See 'em Live or On Demand
On May 6, four citizens, including me, used the citizen comments section of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners meeting to ask the Board to begin exploring ways to make a videocast of its meetings available to citizens.
I observed that citizens often are too busy to attend meetings, and the Board should do what neighboring counties are doing already by telecasting its meetings and making them available on the web. I also said that a video of meetings would provide everyone with a complete record of BOC activities.
Russ Page, who is active in farmland protection and has been a frequent attender of BOC meetings, reminded the Board that it has rejected citizen requests in the past for televised coverage, but that the web has created new, less expensive options.
Charlie Baugh, another frequent visit to the BOC chambers who operates a listserv for people in the County interested in what happens there, asked the Board to immediately instruct County Administrator Alan Theriault and County Attorney Daniel Haygood to bring back to the Commission a report on the options available for telecasting, webcasting and providing video on demand of BOC meetings.
Finally, Tony Glenn, active in preservation of the rural nature of the southern part of the county, told the BOC that we are prepared to start creating and distributing video of the BOC meetings on our own if it did not take action.
As is usually the case when citizens speak at BOC meetings, not a single commissioner responded.
Chairman Melvin Davis immediately entertained and obtained a motion to adjourn, and the group ended its meeting.
The Oconee Enterprise, which is the designated legal organ of the county (meaning it is where the County publishes its legal notices) and which usually acts as if it were the official mouthpiece of the county, did not include any mention of our presentation it its account of the meeting.
The Oconee Leader ignored the meeting entirely, which is its habit.
Athens Banner-Herald reporter Adam Thompson included an account of our presentation in his blog, which the paper reprinted in its May 11 edition. Thompson correctly pointed out that the county has rejected the request for video in the past on the grounds it is too expensive, though some of the cost could be born by cable company franchise fees.
Thompson also linked in his blog to a story in the Banner-Herald in October of 2004 in which Chairman Davis was quoted as saying he felt television coverage of meetings would be confusing to citizens.
Here’s the full quote:
"You may just be catching parts of the meetings and not know all the details and get really upset about something. Or you may be pleasantly pleased with something going on, but you don’t know all the details."
Thompson was dismissive of our efforts. His blog had this headline:
"The Mel-volution will (probably not) be televised."
Following the May 6 meeting, I wrote to all five of the commissioners asking them to put our request that they ask Theriault and Haygood to explore the options for videocasting on the May 27 agenda.
Only Commissioner Jim Luke responded. He said he had no position on the issue at present, but he was worried about commissioners "playing to the camera," making meetings too long. He said he will "support some study of the process beginning soon, but not as an agenda item next month."
Luke said the BOC is busy with too many other things at present, and "I don’t see this as an election issue." He copied his message to Baugh, Page, Glenn, the other commissioners and Thompson at the Banner-Herald.
Charlie Baugh also wrote to the five commissioners. Commissioner Chuck Horton sent back a brief message to Baugh saying he has "no problem" with the idea of videocasting BOC meetings.
In my view, the county ought to do everything it can to help citizens get involved and become informed about what it does.
I also think the argument about the need for a full record of BOC meetings is compelling.
At present, as a matter of policy, the minutes of the meetings are very limited.
On Feb. 26, 2008, for example, I used the "Statement and Remarks from Citizens" section of the meeting to ask some questions.
The exchange took just a few seconds more than six minutes, and during it Chairman Davis and Administrator Theriault contradicted information that County Attorney Haygood had given to the Georgia Attorney General’s office in response to a complaint I filed against the county.
In the official minutes of the meeting, approved by the Board, this exchange is reported as follows:
"Lee Becker asked questions about the bids for engineering and design support services for the Rocky Branch Water Reclamation Facility Upgrade Project."
At the March 25, 2008, BOC meeting, the commissioners, led by Commissioner Margaret Hale, questioned Utility Department Director John Hatcher regarding the amount of money Hatcher wanted to spend on consulting work by Precision Planning Inc. for the Rocky Branch sewage plant upgrade.
The exchange took just a few seconds less than eight minutes. Chairman Davis agreed at the end of the exchange to modify the original request Hatcher made of the Board.
The minutes make no reference to this exchange at all and do not reflect the change Hale was able to get Davis to agree to at the meeting.
A third example also is interesting.
On April 8, the BOC voted 3-2 to allow the sale of beer and wine in county restaurants. The controversial decision had been under discussion since the summer of 2007. None of the commissioners said a word to explain her or his vote.
Had they done so, however, it is doubtful the minutes would have reflected the comments.
Baugh, Glenn, Page and I decided in advance to make a video of that meeting. It, at least, is one you can view in your home.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Oconee Chair Claims Secrecy Saved County Money
Design Change Real Explanation
Oconee County Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin claims that the decision to conduct in secret the bidding for the upgrade of the Rocky Branch sewage plant saved the county $70,000.
The claim is based on some questionable comparisons, and it is possible the secret bidding procedures cost the county money.
In his Chairman’s Corner Spotlight on Oconee on the County’s web site, (the file is dated March of 2008, but it remains on the site at this writing), Davis summarizes the outcome of the bidding and correctly states that the state Attorney General rejected my contention that the secret meetings violated the state’s Open Meetings Laws.
Davis then offers the following statement:
"The County saved well over $70,000 in design fees from the original round of proposals as a result of the RFP that was generated for the project and the process that followed."
County Attorney Daniel Haygood, at the Jan. 29 BOC meeting, went to great lengths to justify the secret bidding process as a way to save the county money, so Davis’ assertion is hardly a surprise.
The county had the option of conducting the bidding in the open or in secret.
At the Feb. 26 meeting of the BOC, Davis said the County had saved $40,000 by getting the successful bidder to do design work that had not been included in the original Request for Proposal.
According to documents released by the County in response to an open records request I filed, at a closed meeting on Feb. 7, the members of the Selection Committee reviewing the bids told the three top-rated bidders that the Committee wanted the bidders to reduce their costs before the Committee would make a final recommendation of a winner.
The Selection Committee also told the bidders the county wanted to add design features, namely a "septage" treatment system to treat what septic haulers drain out of septic tanks and a "belt press" to compact treatment plant sludge.
When the three bidders came back with their final bids, none had dropped the price. Two, including successful bidder HSF Engineering of Snellville, agreed to add the design features without increasing the price. The single bidder that did increase the price, Brown and Caldwell, added about $40,000.
The winning bid by HSF Engineering employed an alternate design that was $75,000 lower than what it said it would charge for the design specified as the standard in the Request for Proposal. The alternate design was included in the RFP, which was a publicly released document at the time the bidding was initiated.
Davis in his Spotlight column, referred to the "original round of proposals." In fact, the county did have a first round of bidding in the summer of 2007. Davis and his staff tried to get the Board of Commissioners to give the contract to Jordan Jones & Goulding, who submitted a bid of $680,580, or $108,580 higher than the successful final alternate bid by HSF Engineering and $33,580 higher than the bid for the base design submitted by HSF.
HSF didn’t bid in the first round; in the second, it bid $647,000 for the original design, or $75,000 more than its winning bid of $572,000.
JJ&G, who had designed the plant as outlined in the RFP, didn’t bid in the second round.
The first round of bids was evaluated without any secret meetings.
County consultant Precision Planning Inc. of Snellville played a different role in the first round of bidding compared with the second.
In the first round, PPI was involved in the Selection Committee that evaluated the bids, but in the second round, Jimmy Parker from PPI chaired the Committee.
PPI charges the county different fees for its consultancy, based on who is providing the consulting and the nature of the service provided, John Hatcher, Utility Department head, told the BOC at the March 25 meeting. On average, the county pays PPI $100 per hour, he said.
Jimmy Parker attended the secret Dec. 7 meeting of the BOC in Madison, Georgia, at which the Rocky Branch upgrade was discussed. With travel time, that meeting took up nearly a full day.
Parker attended and spoke at BOC meetings on Dec. 18 and Jan. 29. He and fellow PPI staffer and Selection Committee member Jim Sunta also were scheduled to be involved in two secret meetings the Selection Committee held on Jan. 4 and Feb. 7 to review the submitted bids. Since no minutes of those meetings have been released, it isn’t possible to know for sure if they attended.
