Good afternoon, DeCav.

And uh welcome to the ops committee today.

I am Marita Davis Johnson.

I chair the um county operations committee.

Um my colleague that served with me is Commissioner Khalil uh Ladina Bowden and also Commissioner Robert Patrick.

So he's here somewhere.

I see his stuff in the seat, so he's here.

So uh with that, um, I'm sorry, and we're also joined by Commissioner Ted Terry.

Uh with that, um Commissioner, have you had an opportunity to view the minutes of May the 21st?

Yes, ma'am, and I move to approve item 2026 0368.

Uh I second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay, those um minutes are approved.

The next item we have is facility management.

260689.

All commissioned districts.

It's a low bed invitation.

Uh 25073, card access, key scan, installation, maintenance, and repair services, annual contract with two options to renew for use by facility management, public works and drainage, police, public works, sanitation, department of watershed management, fire rescue services, and marshal's office to obtain installation maintenance and repair of all card asset points and county facilities.

We recommend award to the lowest responsive responsible bidder.

Southeastern Security Professionals, LLC and Georgia Entry Solutions, total amount not to exceed $858,000.

And good afternoon.

Good afternoon, madam chair and commissioners.

Uh this um request is to um for Southeastern Security Professionals for our card access system for the county.

This allows when you go to the building and do an entry gate or access doors, you use your badge.

This is what the system is for.

So this is for the maintenance and repair of that.

Oh, okay.

And this is a um annual contract with two options to renew.

Do you have any questions?

No, ma'am, not at this time.

Do you have any?

Okay.

Um, with that is there a motion.

I move to approve item 2026 0689.

I second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that is approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next item is 26071.

All commission districts.

It's a change order.

Number one, the contract number one three oh two nine eight and one three three zero three zero one call electrical services, and your contract with two options to renew for use by facility management by rescue to obtain inspections, maintenance, repair, and installation of electrical systems, components, and equipment.

Seeking increase in contract funds and terms through December 31st, 2026, and to ratify previously termed term increase.

Awarded to uh GC and I, Systems Group, LLC and Electronic, Electronical Contractor, amount not to exceed 430,000.

Yes, ma'am.

This contract is used by facilities to do repairs and installation of electrical services.

Um this contract is um being there, there's a new solicitation out on the street right now, trying to get a new contract in place.

So we're uh uh requesting to extend the contract at December 31st and add some funds to uh complete the contract.

Okay, and also there was funds already spent on this contract that has been ratified.

Yes, ma'am.

And how much was that?

Do you have that amount?

I'm sorry.

Um Commissioner, there weren't any funds that were previously spent.

The ratification was related to the contract term increase to make sure that there was an active contract for you guys to review and make a recommendation on.

Oh, okay.

So it was not any funds expended.

No.

It's just the ratification.

Okay, it's not any funds extended.

It's just expended.

It's just a ratification of time.

Yeah, the ratification is related to the contract term increase.

They are asking to increase their contract through December, and they need funds to support that increase.

So that is the 430,000 they're asking for.

That's to get them to the end of the year.

Okay.

I would think that would be a modification rather than a ratification.

I'm thinking, Council.

I'm thinking that a ratification is ratifying something that is already happened.

There is modifying.

There's two things happening in this request.

One is ratifying a previously approved contract term increase.

Okay.

So that you had something to actually look at today.

And the other thing is, hey, we would like to push this to the end of the year, and we need this much money to do that.

Okay.

You understand that.

Okay.

Okay.

A yeah.

Do you have any questions?

No.

Do you have any?

Okay.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

Thank you.

I move to approve item 2026 0791.

I second all in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

That item is approved.

Okay.

260894.

Change order number one to contract number 1385069 to Cap County Juvenile Court.

Uh Justice Courtroom 2.

Build out 270 days for use by the Department of Facility Management to obtain construction services for the build out of courtroom two at the juvenile court justice center.

Seek an increase in contract funds and term through December 31st 2026 awarded to diversified contract construction of Georgia amount not to exceed $55,000.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners.

Yes, this is for the juvenile justice.

This is a bid project with construction is currently at 95% complete.

A little history on this.

This project build out began in 2007, and the construction was abruptly stopped, not sure why, uh, early in the construction process.

So and an effort was made uh in the new design to incorporate existing elements into the existing construction, which led to some uh unforeseen adjustments, uh, which includes uh what's in this change order, and that was uh plumbing realignment, electrical fire alarm modifications, door height adjustments, uh replace damage signage, provide fire dampers to existing two-hour rated walls that we found were missing, upgraded electrical panel from 100 amps to 120 amps, and also we had to rebuild the elevated judges platform, the clerk's platform, and the witness stand, and all of that together uh is for that 75,000 dollar change order.

Any questions?

I do.

I just want to clarify were these um upgrades made after the work was uh stopped suddenly, so that work was done, it was stopped, and then you had to redo it.

Exactly, because this has been almost 20 years later.

So there were some things there we tried to incorporate them, it ended up in a few things not not being quite right, and this kind of takes care of those items and everything except for the elevated judges platform, the clerk's platform and the witness stand.

That was work that kind of had to happen to make the project proceed and has been done.

And and so those are the last items on the list, but the 75,000 incorporates all of that.

Okay, thank you.

I yield back.

Okay, well, no, anything.

Uh is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0894.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Okay, that makes it innovation and technology.

The next is innovation and technology.

260858.

All commissioned districts.

