Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coweta commissioners decline to move dangerous-dog hearings to probate court; animal services board stays in place
Summary
After public testimony from animal board volunteers and a local veterinarian, the board voted 2–3 against staff’s recommendation to redirect dangerous/vicious-dog hearings from the volunteer animal services board to Coweta County Probate Court; the proposed Chapter 10 amendment therefore failed.
Get email alerts on the Animal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coweta County staff presented proposed amendments to Chapter 10 of the county code that would have shifted hearings on classifications of dangerous or vicious dogs from the volunteer Animal Services Board to Coweta County Probate Court, effective Sept. 1, 2025.
Multiple current and former animal-board members and a local veterinarian testified before the commissioners. Libby Parham, who identified herself as chair of the animal services board, described her volunteers’ work and urged the board to keep hearings handled by the volunteer panel. Dr. Joseph Arsprott, a Newnan veterinarian and board appointee, emphasized the board’s deliberative process and the potential for the board to spare the superior court from caseload increases.
Staff explained the existing process: animal-control officers investigate bite incidents, classify animals as dangerous or vicious if warranted, provide notice to owners and offer the right to request a hearing within 30 days. Currently the Animal Services Board hears appeals and may sustain, modify or overrule the classification. Staff’s amendment would move that appeal to probate court.
Commissioners debated public safety, impartiality, and liability. Supporters of shifting hearings argued that probate court can call expert witnesses and that judicial procedures might reduce county liability; opponents said the volunteer board offers community expertise, veterinary input and local context. After discussion a motion to move the hearings to probate court failed on a 2–3 vote; the animal services board therefore remains the forum for these administrative appeals under current county practice.
