Augusta charter overhaul draws heated testimony; committee holds hearing‑only

A Senate committee conducted a lengthy hearing on SB 628, which would place a proposed commission‑manager (county manager) form on the Augusta‑Richmond County ballot and change the county’s charter language about appointment and powers of a county manager.

Sponsor testimony described the change as a way to create a professional managerial chain of command for a county government with a large budget and to restore eligibility for certain grants that officials said the county currently cannot access because of governance and audit problems. The sponsor said he had worked with local delegation members to narrow language (for example, requiring the mayor to nominate two to four candidates and removing a mayoral vote except to break a tie).

Public comment produced repeated concerns from charter review committee members and local residents who said the committee had spent a year researching charter models and had not finished drafting details. Multiple witnesses—including members of the charter review committee—said the draft presented to the legislature had substantive differences from the language committee members had voted on and that portions of the draft were altered without full committee review. Witnesses urged additional local vetting, transparency and safeguards to ensure the manager role includes clear qualifications, procurement and financial oversight and non‑interference protections.

Critics also argued that inserting limited nomination language (which some said would create a hybrid strong‑mayor/council‑manager model) undermines the advantages of a pure council‑manager system. The League of Women Voters’ local chapter urged clearer language on recruitment, procurement thresholds and lines of authority to maintain accountability and transparency.

Given the extensive testimony and unresolved local objections, the committee treated SB 628 as a hearing‑only item and did not vote on the measure at this meeting. Committee members said they would accept written recommendations and proposed amendments for later consideration.

The record shows strong local engagement and sharp disagreement over process and timing; supporters argued the change is needed to restore operational capacity, while committee members and local volunteers asked that the charter review work be completed and refined at the local level before the legislature acts.