Fayette County commissioners deny locality pay for Superior Court judges after split vote

The Fayette County Board of Commissioners voted 3-2 on Jan. 8 to deny a request to adopt locality pay for Superior Court judges under House Bill 85, rejecting a proposal judges said would make compensation more uniform across the state.

Chief Judge Scott Ballard of the Griffin Judicial Circuit and other judges told the Board they had opted into the state’s locality pay structure, foregoing larger supplemental pay, and asked Fayette County to adopt locality pay separately from any intergovernmental cost‑sharing agreement. Ballard said the change would equalize judicial pay and preserve retirement provisions for judges serving as senior or substitute judges.

Ballard and fellow judges told commissioners the locality option would cost the county less than the previous supplemental pay structure and provide continuity for retirement benefits; Ballard asked the Board to decide on locality pay independent of other intergovernmental agreements. Judge Fletcher Sams and Judge Ben Coker also addressed the Board, describing judicial workload and safety concerns and urging support for locality pay.

Commissioner Eric Maxwell moved for full approval of locality pay, which he described as "a no‑brainer," arguing the adjustment was equitable and that most circuits had approved the change. Commissioners Edward Gibbons, Charles W. Oddo and Charles D. Rousseau expressed concerns about adding costs for taxpayers and the county’s ability to direct funds to other priorities.

The initial motion to support locality pay failed on a 2-3 vote. Commissioner Oddo then moved to deny the request outright; Vice Chairman Edward Gibbons seconded. The denial passed 3-2, with Chairman Lee Hearn and Commissioner Maxwell voting in opposition.

County Attorney Dennis Davenport asked for an affirmative motion after the votes to make the record clear. The Board did not approve locality pay and took no further action to adopt an intergovernmental agreement at this meeting.

Why it matters: County officials said approving locality pay would have recurring budget implications that they preferred to prioritize elsewhere, while judges argued the change would align Fayette County with statewide compensation norms and protect retirement benefits for senior judges. The Board’s denial leaves the county’s existing approach to judicial supplements in place.

What’s next: The judges indicated other counties in the circuit have approved locality pay; any future change would require the Board to revisit the matter and, if necessary, negotiate cost‑sharing arrangements.