Written 2/6/2008
County Admits Problems at Calls Creek
In a conversation with me following the meeting of the Board of Commissioners last night, Oconee County Public Works Director Emil Beshara confirmed that the County is having serious problems with the cost of operating the Calls Creek sewage plant, and this is the motivation for seeking an alternative design for the proposed Rocky Branch upgrade.
Beshara said the decision of the County to insert the design option into the November 16, 2007, Request for Proposal for the Rocky Branch upgrade was the result of his input and that of John Hatcher, the Oconee County Utility Department director. That design option calls for a more traditional type of biological treatment followed by membrane filtration.
The County specified in its application to the state for a permit to discharge up to 1 million gallons per day of effluent from the Rocky Branch plant into Barber Creek that it would use the same design as it currently is using at Calls Creek.
That design is the vertical loop reactor and membrane biological reactor. The second design is called a suspended growth biological process for secondary treatment with tertiary membrane filtration.
Beshara confirmed that the second design is more traditional, possibly using standard procedures such as aeration to stimulate bacterial breakdown of the sewage, followed by membrane filtration. The first design combines the filtration and the biological reaction.
Beshara said the Calls Creek plant is being forced to replace membranes much more frequently than had been promised and that electrical costs for operation of the plant are higher than expected. The membranes are supposed to last five years, he said, but the County is replacing them every "few" months.
The is confirmation of what bidders for the upgrade to Rocky Branch said in the first round of bidding.
Carter & Sloope said it the closing comments of its bid that "It is our understanding that the County is having some concerns about the long-term O&M (Operating and Maintenance) expenses of membrane treatment plants."
Prior to this conversation, which Beshara initiated, the County never has acknowledged that there were any problems with the Calls Creek plant and has consistently touted its design as a model for such plants.
Beshara said he believes the County can produce as high of a quality of water with the alternate design as with the original. Since the County has not allowed citizen examination of the bids or even of the Selection Committee evaluation of those bids, it is impossible to know at this point what the bidders proposed or believed they could produce with the alternate design.
Beshara said the County allowed the bidders to propose alternatives for the biological process, as long as they included membrane filtration.
He credited the Friends of Barber Creek’s pressure on the BOC with making impossible for the County to abandon membranes, which the County tried to do in the first round of bidding.
"I had always been instructed that it would use membrane filtration," he said. Beshara joined the County after the first round of bidding had been completed and discarded.
The Selection Committee for the bids, appointed by the Board of Commissioners to evaluate the bids, has selected three firms for consideration: Brown and Caldwell of Atlanta, HSF Engineering of Snellville, and Wiedeman & Singleton of Atlanta.
Jimmy Parker from County consultant Precision Planning Inc., who chairs the Selection Committee, announced at the January 29 meeting that the Selection Committee will meet with bidders in the middle of this month.
Tonight I wrote a letter to BOC Chairman Melvin Davis asking to be informed of the time, date and place of the meeting so I can attend. I was denied access to an earlier meeting of the Selection Committee on January 4 and have filed a complaint with the state attorney general regarding that denial.
At the BOC meeting last night, I made a statement to the Board indicating why access to those bids is so important for anyone concerned about the County’s plans for the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant.
As soon as I finished my statement, the Board, without response or comment, adjourned the meeting.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Monday, February 04, 2008
Written 2/4/2008
Crack in the Policy of Secrecy
Lost in the media reports about the Board of Commissioners meeting on January 29 was a major concession made by the Oconee County administration regarding when the bids for the upgrade for the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant will be available to the public.
The public will get to see those bids before the Board of Commissioners votes, not after, Chairman Melvin Davis said on the 29th.
"When final recommendations are made to this BOC," Davis said, "All proposals and bids will be public at that time and placed on the web site for review, and the BOC will not act on that proposal or recommendation at that time to allow plenty of time for public input."
This contrasts with what Oconee County Administrative Officer Alan Theriault told me in an email message on December 26, 2007. Theriault said the bids "will be available to the public at such time as the final award of the contract is made or the project is terminated or abandoned."
Chairman Davis also made a second promise at the meeting after Friends of Barber Creek Vice President Tim Price reiterated the request that the County agree not to discharge water from the Rocky Branch plant into Barber Creek at times of flooding, to treat the water to the highest level technology allows, and to provide for independent monitoring of the plant.
"Rest assured that this Board of Commissioners wants to do everything possible to make sure we don’t do anything that is detrimental to the environment, the creek, to make sure that our treatment is to the highest quality that we can afford to handle. I think the request for proposal asks for the best treatment that we can possibly get as far as membrane filtration and tertiary treatment."
"I hear I have your word on that," Price said.
"I think that is what this Board of Commissioners desires to do. There is no question about that," Davis replied.
Davis’ response does point to the importance of making the bids available to the public before the BOC votes.
The RFP specifies that the bid must be for a design that uses membrane filtration, but it allows two options.
The first is the vertical loop reactor and membrane biological reactor specified in the application the County made for the state permit to discharge the treated sewage water from the plant into Barber Creek.
The second design is called a suspended growth biological process for secondary treatment with tertiary membrane filtration.
I have spoken with two experts on sewage plants. Membranes are more central to the first design than the second, they said. Which type of plant will produce a better quality water is dependent on a number of things, I was told, including the ability to operate the plant correctly and the type of sewage being treated.
By examining the bids from first RFP issued in June of 2007, I discovered that the County had given a tip to at least some of the bidders that it was willing to abandon membrane filtration altogether.
In its bid, Jordan Jones & Goulding wrote that it was "delighted" to learn at the pre-proposal conference "that there is flexibility in your thinking." The letter continued that the Utility Department leadership was looking "for the most cost effective way of producing reuse water and meeting future discharge limits."
JJ&G proposed a plant without membrane filtration to save the County money. The Selection Committee recommended JJ&G receive the contract, but the BOC never was asked to vote on the recommendation.
Carter & Sloope, another bidder in that first round, also discussed alternatives to membrane filtration.
"It is our understanding that the County is having some concerns about the long-term O&M (Operating and Maintenance) expenses of membrane treatment plants."
It is because these bids are so important and can be so informative that I have filed an open records request to view them and to view the written reports of the Selection Committee. I also asked to be informed about the meeting the Selection Committee held to discuss the bids. I have been denied all of these things.
Davis’ promise on January 29 is the first crack in this policy of secrecy regarding the bids.
Crack in the Policy of Secrecy
Lost in the media reports about the Board of Commissioners meeting on January 29 was a major concession made by the Oconee County administration regarding when the bids for the upgrade for the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant will be available to the public.
The public will get to see those bids before the Board of Commissioners votes, not after, Chairman Melvin Davis said on the 29th.
"When final recommendations are made to this BOC," Davis said, "All proposals and bids will be public at that time and placed on the web site for review, and the BOC will not act on that proposal or recommendation at that time to allow plenty of time for public input."