At the April 1 meeting of the BOC, Hatcher said he expected to pay PPI $42,500 for consulting for the next phase of bidding on construction of the Rocky Branch plant, which would seem to be less involved than the second round of design bids.
There is at least some indication the extensive use of PPI in the evaluation was associated with the decision to conduct the bidding in secret during the second round.
County Attorney Daniel Haygood wrote to me on Feb. 13, 2008, that PPI, not a committee of the Board of Commissioners, was conducting the evaluation of the bids. He copied that letter to the Attorney General’s office, saying there is an "issue of whether the evaluations are actually County records."
The State’s Open Records Laws state clearly that the law does not allow "an agency’s placing or causing such items to be placed in the hands of a private person or entity for the purpose of avoiding disclosure."
At the Feb. 26, 2008, meeting of the BOC, Chairman Melvin Davis acknowledged that the Selection Committee appointed by the BOC, not PPI, was conducting the evaluation of the bids.
Did the county save "well over $70,000 in design fees from the original round of proposals as a result of the RFP that was generated for the project and the process that followed," as Chairman Davis contends?
The change in the RFP resulted in a savings of $75,000, which HSF has said will not adversely affect the quality of water coming out of the plant. The secret "process" did not produce the savings.
The change in the RFP resulted from the rejection by the BOC of Davis’ recommendation from the first round of bids.
Even if the county had gone with the more expensive design, it still would have saved $33,580 simply by ignoring Davis’ recommendation that the contract go to JJ&G in the initial bidding round.
Did the county save $40,000 by negotiating in secret with three of the bidders? One of the three said it would not do the extra work being asked by the county without charging that amount, while two others said they would take on the extra work at no charge.
It is impossible to know if this $40,000 would have been this high had these extras been incorporated in the original RFP, as should have been the case, rather than used as a negotiating tool at the last minute.
Given the fees charged by PPI and the extra work it did as part of the secret bidding process, it is likely that the $40,000 "savings" was offset by the higher fees paid to PPI. It is even possible the secret bidding process cost the county money, rather than saved it.
Oconee County Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin claims that the decision to conduct in secret the bidding for the upgrade of the Rocky Branch sewage plant saved the county $70,000.
The claim is based on some questionable comparisons, and it is possible the secret bidding procedures cost the county money.
In his Chairman’s Corner Spotlight on Oconee on the County’s web site, (the file is dated March of 2008, but it remains on the site at this writing), Davis summarizes the outcome of the bidding and correctly states that the state Attorney General rejected my contention that the secret meetings violated the state’s Open Meetings Laws.
Davis then offers the following statement:
"The County saved well over $70,000 in design fees from the original round of proposals as a result of the RFP that was generated for the project and the process that followed."
County Attorney Daniel Haygood, at the Jan. 29 BOC meeting, went to great lengths to justify the secret bidding process as a way to save the county money, so Davis’ assertion is hardly a surprise.
The county had the option of conducting the bidding in the open or in secret.
At the Feb. 26 meeting of the BOC, Davis said the County had saved $40,000 by getting the successful bidder to do design work that had not been included in the original Request for Proposal.
According to documents released by the County in response to an open records request I filed, at a closed meeting on Feb. 7, the members of the Selection Committee reviewing the bids told the three top-rated bidders that the Committee wanted the bidders to reduce their costs before the Committee would make a final recommendation of a winner.
The Selection Committee also told the bidders the county wanted to add design features, namely a "septage" treatment system to treat what septic haulers drain out of septic tanks and a "belt press" to compact treatment plant sludge.
When the three bidders came back with their final bids, none had dropped the price. Two, including successful bidder HSF Engineering of Snellville, agreed to add the design features without increasing the price. The single bidder that did increase the price, Brown and Caldwell, added about $40,000.
The winning bid by HSF Engineering employed an alternate design that was $75,000 lower than what it said it would charge for the design specified as the standard in the Request for Proposal. The alternate design was included in the RFP, which was a publicly released document at the time the bidding was initiated.
Davis in his Spotlight column, referred to the "original round of proposals." In fact, the county did have a first round of bidding in the summer of 2007. Davis and his staff tried to get the Board of Commissioners to give the contract to Jordan Jones & Goulding, who submitted a bid of $680,580, or $108,580 higher than the successful final alternate bid by HSF Engineering and $33,580 higher than the bid for the base design submitted by HSF.
HSF didn’t bid in the first round; in the second, it bid $647,000 for the original design, or $75,000 more than its winning bid of $572,000.
JJ&G, who had designed the plant as outlined in the RFP, didn’t bid in the second round.
The first round of bids was evaluated without any secret meetings.
County consultant Precision Planning Inc. of Snellville played a different role in the first round of bidding compared with the second.
In the first round, PPI was involved in the Selection Committee that evaluated the bids, but in the second round, Jimmy Parker from PPI chaired the Committee.
PPI charges the county different fees for its consultancy, based on who is providing the consulting and the nature of the service provided, John Hatcher, Utility Department head, told the BOC at the March 25 meeting. On average, the county pays PPI $100 per hour, he said.
Jimmy Parker attended the secret Dec. 7 meeting of the BOC in Madison, Georgia, at which the Rocky Branch upgrade was discussed. With travel time, that meeting took up nearly a full day.
Parker attended and spoke at BOC meetings on Dec. 18 and Jan. 29. He and fellow PPI staffer and Selection Committee member Jim Sunta also were scheduled to be involved in two secret meetings the Selection Committee held on Jan. 4 and Feb. 7 to review the submitted bids. Since no minutes of those meetings have been released, it isn’t possible to know for sure if they attended.
At the April 1 meeting of the BOC, Hatcher said he expected to pay PPI $42,500 for consulting for the next phase of bidding on construction of the Rocky Branch plant, which would seem to be less involved than the second round of design bids.
There is at least some indication the extensive use of PPI in the evaluation was associated with the decision to conduct the bidding in secret during the second round.
County Attorney Daniel Haygood wrote to me on Feb. 13, 2008, that PPI, not a committee of the Board of Commissioners, was conducting the evaluation of the bids. He copied that letter to the Attorney General’s office, saying there is an "issue of whether the evaluations are actually County records."
The State’s Open Records Laws state clearly that the law does not allow "an agency’s placing or causing such items to be placed in the hands of a private person or entity for the purpose of avoiding disclosure."
At the Feb. 26, 2008, meeting of the BOC, Chairman Melvin Davis acknowledged that the Selection Committee appointed by the BOC, not PPI, was conducting the evaluation of the bids.
Did the county save "well over $70,000 in design fees from the original round of proposals as a result of the RFP that was generated for the project and the process that followed," as Chairman Davis contends?
The change in the RFP resulted in a savings of $75,000, which HSF has said will not adversely affect the quality of water coming out of the plant. The secret "process" did not produce the savings.
The change in the RFP resulted from the rejection by the BOC of Davis’ recommendation from the first round of bids.
Even if the county had gone with the more expensive design, it still would have saved $33,580 simply by ignoring Davis’ recommendation that the contract go to JJ&G in the initial bidding round.
Did the county save $40,000 by negotiating in secret with three of the bidders? One of the three said it would not do the extra work being asked by the county without charging that amount, while two others said they would take on the extra work at no charge.
It is impossible to know if this $40,000 would have been this high had these extras been incorporated in the original RFP, as should have been the case, rather than used as a negotiating tool at the last minute.
Given the fees charged by PPI and the extra work it did as part of the secret bidding process, it is likely that the $40,000 "savings" was offset by the higher fees paid to PPI. It is even possible the secret bidding process cost the county money, rather than saved it.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Oconee Candidate Forums Set for June 2 & 4
Meet the Candidates at the Library
A consortium of Oconee County citizen groups announced yesterday that it will hold two Candidate Forums for the July 15 Oconee County primary elections.
The first Forum will be on June 2 and will be for candidates for the Board of Commissioners, including the chairman, and for Coroner.
The second forum will be on June 4 and will be for candidates for the Board of Education.
Both forums will be in the auditorium of the Oconee County Library on Experiment Station Road in Watkinsville. The forums will start at 7 p.m. and last until 10 p.m.
Only Republicans filed for and qualified for the Oconee Board of Commissioner slots.
Sarah Bell and Melvin Davis, both with Watkinsville mailing addresses, are seeking the four-year term of Commission Chairman. Davis is the incumbent.