Statewide contract.

You can read the number, maintenance, consulting services for use by the Department of Innovation and Technology to obtain consulting services for the application portfolio rationalization project.

Awarded to Gardner Gartner Inc.

Amount not to exceed 183,000.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioner.

We're seeking approval to request the services of Gartner to perform an application portfolio rationalization project for the county.

So what this means is the assessment will evaluate all of the county's current applications as well as uh and identify any redundant applications or any applications that we need to expire um retire.

Okay.

So this is a this comes from the operational assessment that Martin and Jenkins did.

This was one of their recommendations.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Do you have any questions?

Uh it just seems as straightforward as you described.

You're checking to make sure that we're not paying for stuff we're not using anymore.

Is that that is correct?

And identify any duplicate systems that we can convert into one application.

So yes.

I'm a big yes on that.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, Tab.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

If if there's nothing further.

Um motion to approve 0858.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Next item is 260869.

And um this is a uh change order.

Number two, the contract number one two five five eight zero five of our software corporation.

SAS project uh electronic plan review sole source for use by the department of innovation and technology to be used by the department of planning and sustainability.

Um to obtain the two-year purchase of Project Docs software, seeking increase in contract funds in term through August the 8th 28, awarded to a Bob Software Corporation, amount not to exceed 268,000 704.

Yes, so Project Docs is utilized by the Department of Planning and Sustainability to support their electronic plan submissions and document reviews.

Um so we're asking for an additional two years on the contract to get us through until we we bring up the new Oracle Permitting and Licensing Software.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Do you have any?

Nope.

Okay.

Okay, is there a motion?

Uh motion to approve 0869.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Uh the next is 26071.

All commission districts change order to contract number one zero zero zero eight four six public sector agreement for Oracle Cloud Services, sold source for use by the Department of Innovation Technology to obtain ongoing support and maintenance of all products and services for the county oracle cloud uh services platform.

Seek to increase the contract fund in term through December 31st, 2020 2029, amount not to exceed 13 million 93, 995 and 76 cents.

Have this come back for modern?

It has not.

Okay.

So can we do a deferral on that?

Uh I motion to defer um uh 0771 for two weeks.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Thank you.

That item is deferred.

Now we're back to facility management.

Item 2607 81.

Change order.

Number three to contract number one three oh nine, six eight six and one three oh nine six six six on call roof maintenance repair and replacement service annual contract with two options to renew for use by the department of facility management, recreation parks and cultural affairs, watershed management, and fire rescue to obtain roof maintenance, repair and replacement services and county owned facilities seeking to utilize slash two funds for the roof replacement and repair at North Decay Comprehensive Have Center AC Cab Setter EL Richardson have set up TO Vincent have set up the Cup Crisis setup, Kirkwood, Metal Health, Fox Recovery, and Clifton Spring have set up awarded to Hawks Construction Company and National Billing Contractor Amount not to exceed 3,736,514 and 10 cents.

Has this come back for a lot of?

Yes, ma'am.

And it was supported.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh are there any questions?

I don't know we've got to be able to do that.

No, ma'am.

We've yeah, we've discussed this one already.

I move to approve item two zero two.

I'm sorry, Robert, uh Commissioner Patrick.

Did you have a question before I make the motion?

Yeah.

Okay.

I move to approve item two zero two six zero seven one.

Okay.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

It's approved.

Okay, now we're at discussions.

And uh I think last time we started with charter review.

Is that correct?

Or did we start with setting procedure rules?

We started with standing procedural.

Okay, so we saw it.

Would you like to like to start with charter review?

Yes.

Uh-huh.

And okay.

All righty.

Marcus is currently passing you out.

Okay, you know something.

We started at one and we end at 1215.

215.

I mean 215.

So if you can time is half eight.

I can do that.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Give us about 25 minutes per each one.

We can do so.

Uh Marcus just passed out to you two documents.

The um the charter review is proposed, or the charter amendments as proposed by the charter review committee, and then the memorandum provided by CEO Cochrane Johnson dated December 12th, 2015.

Okay.

Last time we spoke about this item, we ended on page 10, and so we would be ready to move forward.

Um at the I'm sorry, we at the bottom of page 10 of the memo, section 15, appointments to public office.

Is that what you state?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Let's see.

So the substantive changes from the charter review in this section, section 15.

Nominations for all public office shall stand confirmed if the boc does not approve or reject by a specific deadline.

And outlines the process to fill a position or vacancy if the CEO does not nominate does not nominate a replacement of a vacancy within 30 days.

Charter reviews charter review committee's recommendation was that each of these alters the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches as previously established by the General Assembly.