This contrasts with what Oconee County Administrative Officer Alan Theriault told me in an email message on December 26, 2007. Theriault said the bids "will be available to the public at such time as the final award of the contract is made or the project is terminated or abandoned."
Chairman Davis also made a second promise at the meeting after Friends of Barber Creek Vice President Tim Price reiterated the request that the County agree not to discharge water from the Rocky Branch plant into Barber Creek at times of flooding, to treat the water to the highest level technology allows, and to provide for independent monitoring of the plant.
"Rest assured that this Board of Commissioners wants to do everything possible to make sure we don’t do anything that is detrimental to the environment, the creek, to make sure that our treatment is to the highest quality that we can afford to handle. I think the request for proposal asks for the best treatment that we can possibly get as far as membrane filtration and tertiary treatment."
"I hear I have your word on that," Price said.
"I think that is what this Board of Commissioners desires to do. There is no question about that," Davis replied.
Davis’ response does point to the importance of making the bids available to the public before the BOC votes.
The RFP specifies that the bid must be for a design that uses membrane filtration, but it allows two options.
The first is the vertical loop reactor and membrane biological reactor specified in the application the County made for the state permit to discharge the treated sewage water from the plant into Barber Creek.
The second design is called a suspended growth biological process for secondary treatment with tertiary membrane filtration.
I have spoken with two experts on sewage plants. Membranes are more central to the first design than the second, they said. Which type of plant will produce a better quality water is dependent on a number of things, I was told, including the ability to operate the plant correctly and the type of sewage being treated.
By examining the bids from first RFP issued in June of 2007, I discovered that the County had given a tip to at least some of the bidders that it was willing to abandon membrane filtration altogether.
In its bid, Jordan Jones & Goulding wrote that it was "delighted" to learn at the pre-proposal conference "that there is flexibility in your thinking." The letter continued that the Utility Department leadership was looking "for the most cost effective way of producing reuse water and meeting future discharge limits."
JJ&G proposed a plant without membrane filtration to save the County money. The Selection Committee recommended JJ&G receive the contract, but the BOC never was asked to vote on the recommendation.
Carter & Sloope, another bidder in that first round, also discussed alternatives to membrane filtration.
"It is our understanding that the County is having some concerns about the long-term O&M (Operating and Maintenance) expenses of membrane treatment plants."
It is because these bids are so important and can be so informative that I have filed an open records request to view them and to view the written reports of the Selection Committee. I also asked to be informed about the meeting the Selection Committee held to discuss the bids. I have been denied all of these things.
Davis’ promise on January 29 is the first crack in this policy of secrecy regarding the bids.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Written 2/3/2008
Chairman Davis Goes on Offensive
Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis has gone on the offensive following the publication on Monday, January 28, of the story in the Athens Banner-Herald under the top-of-the-front-page headline "Oconee officials again called out."
The story, by Oconee reporter Adam Thompson, focused on the complaint I filed with the Georgia Attorney General regarding the January 4 meeting of the Selection Committee that is reviewing the bids for the upgrade of the Rocky Branch sewage plant. The County refused to give public notice about the meeting, making it impossible for citizens to attend.
Davis has ignored the question of the meeting’s legality and defended the County’s decision to keep the specifics of the bids secret.
Rob Peecher, editor and publisher of The Oconee Leader, emailed me that "Melvin Davis called and wanted to talk to me" the day the Banner-Herald story ran. Peecher, in questions he posed to me on the evening of January 31, laid out Davis’ defense for the County’s decision to close the bidding process for the Rocky Branch upgrade.
At the Board of Commissioners meeting on the 29th, Davis set aside the agenda to launch into an attack on the critics and asked County Attorney Day Haygood to justify the decisions made about the bidding process.
The Oconee Enterprise, which is the designated recipient of County legal notices and often serves as the mouthpiece for County officials, ran a story in its January 31 edition under the headline, "Chairman fights back in open records dispute."
The paper quotes Davis as saying at the Tuesday (January 29) meeting that "falsehoods and insinuations" had been circulated about the bidding process, but that the County was following strictly Georgia law.
The County’s case, as spelled out by Haygood at the January 29 meeting, is based on a distinction in Georgia law between a competition with sealed bids and a competition with sealed proposals. The County issued a Request for Proposal.
Competitive sealed bids are opened and evaluated without discussion with the bidders. The law says the County can close these bids to the public, but it does not have to do so. The County does not have to select the low bidder.
The County can negotiate with the bidder in the case of competitive sealed proposals. The County is not allowed to disclose the contents of proposals to competing bidders, according to Georgia Code.
Haygood at the meeting on January 29 said the County is using the competitive sealed proposal process to save money. He also allowing citizens to see the bids would violate the law and be a misdemeanor.
The County also used the competitive sealed proposal process when it first advertised for bids for the Rocky Branch upgrade in June. In response to an open records request I made after the bids were received, the County released them to me.
The County has never explained why it was not a violation of the law to release the bids last time and it is a violation of the law today. The law has not changed.
When I examined the bids in the June competition, I learned that the County had given a tip to at least some bidders at the presubmittal conference. The County said it was willing to abandon membrane filtration at the Rocky Branch plant in favor of a less sophisticated treatment technology. The County received three bids. The Selection Committee recommended a bidder who wanted to abandon membrane filtration.
After I revealed this irregularity, the County abandoned the bids and started the process over. This time, it has refused to allow any access to the bids.
In my complaint to the Attorney General, I focused on the County’s denial of access to the Selection Committee meeting of January 4 and denial of access to the evaluation documents that Committee produced.
Dr. Kent Middleton, an expert on media law and a faculty member at the University of Georgia, has told me he believes that meeting is covered by the case law that has built up for the Georgia Open Meetings laws. Hollie Manheimer, executive director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, said she believes that as well.
The Open Meetings Laws allows an agency, such as the Selection Committee, to go into closed session under a limited set of circumstances, but only if it meets first in open. Opening of bids is not one of those circumstances that would allow the Selection Committee to go into closed session.
Even if it were legal to go into executive session, the Selection Committee would be required to take that action in public at a meeting for which it gave proper notification of the time and place of the meeting at least 24 hours in advance.
The Request for Proposal issued for the second round of competition specifies that membrane filtration must be used in the plant design, but it allows two options.
The first is the vertical loop reactor and membrane biological reactor specified in the application the County made for the permit to discharge the treated sewage water from the plant into Barber Creek.
The second design is called a suspended growth biological process for secondary treatment with tertiary membrane filtration.
I have spoken with two experts on sewage plants. Both assured me these designs are not the same and can produce different outcomes.
The County has decided up to this point to keep the discussion of these options and their consequences from the public. In comments entered into the record of the January 29 meeting, the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek asked that no action be taken by the Board of Commissioners until the public has had a chance to review the bids.
