Charter Review Committee asks consultants to reconcile ethics, transparency language after public comments

The Charter Review Committee on (date not specified) heard public comments pressing the panel not to rush a complete draft charter and asked the Carl Vinson Institute to prepare a single, reconciled document addressing both ethics and transparency ahead of a March 19 vote.

The committee chair asked the body to consider whether to allow extra public speakers; committee member Gaines moved to add four additional three‑minute speakers and the body approved the accommodation. Members then heard a series of scheduled and additional public comments.

Ben Hassan, who gave his address as 3529 Monte Carlo Drive, criticized proposed mandatory outside counsel wording in the draft and said the current outside‑counsel arrangement had been costly. "That is an egregious abuse of the taxpayers' money," Hassan said, referring to his view that the contract terms (hourly rates and hours described in the draft) could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Dr. Gayla Casey, co‑president of the League of Women Voters of the CSRA, told the committee the "Complete Draft, February 27" did not reflect concerns raised at the public hearings and urged members not to transmit the draft to the legislature before motions responding to public input were considered. "Those concerns would remain unaddressed" if motions were bypassed, she said.

Zakiyah Mabry urged the committee to include charter mechanics for tracking public input—what was adopted, partially adopted or not adopted, and the rationale—so future review is meaningful and not purely performative.

Ronique West, president and co‑founder of the Greater Augusta Black Chamber of Commerce, opposed removing protected‑class language from the charter and cited federal law and the city of Augusta's own disparity study. "Removing protected class language while disparities remain will undermine the very analytical framework the city commissioned to guide responsible policy making," West said, arguing that local wording helps the city measure and address disparities even though federal civil‑rights obligations remain in force.

After public comment, committee business turned to the ethics section of the draft. Doctor Robinson moved to table proposed ethics language until members could receive and review adopted revised wording; that motion was seconded but failed after debate about whether the draft already reflected counsel edits and whether members had received adequate notice.

Consultants and counsel told the committee that legal review had identified paragraphs in the ethics section that conflicted with state law; those paragraphs had been removed in the draft sent to members. Several committee members objected that the revised draft contained deletions that had not been adopted by the committee. The chair asked the Carl Vinson Institute and attorneys to display the language for review.

Following a short recess to confer with counsel, Doctor Robinson offered a substitute motion asking the Carl Vinson Institute to review both the transparency language proposed by Mister France and the ethics deletions counsels recommended, and to return a single document for consideration on March 19. That substitute motion passed on a roll‑call vote announced as unanimous.

A separate motion to invite Dr. Kimberly Nelson (UNC Chapel Hill) to join the March 19 meeting via Zoom for questions about selection processes was proposed and seconded but failed in a 5–6 roll‑call vote.

The committee completed other routine business, approved previous minutes by unanimous vote, and adjourned after a motion by the vice chair. The committee instructed consultants to furnish the combined ethics/transparency draft so members could review it before the next meeting.

What happens next: the committee has directed consultants to return a unified ethics/transparency document and will consider it at the March 19 meeting; several members emphasized that any final text should reflect the committee's prior votes and comply with state law.

Quotes used in this report are taken verbatim from public remarks and committee debate recorded in the committee's transcript; speaker names and roles are those provided in the transcript or introduced on the record.