Charter reviews charter review committees recommendation was each of these alters the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches as previously established by the general assembly yes I'm just now madam CEO does not support these changes as they alter the believes they altered the power balance between the executive and legislative branches as previously stand established by the general assembly I'm first going to call on my colleagues to my committee members first to see if um they have any um comments or concerns can you talk through what the current policy is if within what was that 30 days um a replacement is not confirmed or nominated what what do we currently do I'm sorry I was looking through the the red line to make sure that I had the correct office this specifically speaks to the auditor I apologize I believe I'm missing a page like page thirty four is thirty-four you said sir section F is the substantial substantial change if the first nominee top of page thirty four section C thank you sir first nominee of the chief executive is rejected by the commission the chief executive shall make a second nomination in writing to the commission within 10 days after the date of such rejection within 15 days after the date of the second nomination the chief executive is received the commission either at a regular or special called meeting shall confirm or reject the second nomination of the chief executive if the second nominee of the chief executive is rejected by the commission the commission shall within 15 days after the date of such rejection either at a regular or special called meeting elect a qualified person to fill the vacancy or post within a necessary without the necessity of nomination by the chief executive so currently they are provided two nominations and if those are not filled then the board of commissioners can provide a nomination okay from from my reading section of not withstand section F not withstanding the provisions of subparagraph A of this paragraph if the chief executive does not nominate a person to fill a post or vacancy as required by this subsection within 30 days of the date the vaccine occurs the commission may within 30 days thereafter at either a regular or specially called meeting elect a qualified person to fulfill the post without any necessity without the necessity of a nomination by the chief executive okay so this doesn't say this says that the commission elects a qualified person it doesn't say that it nominates a qualified person so to elect one would have to be nominated but notwithstanding this I think that the um I think that the um chief executive officer should have the authority to fill or nominate a person to um suggest to us and it and I think that if she does not do so within 30 days I think 30 days is a little soon you know I would say within a hundred and twenty days given her that's my opinion now is it anyone but then um there's no language saying if we if we would suggest the hundred and twenty days there's no language to say who nominates the person for the board instead of the board shall elect it doesn't say

Now is it anyone, but then um there's no language saying if we ex if we would suggest the 120 days, there's no language to say who nominates the person for the board.

Instead of the board shall elect, it doesn't say shall nominate so with that language.

I mean, does anyone have okay?

I'm okay with the 30 days, and I think it's rational to incorporate language that does um indicate a nomination, but what I would suggest is 120 days from the date that the chief executive is informed that there is or will become a vacancy because in I just read it somewhere where it says um yeah, section two.

Yeah, in section two, it indicates that in some circumstances here the um what is described if the chief executive knows within at least 60 days that a vacancy will be approaching, maybe someone submitted a letter, shared some information.

If she knows in advance, then we should use that as the point in time from which that 120 days should begin because she would have those 60 days before it becomes vacant and an additional 30 thereafter.

So um not I wouldn't say 120 days upon being vacated, but 120 days upon being notified that there is or will be a vacancy.

Well, I would say 125, being notified that there's a vacancy, because you I would say 120 days of being notified that there is a vacancy, uh, because just because you said there will be, there may be circumstances where there may not be.

So you know, I would say 120 days.

I could agree with that, but I would say 120 days upon a vacancy, being notified of a vacancy.

I could go with that.

And um, and with the there's no language as to nomination.

So I think that the board um would nominate by a majority vote.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh judge, uh the board would nominate by majority vote uh if it is not filled within that 120 days, and then we would elect by majority vote.

Um after 120 days of notice of a vacancy, yes, ma'am.

Um I don't have any concerns with the um if if 120 days is the right number, I just would say that the code right now talks about 60 days, um and so we would be doubling that um and then when it comes to the language that's in red, you know, with uh paragraph B.

Um I guess my question to the commission is is are you comfortable with these sort of determinant statements that if the commission does not confirm or reject a nomination by the chief executive within the specified time, then that nominee shall stand as confirmed.

It seems like we should probably have a an affirmative vote on that, since we're we're putting no, you can't.

I know that, but um it seems more like a pocket veto for having someone um nominated to the board of commissioners as opposed to an affirmative vote, but um those are those are basically my comments, and I will note that I guess the CEO does not seem to support these these ideas um, but that may be a question we work the legislature works out.

Yeah, thank you.

And and I think that we're not really we're not really changing, I think the contacts because it's already in there 60 days.

What we're changing is six 120 days of the notice.

And we're adding that if it is not done within that 160 days, then the board would select, I mean, nominate by a majority of vote by majority vote.

Um and then vote on it.

Okay, Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, yes, to the first point from uh Commissioner can you talk to the first uh point from Commissioner Patrick about uh section A one B with the 20 days um so it it does seem like we get notice of an appointment via the agenda like committee of the whole and then in theory a committee could hear the appointment within two weeks, I guess would be the quickest.

So that could be okay for 20 days, but I think sometimes a committee might do it the next meeting, and then it goes to 30 days.

So I don't know if that number needs to be just um checked for just like how our committees work and if we did 30 days, there might that might be enough time to at least have like a second committee meeting.

Um I'd flag that one on the the section F for the 30 days or 120 days.

I think I'm fine with some something in that range that makes sense just to give it enough time for their I think it's very unlikely that an executive would not appoint someone at all.

Um, and then probably even more rare that a second person would be rejected, but who knows?

So this one seems like it probably won't likely to happen.

Um, but in just in case, you know, that 120 day period might make be enough time to work it out.

Um, and then I think the other thing that I feel like we are doing, but I'm not sure if it's Zach or if it's the clerk, but uh section 2E says the chief operating officer shall coordinate and supervise the process for making appointments.

So I mean I guess you're kind of already doing that now, Zach.

I guess just like managing and coordinating the the making appointments, like the roster basically of appointments.

That's what they're added, they want to add here as well.

So I don't know if that's are you already doing that, Zach, or is that the clerk?

I can't remember.

It's kind of a combination of a number of uh folks, but yeah, it certainly is not solely rested.

Are these for 13A or for all appointments?

It says appointments vested by law in the chief executive and the commission by maintaining a roster.

We you know the the CEO's office keeps a pretty good tab on primarily the chief of staff has been managing a lot of it, but with our assistance, but the the balance of the appointments we have not been managing.

