Board debates policy on meetings between elections director and political party leadership; red-line revisions to be circulated

The Cobb County Board of Elections discussed a draft policy to govern meetings between the elections director and political-party leadership, but the board did not adopt the policy and asked staff and board members to circulate red-line edits for further consideration.

Board Member Mosbacher introduced the one-page proposal as an effort to provide a clear protocol so Director Fall would have guidance if a party chair requested a meeting. "This was really just in response to try to put something in place so that director Fall had guidance regarding if a party political party chair in Cobb asks for a meeting," Mosbacher said.

Public commenters had urged a formal process earlier in the meeting. During public comment, Sharon Marshall, treasurer of the Cobb County Democratic Committee, told the board "If a meeting is requested by the leader of 1 party, should not all parties and their appointed representatives be present?" and the Cobb County Democrats said they "fully endorse" a post-election meeting that includes all parties.

Board members raised several concerns about the draft. One board member said the proposal's limitation that reports and documents shared at such meetings be "publicly available" would exclude poll-watcher reports and other materials that are not currently published; that board member asked that the language be struck. Another member said a blanket prohibition on human-resources discussion could prevent parties from raising serious concerns they observed during an election.

The county attorney and board counsel joined the discussion and suggested clarifying language using statutory terms to define "recognized political parties" and to note that materials created by parties become public records if submitted. The chair asked Mosbacher to circulate a red-lined version and the board agreed to have staff and members confer on language that could work more generally for future situations.

No formal vote was recorded on the policy at the meeting. Board members indicated several changes they want to see: expand the list of eligible participants beyond the two major parties in some situations, limit meetings to election-administration topics rather than broadly prohibiting categories of discussion, and clarify how open-records materials will be handled.