At the January 29 meeting, Jimmy Parker from Precision Planning Inc., who is chairing the Selection Committee, said three bidders have been recommended for further discussion. They are Brown and Caldwell of Atlanta, HSF Engineering of Snellville, and Wiedeman & Singleton of Atlanta.
He said he plans to come back to the BOC on February 26 with the results of that negotiation.
Chairman Davis Goes on Offensive
Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis has gone on the offensive following the publication on Monday, January 28, of the story in the Athens Banner-Herald under the top-of-the-front-page headline "Oconee officials again called out."
The story, by Oconee reporter Adam Thompson, focused on the complaint I filed with the Georgia Attorney General regarding the January 4 meeting of the Selection Committee that is reviewing the bids for the upgrade of the Rocky Branch sewage plant. The County refused to give public notice about the meeting, making it impossible for citizens to attend.
Davis has ignored the question of the meeting’s legality and defended the County’s decision to keep the specifics of the bids secret.
Rob Peecher, editor and publisher of The Oconee Leader, emailed me that "Melvin Davis called and wanted to talk to me" the day the Banner-Herald story ran. Peecher, in questions he posed to me on the evening of January 31, laid out Davis’ defense for the County’s decision to close the bidding process for the Rocky Branch upgrade.
At the Board of Commissioners meeting on the 29th, Davis set aside the agenda to launch into an attack on the critics and asked County Attorney Day Haygood to justify the decisions made about the bidding process.
The Oconee Enterprise, which is the designated recipient of County legal notices and often serves as the mouthpiece for County officials, ran a story in its January 31 edition under the headline, "Chairman fights back in open records dispute."
The paper quotes Davis as saying at the Tuesday (January 29) meeting that "falsehoods and insinuations" had been circulated about the bidding process, but that the County was following strictly Georgia law.
The County’s case, as spelled out by Haygood at the January 29 meeting, is based on a distinction in Georgia law between a competition with sealed bids and a competition with sealed proposals. The County issued a Request for Proposal.
Competitive sealed bids are opened and evaluated without discussion with the bidders. The law says the County can close these bids to the public, but it does not have to do so. The County does not have to select the low bidder.
The County can negotiate with the bidder in the case of competitive sealed proposals. The County is not allowed to disclose the contents of proposals to competing bidders, according to Georgia Code.
Haygood at the meeting on January 29 said the County is using the competitive sealed proposal process to save money. He also allowing citizens to see the bids would violate the law and be a misdemeanor.
The County also used the competitive sealed proposal process when it first advertised for bids for the Rocky Branch upgrade in June. In response to an open records request I made after the bids were received, the County released them to me.
The County has never explained why it was not a violation of the law to release the bids last time and it is a violation of the law today. The law has not changed.
When I examined the bids in the June competition, I learned that the County had given a tip to at least some bidders at the presubmittal conference. The County said it was willing to abandon membrane filtration at the Rocky Branch plant in favor of a less sophisticated treatment technology. The County received three bids. The Selection Committee recommended a bidder who wanted to abandon membrane filtration.
After I revealed this irregularity, the County abandoned the bids and started the process over. This time, it has refused to allow any access to the bids.
In my complaint to the Attorney General, I focused on the County’s denial of access to the Selection Committee meeting of January 4 and denial of access to the evaluation documents that Committee produced.
Dr. Kent Middleton, an expert on media law and a faculty member at the University of Georgia, has told me he believes that meeting is covered by the case law that has built up for the Georgia Open Meetings laws. Hollie Manheimer, executive director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, said she believes that as well.
The Open Meetings Laws allows an agency, such as the Selection Committee, to go into closed session under a limited set of circumstances, but only if it meets first in open. Opening of bids is not one of those circumstances that would allow the Selection Committee to go into closed session.
Even if it were legal to go into executive session, the Selection Committee would be required to take that action in public at a meeting for which it gave proper notification of the time and place of the meeting at least 24 hours in advance.
The Request for Proposal issued for the second round of competition specifies that membrane filtration must be used in the plant design, but it allows two options.
The first is the vertical loop reactor and membrane biological reactor specified in the application the County made for the permit to discharge the treated sewage water from the plant into Barber Creek.
The second design is called a suspended growth biological process for secondary treatment with tertiary membrane filtration.
I have spoken with two experts on sewage plants. Both assured me these designs are not the same and can produce different outcomes.
The County has decided up to this point to keep the discussion of these options and their consequences from the public. In comments entered into the record of the January 29 meeting, the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek asked that no action be taken by the Board of Commissioners until the public has had a chance to review the bids.
At the January 29 meeting, Jimmy Parker from Precision Planning Inc., who is chairing the Selection Committee, said three bidders have been recommended for further discussion. They are Brown and Caldwell of Atlanta, HSF Engineering of Snellville, and Wiedeman & Singleton of Atlanta.
He said he plans to come back to the BOC on February 26 with the results of that negotiation.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Written 1/26/2008
Bids Closed to Public to be Discussed by BOC
The Oconee County Board of Commissioners will get an update on the bids for the upgrade of the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant at its meeting on Tuesday, January 29, according to the draft agenda released by Oconee County Clerk Gina Lindsey on Friday afternoon, January 25.
Rocky Branch will be the first item on the agenda, but it is not possible to know if the Board will be asked to take action or anything about the bids themselves or the review process since the County decided to close the entire process to citizens.
The County holds a state permit to discharge up to 1 million gallons per day of treated sewage water from an upgraded Rocky Branch plant into Barber Creek, which flows through the northern part of the County.
Citizen scrutiny of the first round of bidding in late summer showed that the County had given tips to at least some bidders that it was interested in using a less sophisticated treatment technology than was called for in the Request for Proposal.
County officials recommended that a bidder who intended to use the lesser technology be given the contract, but the County threw out the bids after these irregularities were exposed.
In the second RFP, the County offered bidders the option of using both the original technology and a second technology.
Feng Jiang, who did graduate work involving these technologies at the University of Georgia, informed me that they are not equivalent and that the only way to know which will produce the higher quality water is to know the characteristics of the sewage coming in to the plant.
Board of Commissioners member Chuck Horton, who attended a closed meeting of the bid Selection Committee, said he did not believe the Committee was interested in recommending an inferior technology. He admitted, however, that he did not know the difference between the two technologies or the implications of selecting one over the other.
The Selection Committee, with Horton present, met on January 4. Members of the Committee are John Hatcher, Utilities Department director, Emil Beshara, Public Works Department director, Alan Theriault, County administrative officer, Jim Sunta, from Precision Planning Inc., and Jimmy Parker, also from Precision Planning.
Parker has been given the responsibility by the County for handling the bid review process, and he set up the January 4 meeting.
The County has acknowledged the names of the nine bidders, but not other information about the bidders or the bids.
I asked to be informed about the time and place of the Selection Committee meeting, but I was told by Theriault that I would not be. I learned that the Committee met only through an open records request I filed on January 7. I also was denied access to the bids and to details of the evaluation of those bids.
