The BOC, not the Chairman, is the successor to the Sole Commissioner of Lumpkin County.  The BOC is the governing authority of Lumpkin County.  According to the enabling legislation, the Chairman calls meetings, presides, represents county government at ceremonial functions, submits motions to the BOC for action, makes appointments with approval of the BOC, and performs duties delegated by the BOC or provided by law or ordinance.

The Chairman does not hire, fire, or have control over either the County Manager or the County Attorney.  Only the BOC has that authority.  The Chairman is out of line if he resolves issues and/or makes decisions with the County Manager or the County Attorney without the presence or prior approval of the BOC.

Based on Chairman Raber’s remarks during the March Work Session, he is making decisions, reaching conclusions and establishing policy with the County Manager and County Attorney.  He lets the commissioners know what is going on at his leisure.  Last fall, he dropped an unconstitutional petition issue on the commissioners the night before they were to vote on it.  He pushed them to vote when they didn’t have a clue what they were voting on.

Not only are Lumpkin County citizens denied information required by the state’s Open Meetings law, our elected commissioners are regularly denied timely information they need to make informed decisions.  As recently as the March Work Session, information possessed by Raber and staff was not made available to commissioners prior to the meeting.

Lumpkin County voters need to demand accountability from county government.  What will it take for the voters to realize that our county commission is operating in violation of state law?  Do our voters care enough to demand that our county government operate within the law?

Frustrated citizens are going around saying that the BOC is not working.  The chairman’s buddies are lobbying to change back to a sole commissioner.  The real problem is that we have a chairman who thinks he is a sole commissioner.

Lumpkin County residents need to let district commissioners know that we support them and expect them to do the job they were elected to do.  If we, the voters, fail to support our commissioners, we deserve to suffer the consequences.

We cannot wait for some future election to have responsible government.  Speak up!  Tell the commissioners what you expect of them.

Chairman John Raber’s efforts to completely control county government continue with each appointment.  He seems confident that appointees will bear allegiance to him instead of the residents and taxpayers of Lumpkin County.

Unfortunately, some of his appointees were not as happy to have the position as he was to give it; and, they don’t attend the meetings.  To resolve the matter, Raber wants a full attendance review of all county appointees.

Following Raber’s Work Session diatribe about the need to review attendance records of appointees, Reporter Sharon Hall of The Dahlonega Nugget asked when he planned to call a meeting of the Blackburn Park Committee that he appointed last October.

Chairman Raber assured the reporter and everyone else that there was no need for that committee which he chaired to meet since there were no funds to do anything.  Reporter Hall responded, “but what about the trails grant that will be coming up in April?”

At that point, in what appeared to be an effort to redirect the discussion, Raber began to talk about Yahoola Park grants.

The confusion was so obvious that Finance Director Allison Martin spoke up stating that there was a grant for trails in Blackburn Park that would be heard from in April.

The audience had a unique opportunity to see just how Raber operates when he responded, “I have met independently on that with members of the committee.  Stan and I have talked about it a hundred times.  Casey, we have talked about this many times.”

County Attorney Casey Horne then spoke up, “When you use grant money, you are not able to use the property for anything else for a number of years without paying a penalty.  By accepting a grant you are “poisoning” the property for other uses.”

As soon as he was allowed to speak, Commissioner Tim Bowden, the only other commissioner appointed to the Blackburn Park Committee, said, “The Blackburn Park Committee was formed more than five months ago and we have not met yet. When are we going to meet?”  Raber replied, “The Blackburn Park Committee has met; I have met with each of the members individually, just not with you.”   Bowden replied, “Meeting with individual committee members is not a committee meeting.”  Raber responded, “Well that’s just your opinion.”

Let’s consider several issues that need further elaboration:

• When a committee is created by a vote of the BOC, does the chairman of that committee have a duty to announce a time and date and call the meeting to order in a public forum?  You would think so.  Surely the BOC would want a different chairman appointed if the first chairman refused to carry out the mission of that committee.

• Does the Commission Chairman have the authority to talk independently with individuals and announce a committee position when the members have never met to discuss the issue with each other?  Not according to Open Meetings laws of the State of Georgia.

• Can a decision of any committee withstand a challenge when there has not been timely public notification of the time and date when the meeting would take place?  Not according the Open Meetings law.  The people have an absolute right to be present.

• Is a discussion between the Chairman and the County Manager a substitute for a discussion of the issue by elected County Commissioners in a Work Session?  Not according to the enabling legislation of the Lumpkin County Commission.  Issues are required to be discussed by commissioners in a public Work Session before a decision is officially voted on during the public monthly Commission Meeting.