Jim Luke and Johnny Pritchett have qualified for the four-year term of Post #1 Commissioner. Luke has a Bogart mailing address; Pritchett has a Bishop mailing address. Luke is the incumbent.
John Daniell and Donald "Don" Norris have qualified for the two-year term of Post #2 Commissioner. Daniell has a Bishop mailing address, and Norris has a Bogart mailing address. Norris is the incumbent.
Margaret Hale and Esther Porter qualified for the two-year term of Post #3 Commissioner. Both have Watkinsville mailing addresses. Hale is the incumbent.
Chuck Horton and Michael Maxey qualified for the four-year term of Post #4 Commissioner. Horton has a Watkinsville mailing address; Maxey has a Bishop mailing address. Horton is the incumbent.
Three Republicans also have qualified for the Coroner position: Ed Carson (Bishop), Bill Mayberry (Watkinsville), and Cathleen Quillian-Carr (Watkinsville). Incumbent John Simpson is not running for re-election. The position is for four years.
Ten Republicans have qualified for the Board of Education races.
David Weeks (Bishop mailing address) qualified for the Chairman of the Board. He is unopposed for the four-year term. He currently occupies Post #3 on the Board.
Mack Guest (Athens mailing address) and Ryan House (Bishop mailing address) qualified for the Post #2 position. The term will be for two-years. Guest is the incumbent.
Kim Argo, Carter Brank and Ashley Hood qualified for the Post #3 position. Argo and Brank have Bogart mailing addresses; Hood has a Bishop mailing address. The term will be for two years.
Michael Hunter (Bishop mailing address) and Charles Toney (Watkinsville mailing address) qualified for the Post #4 position. The term will be for four years.
Tom Breedlove (Bogart mailing address) and Kyle Martin (Watkinsville mailing address) qualified for the Post #5 position. The terms will be for four years.
Rich Clark qualified as a Democratic candidate for the Post #5 position. He has a Watkinsville mailing address.
Each of these candidates will be asked to attend or send a representative to the appropriate Candidate Forum. The forums will be open to the public, and the public will have the opportunity to ask questions directly of the candidates.
The Candidate Forums will be moderated by members of the five citizen organizations that set up the forums: Citizens for Oconee’s Future, Citizens for South Oconee County, Friends of Barber Creek, Friends of the Apalachee, and Oconee Citizens for Responsible Growth.
The consortium held a Candidate Forum in 2006 for the Georgia House and Senate races. Citizens for Oconee’s Future organized a forum for the 2004 county elections.
Registration in Georgia is not by party, so anyone can choose to vote in the Republican primary.
If none of the three candidates for coroner or none of the three candidates for Board of Education Post #3 receives a majority, a runoff will be held on August 5.
A voter who voted in the Democratic Primary in July 15 cannot vote in the Republican runoff on August 5, and a voters who voted in the Republican Primary on July 15 cannot vote in a Democratic runoff on August 5.
Five Democratic candidates have filed to run against Republican incumbent U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss.
Incumbent state Senator Bill Cowsert will be opposed in the Republic Primary on July 15 by Tommy Malcom.
Three Oconee County incumbents are unopposed in the Republican Primary. They are Scott Berry (Sheriff), Angela Watson (Clerk of Superior Court), and Hariette Browning (Tax Commissioner). No one has filed to run against District Attorney Ken Mauldin, a Democrat.
Independents have until July 8 to file as candidates for the November 4 election.
The deadline for voter registration prior to the July 15 Primary is June 16.
Two of the four Oconee Board of Commissioner Posts and two of the four Oconee School Board positions will be filled for two years rather than four in November because the state legislature passed legislation--at the request of the two bodies--to create staggered terms. All terms will be for four years in the future.
A consortium of Oconee County citizen groups announced yesterday that it will hold two Candidate Forums for the July 15 Oconee County primary elections.
The first Forum will be on June 2 and will be for candidates for the Board of Commissioners, including the chairman, and for Coroner.
The second forum will be on June 4 and will be for candidates for the Board of Education.
Both forums will be in the auditorium of the Oconee County Library on Experiment Station Road in Watkinsville. The forums will start at 7 p.m. and last until 10 p.m.
Only Republicans filed for and qualified for the Oconee Board of Commissioner slots.
Sarah Bell and Melvin Davis, both with Watkinsville mailing addresses, are seeking the four-year term of Commission Chairman. Davis is the incumbent.
Jim Luke and Johnny Pritchett have qualified for the four-year term of Post #1 Commissioner. Luke has a Bogart mailing address; Pritchett has a Bishop mailing address. Luke is the incumbent.
John Daniell and Donald "Don" Norris have qualified for the two-year term of Post #2 Commissioner. Daniell has a Bishop mailing address, and Norris has a Bogart mailing address. Norris is the incumbent.
Margaret Hale and Esther Porter qualified for the two-year term of Post #3 Commissioner. Both have Watkinsville mailing addresses. Hale is the incumbent.
Chuck Horton and Michael Maxey qualified for the four-year term of Post #4 Commissioner. Horton has a Watkinsville mailing address; Maxey has a Bishop mailing address. Horton is the incumbent.
Three Republicans also have qualified for the Coroner position: Ed Carson (Bishop), Bill Mayberry (Watkinsville), and Cathleen Quillian-Carr (Watkinsville). Incumbent John Simpson is not running for re-election. The position is for four years.
Ten Republicans have qualified for the Board of Education races.
David Weeks (Bishop mailing address) qualified for the Chairman of the Board. He is unopposed for the four-year term. He currently occupies Post #3 on the Board.
Mack Guest (Athens mailing address) and Ryan House (Bishop mailing address) qualified for the Post #2 position. The term will be for two-years. Guest is the incumbent.
Kim Argo, Carter Brank and Ashley Hood qualified for the Post #3 position. Argo and Brank have Bogart mailing addresses; Hood has a Bishop mailing address. The term will be for two years.
Michael Hunter (Bishop mailing address) and Charles Toney (Watkinsville mailing address) qualified for the Post #4 position. The term will be for four years.
Tom Breedlove (Bogart mailing address) and Kyle Martin (Watkinsville mailing address) qualified for the Post #5 position. The terms will be for four years.
Rich Clark qualified as a Democratic candidate for the Post #5 position. He has a Watkinsville mailing address.
Each of these candidates will be asked to attend or send a representative to the appropriate Candidate Forum. The forums will be open to the public, and the public will have the opportunity to ask questions directly of the candidates.
The Candidate Forums will be moderated by members of the five citizen organizations that set up the forums: Citizens for Oconee’s Future, Citizens for South Oconee County, Friends of Barber Creek, Friends of the Apalachee, and Oconee Citizens for Responsible Growth.
The consortium held a Candidate Forum in 2006 for the Georgia House and Senate races. Citizens for Oconee’s Future organized a forum for the 2004 county elections.
Registration in Georgia is not by party, so anyone can choose to vote in the Republican primary.
If none of the three candidates for coroner or none of the three candidates for Board of Education Post #3 receives a majority, a runoff will be held on August 5.
A voter who voted in the Democratic Primary in July 15 cannot vote in the Republican runoff on August 5, and a voters who voted in the Republican Primary on July 15 cannot vote in a Democratic runoff on August 5.
Five Democratic candidates have filed to run against Republican incumbent U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss.
Incumbent state Senator Bill Cowsert will be opposed in the Republic Primary on July 15 by Tommy Malcom.
Three Oconee County incumbents are unopposed in the Republican Primary. They are Scott Berry (Sheriff), Angela Watson (Clerk of Superior Court), and Hariette Browning (Tax Commissioner). No one has filed to run against District Attorney Ken Mauldin, a Democrat.
Independents have until July 8 to file as candidates for the November 4 election.
The deadline for voter registration prior to the July 15 Primary is June 16.
Two of the four Oconee Board of Commissioner Posts and two of the four Oconee School Board positions will be filled for two years rather than four in November because the state legislature passed legislation--at the request of the two bodies--to create staggered terms. All terms will be for four years in the future.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Oconee Commission Passes on Chance to Explain Beer and Wine Votes
Tongues of Commissioners Tied
The Oconee County Board of Commissioners began publicly discussing an ordinance to allow beer and wine sales in county restaurants back in May of 2007 and held three public hearings before voting to pass the ordinance April 8.
