motion signify by raising your hand or saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstain.

Some some didn't vote.

I'm sorry?

I was reading.

So you you okay.

You I didn't catch that.

You you said you yay, nay, or okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, and is anybody uh opposed?

Okay.

So we have it.

Um this concludes my presentation or the case.

All right.

The next item on our agenda is public comments.

So we will gladly take public comments from those in the public.

And by the way, thank you for our witnesses.

We appreciate it.

Well, I mean, take all that away.

And Stephen Benny 1083.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Benny.

Mr.

Buford or Mr.

Cooper, you're free to go if you choose, or you can sit here and you don't have to hang around and listen to me.

Well, no, no, I was going to suggest or otherwise listen to Mr.

Benny.

We enjoy listening to Mr.

Benny.

It was a Stephen Benny, 1083 Seville Drive, Clarkston, Georgia, 30021.

It was a real pleasure to watch the board in action this evening.

I would suggest that perhaps you look into posting the reprimand in the champion, which is the county's official news organ newspaper, where all of the legal announcements and things like that go, that might be something to look into.

Thank you for uh asking the question about how much he makes.

I think that you can take that and then calculate the number of hours and come up with a uh fairly accurate, at least estimated uh amount that he actually took.

Um I would also I assume that since he was part-time, which we didn't find out until later, that it wasn't paid overtime, but you might want to be aware of that also.

Um other than that, I don't think I have any questions about it.

I think you are right, although I do have a few misgivings about the lady in the case.

She was remorseful.

We don't really know if she was forced into it or like what not, and you might have wanted to have find her $750 or $500 to show a difference between helping in the prosecution and not helping.

But other than that, I'm happy.

You all take care and have a great evening.

See none.

Public comment appeared and is closed.

With that, according to our agenda, we have comments from the Board of Ethics.

Oh, I have to get closer.

The light is on.

Thank you, Mr.

Biddy.

And public comments are over.

Now we have comments from the Board of Ethics.

Oh, sorry, to my left.

Once twice?

I'm moving to my right.

Mr.

Chair, I I just like to uh make a point of order here.

I want to thank the ethics officer and the administrator for putting together which I am confident will be a very successful uh ethics forum coming up in the next few weeks.

Um it's a it's a very noteworthy event, and I I think it deserves some external press.

So um, Madam ethics officer, if I could suggest, if you haven't done it already, when this is over, to put a press release together and to get as wide a uh dissemination on that as you as you possibly can.

Because I I think there are all kind of benefits that can endure to not only this organization, but the ethics comment the ethics uh ruling in general.

So I would encourage you to do that.

Thank you, sir.

Um I just have a comment, and it's somewhat in line with what Mr.

Benny brought up, and that is the um Ms.

Washington's conduct um, while it may have been remorseful, it was also deceptive because she initially, when asked, said that she only clocked him in inadvertently and clocked him back out.

So she initially lied and then I guess acknowledged it, and what I would hope that the um prosecutor's office looks into is the fact that she was probably the one clocking him in many times before this.

So it would seem as though they could go to her and he would test, she would testify that she clocked been clocking him in for however long, and that might be uh create more penalties for Mr.

Mitchell.

Thank you.

Just do it no.

Yes, I'm sorry, you order.

Go ahead.

That's fine.

Um she was deceptive with me, which is against the law.

She only agree to one or two days.

So thank you.

The other thing I'd comment on is that I'm troubled by I think it's exhibit two, because as Mr.

Florence, my fellow board member pointed out, there's one place that it says in bolly involuntary termination.

There's another place where it says tur resignation in lieu of termination.

Those are two different things.

And if they resigned, that's a will that's an act that they took.

And if it was involuntary termination, that's an act that the employer took.

Um I would like to see the actual separation notice, because it's not going to say both.

There's going to be something on there, and depending upon what's on that separation notice, they could be eligible for unemployment benefits and could very well apply.

Um.

So uh I think that's just uh something that maybe should have been considered in retrospect.

I'm not sure there's a whole lot that can be done about it now, I'm assuming that the separation notices have already been sent.

But um it would be interesting to know what they say because the information on exhibit two is in conflict.

Those are two very different things.

And I'll get off my high horse.

Well, I mean, and perhaps when you have conversations with HR and others, you just might reference that.

But that's a little bit outside of our bit.

You receive what they actually said the terminate I I sent a termination through to you all already.

I don't recall what they actually say, but um that was sent with the probable cause report.

All right.

The only comment I have is I hope to see everyone here invited, of course, to our ethics forum.

It's interesting, and it's always great to have our CEO.

And uh I do know well the uh Senator Parent and extremely experienced articulate, and I think we'll learn quite a bit from both.

So next have our executive session.

And so I'll take a motion to convene at an executive session.

So moved.

Second.

All right, is a motion second.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by raising your hand or saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed like signed.

All right, we'll do that right now and we'll be back, welcome back everybody, and um thank you for sticking around.

And at this point, I'll take a motion to adjourn our executive session.

And all right.

Any conversation?

All right.

All those in favor signify by saying hi.

Aye.

Opposed like sign.

The next is a motion to approve the executive session affidavit, which is this document here.

So moved.

There's a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Multiple seconds.

Um, all those in favor of uh approving the executive session affidavit signify by raising your hand or saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed like sign.

Okay, that's been approved.

And the announcement I have is our next regular board date meeting is June 18, 2026.

However, I know and I hope I will see all of you at our ethics forum.

Which will happen before then.

And so with that, I'll take a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Sir a second.

Those in favor signify by raising your hand.

Opposed like sign.

Thank all of you, and thank you in the public.

And those here for our meeting today.