• When County Attorney Casey Horne describes a decision to accept a grant as “poisoning” the land, he is offering a personal opinion instead of a legal opinion.  While it is true that accepting a grant for trails requires a commitment to maintain those trails for a period of time, this is one of the best ways to guarantee the property will be protected.

This really gets down to the nitty gritty.  Anyone who describes the acceptance of a grant as “poisoning” the land is deeply motivated to prevent acceptance of that grant.

Raber, Horne, or some unidentified person or persons appear to have other plans for the park property.  We have already seen proposed plans to flatten the land destroying the lake and the vegetation to create ball fields.  Raber’s Blackburn Park Committee is made up of Raber, Commissioner Bowden, the principal of Blackburn Park School, one member of the public and several county employees.  You would think control of that group would be a slam dunk for a control freak like Raber.

Will residents demand that the BOC represent the interests of all residents?  Or, will we and our commissioners just sit around and whine as John Raber ignores the law and gets away with being a sole commissioner?

Raber was clearly envious.  The editorial had described what a  great job the sheriff had done.

When jail expenditures came up on the Agenda, Jarrard was allowed to make his case repeating what had been stated in great detail during each of the last several Commission Work Sessions.  This time he was able to point out that he had returned some $450,000 to the County General Fund from his 2009 Budget.  The income had been generated by housing prisoners from other counties.

The former sheriff had described the jail as woefully inadequate and refused to house out of county prisoners.  The Lumpkin County Jail was constructed some ten or twelve years ago by a company that built motels.  Shortly after it opened, prisoners were slithering out the heat ducts.  Door locks and monitoring devices of the cheapest quality had been improperly installed and prisoners ripped them out of the walls.

When asked by Commissioner Stowers if he could not do a better job protecting county property from prisoners, Jarrard replied, “the prisoners are directed not to touch the property under threat of being locked down.”  He added, “of course, that threat would mean more if the locks worked.”

Stowers asked numerous questions of Jarrard and his staff clearly trying to identify and prioritize the needs.  Stowers said over and over that he knew the expenditures were justified. Each time he said it, Raber asked, “where are you going to get the money?”  When asked the same question by Raber, County Manager Stan Kelley stated that all county monies have been committed for other items.

As the new sheriff willing to bend over backwards to cooperate, Jarrard complied with staff and commission requests to generate income by housing out of county prisoners.  The sheriff brought back to the County General Fund at the end of 2009 some $450,000.

Taxpayers of Lumpkin County take notice.  Your jail is being operated, even housing out of county prisoners, with locks that don’t operate, inadequate monitoring equipment and no speaker system to alert officers if a prisoner has an emergency.  An injury or death in that jail will result in a lawsuit far greater than the cost of the repairs Jarrard has asked for.

What if some bizarre incident resulted in you or your child being incarcerated in that jail where deputies are unable to protect you!  The first duty of government is public safety.  For ten years our county has failed to provide a safe jail.  How much longer will our luck hold out?

After much discussion, commissioners voted to fund a part of the sheriff’s request.  We can hope that locks in our jail will soon work.

The sheriff has options.  He has no legal obligation to accept out of county prisoners or to return to the county budget any income generated by the extra work.  He could operate like the last sheriff and refuse to house those prisoners claiming the risk created would be unacceptable for the safety of his staff or local inmates; or, he could continue housing them and use the income for improvements within his own department refusing to return anything to the County General Fund.

The situation is truly disgusting.  Public safety is the primary duty of government.  It is one of the few items that absolutely everyone supports; yet, commissioners quibble over providing basic safety equipment.  They should have been praising the sheriff for doing a great job instead of berating him for trying to repair a clearly inadequate jail.

Jarrard goofed this year by returning $450,000 for the commissioners to dole out to other departments.  He now knows just what he is dealing with.  Bet he won’t make that mistake again.

Chairman John Raber began the discussion saying, “Regardless of what comes out, you have been professional.”  He continued relating that during visitation at the funeral home someone had yelled out at him, “Y’all had better not allow that dog park!”

After allowing dog park supporters to state what they  wanted, Raber offered dog park opponent, Clinton Crane, an opportunity to question dog park supporters.  Crane asked, “Y’all gonna build a fence if we give you a piece of property?  Y’all gonna take care of all the upkeep, so forth?  No extra work for the Park & Rec?  Who has liability?  My thing is, right now the county has not given a piece of land to a non-profit.”

This public display during a Regular Commission Meeting was unprecedented since Raber became chairman.  During all previous Regular Monthly Commission meetings, Raber has been very careful to allow only commissioners to ask questions during meetings.