Commissioner Don Norris made the motion to pass the ordinance, and Commissioner Jim Luke seconded the motion. BOC Chairman Melvin Davis then asked if there was any discussion.
Norris and Luke said not a word. Nor did Commissioners Margaret Hale or Chuck Horton.
Davis called the question, and Norris and Luke voted in favor; Hale and Horton voted against.
Davis paused, pulled on his nose, and voted in favor. Then the Board adjourned.
The Board met in a secret meeting on December 7 to discuss alcohol sales in the county, so it is likely each commissioner knew what the other was going to do on April 8 long before the vote.
But the public has not been privy to the thinking of the commissioners.
Davis has been quoted in the Athens Banner-Herald as saying he "put aside" some "personal convictions" in voting for beer and wine sale because it was "in the best interest of the county." The story does not specify what those convictions were.
A video of the vote of the Commission is available at my web site and on YouTube.
The Oconee County Board of Commissioners began publicly discussing an ordinance to allow beer and wine sales in county restaurants back in May of 2007 and held three public hearings before voting to pass the ordinance April 8.
Commissioner Don Norris made the motion to pass the ordinance, and Commissioner Jim Luke seconded the motion. BOC Chairman Melvin Davis then asked if there was any discussion.
Norris and Luke said not a word. Nor did Commissioners Margaret Hale or Chuck Horton.
Davis called the question, and Norris and Luke voted in favor; Hale and Horton voted against.
Davis paused, pulled on his nose, and voted in favor. Then the Board adjourned.
The Board met in a secret meeting on December 7 to discuss alcohol sales in the county, so it is likely each commissioner knew what the other was going to do on April 8 long before the vote.
But the public has not been privy to the thinking of the commissioners.
Davis has been quoted in the Athens Banner-Herald as saying he "put aside" some "personal convictions" in voting for beer and wine sale because it was "in the best interest of the county." The story does not specify what those convictions were.
A video of the vote of the Commission is available at my web site and on YouTube.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Oconee Primary Could Air Governance Issues
Can the Board Make the Chairman Learn to Share?
Indications are that the power of the chairman of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners is going to be a central issue in the July 15 Republican primary.
The issue of the dominance of current Chairman Melvin Davis was raised in a front-page article in The Oconee Enterprise on Feb. 28, under the headline, "Chairman under fire."
The Athens Banner-Herald followed on March 11 with an article under the headline "Oconee chair’s power an issue."
In both articles, current commissioners Margaret Hale, Chuck Horton and Jim Luke complained that Chairman Davis controls information and dominates the Commission. The disagreement also flared up at recent budget sessions of the BOC, according to another article in the Banner-Herald on April 11.
Davis, in his capacity of chairman, also is the chief executive officer of the county.
Hale, Horton and Luke criticized both the behavior of Davis as chairman and the power of the chairman position. This was a rare public display of disagreement, but in numerous conversations I've had with these three commissioners in recent years, each has voiced these same criticisms.
The three say that Davis shares little information with them and that they find it difficult to get crucial information from county department heads, who report to Davis rather than to the Commission.
Even Commissioner Don Norris, who is not a critic of Davis, has said at BOC meetings on more than one occasion that the board members know no more than the citizens about what is coming before them.
How much of the "problem" is a result of the management style of Davis and how much is a reflection of the governmental structure of the county is crucial to its resolution, though it isn’t clear at this point that this distinction is going to be made in the campaign.
Candidates must file the paperwork to qualify for the elections the week of April 28. So far, Davis has announced he will seek his third, four-year term, and Sarah Bell has announced she also will run for the position of chair of the BOC.
Commissioner Norris is the only other incumbent so far who has announced plans to seek re-election. Esther Porter has announced she plans to run for the commission slot now held by Margaret Hale. Johnny Pritchett has announced he plans to run for the commission post now held by Jim Luke.
At Commission meetings, Chairman Davis presents himself as simply a member of that body. Behind the scenes, however, he wields tremendous power in his capacity as the chief executive officer of the county.
Following a public hearing on the proposed stormwater ordinance in Oct. 2005 at which no opposition was stated to the draft document, Davis instructed his staff privately to significantly reduce the scope of the ordinance because of opposition from developers. Because of public outcry, his action ultimately was overrturned. (See my posting of Sept. 4, 2006).
After irregularities were revealed in the first round of bidding for the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, county administrators who report directly to Davis decided to conduct the second round of bidding in secret, using provisions in the state law on bidding to circumvent the state's open meetings and records laws.
Davis also wields power by controlling the agenda of the BOC, but even here he tries to wield that power quietly.
Davis worked behind the scenes to get BOC support for the sale of beer and wine at county restaurants. Back in December he organized a meeting of the BOC in Madison to discuss the issue. Though he knew of the meeting at least three weeks before the Dec. 7 date, he gave public notice only on the day of the meeting. (See my posting of Jan. 6, 2008.)
Davis was under pressure from the Chamber of Commerce, which wanted the beer and wine ordinance passed. In the end, he only was able to get the support of Commissioners Luke and Norris, and he had to break the tie at the BOC meeting on April 8. The chairman only votes to break ties, and Davis does that reluctantly.
While Davis has apologized for not giving proper notice for the Dec. 7 meeting, he has never apologized for holding the meeting out of the county or for knowing about the meeting for at least three weeks in advance and not publicizing it.
The minutes of that Dec. 7 meeting appeared on the web site for several weeks after the apology was issued on Jan. 8, 2008, but then they were removed. They still do not appear with the other publicly posted minutes.
The county does not have search capabililty on its web pages, so citizens would have to do a search with an external engine to know that they still reside on the county site.
Davis controls the web site.
Oconee County has a very strong chairman system of government, so, unless the system is changed, most people in that position are going to exercise a lot of power.
In Georgia, the type of county government is not spelled out in the Constitution, but rather in what is called local enabling legislation. Essentially, each county asks the legislature to pass laws setting up the type of county government it wants.
The county commission system that Oconee County has was established in 1917, and it included a strong chairman.
The chairman "shall be the chief manager of the affairs of said county that are within the jurisdiction of said board of commissioners acting as it executive officer."
The legislation put the chairman in charge of making contracts and purchasing for the board and "shall discharge all the duties of the board of commissioners during interim between the dates of the board's meetings."
The legislation specified that the chairman was to be a full-time position.
The enabling legislation for Oconee County has been changed many times over the years, mostly to adjust the salaries of the chairman and the commissioners.
In 1919, the number of members of the board was increased from three to five. In 1975, the legislation created the current four "posts" plus the chairmanship, with candidates having to indicate which post they were seeking at the election.
In 1988, however, the chairman's position was set as "part time," and the duties of the chairman were greatly restricted. They were: (1) serving as presiding officer at meeting of the Board, (2) stating questions coming before the board and announcing decisions, (3) voting in the case of a tie, (4) signing ordinances, (5) executing statements of indebtedness, (6) acting as ceremonial head of the county, (7) and exercising "other administrative duties that my be delegated to the chairman by the board of commissioners."
Wendell Dawson, who had been county attorney when the enabling legislation was changed, became chairman in 1989. In 1998, the enabling legislation was changed again, restoring the power of the chairman.
The 1998 enabling legislation repeated the seven responsibilities of the chairman listed in 1988 and added an eighth: "To act as the chief executive officer of the county."
The legislation, which remains in place today, did not specify if the chairman was a full-time position. Oconee County had experimented with a weak chairman, however, and had opted to return to the strong chairman system that has been in place for most of the last 90 years.
That hardly means the BOC itself is weak.
The BOC, according to the 1917 enabling legislation that is still in effect, has responsibility "over all matters concerning county property, county taxes..., in establishing and changing ... election precincts, in examining and auditing and setting accounts of all offices having the care, management, correction, keeping and distribution of moneys belonging to the county or appropriated to its use and benefit, ... in establishing, altering and abolishing roads, bridges and ferries..."
If three members of the BOC are unhappy with the chairman, they can easily change the chairman’s behavior by refusing to spend money, approve budgets and otherwise do county business.
The county needs an act of the state legislature to change the enabling legislation.
The Republican primary, in which all registered voters can opt to participate, could provide the forum for a discussion of the proper role of the chairman, of the willingness of the other BOC members to assert their power and of the optimal structure of governance for the county.