Okay, so I might just flag that because um it sounds like COO might be handling the 13A roster, but then all the other appointments that come to the BOC might be the clerk, I guess for now.

The clerks do record back end record keeping, so theoretically they would be the ones to have that roster of information available.

And I know that that is a process that they've been working on with the law department as well to try to come back and make that a more uniform process.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Excuse me.

Did you say within did you say change the 20 to 30 days and B for the commission to confirm?

Yeah, it seems like sometimes we do it in two weeks, but I know a couple like PEX committee meetings were full and they had to push back an appointment another two weeks.

So I think that's only relevant if we add this section that says if it's if they're not confirmed or rejected, the nominations shall stand confirmed.

So that would be a way for I mean, like I think we still would want to have that final approval.

So if we give ourselves 30 days, um presumably we can handle that.

And I will say just to add color as the lead packs analyst, when we get appointments set to committee, usually it's provided two committee meetings within a month.

So we have um CSB members coming up, and they were provided both month um both meetings in June, may not June 9th and June 23rd, and that would come for a final vote in July.

So we would say 30 days, okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we we we we we're in consensus on the 30 days and the six months from notice of a vacancy.

Six months.

I mean 120 days.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

120 days from notice of a vacancy.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

And I I did want to add to that what was requested in item F in Section 1 and item B seems to both just provide a well, I don't want to call it a sense of urgency, but essentially what it's doing for both the commission and for the CEO, if either body fails to act on a responsibility within the predetermined time period that's documented here, this is just a consequence to either of those entities not executing their responsibilities.

So I don't see it as an attempt to infringe on the CEO's responsibilities or the CEO to infringe on ours in either one of these, because without those um clarifying statements, if we don't in item B, for example, if we don't within 30 days confirm the nomination, what happens?

Nothing.

Time just continues to go until we decide to confirm or you know, future bodies decide to confirm.

So I don't have um, I don't have an issue with any of those clarifying statements, especially with the understanding that we have been doing a pretty good job of being executing our responsibilities, both us and CEO with respect to this specifically.

And then D I'm sorry, within the 15 days, could you explain that a little bit within the 15 days after the date of the second nomination, and I would guess the second nomination would be that by the board.

This would be the second nomination of a CEO.

So if the first nomination is rejected, they have an additional 15 days uh after the first nominee of this chief executive is rejected by the commission, the chief executive shall make a second nomination in writing to the commission within 10 days, within 15 days after the second nomination by the chief executive is received by the commission, the commission shall confirm or reject.

So if we've rejected the first nominee, we have 15 days to confirm or reject the second nominee.

And that's already in the language correctly.

The recommendations that they've made here is to clean up the language and spell it out instead of writing out 10, adding 10 instead of writing out 15, and then to Commissioner Bolton's point, adding clarifying language if the commission does not confirm or reject the nomination by the chief executive within that specific time herein the nomination shall stand confirmed.

So if the board takes no action on a second nominee within that time period, they would be confirmed by lieu of action.

Okay.

Okay, thanks.

Madam Chair, if I can add uh add something to the conversation.

Okay.

So obviously we're talking about a vacancy occurring.

And then there's a time.

A vacancy occurring in a public office, as the section talks about.

Um then it seems within the CEO it has 30 days to begin the process.

If the CEO doesn't begin the process within 30 days, another 30 days after that, so a total of 60 days since the vacancy, uh, the board of commissioners can step in and start the process.

No, that's um the only concern I have with that and and being on that tight of a timescale is is uh what if we're in sort of uh another pandemic or great recession where there's a lot of other priorities on the CEO's desk as well as the board of commissioners.

Um, to 120 days.

Uh we changed for for paragraph two, we changed it to 120 days.

But paragraph F, um, I'll just read that line that's relevant.

Uh to fill a post or vacancy as required by the subsection within 30 days of the date of vacancy occurs, the commission may within 30 days thereafter, uh, either at a regular or special called meeting, elect a qualified person to fill the post without the necessity of nomination by the chief executive office.

So if we're moving forward with this, I would say we probably should have paragraph F contemplate that same 120-day time frame.

I'm I would assume that's what we talked about.

Is that what your understanding?

My understanding is similar to the commissioner when we talked about two, but um we can include that timeline to also reflect in section F as well.

Okay, we have to be consistent.

You know, whether it's from one section to another.

It needs to be consistent.

We wouldn't give a hundred and twenty days in one paragraph and 30 days in another paragraph.

Right.

I just assumed that we were making those notes.

That is consistent.

I'll take responsibility for that confusion because you you were referring, you were talking about uh paragraph F, and then I brought up section two as an example, which probably confused everybody.

Yes.

So I understood it to be Section F 120 days, the way you suggested.

Okay.

And and again, the rationale is is great recession, some economic issues, some public health, whatever's going on.

If the priority is to fix the thing that's happening, this should not be trumped up in front of everyone else's uh priority list that we need to handle the business as it's urgent.

So all right, thank you.

All right, we are in consensus for section 15.

We have about five minutes left.

We can move on to the next section on the top of page 11 of the memo, section 20 purchasing and contract purchasing and contracts.

That starts on paper before we move to the next section.

Uh I don't think we clarify, did we clarify 2e?

Because here it suggests the chief operating officer shall coordinate and supervise.

But in previous conversations, I think we suggested either law or the clerk.

Did we clarify that before we move on?