Every issue mentioned by Crane had been thoroughly addressed during numerous work sessions.  Specific alternate locations within Yahoola Creek Park had been discussed during a Public Hearing and a Work Session.  The location highlighted on a map brought to the meeting by county representatives had been recommended by Commissioner Clarence Stowers.

Dog park supporter, Civil Engineer Glenn Melvin, had met with commissioners at that location to see what they thought of it.  Commissioners who actually looked at the location seemed to agree that it was too small a space for other uses.  Commissioners Scott and Raber could not find time in their busy schedules to visit any location for a dog park.

Commissioner Bill Scott admits that he just plain opposes a dog park in Yahoola Creek Park.  He accomplished a real “bait and switch” with a motion to deny the originally proposed location that he alleged was the only location before the commission.  He volunteered that alternate locations brought up at the February Work Session had been a surprise to him and he had not found time to consider any other location.

The facts are:

• Other locations had been discussed in more than one public meeting.
• The county’s own map indicated the alternate location.
• Scott refused to consider the site that actually was before the commission.

Raber appears fearful of all those folks who oppose this gift to the county, but only Clinton Crane and Bill Scott have come forth.

The gist of it is, after two work sessions and one public hearing spread out over nearly six months, Bill Scott was able to make a motion that successfully prevented any kind of positive vote for a dog park even though it would create no obligation to the county and cost the taxpayers nothing.

People love their dogs.  As Clarence Stowers said recently, “People only have children living with them for about twenty years.  The rest of their lives, they have a dog.”

The issue has awakened a lot more voters to problems within county government.  They are not going away and they won’t give up.

Gov. Sonny Perdue’s aides are taking a back-door approach to getting legislative approval of his proposal to raise cash for the budget by selling off loans made by the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA).

Language that would authorize GEFA to turn over its loan proceeds to the state treasury was quietly added to a House bill (HB 244) that was originally introduced last year to make a routine change to the authority’s name.

The amended bill was brought before the Senate Special Judiciary Committee on Monday, where members voted unanimously to pass the measure.

GEFA Director Phil Foil, who presented the bill to the committee, did not tell the senators that the loan amendment had been added to the measure. Sen. John Wiles (R-Marietta), the committee chairman, also did not mention the new language that had been added to the bill.

In some cases, senators did not realize what they were voting on.

Sen. Earl “Buddy” Carter (R-Savannah) was asked by a reporter on Tuesday if he was aware that he had voted to pass out a bill that authorized the GEFA transactions.

“No, I thought it was just a name change,” Carter said. “I just wasn’t aware of it.”

“The bill was presented to the committee,” Wiles said. “Ample opportunity was given to the members to ask questions. I called for the vote and the bill was affirmatively voted out of committee.”

When asked why no one bothered to mention that the bill had been substantively amended so that GEFA funds would be turned over to the state treasury, Wiles said, “you’ll have to ask the presenter (Foil).”

Wiles added: “I believe in a full, open discussion.”

Foil said that after he talked about the bill’s provision to change the name of the agency, he was asked a question by Sen. Ron Ramsey (D-Decatur) about GEFA loans.

“The assumption was that they knew what was in the bill, so I didn’t go back to it,” Foil said.

The GEFA proposal is an important part of the budget discussion at a time when the governor and the Legislature are trying to make up for large revenue shortfalls.

GEFA makes low-interest loans to city and county governments for the construction of water and sewer facilities. Perdue is proposing that a large portion of GEFA’s loan portfolio be bundled as a security and sold on Wall Street to raise cash – an estimated $288 million – for the state budget.

Local government organizations like GMA and ACCG oppose the Perdue proposal to “monetize” GEFA’s loan proceeds because it would mean there would be less money available for future loans.

In a recent debate sponsored by GMA, several Republican and Democratic candidates for governor opposed the Perdue proposal to sell off the GEFA loan portfolio. GOP candidate Nathan Deal, for example, called it “a dangerous step to take.”

GEFA cannot legally turn over its funds to the state treasury without the passage of legislation authorizing the move. Shortly before HB 244 came up for a Senate committee vote, this sentence regarding GEFA’s powers was added to the bill text: “To transfer to the state any funds of the authority determined by the authority to be in excess of those needed for its corporate purposes.”

GMA and ACCG lobbyists who attended the committee meeting did not find out until after the vote was taken that the amendment had even been added to HB 244.

“We always suspected that any GEFA vehicle out there was susceptible (to being amended),” said Todd Edwards of ACCG. “Quite frankly, I expected a more transparent effort. I’m surprised at the lack of transparency in the process.”