Indications are that the power of the chairman of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners is going to be a central issue in the July 15 Republican primary.
The issue of the dominance of current Chairman Melvin Davis was raised in a front-page article in The Oconee Enterprise on Feb. 28, under the headline, "Chairman under fire."
The Athens Banner-Herald followed on March 11 with an article under the headline "Oconee chair’s power an issue."
In both articles, current commissioners Margaret Hale, Chuck Horton and Jim Luke complained that Chairman Davis controls information and dominates the Commission. The disagreement also flared up at recent budget sessions of the BOC, according to another article in the Banner-Herald on April 11.
Davis, in his capacity of chairman, also is the chief executive officer of the county.
Hale, Horton and Luke criticized both the behavior of Davis as chairman and the power of the chairman position. This was a rare public display of disagreement, but in numerous conversations I've had with these three commissioners in recent years, each has voiced these same criticisms.
The three say that Davis shares little information with them and that they find it difficult to get crucial information from county department heads, who report to Davis rather than to the Commission.
Even Commissioner Don Norris, who is not a critic of Davis, has said at BOC meetings on more than one occasion that the board members know no more than the citizens about what is coming before them.
How much of the "problem" is a result of the management style of Davis and how much is a reflection of the governmental structure of the county is crucial to its resolution, though it isn’t clear at this point that this distinction is going to be made in the campaign.
Candidates must file the paperwork to qualify for the elections the week of April 28. So far, Davis has announced he will seek his third, four-year term, and Sarah Bell has announced she also will run for the position of chair of the BOC.
Commissioner Norris is the only other incumbent so far who has announced plans to seek re-election. Esther Porter has announced she plans to run for the commission slot now held by Margaret Hale. Johnny Pritchett has announced he plans to run for the commission post now held by Jim Luke.
At Commission meetings, Chairman Davis presents himself as simply a member of that body. Behind the scenes, however, he wields tremendous power in his capacity as the chief executive officer of the county.
Following a public hearing on the proposed stormwater ordinance in Oct. 2005 at which no opposition was stated to the draft document, Davis instructed his staff privately to significantly reduce the scope of the ordinance because of opposition from developers. Because of public outcry, his action ultimately was overrturned. (See my posting of Sept. 4, 2006).
After irregularities were revealed in the first round of bidding for the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, county administrators who report directly to Davis decided to conduct the second round of bidding in secret, using provisions in the state law on bidding to circumvent the state's open meetings and records laws.
Davis also wields power by controlling the agenda of the BOC, but even here he tries to wield that power quietly.
Davis worked behind the scenes to get BOC support for the sale of beer and wine at county restaurants. Back in December he organized a meeting of the BOC in Madison to discuss the issue. Though he knew of the meeting at least three weeks before the Dec. 7 date, he gave public notice only on the day of the meeting. (See my posting of Jan. 6, 2008.)
Davis was under pressure from the Chamber of Commerce, which wanted the beer and wine ordinance passed. In the end, he only was able to get the support of Commissioners Luke and Norris, and he had to break the tie at the BOC meeting on April 8. The chairman only votes to break ties, and Davis does that reluctantly.
While Davis has apologized for not giving proper notice for the Dec. 7 meeting, he has never apologized for holding the meeting out of the county or for knowing about the meeting for at least three weeks in advance and not publicizing it.
The minutes of that Dec. 7 meeting appeared on the web site for several weeks after the apology was issued on Jan. 8, 2008, but then they were removed. They still do not appear with the other publicly posted minutes.
The county does not have search capabililty on its web pages, so citizens would have to do a search with an external engine to know that they still reside on the county site.
Davis controls the web site.
Oconee County has a very strong chairman system of government, so, unless the system is changed, most people in that position are going to exercise a lot of power.
In Georgia, the type of county government is not spelled out in the Constitution, but rather in what is called local enabling legislation. Essentially, each county asks the legislature to pass laws setting up the type of county government it wants.
The county commission system that Oconee County has was established in 1917, and it included a strong chairman.
The chairman "shall be the chief manager of the affairs of said county that are within the jurisdiction of said board of commissioners acting as it executive officer."
The legislation put the chairman in charge of making contracts and purchasing for the board and "shall discharge all the duties of the board of commissioners during interim between the dates of the board's meetings."
The legislation specified that the chairman was to be a full-time position.
The enabling legislation for Oconee County has been changed many times over the years, mostly to adjust the salaries of the chairman and the commissioners.
In 1919, the number of members of the board was increased from three to five. In 1975, the legislation created the current four "posts" plus the chairmanship, with candidates having to indicate which post they were seeking at the election.
In 1988, however, the chairman's position was set as "part time," and the duties of the chairman were greatly restricted. They were: (1) serving as presiding officer at meeting of the Board, (2) stating questions coming before the board and announcing decisions, (3) voting in the case of a tie, (4) signing ordinances, (5) executing statements of indebtedness, (6) acting as ceremonial head of the county, (7) and exercising "other administrative duties that my be delegated to the chairman by the board of commissioners."
Wendell Dawson, who had been county attorney when the enabling legislation was changed, became chairman in 1989. In 1998, the enabling legislation was changed again, restoring the power of the chairman.
The 1998 enabling legislation repeated the seven responsibilities of the chairman listed in 1988 and added an eighth: "To act as the chief executive officer of the county."
The legislation, which remains in place today, did not specify if the chairman was a full-time position. Oconee County had experimented with a weak chairman, however, and had opted to return to the strong chairman system that has been in place for most of the last 90 years.
That hardly means the BOC itself is weak.
The BOC, according to the 1917 enabling legislation that is still in effect, has responsibility "over all matters concerning county property, county taxes..., in establishing and changing ... election precincts, in examining and auditing and setting accounts of all offices having the care, management, correction, keeping and distribution of moneys belonging to the county or appropriated to its use and benefit, ... in establishing, altering and abolishing roads, bridges and ferries..."
If three members of the BOC are unhappy with the chairman, they can easily change the chairman’s behavior by refusing to spend money, approve budgets and otherwise do county business.
The county needs an act of the state legislature to change the enabling legislation.
The Republican primary, in which all registered voters can opt to participate, could provide the forum for a discussion of the proper role of the chairman, of the willingness of the other BOC members to assert their power and of the optimal structure of governance for the county.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Oconee Draws Beer, Wine Maps
Make That A Draft and Two Scoops of Fodder
The majority of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners–perhaps fearing that the recent decline in rezone requests is freeing up too much time on their meeting agendas–seems poised to pass a beer and wine ordinance on Tuesday night that likely will keep them busy in the future.
The ordinance includes a map of the areas of the County where restaurants can sell beer and wine that almost guarantees that redrawing the map will become a major activity of the Commission.
County Attorney Daniel Haygood said as much at the BOC meeting on April 1, when the Board gave first reading to the ordinance. Yes, it was April 1, but the ordinance is real.
Haygood said every time someone wants to get a license to sell beer and wine at a restaurant outside the mapped area, the applicant will have to come back before the BOC and ask that a new map be drawn.
The map included with the current ordinance allows the sale of beer and wine at restaurants on narrow strips of land on both sides of U.S. 78 and Business U.S. 78 as it runs from Walton County to Clarke County.
The map includes some strips of land stretching along the north section of S.R. 316 between the U.S. 78 interchange and the Oconee Connector and not other parts. All the land between S.R. 316 and Mars Hill Road between U.S. 78 and the Oconee Connector is included, except for one residential neighborhood.
The map picks up land zoned for residential use–and currently used for residences--along Daniells Bridge Road between the Oconee Connector and Chestnut Hill Road.
Around Butler Crossing, the allowed area for sale of beer and wine zigs and zags, picking up parts of the U.S.D.A farms along Hog Mountain Road. The cows should be happy.
The district runs on both sides of U.S. 441 from the Clarke County line until just beyond the Watkinsville bypass, when it stops at the Thomas Orchard fruit stand, where, in theory, one could order a beer to go with the home made ice cream.
The date of the final vote on the ordinance has changed several times. In a legal notice in the March 27 issue of The Oconee Enterprise, it was listed as April 1. The BOC postponed the decision and called the special meeting for Tuesday to vote on the issue.
