Camden County election board issues recall petition applications for three Woodbine council members

The Camden County Board of Elections voted at its meeting to issue recall petition applications for three Woodbine city council members after citizens presented a written petition alleging a long‑running lack of transparency and missing audits in the city.

John Ralph Burns Jr., who said he represented “the concerned citizens of Woodbine,” read a written statement asking the board to issue petitions because elected officials had “failed to ensure that required annual audit reports of the city of Woodbine were initiated, completed and submitted in fiscal years ’21 through ’25,” and that officials had “failed to exercise proper oversight,” creating distrust in the community.

Why it matters: election staff and the board explained that state law restricts recall filings during the first or last 180 days of an official’s term. Dennis Irvin, identified as the Camden County election specialist, told the board he had reviewed the code and cited “OCGA2‑4‑5 subsection A,” explaining that two council members whose current terms began Jan. 1, 2026, had been in office for 141 days and therefore were not yet eligible for a recall application. Irvin said petitioners could reapply for those members once they pass the 180‑day threshold.

During public comment, residents said the city of Woodbine had not completed state audit reports dating back to 2021 and that communication with the city council and staff had been inadequate. Council member and petitioner‑subject Rick Baird disputed some claims and asked Chair Robin Mayor Knight to recuse herself from consideration because he is a subject of the recall petition; Knight recused and briefly left the meeting area.

Board procedure and vote: petitioners named three council members they wanted included now — Phyllis Drummond, Richard Baird and Kizler Knight — and provided written justification. Board members discussed the process and emphasized that each recall application must name an individual and that the board must vote separately on issuing each petition application. The board then took individual motions and voice votes to issue petition applications for the three named members; each motion was moved, seconded, and carried by voice vote.

What happens next: issuing a petition application allows petitioners to circulate recall petitions for signatures (the board noted subsequent steps include verifying signatures and legal sufficiency with the county attorney). Petitioners and board members repeatedly said legal review would follow issuance; Dennis Irvin confirmed that nothing in the code prevents petitioners from submitting additional applications after the 180‑day mark for the two ineligible members.

Claims and responses: petitioners argued the absence of timely audits and insufficient responsiveness to records requests justified the recall. Council member CC Higinbotham Jr. urged the board to consult legal counsel, calling some allegations “based on imagination and hearsay.” Election staff and council members acknowledged a backlog of audits statewide and said the city had engaged a new audit firm and expected to complete outstanding audits by the end of the year.

Ending: the board limited its immediate action to issuing applications for the three eligible individuals and recorded that petition circulation and later legal sufficiency review would be the next steps. The board then moved on to adjudicate provisional ballots as part of election certification business.