While Georgia law does allow–but not require–counties to close bids, it requires open access to public meetings, with limited exceptions. I have filed a complaint with the Attorney General about the County’s unwillingness to post notice about the January 4 meeting.
I also contacted the Georgia First Amendment Foundation and provide it a copy of my complaint to the Attorney General. Hollie Manheimer, executive director of the Foundation, wrote to Theriault on January 23, 2008, asking him to offer an "explanation of what will be done to remendy these actions that go against the interests of the public."
At the BOC meeting on Tuesday, members of the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek will ask the BOC not to take any action on the Rocky Branch bids until the public has been given an opportunity to review them and have access to the evaluation process.
Commissioners Margaret Hale and Horton have told me personally they want citizens to have access to the bids. Commission Jim Luke has told me he does not.
Commissioner Don Norris usually supports what County officials, such as Theriault, propose. Those officials are appointed by and report to Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis.
Two other items on the January 29 agenda also are important. One is a discussion of Transfer of Development Rights, which advocates argue could be used to protect the rural parts of the County from development. The other is Impact Fees, which many counties impose on developers to cover costs associated with development.
These two items follow the Rocky Branch update on the draft agenda.
Bids Closed to Public to be Discussed by BOC
The Oconee County Board of Commissioners will get an update on the bids for the upgrade of the Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant at its meeting on Tuesday, January 29, according to the draft agenda released by Oconee County Clerk Gina Lindsey on Friday afternoon, January 25.
Rocky Branch will be the first item on the agenda, but it is not possible to know if the Board will be asked to take action or anything about the bids themselves or the review process since the County decided to close the entire process to citizens.
The County holds a state permit to discharge up to 1 million gallons per day of treated sewage water from an upgraded Rocky Branch plant into Barber Creek, which flows through the northern part of the County.
Citizen scrutiny of the first round of bidding in late summer showed that the County had given tips to at least some bidders that it was interested in using a less sophisticated treatment technology than was called for in the Request for Proposal.
County officials recommended that a bidder who intended to use the lesser technology be given the contract, but the County threw out the bids after these irregularities were exposed.
In the second RFP, the County offered bidders the option of using both the original technology and a second technology.
Feng Jiang, who did graduate work involving these technologies at the University of Georgia, informed me that they are not equivalent and that the only way to know which will produce the higher quality water is to know the characteristics of the sewage coming in to the plant.
Board of Commissioners member Chuck Horton, who attended a closed meeting of the bid Selection Committee, said he did not believe the Committee was interested in recommending an inferior technology. He admitted, however, that he did not know the difference between the two technologies or the implications of selecting one over the other.
The Selection Committee, with Horton present, met on January 4. Members of the Committee are John Hatcher, Utilities Department director, Emil Beshara, Public Works Department director, Alan Theriault, County administrative officer, Jim Sunta, from Precision Planning Inc., and Jimmy Parker, also from Precision Planning.
Parker has been given the responsibility by the County for handling the bid review process, and he set up the January 4 meeting.
The County has acknowledged the names of the nine bidders, but not other information about the bidders or the bids.
I asked to be informed about the time and place of the Selection Committee meeting, but I was told by Theriault that I would not be. I learned that the Committee met only through an open records request I filed on January 7. I also was denied access to the bids and to details of the evaluation of those bids.
While Georgia law does allow–but not require–counties to close bids, it requires open access to public meetings, with limited exceptions. I have filed a complaint with the Attorney General about the County’s unwillingness to post notice about the January 4 meeting.
I also contacted the Georgia First Amendment Foundation and provide it a copy of my complaint to the Attorney General. Hollie Manheimer, executive director of the Foundation, wrote to Theriault on January 23, 2008, asking him to offer an "explanation of what will be done to remendy these actions that go against the interests of the public."
At the BOC meeting on Tuesday, members of the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek will ask the BOC not to take any action on the Rocky Branch bids until the public has been given an opportunity to review them and have access to the evaluation process.
Commissioners Margaret Hale and Horton have told me personally they want citizens to have access to the bids. Commission Jim Luke has told me he does not.
Commissioner Don Norris usually supports what County officials, such as Theriault, propose. Those officials are appointed by and report to Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis.
Two other items on the January 29 agenda also are important. One is a discussion of Transfer of Development Rights, which advocates argue could be used to protect the rural parts of the County from development. The other is Impact Fees, which many counties impose on developers to cover costs associated with development.
These two items follow the Rocky Branch update on the draft agenda.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Written 1/16/2008
Keep ‘Em in the Dark
The County confirmed its plans to keep citizens in the dark about the second round of bids on the upgrade of Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant last week by officially denying my Open Records Request for access to the bids and the review documents.
In a letter dated January 10, 2008, County Administrative Office Alan Theriault rejected my request on January 7 for access to the nine submitted bids and to the documents produced by the County during the evaluation of the bids.
The County also denied me access to other documents I requested regarding correspondence between Consultant Jimmy Parker and the County relating to the evaluation of the nine bids.
All I was given was copies of nine sheets of paper, including a blank evaluation form.
In denying the request, Theriault cited state law allowing the County to deny access to bids. The law does not require the County to deny access.
The County had allowed us access to the bids and the evaluation materials during the first round of bidding in late summer.
My examination of those bids showed that the County had given tips to bidders that it would entertain a design not specified in the formal Request for Proposal (RFP). The recommended bidder proposed use of a technologically less sophisticated design that could not treat the water to the same standard as the membrane filtration system specified in the RFP.
The low bidder had stuck by the published specifications and was passed over by the reviewers. In addition, the recommended bidder actually had drawn up the written specifications for the plant that was included in the RFP.
After I pointed out these problems in a posting to my blog (see my posting of 9/2/2007 below), the County tossed out the bids and decided to rebid the process.
The documents the County did release to me when I went to the courthouse on January 11 indicate that the County did hold a meeting of the review committee on January 4. As I reported on 12/28/2007 (below), Theriault denied me advance notice of that meeting in an email message he sent me on 12/21/2007.
The documents the County did released to me include correspondence between Theriault and Jimmy Parker from Precision Planning regarding how they were going to involve the Board of Commissioners in the decision. Parker is chairing the evaluation committee.
Parker suggested that he present a short list of three firms to the BOC for final approval and request the Board’s authorization that the Chairman of the Board and the staff negotiate with the three firms.
"I just want to make sure we cover all the political bases," Parker said.
Theriault said this issue would be discussed at the January 4 meeting. The notes I received do not indicate the outcome of that discussion.
I have talked with two legal experts with considerable experience with the Georgia laws governing public access to meetings. Both said they believe that the County violated state law in closing the review meeting and indicated that the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled clearly that official meetings of almost all sorts are open to the public.
Any action taken at an illegally closed meeting can be declared void by the courts.
The County did release to me a copy of correspondence between Theriault and BOC Chairman Melvin Davis in which Theriault advises Davis on how the County can close the bidding process. Theriault repeated the statement he made to me that the public "could compromise the entire process."
