Chatham County Commission Chair step up CAT board campaign

The Chatham County Commission is stepping up efforts to reinstate the disbanded board of the region’s transit authority, insisting that a recent state law mandating the board’s replacement was unconstitutional.

By a vote of 6-3, the commission on Friday approved a resolution that seeks to nullify a new law that dissolved the board of directors of Chatham Area Transit (CAT) on June 30 and replaced it with a new, expanded board the following day.

Friday’s vote puts the commission and its chairman, Chester Ellis, even more firmly on a collision course with the area’s legislative delegation to the General Assembly in Atlanta.

Local lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats alike, supported the new law mandating an overhaul of the board, House Bill 756. They said the panel, with its history of scandal and dysfunction, was ill-equipped to tackle the transportation challenges facing a growing region.

• Chatham commission to vote on resolution to rescind CAT board overhaul

But in reducing the number of board appointments allotted to the county and expanding the board’s representation to include appointees from Garden City and Port Wentworth, the overhaul has rankled Ellis and many of the commission’s members. Led by the chairman, the county unsuccessfully sued to stop it from being implemented. An appeal is currently pending before the state Supreme Court.

Friday’s proceedings represent another front in a rearguard action by Ellis and the commission to annul the new law and restore the former CAT board.

‘Informed decision’

The scheduled start of the commission’s meeting on Friday was delayed when, during a meeting in a closed anteroom, one commission member suggested tabling the proposed resolution, according to a person familiar with the deliberations.

In reply, Ellis said it was urgent that the vote should not be postponed, which triggered a discussion that caused the meeting to start 40 minutes late.

Under the Georgia Open Meetings Act, the commission is required to conduct all business in public with the exception of three items: real estate, personnel, and litigation. In that instance, the commission would be required to announce publicly a closed session and publicly reopen it.

Once the meeting was officially opened, the public remarks by commissioners that preceded the vote lasted less than six minutes.

Some who favored the resolution said that most of the local lawmakers who supported House Bill 756 acted hastily, heedless of the consequences of the measure, which was passed by both chambers of the state legislature almost unanimously and signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp in May.

“The majority of our local delegation really didn’t realize the impact of what was going to take place with the passage of this,” said Commissioner Dean Kicklighter (District 7).

“I just want to say I concur with you wholeheartedly,” Ellis replied.

Kicklighter also faulted the legislative delegation’s legal advice, saying it was now up to the commission to fix the problem because the lawmakers had no “dog in this fight.”

Ellis assured Malinda Scott Hodge (District 2) that passage of the resolution would not affect CAT’s operations and that it was just “a step in the process,” though he did not spell out what the process was.

To no avail, Anthony “Wayne” Noha (District 1) and Patrick Farrell (District 4) urged a delay in the vote, with Noha saying, “I just wish that we can slow it down a little bit and table it and make those discussions and then I would feel a little more confident in voting one way or the other.”

The vote went ahead.

It was not immediately clear from commission rules whether the resolution will require additional readings for full passage. Nor was its actual impact apparent.

In Georgia, resolutions approved by county commissions do not have the force of law, unlike ordinances, which are permanent, enforceable laws, according to the Georgia Municipal Association.

Ellis later said that the resolution was on the agenda “to make sure that the county commission can carry out its constitutional duties,” though he did not explain how that was the case.

However murky the resolution’s aims, the days leading up to the commission’s vote suggest Ellis was determined to see it approved.

‘Unconstitutionally created’

The addition of the proposed resolution to the agenda of Friday’s regularly scheduled meeting surprised members of the commission, who did not learn of it until mid-week. But the wheels were turning long before that.

At least a week earlier, Ellis had tasked the county commission staff to prepare an options paper on the resolution. A draft of the memorandum, a copy of which was obtained by The Current, lays out a rationale for reinstating the dissolved board, describing the new, state-mandated board as “unconstitutionally created.”

The memorandum, addressed to Ellis and commission members and signed off by the county’s attorney, R. Jonathan Hart on Aug. 14, concludes with Hart offering two alternatives — a resolution to reinstate the former board and “provide other direction.” He and commission staff recommend “Alternative #1.”

‘Common ground’?

In his comments at Friday’s commission meeting, Farrell, District 4’s longtime representative, warned passing the resolution would compound the confusion over the commission’s dispute with the CAT board. He urged negotiations to find “common ground,” offering no details

But the political headwinds facing those seeking negotiation are strong, as a commissioner who voted in favor of the resolution, Aaron “Adot” Whitely of District 6, acknowledged during Friday’s commission meeting.

Though the resolution may be unpopular, Whitely said, those commissioners who joined him in voting in favor of it were “doing what we need to do to stand up for our citizens and our constituents.”

County officials and longtime observers of local politics said the commission’s efforts to overturn the law and reinstate the former CAT board stem from long-simmering disputes and rivalries between Ellis, the board’s chairman, and some local lawmakers.

They also spring, these officials and observers said this week, from Ellis’ perception that the commission is the ignored stepchild in local politics, overshadowed by the Savannah City Council and Mayor Van Johnson.

Supporters of reinstatement said, however, that principle, not pique, is at the root of the commission’s efforts to overturn the law.

They said the reduced allocation of seats on CAT’s board is unfair to the county because it does not reflect the extent of its funding for the transit system, whether directly or by serving as an administrative channel for non-county funds. They also said that local lawmakers failed to consult with county officials before introducing the bill in Atlanta in March.

Neither claim could be immediately corroborated.

With Friday’s vote, Chatham County’s continued effort to overturn the new law now rests upon the assertions by Kicklighter, Ellis and Bobby Lockett (“I don’t think everybody knew had all the information needed to make an informed decision”) that local lawmakers did not understand what they were voting on and that a well-respected Superior Court judge misinterpreted the state’s constitution when he threw out the county’s lawsuit in July.

Related