All indications are that it will pass, with Commissioners Don Norris and Jim Luke voting in favor and Commissioners Margaret Hale and Chuck Horton voting against.
Chairman Melvin Davis, who has been pushing the ordinance behind the scenes at the request of the Chamber of Commerce, will be forced to break the tie–something he has not wanted to do.
Davis recently has indicated he will vote in favor.
The issue has really put Davis in a bind. At the request of the Chamber, he brought the issue up last summer. The BOC held two public hearings, but it was clear from the start that it was supposed to pass an ordinance.
In fact, at the first public hearing, the County began discussing what should be included in the ordinance.
When Davis wasn’t able to count three votes in favor of beer and wine sales unless he voted, he put the issue on hold.
Then in November, the Chamber sent another letter to Davis telling him to schedule a vote by the BOC on beer and wine sales. Davis called a special December 7 meeting of the BOC to be held out of town to talk about the issue. He neglected to tell the public about the meeting, however, as is required by law.
Only in January did Davis admit that the meeting took place and that beer and wine sales were on the agenda.
At that point, Davis announced that he was running for re-election and started pushing beer and wine sales again. It is better to keep one’s friends at the chamber than one friends at church, it seems.
One of the key proponents of beer and wine sales has been hotelier Larry Benson, who was chairman of Davis’ re-election campaign in 2004. Benson has plans for a two-hotel complex between S.R. 316 and Daniells Bridge Road at the Oconee Connector.
Benson’s lieutenant, Lewis Shropshire, told the BOC at one of the hearings in the summer that the first hotel could get by with beer and wine sales, but the second will need liquor by the drink. It seems likely pressure for that, which takes a vote of the electorate, not the BOC, will grow once beer and wine sales at restaurants become legal.
Davis and Luke have both said they will only support a "tough" ordinance. Apparently, the strangely drawn map is part of what it means to be "tough." At least initially, beer and wine sales will take place only in the funny areas shown on the map.
The Chamber of Commerce has promoted beer and wine sales at restaurants as a way to reduce the "tax burden" on homeowners.
The sale of beer and wine at restaurants also will have costs for administration and enforcement, Oconee resident John Bergstrom pointed out at the March 18 hearing on the ordinance. He asked for a cost-benefit analysis.
That request fell on deaf ears.
The rumor–repeated to me by County Attorney Daniel Haygood–is that some "big" development is in the works, pending authorization of beer and wine sales at restaurants. As the story goes, a big regional shopping Center will come to the County once the developer knows that outlots can be sold to chain restaurants, who want beer and wine.
Until the BOC redraws the maps, such a shopping center is going to have to fit into fairly narrow pieces of land, making it pretty much a strip center, even if by another name.
Another questionable feature of the ordinance is the requirement that those who buy beer and wine at a restaurant must also purchase "a reasonable order of a meal or appetizer."
Attorney Haygood told the Board on March 18 that any single sale of beer or wine that didn’t include a "reasonable" amount of food would be a violation of the ordinance.
On April 1, I told Haygood I thought that was unenforceable unless the County put surveillance cameras at the cash register of every restaurant. That presumes it is possible to define what a "reasonable order" of food is.
Haygood just smiled and said that the difficult part of any such ordinance is enforcement.
The majority of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners–perhaps fearing that the recent decline in rezone requests is freeing up too much time on their meeting agendas–seems poised to pass a beer and wine ordinance on Tuesday night that likely will keep them busy in the future.
The ordinance includes a map of the areas of the County where restaurants can sell beer and wine that almost guarantees that redrawing the map will become a major activity of the Commission.
County Attorney Daniel Haygood said as much at the BOC meeting on April 1, when the Board gave first reading to the ordinance. Yes, it was April 1, but the ordinance is real.
Haygood said every time someone wants to get a license to sell beer and wine at a restaurant outside the mapped area, the applicant will have to come back before the BOC and ask that a new map be drawn.
The map included with the current ordinance allows the sale of beer and wine at restaurants on narrow strips of land on both sides of U.S. 78 and Business U.S. 78 as it runs from Walton County to Clarke County.
The map includes some strips of land stretching along the north section of S.R. 316 between the U.S. 78 interchange and the Oconee Connector and not other parts. All the land between S.R. 316 and Mars Hill Road between U.S. 78 and the Oconee Connector is included, except for one residential neighborhood.
The map picks up land zoned for residential use–and currently used for residences--along Daniells Bridge Road between the Oconee Connector and Chestnut Hill Road.
Around Butler Crossing, the allowed area for sale of beer and wine zigs and zags, picking up parts of the U.S.D.A farms along Hog Mountain Road. The cows should be happy.
The district runs on both sides of U.S. 441 from the Clarke County line until just beyond the Watkinsville bypass, when it stops at the Thomas Orchard fruit stand, where, in theory, one could order a beer to go with the home made ice cream.
The date of the final vote on the ordinance has changed several times. In a legal notice in the March 27 issue of The Oconee Enterprise, it was listed as April 1. The BOC postponed the decision and called the special meeting for Tuesday to vote on the issue.
All indications are that it will pass, with Commissioners Don Norris and Jim Luke voting in favor and Commissioners Margaret Hale and Chuck Horton voting against.
Chairman Melvin Davis, who has been pushing the ordinance behind the scenes at the request of the Chamber of Commerce, will be forced to break the tie–something he has not wanted to do.
Davis recently has indicated he will vote in favor.
The issue has really put Davis in a bind. At the request of the Chamber, he brought the issue up last summer. The BOC held two public hearings, but it was clear from the start that it was supposed to pass an ordinance.
In fact, at the first public hearing, the County began discussing what should be included in the ordinance.
When Davis wasn’t able to count three votes in favor of beer and wine sales unless he voted, he put the issue on hold.
Then in November, the Chamber sent another letter to Davis telling him to schedule a vote by the BOC on beer and wine sales. Davis called a special December 7 meeting of the BOC to be held out of town to talk about the issue. He neglected to tell the public about the meeting, however, as is required by law.
Only in January did Davis admit that the meeting took place and that beer and wine sales were on the agenda.
At that point, Davis announced that he was running for re-election and started pushing beer and wine sales again. It is better to keep one’s friends at the chamber than one friends at church, it seems.
One of the key proponents of beer and wine sales has been hotelier Larry Benson, who was chairman of Davis’ re-election campaign in 2004. Benson has plans for a two-hotel complex between S.R. 316 and Daniells Bridge Road at the Oconee Connector.
Benson’s lieutenant, Lewis Shropshire, told the BOC at one of the hearings in the summer that the first hotel could get by with beer and wine sales, but the second will need liquor by the drink. It seems likely pressure for that, which takes a vote of the electorate, not the BOC, will grow once beer and wine sales at restaurants become legal.
Davis and Luke have both said they will only support a "tough" ordinance. Apparently, the strangely drawn map is part of what it means to be "tough." At least initially, beer and wine sales will take place only in the funny areas shown on the map.
The Chamber of Commerce has promoted beer and wine sales at restaurants as a way to reduce the "tax burden" on homeowners.
The sale of beer and wine at restaurants also will have costs for administration and enforcement, Oconee resident John Bergstrom pointed out at the March 18 hearing on the ordinance. He asked for a cost-benefit analysis.
That request fell on deaf ears.
The rumor–repeated to me by County Attorney Daniel Haygood–is that some "big" development is in the works, pending authorization of beer and wine sales at restaurants. As the story goes, a big regional shopping Center will come to the County once the developer knows that outlots can be sold to chain restaurants, who want beer and wine.
Until the BOC redraws the maps, such a shopping center is going to have to fit into fairly narrow pieces of land, making it pretty much a strip center, even if by another name.
Another questionable feature of the ordinance is the requirement that those who buy beer and wine at a restaurant must also purchase "a reasonable order of a meal or appetizer."
Attorney Haygood told the Board on March 18 that any single sale of beer or wine that didn’t include a "reasonable" amount of food would be a violation of the ordinance.
On April 1, I told Haygood I thought that was unenforceable unless the County put surveillance cameras at the cash register of every restaurant. That presumes it is possible to define what a "reasonable order" of food is.
Haygood just smiled and said that the difficult part of any such ordinance is enforcement.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Oconee Commissioners Respond to Citizen Concerns
Story Behind the Rocky Branch Victory
The March 4 meeting of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners produced a major victory for those of us interested in protecting Barber Creek, though this fact has been largely ignored by the media.