The response of the nine bidders to the second RFP is important because the second RFP asks bidders to submit a base and an alternate design. The base design should follow the original membrane design specifications submitted to the Georgia EPD as part of the application for the permit to discharge treated sewage water into Barber Creek. The alternate design calls for membrane filtration as a tertiary step, rather than the use of a membrane biological reaction.
I have spoken with an expert on sewage plant designs who has assured me that this difference is not a trivial one.
The decision by the County administration–under the control of Chairman Melvin Davis–guarantees that we will never know which of the nine bidders was proposing to use a technology to treat the water to the highest quality at the lowest price.
Yet we are the ones who are going to have to deal with the water discharged and pay for the $8-10 million plant.
This is a County administration that has demonstrated once again that it prefers to make important decisions that affect the public behind closed doors.
Keep ‘Em in the Dark
The County confirmed its plans to keep citizens in the dark about the second round of bids on the upgrade of Rocky Branch sewage treatment plant last week by officially denying my Open Records Request for access to the bids and the review documents.
In a letter dated January 10, 2008, County Administrative Office Alan Theriault rejected my request on January 7 for access to the nine submitted bids and to the documents produced by the County during the evaluation of the bids.
The County also denied me access to other documents I requested regarding correspondence between Consultant Jimmy Parker and the County relating to the evaluation of the nine bids.
All I was given was copies of nine sheets of paper, including a blank evaluation form.
In denying the request, Theriault cited state law allowing the County to deny access to bids. The law does not require the County to deny access.
The County had allowed us access to the bids and the evaluation materials during the first round of bidding in late summer.
My examination of those bids showed that the County had given tips to bidders that it would entertain a design not specified in the formal Request for Proposal (RFP). The recommended bidder proposed use of a technologically less sophisticated design that could not treat the water to the same standard as the membrane filtration system specified in the RFP.
The low bidder had stuck by the published specifications and was passed over by the reviewers. In addition, the recommended bidder actually had drawn up the written specifications for the plant that was included in the RFP.
After I pointed out these problems in a posting to my blog (see my posting of 9/2/2007 below), the County tossed out the bids and decided to rebid the process.
The documents the County did release to me when I went to the courthouse on January 11 indicate that the County did hold a meeting of the review committee on January 4. As I reported on 12/28/2007 (below), Theriault denied me advance notice of that meeting in an email message he sent me on 12/21/2007.
The documents the County did released to me include correspondence between Theriault and Jimmy Parker from Precision Planning regarding how they were going to involve the Board of Commissioners in the decision. Parker is chairing the evaluation committee.
Parker suggested that he present a short list of three firms to the BOC for final approval and request the Board’s authorization that the Chairman of the Board and the staff negotiate with the three firms.
"I just want to make sure we cover all the political bases," Parker said.
Theriault said this issue would be discussed at the January 4 meeting. The notes I received do not indicate the outcome of that discussion.
I have talked with two legal experts with considerable experience with the Georgia laws governing public access to meetings. Both said they believe that the County violated state law in closing the review meeting and indicated that the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled clearly that official meetings of almost all sorts are open to the public.
Any action taken at an illegally closed meeting can be declared void by the courts.
The County did release to me a copy of correspondence between Theriault and BOC Chairman Melvin Davis in which Theriault advises Davis on how the County can close the bidding process. Theriault repeated the statement he made to me that the public "could compromise the entire process."
The response of the nine bidders to the second RFP is important because the second RFP asks bidders to submit a base and an alternate design. The base design should follow the original membrane design specifications submitted to the Georgia EPD as part of the application for the permit to discharge treated sewage water into Barber Creek. The alternate design calls for membrane filtration as a tertiary step, rather than the use of a membrane biological reaction.
I have spoken with an expert on sewage plant designs who has assured me that this difference is not a trivial one.
The decision by the County administration–under the control of Chairman Melvin Davis–guarantees that we will never know which of the nine bidders was proposing to use a technology to treat the water to the highest quality at the lowest price.
Yet we are the ones who are going to have to deal with the water discharged and pay for the $8-10 million plant.
This is a County administration that has demonstrated once again that it prefers to make important decisions that affect the public behind closed doors.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Written 1/13/2008
Decide First, Then I'll Tell You What I Wanted You To Do
The Oconee County Board of Commissioners, saying it does not want to tell the Georgia General Assembly in advance how it feels about key water issues in the state, has refused to take action on a resolution presented to it by the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek.
At the January 3, 2008, meeting, the Commissioners said they were not ready to tell the legislature how they feel about comprehensive regional and statewide water planning and monitoring.
They also said they were not ready to ask the legislature to pass a statute that prevents the transfer of water from one basin to another to the detriment of current and future downstream economic growth or to the detriment of the natural health of the stream.
And they were not even ready to tell the legislature whether it was important that elected local government officials should be represented on regional water councils that will decide how water resources are allocated in the state.
"I certainly believe there needs to be local representation on those committees, otherwise the state is left to pass down any kind of mandate to local government," Commissioner Chuck Horton said. "I’m a little bit reluctant to say I want to vote tonight because I haven’t seen the initial part of what I think probably will happen in Atlanta."
"I might be prepared to pass the strongest of these resolutions," Commissioner Jim Luke responded. "But with the information I have, I am not prepared to vote for any of them before I see more about what is going to happen at the state level."
"It is entirely too much uncertainty to proceed at this time and make decisions," Commissioner Don Norris said.
"I agree," said Commissioner Margaret Hale. "It is nice to have the resolutions in front of us that have been worked on. But I think we are all in agreement that it is just too early. We need to wait and see what the state is going to do. I propose that we delay this, delay a vote on this."
"I think with no motion that in effect squares with what the Board desires to do at this particular time," Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis said in conclusion.
With that, the Board dismissed the resolution presented to it by the Friends of Barber Creek as well as two others that had been prepared by County Administrative Officer Alan Theriault.
Twenty-nine governments around the state, including Athens-Clarke County, have passed resolutions of the sort Oconee County refused to consider.
The Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek first asked the Board to consider the draft resolution, written by the Georgia Water Coalition, of which Friends of Barber Creek is a partner, in a letter of November 23, 2007.
I appeared at BOC meetings of November 27 and December 4, asking that the Board at least put the issue on its agenda for discussion.
On December 13, 2007, Chairman Davis wrote me a letter, saying that the "Board of Commissioners appreciates" my bringing the resolution before it, but "we respectively believe it is not in the best interest of Oconee County to consider this proposed resolution..."
That letter provided me with the tip about the unposted BOC meeting on December 7 in Madison, Georgia. My open records request subsequently uncovered the meeting and indicated that the Board had discussed the Georgia Water Coalition resolution at that time.
At the December 18 meeting or the BOC, I challenged the Board to "take action in public on this issue." I also said the Board was free to modify the original resolution to reflect local concerns.
