Residents call for censure of County Commissioner; commissioner denies allegations and asks for full report

Several members of the public used the Columbia County Board of Commissioners meeting on Aug. 27 to call for disciplinary action against Commissioner Casey Garrett, saying past behavior toward staff and residents warrants censure. Commissioner Garrett responded publicly at the meeting, denying the allegations and urging release of the investigative file.

Public commenters pressed the board during the public-comment portion of the meeting. Tammy Magra said Garretts conduct has been repeated and called on the board to take stronger action than additional sensitivity training. Another speaker said training would not help unless Garrett admitted wrongdoing on the public record.

"You need to set an example in this county as a grown man on how to treat people with respect and dignity," Magra said, urging the board to move beyond training and to "stop it now." She added that some allegations, including use of a racial slur, were already in public files she said existed prior to Garrett's election.

Commissioner Casey Garrett responded later in the meeting. Garrett said he voluntarily took a class on dealing with difficult people in the past but otherwise received only standard county employee training. "I categorically deny the allegations attributed to me," he said, adding that he believes the investigation "was conducted without due process," that requested witnesses were not interviewed and that he was not given an opportunity to respond to the findings. Garrett asked the county to release the full investigative report so the public can assess the matter.

Commissioner Harris said she disagreed with several of Garretts public statements and suggested the meeting offered an opportunity to move forward. Commissioner McGruder thanked county counsel for logistical support at the meeting but did not directly address the allegations.

No formal disciplinary action or vote on censure occurred during the meeting. Public commenters framed their remarks as requests for the board to act; Garrett framed his remarks as a request for transparency and an assertion that the investigative process was unfair.

The meeting record indicates the matter was raised in public comment and later addressed by Garrett in commissioner remarks; the board did not announce any immediate policy changes or a vote on discipline during the Aug. 27 session.