When HB 244 was originally introduced last year by Rep. Jimmy Pruett (R-Eastman), the bill provided only that the name of the Georgia Environment Facilities Authority would be changed slightly to the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority.

Pruett, who is one of Perdue’s House floor leaders, was not at the Senate committee meeting on Monday and he said he did not put the amended language in the bill.

“That is something I am assuming was done on behalf of the governor,” Pruett said. “The governor didn’t ask me to do it but it was requested by Phil Foil. I knew it was going to be put on there, but that’s about the extent of it.”

There was no need for the Senate Special Judiciary Committee to even vote on HB 244. The Senate has already voted this session to adopt a separate piece of legislation that makes the GEFA name change.

This is not the first time that legislation involving Perdue and large amounts of money has been handled through a surreptitious amendment to a bill in a Senate committee.

Five years ago, the House passed a bill making technical changes to the state tax code. When the bill moved to the Senate Finance Committee, it was quietly amended to give Perdue a $100,000 tax exemption on a major property acquisition he had made the year before.

Rep. Larry O’Neal, who was Perdue’s real estate lawyer, brought the bill back to the House for final adoption but did not mention the amendment that gave Perdue the large tax exemption. Perdue later signed the bill into law; the tax exemption did not become generally known to the public until 2006, when Perdue was running for reelection as governor.

© 2010 by The Georgia Report

Dear Friends,
As many of you know, my grandson, Caleb Sorohan, was killed in an auto accident on December 16, 2009 when he was texting and driving.  In an effort to save other lives, we are trying to get a law passed through the GA legislature that would ban texting and diving in this state.  Currently there are 3 bills being considered pertaining to this.  I am contacting you to urge you to contact your State Sentor and Representative to let them know you would support such a law.  We would like for you to also email a note of your support to ssorohan@hotmail.com and/or to bigwave6@bellsouth.net.  A count of your emails will be delivered to the Legislature on Tuesday of this week.  So far we have received over 250 letters of support.
This legislation is vital to your safety on the highways and roads here.  Over 20 other states have already enacted such laws.  Please help!
Thank you,
Sallie Sorohan

]]> http://www.lumpkinsunshine.com/main/texting-while-driving/feed/ 0 http://www.lumpkinsunshine.com/main/georgia-forestry-presentation-on-prescribed-burns/ http://www.lumpkinsunshine.com/main/georgia-forestry-presentation-on-prescribed-burns/#comments Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:22:01 +0000 Emily http://www.lumpkinsunshine.com/main/?p=367 Georgia Forestry will give a presentation on prescribed burns Monday, Feb. 8 at 6 p.m. in the fire station on Chesterra Road?   This is the perfect time to do a prescribed burn, with a wet winter underway.

Join us for our first meeting of 2010 when we make plans for the year.  Be prepared to discuss what we can do to encourage more residents to pay attention to what’s going on and what we can do to encourage them to get involved.

Our input is needed on many issues:

How will the county make ends meet with less money coming in?

Will the tax digest shrink as a result of decreased property values.

Will taxes be increased to maintain the current budget?  What can/should be cut?

How great is the “mudhole” trail around the reservoir?  The one local residents could not be trusted to build.

Will the county accept a grant for improvement in Blackburn Park that will include public participation this time?

Will county commissioners elected by local citizens allow local citizens to locate a dog park in Yohoola Creek Park at no cost to or commitment from county government?

What can we do to make Lumpkin County a better place to live?

Join us for coffee, cake and lively discussion.

We believe that working together we will be more effective at dealing with issues than we are as individuals going up against the challenges alone.

The public was allowed to state whether they supported or opposed the statement.  Additional comments were welcomed during a second round of questioning.

Almost everyone in the room spoke up in support of the dog park in Yahoola Creek Park.

Three attendees stated some opposition.  One fellow doesn’t understand that a dog park would not take away anything from the ball parks.  Shockingly, the other two were veterans who opposed the dog park because they don’t think the county does enough for veterans.  Their position was clearly not the position of all veterans since many who spoke in favor of the dog park were also veterans.  I have been told that one of the gentlemen said after the meeting that he did not really oppose the dog park, he just wanted more county support for veterans.

There seems to be little opposition from the public to a dog park within the Yahoola Creek Park complex.  One resident who did not attend the meeting tells me that they drive down to Windward Parkway to allow their dog to play with other dogs.  She talked about the importance of socialization for the dogs and the joy good dogs bring to their families.

The dog park was not addressed during the December BOC meeting.  Anyone feeling very strongly about the dog park should contact commissioners as soon as possible.  Never underestimate your ability to make a difference.