At 11:10 a.m. on December 28, I filed my open records request regarding that meeting. County Clerk Gina Lindsey sent out an agenda for the January 3 meeting at 2:42 p.m.on December 28 that did not contain the Georgia Water Coalition resolution. She sent out a revised agenda at 4:57 p.m. on that date that did.
County Administrative Officer Theriault drafted two alternate resolutions. One eliminated the interbasin transfer references and simply called on the state to fully fund comprehensive regional and statewide water planning and monitoring.
The other also eliminated the interbasin transfer references and added two options regarding local representation on the regional water and planning councils.
The Athens Banner-Herald ran a story on January 3 about those resolutions, but it never followed up to indicate that the Board refused to consider any of them at that meeting.
Chairman Davis raised the issue of interbasin transfer with me in a telephone conversation on November 29, two days after my initial appearance before the BOC regarding the resolution.
He said the Hard Labor Creek Reservoir Project–a collaboration between Walton and Oconee Counties–was an example of an interbasin transfer and had been approved by the state Environmental Protection Division.
Chairman Davis reiterated this position in his letter to me of December 13. He wrote:
"We also have concerns with the Interbasin Transfer portion of the resolution. Currently, there are over 25 permits issued by EPD permitting Interbasin Transfers. Oconee currently has voted to participate in the Hard Labor Creek Reservoir project (approved by EPD), which is also an Interbasin Transfer."
On 12/19, I sent this e-mail message to Davis:
"Perhaps it would be easier for me and other members of our Board to understand your concern, and the concern of the other commissioners, over the interbasin transfer language of the Georgia Water Coalition draft resolution if we saw the application for the permit the County has for drawing water from the Apalachee and the permit itself. Would you be willing to make these available to me for review and copying?"
Davis never responded to that request, so I asked for these materials in a separate open records request I filed on December 28 with the open records request regarding the December 7 meeting.
The permit, which I received on January 3, shows that Oconee County lost its 2003 permit to withdraw 1.8 million gallons per day of water from the Apalachee River when it decided to join the Hard Labor Creek project.
If water from the Apalachee is to be pumped to the Hard Labor Creek Reservoir, as is planned, the counties will need a new permit from the state EPD to do so.
"If Oconee County elects to participate in Hard Labor Creek Reservoir, this permitted withdrawal allocation will become void once the reservoir project is completed and in service," the 2003 permit states.
Because Walton County straddles the Ocmulgee and Oconee river basins, the transfer of water from the Apalachee, a part of the Oconee basin, to Walton County is an interbasin transfer. In addition, the reservoir will be built on Hard Labor Creek, which drains into the Oconee basin.
Water transferred to western Walton County from Hard Labor Creek and from the Apalachee and not returned represents a transfer of water from the Oconee basin.
This is the kind of interbasin transfer that robs downstream communities of water and was opposed by the Georgia Water Coalition resolution.
On January 8, the Georgia Water Council–the state governmental body dealing with water–created 11 regional water planning districts.
Walton County became a part of the Metro Atlanta district, while Oconee County is in the Upper Oconee district.
The Metro Atlanta district also includes Hall and Gwinnett counties. In each case, a part of the county is in the Oconee basin, giving Atlanta access to Oconee River basin water upstream from Oconee County.
Bear Creek, on which lies the reservoir which currently serves Barrow, Clarke, Jackson and Oconee counties, is in the Oconee basin.
Had the Oconee Commissioners been more willing to have an open discussion of the Georgia Water Coalition resolution, some of these issues might have come to light.
That does not seem to be what Chairman Davis and the Commissioners wanted.
Decide First, Then I'll Tell You What I Wanted You To Do
The Oconee County Board of Commissioners, saying it does not want to tell the Georgia General Assembly in advance how it feels about key water issues in the state, has refused to take action on a resolution presented to it by the Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek.
At the January 3, 2008, meeting, the Commissioners said they were not ready to tell the legislature how they feel about comprehensive regional and statewide water planning and monitoring.
They also said they were not ready to ask the legislature to pass a statute that prevents the transfer of water from one basin to another to the detriment of current and future downstream economic growth or to the detriment of the natural health of the stream.
And they were not even ready to tell the legislature whether it was important that elected local government officials should be represented on regional water councils that will decide how water resources are allocated in the state.
"I certainly believe there needs to be local representation on those committees, otherwise the state is left to pass down any kind of mandate to local government," Commissioner Chuck Horton said. "I’m a little bit reluctant to say I want to vote tonight because I haven’t seen the initial part of what I think probably will happen in Atlanta."
"I might be prepared to pass the strongest of these resolutions," Commissioner Jim Luke responded. "But with the information I have, I am not prepared to vote for any of them before I see more about what is going to happen at the state level."
"It is entirely too much uncertainty to proceed at this time and make decisions," Commissioner Don Norris said.
"I agree," said Commissioner Margaret Hale. "It is nice to have the resolutions in front of us that have been worked on. But I think we are all in agreement that it is just too early. We need to wait and see what the state is going to do. I propose that we delay this, delay a vote on this."
"I think with no motion that in effect squares with what the Board desires to do at this particular time," Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis said in conclusion.
With that, the Board dismissed the resolution presented to it by the Friends of Barber Creek as well as two others that had been prepared by County Administrative Officer Alan Theriault.
Twenty-nine governments around the state, including Athens-Clarke County, have passed resolutions of the sort Oconee County refused to consider.
The Board of Directors of Friends of Barber Creek first asked the Board to consider the draft resolution, written by the Georgia Water Coalition, of which Friends of Barber Creek is a partner, in a letter of November 23, 2007.
I appeared at BOC meetings of November 27 and December 4, asking that the Board at least put the issue on its agenda for discussion.
On December 13, 2007, Chairman Davis wrote me a letter, saying that the "Board of Commissioners appreciates" my bringing the resolution before it, but "we respectively believe it is not in the best interest of Oconee County to consider this proposed resolution..."
That letter provided me with the tip about the unposted BOC meeting on December 7 in Madison, Georgia. My open records request subsequently uncovered the meeting and indicated that the Board had discussed the Georgia Water Coalition resolution at that time.
At the December 18 meeting or the BOC, I challenged the Board to "take action in public on this issue." I also said the Board was free to modify the original resolution to reflect local concerns.
At 11:10 a.m. on December 28, I filed my open records request regarding that meeting. County Clerk Gina Lindsey sent out an agenda for the January 3 meeting at 2:42 p.m.on December 28 that did not contain the Georgia Water Coalition resolution. She sent out a revised agenda at 4:57 p.m. on that date that did.
County Administrative Officer Theriault drafted two alternate resolutions. One eliminated the interbasin transfer references and simply called on the state to fully fund comprehensive regional and statewide water planning and monitoring.
The other also eliminated the interbasin transfer references and added two options regarding local representation on the regional water and planning councils.
