Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Participation Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee clarifies public input process, survey deadline and legislative path for charter changes
Summary
The committee and its advisers told attendees how the public can provide input — via an online survey and upcoming meetings — and explained that any revised charter language would be forwarded to the local legislative delegation and could require action in the General Assembly.
Charter Review Committee members and their University of Georgia advisers reiterated the outreach process and the next steps for proposed charter changes during the public hearing.
Dr. Rex Facer said the committee has been soliciting public input by meeting in public, posting materials online and asking residents to complete a survey. “We had 1,172 responses so far,” Facer said at the hearing, urging attendees to share the QR code and survey link. Committee staff told the room the survey cutoff is the end of July and asked commenters to return any paper surveys by July 30 so staff could process them in time for analysis.
On process and authority, presenters and committee members were explicit: the Charter Review Committee drafts recommendations; those recommendations are sent to the local legislative delegation and, depending on the substance of changes, may require action by the Georgia General Assembly. Several public speakers asked whether the committee’s work would return to the commission; committee members clarified the committee’s role is to develop recommendations that go to the legislature, and that the legislature can alter, reject or forward language for a public referendum.
The committee also reminded residents that the full committee meets biweekly on Thursdays, that subcommittees on finance and form of government will present white papers, and that meetings are livestreamed for those who cannot attend in person.
Committee members said they chose the initial three hearing locations based on available public facilities and historical patterns of where town‑hall style meetings have been held; they encouraged residents who could not attend to use the online survey and livestreams. The committee asked residents to keep providing written and online feedback as it prepares draft language for legislative review.