On paragraph what now?

Section 2E.

Who's gonna be responsible for tracking the appointments?

Yes, we're tenure.

The clerk's office.

Okay.

Was that the consensus?

The clerk's office.

Okay.

Just making sure.

All right.

Okay.

Okay.

And with that, um, like I said, we have about four minutes now, so we can move on to the next section on the top of page 11 of the memo, section 20, purchases and contracts.

That starts on page 37 of the charter review red line.

The substantive changes recommended in section 20, the CEO must submit a proposed purchasing and contracting ordinance to the BOC for review and approval.

Formal sealed bids must be published on the county website.

The recommendation from the Charter Review Commission on this is that each changes alters the uh power between the executive and legislative branches previously established by the General Assembly.

Madam CEO does not support these changes in concept, but does believe these changes are appropriate for inclusion in the Ord Act.

Madam CEO has retained the National Institute of Government Procurement to opine on best practices.

Um Madam Chair, if I may, you know, um, I can remember back to my municipal times, there was always this conversation between making a procurement policy and making a procurement ordinance.

And um the the policy gives the comfort of this is a formal process that everyone has to follow.

Uh the difficulty is is if there's an economic challenge or change that happens, we have to go through the process of rewriting an ordinance to adapt to realities.

And so um rather than saying that we have to have an ordinance in place, uh, I guess um maybe a conversation on what the current policy is for letting the board of commissioners and the public know what the policy is.

So if the CE, if a CEO comes along and wants to make a change, you've got to give us notice, you've got to give the public notice as to what the change is and then explain it.

Um, but I would I would be hesitant to go toward the idea of an actual formal ordinance on the books simply because again, if if we have another great recession or something else economically happens, our our our ability to be flexible reality is somewhat handcuffed at that point.

Thank you.

Do you have any as support a procurement policy as well, not an org change?

Okay.

Thank you, uh Madam Chair.

I think this is actually probably one of the most um significant this actually probably is the most significant proposed change by the Charter Review Commission.

So it does deserve an extra um you know amount of discussion.

Uh so a couple points, because I do remember participating or at least attending the Charter Review Commission meetings when they discussed this particular section.

Um it was noted that um, as far as I know, every city and county in Georgia has a purchasing ordinance.

Uh we do not, because it's in the org act.

Um, I was told that when Manuel Malof was pushing to create the CEO form of government, he basically said to the legislature, if you don't let the CEO control contracting, I will fight the CEO form of government legislation.

So just want to like keep that anecdote in your minds that Manuel Maloof was pushing to create a CEO form of government, but he was willing to tank it if the CEO did not have full power over contracting.

So you have to ask yourself back then in the 80s, Mr.

Phillips, I believe.

Why would one person at the very top of government want absolute control over the purchasing and contracting policy in a county government?

And I don't have an answer for that question because I don't know.

But you can you can ask the question and ponder what the answer might be.

Um, you know, I think other jurisdictions have these ordinances in place.

If there's issues in the economy or whatever, I I don't know they're necessarily inhibited by an ordinance.

It's what the goal here of this section is to create transparency on what the purchasing policy is.

Um I don't believe that it's being abused currently or even in recent memory.

It's possible in the past decades there may have been some issues that came up.

Um there is a general sense from my experience that a department could make a recommendation on a contractor and the CEO could say, nope, don't like that, and we're gonna change it before it gets to the BOC.

Um, so there's other things that happen behind the scenes before they even get to us for approval um of a certain contractor.

So I think that's the goal here really of this section is that when you have an ordinance approved by the Board of Commissioners, um, then it it is the policy, and it cannot be changed on the back end or from behind the scenes uh by the CEO um absent from the board or the public knowing.

Um and again, I'll just I'll just return back to the basic concept that every county in Georgia has a purchasing ordinance except DeCAP.

Okay.

Uh okay, thank you.

And uh I want to come back and say that the camp is the only form of government that has a CEO in state of Georgia.

And so we're not going to be like every other form of government in Georgia, because we're unique.

And that's what um Manuel Louvre and the legislatures.

They pushed for it, we got it, they passed it, and this is where we are.

I wouldn't want to tie our hands with the ordinance for the Camp County.

I would my commission is here.

But go on, uh counsel.

Thank you.

I just wanted to recognize a little of the evolution of our process.

Um you guys tease me about having been here so long.

I'll just remind you that in the 90s, when I started, I was hired as a contract attorney for DeCab County.

CEO set the agenda.

We had the CEO on the dais setting the agenda for the commission and participating fully.

The organizational act was changed during the Jones administration, and the CEO was removed from the dais, and the commission began to set its own agenda.

Simultaneously, we've had changes with the way we function in purchasing.

There's been a reorganization of the purchasing department.

And as an example of the changes we've experienced, there was a point where the commission elected to change the spending authority of the CEO from 50,000 to 100,000.

And at that time, the analysis was conducted to show 15% of the money would be represented by that change.

A small dollar amount.

So the commission's agenda shrunk considerably by making that 15% change.

Those are the kinds of decisions that you can make quickly with a policy as opposed to an ordinance.

If you're having an ordinance, I think Commissioner Marita Davis has pointed this out.

You have a different dynamic in terms of flexibility and changing.

Another consideration that I would invite is whether or not we are carefully navigating effective and efficient operations in our purchasing policy.

Because at the end of the day, that is what we are trying to accomplish as a governing authority.

We want input from the commission.

