The Augusta Charter Review Committee on Aug. 7 heard an academic presentation and local survey results that framed a central policy choice for the charter: whether to keep a mayor–council system or move to a council–manager model. After the presentations and public comment, the committee voted to ask the Carl Vinson Institute to draft proposed charter language describing a professional council–manager form with ICMA-style accountability; the committee earlier also unanimously approved a set of generalized charter edits.

Those developments followed a 45-minute presentation by Kim Nelson, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who summarized a multi-decade, nationwide study that found the council–manager form is associated with a lower risk of public corruption convictions. "The council manager form was highly protective, against corruption convictions," Nelson told the committee, saying the models she and colleagues ran showed the risk could be "reduced by 37 to 70%" depending on the model. Nelson recommended professional management, stronger internal controls, and independent ethics or inspector-general functions as charter-level protections.

The committee also received a results briefing from the Carl Vinson Institute (presented to the committee by Dr. Facer), which reported about 1,300 survey responses from Richmond County residents and summarized headline findings: most respondents supported retaining a mayoral role (75.6% said a mayor was important), views were split on whether commissioners should be elected countywide or by district (about 45% favored district), and preferences about an "administrator" versus a "manager" were close (roughly 40% administrator, 37% manager), with many written comments expressing confusion about the terms and a consistent request for "professional leadership." The presenter told the committee the raw survey data and slide deck would be distributed to members and posted to the project website.

Public commentators and committee members used the presentations to push the committee toward clarifying the form of government as the priority. Gayla Kiese, co-president of the League of Women Voters of the CSRA, criticized the committee's sequencing and transparency: "the committee's work feels haphazard, chaotic at times, and lacking in focus," and she said the League had requested access to the exact edits under consideration so the public could prepare informed comments. Longtime public commenter Moses Todd told the committee he shared the League's concern that documents were not getting to the public reliably.

Several public speakers raised concerns about the expanded voting power of the mayor under consolidation and urged the committee to prioritize balance of power in any charter rewrite. Brian Green said the public had not voted specifically to give the mayor a permanent vote and warned about future imbalances: "We gotta start identifying the elephant in the room... If the mayor is gonna continue to have a vote, this mayor has about a nonofficial, of course, this is my opinion, a 7 vote favor. Let's make it an 8 vote situation..."

Committee counsel and staff answered procedural questions about boundaries and municipal carve-outs. Attorney Pankaj Plunkett recommended simple boundary language tied to the existing consolidation act or current Richmond County limits rather than inserting a detailed map into the charter. Plunkett also advised members who attend outside events about open meetings law: receiving information is acceptable, but members must avoid taking action or collectively reaching decisions outside noticed meetings.

Motions and recorded votes: the committee first voted to accept a set of generalized edits to the charter; the clerk announced, "That motion carries. It's unanimous." Later, a motion to request the Carl Vinson Institute draft language to adopt a professional council–manager form with ICMA accountability was moved and seconded and passed after a roll call in which at least three members registered no votes. The clerk recorded some names during the vote (see "Votes at a glance" below). The committee asked staff to provide the Carl Vinson Institute materials and the raw survey data to members.

Next steps and context: committee members repeatedly returned to process concerns — posting agendas, distributing edit drafts ahead of votes, and sequencing subcommittee work so that a decision on form of government can properly inform finance and oversight provisions. The committee set a follow-up timeline and discussed inviting former commissioners to a future session to collect institutional perspective. The chair also confirmed the committee will post the expert presentation and survey slides to the website and distribute raw survey data to committee members.

Votes at a glance:
- Motion: Accept generalized edits to the charter (as presented). Outcome: approved; clerk announced "unanimous." (motion carried)
- Motion: Request Carl Vinson Institute to draft charter language adopting a professional council–manager form with ICMA accountability. Outcome: approved. Recorded votes referenced during roll call included named no votes by Mister Wimberley, Mister Lewis and Miss Bacchus; Mister Pearson and Miss Wilhelmi were recorded voting yes; Lee Powell was absent. (See actions[] entry below for recorded names and motion text.)

Why this matters: the committee is writing or rewriting the local charter that will structure local government for years. The academic research and local survey sharpen a central choice — whether to institutionalize professional municipal management and a different accountability structure — a choice the committee said it will continue to examine with staff research and draft language.

"Balance of power, transparency, and accountability. Those are the big things," one committee member summarized toward the meeting's end.

The committee set upcoming dates for continued work and discussed hosting a session with former commissioners to gather their perspectives.