The Athens Banner-Herald ran a story on January 3 about those resolutions, but it never followed up to indicate that the Board refused to consider any of them at that meeting.
Chairman Davis raised the issue of interbasin transfer with me in a telephone conversation on November 29, two days after my initial appearance before the BOC regarding the resolution.
He said the Hard Labor Creek Reservoir Project–a collaboration between Walton and Oconee Counties–was an example of an interbasin transfer and had been approved by the state Environmental Protection Division.
Chairman Davis reiterated this position in his letter to me of December 13. He wrote:
"We also have concerns with the Interbasin Transfer portion of the resolution. Currently, there are over 25 permits issued by EPD permitting Interbasin Transfers. Oconee currently has voted to participate in the Hard Labor Creek Reservoir project (approved by EPD), which is also an Interbasin Transfer."
On 12/19, I sent this e-mail message to Davis:
"Perhaps it would be easier for me and other members of our Board to understand your concern, and the concern of the other commissioners, over the interbasin transfer language of the Georgia Water Coalition draft resolution if we saw the application for the permit the County has for drawing water from the Apalachee and the permit itself. Would you be willing to make these available to me for review and copying?"
Davis never responded to that request, so I asked for these materials in a separate open records request I filed on December 28 with the open records request regarding the December 7 meeting.
The permit, which I received on January 3, shows that Oconee County lost its 2003 permit to withdraw 1.8 million gallons per day of water from the Apalachee River when it decided to join the Hard Labor Creek project.
If water from the Apalachee is to be pumped to the Hard Labor Creek Reservoir, as is planned, the counties will need a new permit from the state EPD to do so.
"If Oconee County elects to participate in Hard Labor Creek Reservoir, this permitted withdrawal allocation will become void once the reservoir project is completed and in service," the 2003 permit states.
Because Walton County straddles the Ocmulgee and Oconee river basins, the transfer of water from the Apalachee, a part of the Oconee basin, to Walton County is an interbasin transfer. In addition, the reservoir will be built on Hard Labor Creek, which drains into the Oconee basin.
Water transferred to western Walton County from Hard Labor Creek and from the Apalachee and not returned represents a transfer of water from the Oconee basin.
This is the kind of interbasin transfer that robs downstream communities of water and was opposed by the Georgia Water Coalition resolution.
On January 8, the Georgia Water Council–the state governmental body dealing with water–created 11 regional water planning districts.
Walton County became a part of the Metro Atlanta district, while Oconee County is in the Upper Oconee district.
The Metro Atlanta district also includes Hall and Gwinnett counties. In each case, a part of the county is in the Oconee basin, giving Atlanta access to Oconee River basin water upstream from Oconee County.
Bear Creek, on which lies the reservoir which currently serves Barrow, Clarke, Jackson and Oconee counties, is in the Oconee basin.
Had the Oconee Commissioners been more willing to have an open discussion of the Georgia Water Coalition resolution, some of these issues might have come to light.
That does not seem to be what Chairman Davis and the Commissioners wanted.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Written 1/12/08
A Story, an Apology, an Editorial, a No Comment
The posting of Sunday (1/6/08) about the December 7 meeting of the Board of Commissioners in Madison has generated some informative reactions.
Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis posted an apology of sorts on the County web site on Tuesday (1/8/08) saying "an error was made" in giving "notice to the press of a facilitated retreat of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners scheduled for December 7, 2007, in Madison, Georgia."
According to the apology, in an "Open Letter to Oconee County Citizens," Davis and others ("we") discovered the error on Monday (1/7/08) as a result of the open records request I filed on 12/28/07. I picked up the requested materials on 1/3/08 and filed my report on my blog about 6 p.m. on Sunday (1/6).
I also sent that posting to the three local newspapers and WGAU radio. The Athens Banner-Herald contacted Chairman Davis on Tuesday (1/8) for a story it was preparing for Wednesday’s paper on the meeting.
Chairman Davis said in his apology letter that proper notice had been posted at the courthouse but that The Oconee Enterprise had been given less than 24-hour notice.
"I accept full responsibility for the error and apologize," Davis said.
In my open records request that forced the County to acknowledge the meeting, I had asked explicitly for all notices given, including any posted at the courthouse. All I received was a copy of a fax to the Enterprise.
In fact, the County legally could have given less than 24 hours notice for an emergency meeting.
Here, is what the law says:
"Whenever any meeting required to be open to the public is to be held at a time or place other than at the time and place prescribed for regular meetings, the agency shall give due notice thereof. ‘Due notice’ shall be the posting of a written notice for at least 24 hours at the place of regular meetings and giving of written or oral notice at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting to the legal organ in which notices of sheriff's sales are published in the county where regular meetings are held or at the option of the agency to a newspaper having a general circulation in said county at least equal to that of the legal organ."
All Board of Commission meetings are required by the law to be open to the public. The "agency" is the Board of Commissioners. The "legal organ" is The Oconee Enterprise.
The law goes on to say:
"When special circumstances occur and are so declared by an agency, that agency may hold a meeting with less than 24 hours' notice upon giving such notice of the meeting and subjects expected to be considered at the meeting as is reasonable under the circumstances including notice to said county legal organ or a newspaper having a general circulation in the county at least equal to that of the legal organ, in which event the reason for holding the meeting within 24 hours and the nature of the notice shall be recorded in the minutes."
So the County did not violate the law in giving less than 24 hours notice. What the County did not do was explain in the minutes the reason for holding the meeting within 24 hours, and it did not record in those minutes the nature of the notice given. It violated the law in not doing that.
Davis’ apology, of course, focuses on a technicality–albeit the wrong one–rather than the real issue. The County planned a meeting at least three weeks in advance but didn’t tell people about it. It also held the meeting more than 20 miles from the Courthouse, making it unlikely citizens would have been able to attend even if they had known about it.
And that was the goal.
It is legal to give minimal notice. It is not what one does if one wants to involve the citizens in the discussion. Clearly Davis did not want citizens involved. For that, he has not apologized.
In the Banner-Herald story, Commissioners Margaret Hale, Chuck Horton and Jim Luke criticized Davis for not getting the notice right, since he called the meeting. They didn’t criticize him for setting up the retreat in a way to keep citizens from being involved.
Commissioner Don Norris said the importance of the whole issue was being exaggerated.
The Board of Commissioners could have met at the Library, at the Civic Center, at the Daniells House off Daniells Bridge Road, or at a number of other local venues. It paid $250 for the meeting room at the James Madison Inn & Conference Center, plus another $433 for food service and taxes.
The Banner-Herald story said that the Board of Commissioners traditionally meets about once a year for a retreat, though two retreats were held in 2007. No source is given for that statement.
The Banner-Herald on Thursday (1/10) followed its coverage of the day before with a stinging editorial. The paper challenged Davis’ apology and suggested he make a donation of $500 to a charity–the amount of the fine for violating the open meetings law–to show his sincerity.