We want proper checks and balances between the commission and the executive branch with the CEO, but we want effective, efficient operations in that process.

So those are conceptual considerations I offer to you guys having watched this evolved since the 90s.

And I remind you, just as a matter of my perspective, I served as the assistant director of purchasing and contracting and legal affairs for several years.

So I not only represented purchasing and still do now, I've worked within the purchasing department, and I've worked with other departments to help navigate being a user and making sure that users were able to get what they want quickly and effectively through our process.

So I just encourage you as you think about how these rules should be crafted, where they're placed, to remember effectiveness and efficiency is the top goal, and a healthy balance for operational effectiveness should be another part of your primary goals.

Okay.

Thank you, Council.

Um considering um what you just indicated with uh DeCap County's governing authority being different, and that the chair of every other county sits on the board of commissioners, it's understandable why they would need a policy because that's their way of separating powers.

But I did want to ask Commissioner Terry, considering that we do approve the contracts without the CEO's vote, we can request information, we can reject.

Um, and I think a great example of something that you guys did recently was sending uh contracts to audit.

If they're three million dollars or more, uh you know, policy changes.

Are there any specific advantages that you had in mind or that you can share that would help our form of government to have an ordinance versus us supporting a policy change or policy changes when necessary?

Uh that's a great question, Commissioner Bolton.

Um, I so publishing the policy on what the procurement process is that the CEO is currently following would be a great step forward.

And if if the only thing that we got out of this whole discussion was here's the website that says here's the purchasing policy from the CEO as of this date, and it doesn't change.

And if it does change, here's the most updated, like that would be an improvement.

I'd be totally fine with that, because then we would at least know it.

Um I think the efficacy of doing the ordinance simply is that it becomes a law.

And so, in theory, under this form of government, the CEO can change the policy without our approval.

The CEO can make a policy change behind in their office, and we won't know about it until it's already done, and if it's coming to us for final approval, um that stuff has already been dealt with, and so we're if you wanted to be like sort of the most conspiracy theorists, you could say I like this person over this person, this person had the lower bid, this person was a little bit close, but I'm the CEO, and I'm just saying we're gonna pick this person because I think they're better.

And the ordinance would have a very defined policy that would help inform us.

So, you know, I mean, if there is a policy that can be provided on the website 24-7, like it's always there, if it changes, it's updated.

That would be a good improvement.

And I would be fine with that.

Um, I think what the Charter Review Commission was trying to do here, and they did it was a unanimous decision, 14 yeses to say that if you have the ordinance, it's just as plain as can be.

It's a law, you have to follow it.

Um I would argue that changing a policy versus changing an ordinance might simply be a couple extra weeks of committee meetings, right?

I mean, at the end of the day, if we want to change an ordinance, attorney Phillips, we draft an ordinance change and we can vote on it at the board of commissioners.

I I just hope you'll see a couple of weeks that way when you're waiting for the law department to produce.

A couple of weeks in that's a couple of weeks-ish.

Um so that's I mean, that's the thing is I think like I'm I'm not I don't think anything under this CEO or even like the last CEO, that's just my time experience.

I don't think anything sort is going on behind closed doors, but I do think that the goal with this ordin this proposed change was if in the future you had a CEO that was you know wanted to gain the system, there is appears to be a way to gain the system without um us knowing about it.

Okay.

Um and and I like to say, and I've said before, that the charter review committee did a lot of work.

And uh we really appreciate their work, but we have to make sure that when we're dealing with these recommendations, because a lot of times they may not know the practical consequences behind a recommendation that they make.

It may sound good and it may look good, but the practical applications behind it can be very difficult for the citizens and staff.

You know, so I think that we do have to have uh flexibility.

Uh if it's something that we don't like, we don't pass.

I think that's what you say that we have, you know.

So um uh with the policy, is it anything else that you wanted to oh I was just gonna uh this was already read out in the record, but just to say it again, madam CEO has retained the National Institute of Government Procurement to opine on best practices, and and I don't think we've had them come back to us, have we no COO I mean Zach if you want to speak the floor is yours.

Thank thank you, madam chair, and uh yes, we're actually wrapping up the report, and I'm um looking to schedule something, believe to present it fab uh in the next uh upcoming meetings.

So yeah, I think it it's it's gonna lay everything out.

Um and we're ready to discuss it.

We mentioned things like the uh procurement uh policy, it's it's posted, uh but we'll be able to share all that stuff.

Oh thank you.

Thank you.

Um COK, so uh Shannon, I think we are in consensus with sticking with the policy rather than changing the ordinance.

Yes, ma'am.

Um so um right now uh we have 15 minutes left, uh 16 minutes left for our standing procedural rules.

Procedure rules okay, yes.

Let's go to that.

Madam Chair, if I could just add, you know, after after the introduction to Fab on that policy discussion, we may need to bring this back up again, but as of right now, I'm still stuck with still stuck with uh the idea of policy.

Okay, that's the referred.

But if there's something that comes out of it that changes everything, then comes out of what?

Uh from the fab discussion that'll be coming up if there's something that comes out of that.

Okay, thank you.

Commission, Patrick.

Okay.

Um okay, so now we're on the um standing procedural rules, ma'am.

Standard procedure rules.

So where do we leave off?

We um you have two documents in front of you.

You have the blue book um as it is currently established.

You also have a document titled items for you by the law department.

This is a document we introduced and discussed at the last ops meeting.

We were able to come to consensus on the recommendations in one B and one C.