As I reported in my blog on the evening of March 4, the BOC accepted a design for the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant that should produce water of a higher quality than is required by the state and that includes holding facilities that will allow the County to store water from the sewage plant when Barber Creek is flooding.
The decision was made because of the actions of three members of the Board, Commissioners Margaret Hale, Chuck Horton and Jim Luke, and was contrary to the desires of county administrators, who report to BOC Chairman Melvin Davis.
Here’s the background of the story.
At the December 12, 2006, hearing before the state Environmental Protection Division on the permit for Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, the Friends of Barber Creek turned in more than 45 signed petitions asking for three concessions.
First, we wanted Oconee County to agree to treat the effluent to the highest standard the technology used in the plant would allow.
Second, we wanted the County to agree to hold water from the plant when Barber Creek was flooding. The County was seeking and received a permit to discharge effluent into Barber Creek from the sewage plant.
Third, we wanted the County to set up a system of independent monitoring of the plant.
We knew when we made these three requests that the Oconee County Board of Commissioners, not the EPD, was the body that could provide what we needed. The EPD hearing gave us a forum to voice our requests.
The Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek, made up of Tim Price, Karen Kimbaris, Eleanor Cotton, Joe Block and myself, restated these requests to the BOC on numerous occasions after the EPD hearing.
The crucial time for two of these requests–dealing with water quality and flooding–was the March 4 meeting, when the BOC was voting on the design contract for the Rocky Branch upgrade.
At the BOC meeting, County Utility Department Director John Hatcher and Herb Feldman, the president of HSF Engineering, said the plant will be able to match the quality of the County's Calls Creek plant, which exceeds state standards significantly. HSF submitted the successful bid for the Rocky Branch upgrade.
Hatcher and the Feldman also said that the design includes ponds capable of holding 25 day's worth of water and that these would be used to hold water in times of flooding of Barber Creek.
Hearing these promises, the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek endorsed the bid selection, and the BOC approved the bid.
These are only promises, of course, which is why monitoring remains crucial.
Monitoring is an operational rather than a design issue. At some point in the future, the BOC should address how the new capacity from the plant will be allocated between commercial and residential development. That will be the time when independent monitoring can be raised.
So how did we accomplish what we have already accomplished?
To understand the answer, it is important to differentiate between the four members of the Board of Commissioners and the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners.
Oconee County has a strong Chairman, by statute, by tradition, and because of the practices of the incumbent, Melvin Davis.
It makes sense to think of Davis as the chief executive of the County, and the four commissioners as the legislative body. The problem with the characterization, however, is that Davis is, in fact, the Chairman of the Commission as well. He sets the agenda and he votes in the case of a tie.
More important than the power to run the Commission meetings, however, is the executive power of the Chairman. He appoints all the non-elected officers of the County, and they report to him. Included are the heads of departments, the chief administrative officer, and the clerk of the Commission.
Chairman Davis and Gary Dodd, Chris Thomas and John Hatcher, all from the Utility Department, have repeatedly touted the quality of water that Calls Creek produces and the upgraded Rocky Branch treatment plants would produce, because they said, these plants used membrane filtration.
Davis and his Utility Department repeatedly said the water coming out of these plants exceeds and will exceed the standards set by the state for reuse quality water--which each plant is permitted to produce.
Davis and his administrative colleagues said, because of membrane filtration, these plants were producing "near drinking level quality water."
Data that Davis released to me from Calls Creek in September of 2007--the same data the County filed with the EPD for the plant--showed that the plant does greatly exceed the permitted standards.
In fact, Calls Creek for the seven months for which I was given data nearly matched the permitted output quality of the F. Wayne Hill sewage plant in Gwinnett County--the plant that has the highest permit standards in the state.
But the Calls Creek plant has a big problem. It goes through membranes very quickly and consumes a lot of energy. For these reasons, it is very expensive to operate.
Davis and the Utility Department never publicly acknowledged this problem. Instead, they tried to abandon the membrane technology through a series of secret maneuvers.
In June of 2007, the County administration issued a Request for Proposal for the upgrade of Rocky Branch. The RFP specified that the plant would use membrane filtration and a design matching that at Calls Creek.
At a presubmittal meeting with potential bidders, however, the Utility Department tipped bidders that it was interested in abandoning membrane filtration.
Jordan Jones & Goulding submitted a bid that did not use membrane filtration and that could have met the state reuse standard required by the permit, but it would not have produced water of the same quality as Calls Creek.
The Selection Committee--made up of County appointees and consultants reporting to Davis--recommended that JJ&G get the contract.
When Davis brought the bid before the BOC on August 28, however, he could not get a motion for action. Commissioner Chuck Horton said he would not accept JJ&G, since he was unhappy with its work on a proposed County reservoir. Commissioner Margaret Hale said the County had never voted to go forward with Rocky Branch, so a vote on a bid was premature.
No action was taken. By the time the BOC met again on September 4, I had filed an open records request and reviewed the bids. I pointed out the irregularity of violating the RFP and that the County was abandoning membrane filtration.
At that meeting, the BOC voted to go forward with the Rocky Branch upgrade. County administrator Alan Theriault, who reports to Davis, said the County would start the bidding process over. He never explained why that was necessary.
In November, the County reissued a Request for Proposal for the Rocky Branch upgrade. This time, it specified that two designs were possible. The first was the original design; the second was some alternate that also used membrane filtration.
Emil Beshara, the County Public Works director, told me on February 5 that membrane's were specified because of the pressure of Friends of Barber Creek. The County administration didn't think it could get approval for a design that did not use membrane filtration, he said.
Beshara said the County didn't know what the bidders would propose in response to the second RFP with its alternate design option.
This second time around, Davis and his administrators decided to conduct the bidding process in secret. The stated reason was to save the taxpayers money by negotiating over costs, but the more likely reason was to negotiate over design.
At the February 5, 2008, meeting of the BOC, the Selection Committee appointed by the BOC to review the bids--made up of County officials and consultants who report to Davis--delivered its recommendation to the Board.
At the insistence of Commissioner Jim Luke, the Commissioners had been invited to the closed meetings of the Selection Committee. Luke told me he asked this because he knew I was not going to be allowed to attend, and I was not. Commissioner Horton attended those meetings.
I had a long talk with Commissioner Luke following the February 26 meeting. Luke made it clear his patience with Friends of Barber Creek was running thin.
I concluded that the BOC was going to accept the Selection Committee recommendation, and we had little room to negotiate.
On the morning of February 27, I sent a note to John Hatcher, now the Utility Department director, informing him that I wanted to recommend to the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek that we endorse the recommendation of the Selection Committee that the bid go to HSF Engineering. I copied the message to Davis and the four Commissioners.
I told Hatcher we only needed two things. First, we needed data from a plant using a similar design showing that it would match the quality of the Calls Creek plant. Second, we needed to know how many days of storage capacity the plant would have.
Two days later, Hatcher wrote me back and said there were no data he could provide me and that storage of water for flooding was not a part of the plant design.
Luke shot back a message to Hatcher saying his response on the Calls Creek standard was not sufficient. Horton seconded.
At this point, Beshara--who reports to Davis--weighed in on the storage issue. He said there was no "scientific" reason to limit discharge in times of flooding. He also said it had been a mistake for the County to cave to the pressure to require membrane filtration for the plant.
I met with Commissioner Horton on Saturday, March 1, and with Commissioner Hale on Sunday, March 2. I was pretty sure we had their support for our requests regarding water quality and quantity.
Commissioner Don Norris doesn't respond to my emails. He usually votes in support of whatever Davis and the department heads recommends.
During my meeting with Hale, she told me she pushed Davis to schedule a presentation by HSF President Herb Feldman at the meeting on March 4.
At that meeting, Hatcher and Feldman promised to meet our requests for water quality and to hold water in times of flooding.
It is quite clear that the water coming out of Rocky Branch would have been of a lower quality had Davis and his administration gotten what it wanted. And no provision would have been made to hold the water in times of flooding.
We scored a major victory because Commissioners Hale, Horton and Luke were willing to listen to our concerns and stand up to Davis and his administration.
It is a lesson we should not forget.
