Charter Review Committee members spar over meeting schedule and internal decision-making; formal rescind to be set for next meeting

Members of the Augusta City Charter Review Committee spent much of the June 25 meeting debating committee process after a recent vote to alternate subcommittee meeting weeks prompted objections from several members who said individual members had tried to change the schedule outside of a full-body vote.

The dispute began after committee staff reported a phone poll that had allowed a previously noticed meeting to proceed. Attorney Rex Plunkett advised members that any motion to rescind a previously adopted action would have to be made at the next committee meeting and could not be resolved that day. Committee member Mister Foushee said he would move to rescind the previous vote and the chair agreed to place the rescission on the next meeting's agenda.

Several members said the problem was a matter of trust and transparency. Miss Sheffey said that a subcommittee had invited a speaker for a single subcommittee meeting after the subcommittee had already voted, and she objected to what she described as individual members acting on behalf of the whole body. Miss Barnhill and Miss Backus pressed that special meetings and email votes are constrained by Robert's Rules of Order and county policy; Miss Barnhill said it is not proper to use a special-meeting procedure to change the regular schedule without an urgent reason.

Several committee members pointed to heavy private e-mail traffic—some members said about 25 e-mails had circulated on the matter—and warned that taking action outside public meeting notice would undermine public trust. One committee member said the last vote to move to an alternating schedule passed 10–1 at the prior meeting; another member said they had voted for alternating weeks and later found the schedule changed outside the public process.

Public commenters had earlier urged transparency: James Williams, who spoke during public comment, said he had heard “perception” in the community that decisions were already made and asked the committee to preserve integrity. Richard E. Jones urged the committee to recommend that the county give the Board of Elections more funding for outreach and to improve transparency on how the county’s so-called “splash funds” were spent.

Outcome: No rescission occurred at the June 25 meeting; members agreed to place a motion to reconsider the meeting-rotation vote on the committee's next agenda. Plunkett reiterated that a rescind motion must be made at a publicly noticed meeting for debate and vote.