Um, and we would page one, ma'am.

Okay.

Um combining those recommendations together in new language will be provided in the the red line version once finalized.

And now we are down at the bottom of page one e 1H, 1E, determining the meeting in absence of the committee of the whole.

This is under section one, subsection one, presiding officer.

The presiding officer shall e determine the meeting agenda in the absence of a committee of the whole.

Yeah, so we finish the other one that they can.

Okay.

Legal.

Okay.

Okay, I'm sorry, Shannon.

Can you repeat that once more?

Yes, ma'am.

Um section one, subsection one for meeting of meeting in attendance, presiding officer.

Presiding officers shall uh item E, determine the meeting agenda in the absence of a committee of the whole.

There was a question by your fellow colleague, uh Commissioner Messiah.

Request additional clarifying information on the consent agenda process requesting additional language that codifies the objection of an item being placed on the consent agenda.

Our question to committee is if we would want to expound on that in section E or keep it as determined as written.

So does she ask to explain what consent items are?

I cannot speak to that.

I was not part of the conversation where this request was made.

I can only speak to what is written and typed on this document.

And okay.

Okay.

I mean, um my understanding literally of the consent agenda is is no one has objection.

Right.

And then if there is an objection, it's automatically.

It would automatically be taken off of that, yeah.

Okay.

Unless there's something else that um any of us have experienced differently.

Okay, let's go.

Right.

What I think she I've spent enough time with her where I I think I know where she's going with this, if the uh presiding officer places something on the consent agenda, or had has been the only one to confirm the agenda.

We didn't get a chance to do it in Cal.

She's saying, what if there's something that the presiding officer placed on there that maybe someone has objection to, but we didn't get a chance to object it because there was no cow.

The presiding officer set the agenda.

So she just wants clarity on what would happen there.

And it seems that we already have a process.

When we go through the consent agenda, if there is something, then one of us just say, hey, can we pull that item?

So maybe she wants that clarified, the thing that we're actually already doing, just pulling an item from the consent agenda during the meeting.

Yeah.

Maybe, but again, I was not a conversation when this comment was made.

Yeah, maybe that should be specified if there's an objection at the um business meeting.

Business meetings pull it.

Put it on preliminary.

I mean, just yeah, treat it as the preliminary.

Okay, Commissioner Terry.

Um, yeah, that was my thoughts exactly.

Is um what Commissioner Bolton said is that um if they're I mean, I guess best practice would dictate that the presiding officer doesn't pick a consent agenda if there is no committee of the whole, so that might solve the problem there.

But if there was a consent agenda and someone said, well, I want to talk about it, you know, just say, can we just pull it and we'll pull us and do it separately.

So I feel like everything is in place to handle that situation.

So I'm not sure if an additional clarity is needed in terms of this specific item.

Well, I mean, if she wants the clarity, I mean, if you just say pull the item that is set on by the presiding office, if you feel that you object to it, let's pull it.

Yes, so I don't think it's any problem with that language, so we can move on from here.

No change to one e now one hate.

You say no change.

You said no change.

I thought we were adding that language.

We wanted to add that language, yeah.

I mean, if yeah, I mean, I mean, even though it's a practice, if she wanted that language, we can put it in.

So that we can bypass coming back a discussion on this.

The only thing is you just pulling it, pulling it off the consent agenda and discussing it as a preliminary item.

Determine the meeting agenda in absence of a committee of the whole unless otherwise objected to I guess specifically for the consent agenda then.

Yeah, specifically for the consent agenda.

I have a question.

Okay.

Um, do we I was trying to find in the blue book?

Do we mention consent agenda somewhere else in the rules?

We I wasn't sure.

I was popping out, but I I thought maybe if if there was needing to be clarity on what the consent agenda is, then that could be the portion of the case.

Because I feel like this section is just saying if we don't have a committee of the whole, the presiding officer just needs to like you need to publish the agenda.

And if there was another section that said what the consent agenda is.

But I don't see it in the seems like a Roberts Rules thing, consent agenda is just in Robert's rules, so that just might be where Roberts Rules dictates how we handle that situation.

And it's possible Robert's rules says you can't have a consent agenda unless you have a meeting before the meeting.

I don't know.

Well, no, we don't want to, you know, I I would want it in our rules that the presiding officer should be able to set the uh consent agenda absence of committee of the whole.

But I mean, do we need to confine what a define what a consent agenda is?

If we need to do that, then fine.

But I would think it sort of speaks for itself.

Um Madam Chair, uh, maybe the county attorney could weigh in.

Does the rules uh identify define a consent agenda?

And then our blue book is sort of working off of that as a basis.

Well, you know, I mean, it's not that I mean, we complicating something that is not complicated.

Yes.

So if he defines a consent agenda for us, good, and if it's not as cons unanimously consented to, then the commissioner can pull the item and treat it as a preliminary item and move forward.

I mean, it's nothing more to discuss, is it?

I agree.

Oh, okay.

So we through with that.

There is a unanimous thing.

I'm sorry.

In section three of the agenda, there is a section three four has unanimous consent.

Yeah.

Um, it doesn't really, I think it's a consent agenda, but maybe that's the section I'm thinking of unanimous consent.

Unless otherwise required by law, any preliminary item may be acted upon as an action item at first reading with unanimous consent of the commission to be acted upon after the reading of its subject by the presiding officer.

A motion for action on a preliminary item must be made by a member who has obtained the floor and properly second.