The March 4 meeting of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners produced a major victory for those of us interested in protecting Barber Creek, though this fact has been largely ignored by the media.
As I reported in my blog on the evening of March 4, the BOC accepted a design for the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant that should produce water of a higher quality than is required by the state and that includes holding facilities that will allow the County to store water from the sewage plant when Barber Creek is flooding.
The decision was made because of the actions of three members of the Board, Commissioners Margaret Hale, Chuck Horton and Jim Luke, and was contrary to the desires of county administrators, who report to BOC Chairman Melvin Davis.
Here’s the background of the story.
At the December 12, 2006, hearing before the state Environmental Protection Division on the permit for Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant, the Friends of Barber Creek turned in more than 45 signed petitions asking for three concessions.
First, we wanted Oconee County to agree to treat the effluent to the highest standard the technology used in the plant would allow.
Second, we wanted the County to agree to hold water from the plant when Barber Creek was flooding. The County was seeking and received a permit to discharge effluent into Barber Creek from the sewage plant.
Third, we wanted the County to set up a system of independent monitoring of the plant.
We knew when we made these three requests that the Oconee County Board of Commissioners, not the EPD, was the body that could provide what we needed. The EPD hearing gave us a forum to voice our requests.
The Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek, made up of Tim Price, Karen Kimbaris, Eleanor Cotton, Joe Block and myself, restated these requests to the BOC on numerous occasions after the EPD hearing.
The crucial time for two of these requests–dealing with water quality and flooding–was the March 4 meeting, when the BOC was voting on the design contract for the Rocky Branch upgrade.
At the BOC meeting, County Utility Department Director John Hatcher and Herb Feldman, the president of HSF Engineering, said the plant will be able to match the quality of the County's Calls Creek plant, which exceeds state standards significantly. HSF submitted the successful bid for the Rocky Branch upgrade.
Hatcher and the Feldman also said that the design includes ponds capable of holding 25 day's worth of water and that these would be used to hold water in times of flooding of Barber Creek.
Hearing these promises, the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek endorsed the bid selection, and the BOC approved the bid.
These are only promises, of course, which is why monitoring remains crucial.
Monitoring is an operational rather than a design issue. At some point in the future, the BOC should address how the new capacity from the plant will be allocated between commercial and residential development. That will be the time when independent monitoring can be raised.
So how did we accomplish what we have already accomplished?
To understand the answer, it is important to differentiate between the four members of the Board of Commissioners and the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners.
Oconee County has a strong Chairman, by statute, by tradition, and because of the practices of the incumbent, Melvin Davis.
It makes sense to think of Davis as the chief executive of the County, and the four commissioners as the legislative body. The problem with the characterization, however, is that Davis is, in fact, the Chairman of the Commission as well. He sets the agenda and he votes in the case of a tie.
More important than the power to run the Commission meetings, however, is the executive power of the Chairman. He appoints all the non-elected officers of the County, and they report to him. Included are the heads of departments, the chief administrative officer, and the clerk of the Commission.
Chairman Davis and Gary Dodd, Chris Thomas and John Hatcher, all from the Utility Department, have repeatedly touted the quality of water that Calls Creek produces and the upgraded Rocky Branch treatment plants would produce, because they said, these plants used membrane filtration.
Davis and his Utility Department repeatedly said the water coming out of these plants exceeds and will exceed the standards set by the state for reuse quality water--which each plant is permitted to produce.
Davis and his administrative colleagues said, because of membrane filtration, these plants were producing "near drinking level quality water."
Data that Davis released to me from Calls Creek in September of 2007--the same data the County filed with the EPD for the plant--showed that the plant does greatly exceed the permitted standards.
In fact, Calls Creek for the seven months for which I was given data nearly matched the permitted output quality of the F. Wayne Hill sewage plant in Gwinnett County--the plant that has the highest permit standards in the state.
But the Calls Creek plant has a big problem. It goes through membranes very quickly and consumes a lot of energy. For these reasons, it is very expensive to operate.
Davis and the Utility Department never publicly acknowledged this problem. Instead, they tried to abandon the membrane technology through a series of secret maneuvers.
In June of 2007, the County administration issued a Request for Proposal for the upgrade of Rocky Branch. The RFP specified that the plant would use membrane filtration and a design matching that at Calls Creek.
At a presubmittal meeting with potential bidders, however, the Utility Department tipped bidders that it was interested in abandoning membrane filtration.
Jordan Jones & Goulding submitted a bid that did not use membrane filtration and that could have met the state reuse standard required by the permit, but it would not have produced water of the same quality as Calls Creek.
The Selection Committee--made up of County appointees and consultants reporting to Davis--recommended that JJ&G get the contract.
When Davis brought the bid before the BOC on August 28, however, he could not get a motion for action. Commissioner Chuck Horton said he would not accept JJ&G, since he was unhappy with its work on a proposed County reservoir. Commissioner Margaret Hale said the County had never voted to go forward with Rocky Branch, so a vote on a bid was premature.
No action was taken. By the time the BOC met again on September 4, I had filed an open records request and reviewed the bids. I pointed out the irregularity of violating the RFP and that the County was abandoning membrane filtration.
At that meeting, the BOC voted to go forward with the Rocky Branch upgrade. County administrator Alan Theriault, who reports to Davis, said the County would start the bidding process over. He never explained why that was necessary.
In November, the County reissued a Request for Proposal for the Rocky Branch upgrade. This time, it specified that two designs were possible. The first was the original design; the second was some alternate that also used membrane filtration.
Emil Beshara, the County Public Works director, told me on February 5 that membrane's were specified because of the pressure of Friends of Barber Creek. The County administration didn't think it could get approval for a design that did not use membrane filtration, he said.
Beshara said the County didn't know what the bidders would propose in response to the second RFP with its alternate design option.
This second time around, Davis and his administrators decided to conduct the bidding process in secret. The stated reason was to save the taxpayers money by negotiating over costs, but the more likely reason was to negotiate over design.
At the February 5, 2008, meeting of the BOC, the Selection Committee appointed by the BOC to review the bids--made up of County officials and consultants who report to Davis--delivered its recommendation to the Board.
At the insistence of Commissioner Jim Luke, the Commissioners had been invited to the closed meetings of the Selection Committee. Luke told me he asked this because he knew I was not going to be allowed to attend, and I was not. Commissioner Horton attended those meetings.
I had a long talk with Commissioner Luke following the February 26 meeting. Luke made it clear his patience with Friends of Barber Creek was running thin.
I concluded that the BOC was going to accept the Selection Committee recommendation, and we had little room to negotiate.
On the morning of February 27, I sent a note to John Hatcher, now the Utility Department director, informing him that I wanted to recommend to the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek that we endorse the recommendation of the Selection Committee that the bid go to HSF Engineering. I copied the message to Davis and the four Commissioners.
I told Hatcher we only needed two things. First, we needed data from a plant using a similar design showing that it would match the quality of the Calls Creek plant. Second, we needed to know how many days of storage capacity the plant would have.
Two days later, Hatcher wrote me back and said there were no data he could provide me and that storage of water for flooding was not a part of the plant design.
Luke shot back a message to Hatcher saying his response on the Calls Creek standard was not sufficient. Horton seconded.
At this point, Beshara--who reports to Davis--weighed in on the storage issue. He said there was no "scientific" reason to limit discharge in times of flooding. He also said it had been a mistake for the County to cave to the pressure to require membrane filtration for the plant.
I met with Commissioner Horton on Saturday, March 1, and with Commissioner Hale on Sunday, March 2. I was pretty sure we had their support for our requests regarding water quality and quantity.
Commissioner Don Norris doesn't respond to my emails. He usually votes in support of whatever Davis and the department heads recommends.
During my meeting with Hale, she told me she pushed Davis to schedule a presentation by HSF President Herb Feldman at the meeting on March 4.
At that meeting, Hatcher and Feldman promised to meet our requests for water quality and to hold water in times of flooding.
It is quite clear that the water coming out of Rocky Branch would have been of a lower quality had Davis and his administration gotten what it wanted. And no provision would have been made to hold the water in times of flooding.
We scored a major victory because Commissioners Hale, Horton and Luke were willing to listen to our concerns and stand up to Davis and his administration.
It is a lesson we should not forget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)