Public raises equity and legal-staffing concerns as committee finalizes ethics and legal language
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters questioned whether simplifying equal-opportunity language and making the chief legal officer an external contractor could weaken protections for disadvantaged groups and concentrate legal hiring power. Committee members said federal and state EEO law and local ordinances remain enforceable and that the law department would be retained under the draft.
The Augusta Charter Review Committee’s proposed ethics and legal-staffing language prompted sharp questions from residents who warned the draft could unintentionally weaken protections for historically disadvantaged groups and shift too much authority to external legal counsel.
Pastor Anthony Booker and others said replacing more explicit disadvantaged-focused language with a simplified "equal opportunity for all citizens" phrase risks eroding protections for minorities, women and people with disabilities. "The language, I believe, weakens ... focused on disadvantaged persons in our community," Booker said, urging clearer charter language to protect those groups. Committee members responded that federal and state EEO statutes are enforceable and that departmental procurement and compliance offices already have specific rules; they also said much enforcement detail is best included in ordinance or department policy.
Separately, a sustained exchange examined whether the draft would require the chief legal officer to be an outside contractor or allow an external firm to serve as lead counsel while a law department remains. Attorney Plunkett, who identified himself as Augusta’s interim general counsel contracted externally, said the proposed text keeps a law department but uses language that permits an external chief legal officer. Some residents warned an external chief counsel might have authority to select or dismiss in-house attorneys; Plunkett and other committee members said the law department itself would continue to exist and that the provision reflects historical variations in how the office has been staffed.
Other public commenters asked about enforcement mechanisms for ethics violations included in the draft — the committee’s language proposes fiduciary duties, public disclosure requirements, recusal in conflicted matters, and structural consequences including voidable contracts and disbarment from future service for serious violations.
The committee said the draft is not final and that tonight’s feedback will be considered before the committee presents the document to the commission and legislative delegation.