If the chair hears no objection prior to the call for discussion on an item, then the item shall automatically become ready for action.

That is section four unanimous consent or number four under section three.

Okay.

To your point, I think that handles it because if if there is something.

Well, I think you're yeah, I think your move for action under different sections are different than your consent agreement.

I mean your your a consent agenda.

Because you're gonna have move for action when we have different um items.

Yeah, that are all that or similar.

We're gonna have move faction, move faction, move.

And those are not necessarily those are not consent items.

Right.

We would vote on those.

Yeah, exactly.

And I think to your point, if there was something in those move to actions that the that one commissioner said, I want that polled.

Yeah.

I think it addresses the concern that Commissioner Messai was saying.

Yes, there is a process, even if something is on the consent agenda and there wasn't pre-approval, any one of us could just say I want that polled.

Yeah, and voted.

But I mean, it doesn't hurt to write it in there.

Okay.

So if he can define what consent agenda is and the mechanism we use if we want to take it out, if the presiding officer, if it's not if the presiding officer set the um agenda uh consent agenda.

So this could be may I I I will address what you said.

I want to offer an additional comment.

I will start with what I think you're asking me to do, Commissioner Marita Davis Johnson.

On your consent section of the agenda, the commission is expected to actually take action on those items.

The significance of placing an item in that section without a stop in committee, is that the commission as a body is prepared to take action without a committee vetting it, speaking to staff and having the normal committee process.

Items are occasionally placed in the consent section as you all recognize.

What I've understood your discussion to be is in the absence of a committee of the whole, right?

How you would address the presiding officer taking the liberty of placing an item in the consent section.

Right.

If the presiding officer did so and there was difference of opinion on the dais amongst commissioners, any commissioner could then move to have the item pulled.

I I'm hesitant to say this, we'll discuss it in a moment.

Could move for a normal course, or could simply request that the item be sent to a given committee.

Committee chairs often ask that their committee receive an item.

Frankly, I've witnessed from this body, two different committee chairs saying that their committee should visit a specific item and it goes to both committees.

So you have a number of alternative actions that would facilitate any individual commissioners' concern about an item placed in the consent section by the presiding officer in the absence of a committee of the whole.

But you know, in July, you're going to skip committees of the whole and rely on your presiding officer to set your agenda.

And then when you have your action meetings, each of you will have an opportunity to speak to items in consent, speak to other items, and you can move and voice your opinion at that point.

A part of what I'm noticing just in the notes, and I realize Commissioner Messiah is not here, is that she has several comments.

And I'm trying to make sense of them in her absence based on what all of the comments say and what all of the rules say together.

So I hope that's helpful.

It is.

I mean, because you're gonna have exceptions.

I mean, one other thing that people ask to pull it is they just want clarification of it.

You know, I mean, it's not that they don't want to vote on it.

They just want to clarify.

They just want to make, they may want to know, I want to pull it because I want to know how much this granny is for.

You know, so it's not so much to um advocate against it.

Is some of them sometimes it would be, but you just pull it and then you determine what action is taken once it's pulled.

I I'll just note for this discussion.

The other part of the discussion was how an item actually gets on the agenda at all, whether it goes to consent or elsewhere.

So I would invite you to consider the larger discussion.

How does an item come on right now?

Any commissioner can just enter it, or you're gonna require additional commissioners.

That's been a subject of discussion for this committee quite a bit.

And then if that's the case, whether it goes to consent, whether it must go to the committee process, what your presiding officer would do in the absence of a cow, all of that works together.

Yeah, well, do you know?

You know, the problem comes up is when the presiding officer set the agenda without a committee of the whole.

It just requires that request to come at the action meeting.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

And and that's all the time that we have.

Yes, ma'am.

We can pick up here at the next ops meeting.

Okay.

So we through with that one.

Okay.

We through with that one.

Are we good with that?

We're gonna write down what consent means.

We're gonna write it down that consent mean consent.

Unanimous consent.

That's what it means.

And then if you want to pull an item, you say I'm gonna pull an item.

I will say it to me, it's clearly communicated in section four, but if we have to restate it, I don't have any objection.

Under consent.

See, yeah.

Section four, it it says consent.

If everybody agree, vote, if not, take it off.

That's how I've been.

But he said that that is in reference to not setting it on the agenda.

Items be walked on the same day.

Yeah, item four is when you walk on.

Yeah, asking for the board view of the case.

Yes, and we don't want to, he said you don't want to mix them.

Yes, we'll have a consent agenda section.

Yeah.

Okay.

It specifically says walk-ons right there.

Excuse me.

It it does not, but that has that is how that section has been addressed previously.

And the the nuance that you're discussing discussing today, Dr.

Bolton, is in the absence of a committee of the whole, you don't have that week advanced printed agenda as set by this body to say this items come in public, and in a week we're going to discuss it and possibly vote on it.

So what would happen is for the first time the printed agenda would have an item.

That is different than for the first time it shows up the day of.

It would have been published as advanced notice.

I understand the central staff and clerk work together to make sure there's proper notice of your meetings in advance.

Um so everybody would everybody in the public would have an opportunity to receive notice prior to the day that this body's acting.

And that section has been used for when it's presented that day for the first time, and then there's a request to vote on it.

And it doesn't expressly say that, that's just how we've observed it being used.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So we done with that, Ms.

Shannon.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

So the next thing that we have is motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

And we'll convene for ERPS at 225.