Banner-Herald reporter Adam Thompson told me the newspaper also has informed the County it wants to be put on the list of media to be notified in the future for Board of Commissioner meetings. Georgia law allows the paper to make that request and requires the County to honor it.
The Oconee Leader did not contain anything about the controversy in its January 10 edition.
The Oconee Enterprise, however, ran three stories on the December 7 meeting on the front page of its edition of January 10.
One dealt with the discussion at the December 7 meeting of the request by the Chamber of Commerce that the Board of Commissioners approve beer and wine sales at restaurants.
Another dealt with the discussion at the December 7 meeting of a possible extension of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST).
The third dealt with the County’s apology for not giving proper notice of the December 7 meeting.
In that third story, the paper said that "county did send out notices of the meeting, but they went out less than 24 hours in advance of the gathering." The information is attributed to County Administrator Alan Theriault.
The County has not claimed it notified any media other than the Enterprise. No where in the paper did the Enterprise confirm–or deny–that it received the fax notifying it of the December 7 meeting.
What is clear is that the Enterprise never wrote about the December 7 meeting–until after I posted my blog.
I received an invoice on Tuesday (1/8) from the County, dated the day before--the day the County said it learned of its error as a result of my open records request.
It was for $37.24 to cover search and retrieval expenses the County said it incurred doing my open records search. According to the invoice, the County invested 2.5 hours @ $16.55 per hour. It reduced the bill by $4.14 to give me the first 15 minutes free.
I paid the bill on Friday, 1-11. I think it was money well spent.
A Story, an Apology, an Editorial, a No Comment
The posting of Sunday (1/6/08) about the December 7 meeting of the Board of Commissioners in Madison has generated some informative reactions.
Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis posted an apology of sorts on the County web site on Tuesday (1/8/08) saying "an error was made" in giving "notice to the press of a facilitated retreat of the Oconee County Board of Commissioners scheduled for December 7, 2007, in Madison, Georgia."
According to the apology, in an "Open Letter to Oconee County Citizens," Davis and others ("we") discovered the error on Monday (1/7/08) as a result of the open records request I filed on 12/28/07. I picked up the requested materials on 1/3/08 and filed my report on my blog about 6 p.m. on Sunday (1/6).
I also sent that posting to the three local newspapers and WGAU radio. The Athens Banner-Herald contacted Chairman Davis on Tuesday (1/8) for a story it was preparing for Wednesday’s paper on the meeting.
Chairman Davis said in his apology letter that proper notice had been posted at the courthouse but that The Oconee Enterprise had been given less than 24-hour notice.
"I accept full responsibility for the error and apologize," Davis said.
In my open records request that forced the County to acknowledge the meeting, I had asked explicitly for all notices given, including any posted at the courthouse. All I received was a copy of a fax to the Enterprise.
In fact, the County legally could have given less than 24 hours notice for an emergency meeting.
Here, is what the law says:
"Whenever any meeting required to be open to the public is to be held at a time or place other than at the time and place prescribed for regular meetings, the agency shall give due notice thereof. ‘Due notice’ shall be the posting of a written notice for at least 24 hours at the place of regular meetings and giving of written or oral notice at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting to the legal organ in which notices of sheriff's sales are published in the county where regular meetings are held or at the option of the agency to a newspaper having a general circulation in said county at least equal to that of the legal organ."
All Board of Commission meetings are required by the law to be open to the public. The "agency" is the Board of Commissioners. The "legal organ" is The Oconee Enterprise.
The law goes on to say:
"When special circumstances occur and are so declared by an agency, that agency may hold a meeting with less than 24 hours' notice upon giving such notice of the meeting and subjects expected to be considered at the meeting as is reasonable under the circumstances including notice to said county legal organ or a newspaper having a general circulation in the county at least equal to that of the legal organ, in which event the reason for holding the meeting within 24 hours and the nature of the notice shall be recorded in the minutes."
So the County did not violate the law in giving less than 24 hours notice. What the County did not do was explain in the minutes the reason for holding the meeting within 24 hours, and it did not record in those minutes the nature of the notice given. It violated the law in not doing that.
Davis’ apology, of course, focuses on a technicality–albeit the wrong one–rather than the real issue. The County planned a meeting at least three weeks in advance but didn’t tell people about it. It also held the meeting more than 20 miles from the Courthouse, making it unlikely citizens would have been able to attend even if they had known about it.
And that was the goal.
It is legal to give minimal notice. It is not what one does if one wants to involve the citizens in the discussion. Clearly Davis did not want citizens involved. For that, he has not apologized.
In the Banner-Herald story, Commissioners Margaret Hale, Chuck Horton and Jim Luke criticized Davis for not getting the notice right, since he called the meeting. They didn’t criticize him for setting up the retreat in a way to keep citizens from being involved.
Commissioner Don Norris said the importance of the whole issue was being exaggerated.
The Board of Commissioners could have met at the Library, at the Civic Center, at the Daniells House off Daniells Bridge Road, or at a number of other local venues. It paid $250 for the meeting room at the James Madison Inn & Conference Center, plus another $433 for food service and taxes.
The Banner-Herald story said that the Board of Commissioners traditionally meets about once a year for a retreat, though two retreats were held in 2007. No source is given for that statement.
The Banner-Herald on Thursday (1/10) followed its coverage of the day before with a stinging editorial. The paper challenged Davis’ apology and suggested he make a donation of $500 to a charity–the amount of the fine for violating the open meetings law–to show his sincerity.
Banner-Herald reporter Adam Thompson told me the newspaper also has informed the County it wants to be put on the list of media to be notified in the future for Board of Commissioner meetings. Georgia law allows the paper to make that request and requires the County to honor it.
The Oconee Leader did not contain anything about the controversy in its January 10 edition.
The Oconee Enterprise, however, ran three stories on the December 7 meeting on the front page of its edition of January 10.
One dealt with the discussion at the December 7 meeting of the request by the Chamber of Commerce that the Board of Commissioners approve beer and wine sales at restaurants.
Another dealt with the discussion at the December 7 meeting of a possible extension of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST).
The third dealt with the County’s apology for not giving proper notice of the December 7 meeting.
In that third story, the paper said that "county did send out notices of the meeting, but they went out less than 24 hours in advance of the gathering." The information is attributed to County Administrator Alan Theriault.
The County has not claimed it notified any media other than the Enterprise. No where in the paper did the Enterprise confirm–or deny–that it received the fax notifying it of the December 7 meeting.
What is clear is that the Enterprise never wrote about the December 7 meeting–until after I posted my blog.
I received an invoice on Tuesday (1/8) from the County, dated the day before--the day the County said it learned of its error as a result of my open records request.
It was for $37.24 to cover search and retrieval expenses the County said it incurred doing my open records search. According to the invoice, the County invested 2.5 hours @ $16.55 per hour. It reduced the bill by $4.14 to give me the first 15 minutes free.
I paid the bill on Friday, 1-11. I think it was money well spent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)