Search the ArchivesNavigation Contact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
Case against BoE’s Powers defendedTue, 05/16/2006 - 3:58pm
By: Letters to the ...
I appreciate this newspaper’s desire to allow our public officials the opportunity to attempt to set the record straight. Recently Mr. Greg Powers was quoted in a local paper suggesting that the Board of Elections had acted improperly, had heard false testimony about his residency and overall was nothing more than a kangaroo court when they ruled him ineligible to be a candidate for school board. I would like to take this opportunity, not necessarily to rebut his many assertions, but to explain more fully what actually occurred during our recent hearing. The Board of Elections was presented with a challenge to Mr. Powers’ residency status by two citizens residing in his neighborhood. This challenge required that a hearing be set as soon as practical in order that we could ascertain the truth of his residency. Since the ballots are being printed, as we speak, we needed to insure that when the election is held in July that only those candidates who are eligible should be on the ballot. I personally called Mr. Powers and told him that he was being challenged. He responded that his family moved to the Brooks address from his antebellum home but that he maintained a bedroom outfit at his home. He said that he “lived at both homes.” He said it was a matter of convenience that determined where he stayed. He indicated that when he was to be in Griffin the following morning, he would stay in Brooks, and when he was to be in Fayetteville, he stayed in his antebellum address. I asked him about what and why he was staying away from home. He merely said he was trying to stay there to “fix it up” to be sold. He even indicated that he hoped to have the home up for sale as early as this summer, but that he hadn’t made up his mind what he exactly wanted to do. Eight residents from his neighborhood came out and gave statements regarding their firm belief that he was disingenuous in his contentions that he lived there. The mere fact that so many people came forward to stand up in front of Mr. Powers was in and of itself very impressive. They all consistently attempted to only state what they personally knew, not what they had heard. Although emotions were high, they all were respectful in presenting their case. The evidence was extremely credible and overwhelming in light of the evidence that Mr. Powers chose to present. Some of the evidence that we heard that night and have learned subsequent to the hearing was 1. He had told them that he was moving to Brooks months ago, long before the qualification for the election was held. 2. He actually told them, weeks later, that he had already moved and that he was hoping to sell this house as soon as he could get it together. 3. He was never seen at the home except on only rare occasions. 4. His swimming pool was slowly turning into a health hazard in that it was drying out and turning green becoming nothing more than a nesting ground for mosquitoes. 5. His yard was unkempt and uncared for. He had not mowed the grass, and dead trees and debris were scattered about. 6. No activity was seen at the home at all for months. 7. His mailbox was sealed, and his mail was being forwarded to the Brooks address. 8. His wife had changed her driver’s license and voter’s registration to the new home. 9. His home never was lighted at night save that of the driveway light left on 24 hours. 10. That only after the challenge was filed, did the neighbors actually start to see activity at the house. He began parking a car there and turning on lights in the house. 11. That the family pets were no longer at the property. Mr. Powers was given a chance to respond. Georgia law requires the candidate to present evidence of his residency if he is challenged. It is called a show cause hearing. This was his defense: 1. He stated that his residence was where he said he lived. 2. He said he slept there last night. 3. He said his daughter slept there with him last night as well, but she either would not or did not wish to speak. 4. He said that it was not against the law to own two homes. 5. He said he had not changed his driver’s license, his voter’s registration, nor his homestead exemption. (Although he failed to acknowledge that there would be no impact on his taxes if he were to have moved his exemption, since both homes were in the same county.) 6. Only after the board asked did he present a utility bill from that property. However, again, that evidence did not prove his residency, since, as Mr. Powers acknowledged, one can own more than one home and ergo, can have more than one utility bill in his name. The board could not understand his reasoning and asked if he could at all appreciate how or why we felt that these other witnesses couldn’t or shouldn’t be believed. He merely responded that he didn’t see or understand why his residency could be questioned. Unlike the witnesses who openly challenged his statements to the board, Mr. Powers never rebutted any statement made that night. Never did he challenge a single witness and confront them as being liars that he now is so readily willing to direct to the newspaper. If he was willing to call these witness liars in the newspaper, why not do so when they were present and the time for when we were determining the facts? At one point, the Democrat appointee to the board said to Mr. Powers if he wanted to “give it up” because “you’ve been busted.” He asked Mr. Powers if he would just make this matter easy for everybody and just withdraw. Mr. Powers said no he wouldn’t. He then asked him if he planned on living at the antebellum address during the next four years, should he be reelected, and he stated, “Probably not.” In which I then stated that this would mean his seat on the board would be vacated. He immediately responded that the law did not state that, to which I replied by actually reading the code section which stated that very thing. He again just scoffed and stated that he had some law that would support his position, although he never volunteered to present it. Time is of the essence when qualifying and challenging candidates. The ballots need to be printed, and if an ineligible candidate’s name is placed on the ballot then this can confuse the voter should they accidentally vote for an ineligible candidate. Although the Board of Elections is doing its best in securing a fair and impartial election, we must follow the law in insuring that it is run by the law that we have. Residency is a requirement that is an absolute to be eligible to be a candidate and to serve on the Board of Education. The board did not present the evidence; the voters of Fayette County made the challenge and they did so with candid and forthright statements that rang true and credible to the board. Mr. Powers also did not bring an attorney to the hearing and argued that since the board had an attorney representing it, that he should be allowed one as well. This is only partially true. Ms. Seabolt brought an attorney to represent her against the challenge brought by the board. The issue before the board as to Ms. Seabolt’s case was one of how to interpret the law, and not the facts. However, after Ms. Seabolt’s hearing was finished, our attorney did not continue his representation of the board. He remained merely as a witness, but did not participate at all in the Powers’ hearing. He did not ask questions nor give advice. Ms. Seabolt did not find it too difficult to find a very competent lawyer to represent her and Mr. Powers had the opportunity to do so as well and merely chose not to. To delay the hearing, when all eight witnesses had appeared, after the meeting had been going on for approximately an hour, and with a fast approaching election, did not seem either fair, nor practical. Ms. Seabolt’s case was not one predicated upon the facts, but upon the law. She readily admitted to being an employee of the Board of Education and the law stated that at the time of qualifying that she must swear an oath that she is eligible to HOLD the office. It requires she sign this affidavit and to make this affirmation. If the law stated that the candidate agrees that she WILL be eligible to hold the office, then we would certainly have not challenged her eligibility at all. Of interest is the sheriff’s election two years ago in Clayton County, when a county employee ran for sheriff, which was a violation of a local ordinance not a state law. The Board of Elections was fearful that this local ordinance might be illegal so they failed to rule against the now current sheriff. The federal court has since ruled that the local ordinance was proper which meant Clayton County could and should have ruled that Sheriff Hill was ineligible to run. But instead, they sat on their hands and decided that following the law was less important than finding a way to try and be amicable. Georgia law determines the rules by which this board must follow. Should the Georgia General Assembly wish to change those rules to allow a candidate to merely assert where his residency is, then Mr. Powers would be safe in his current district. Should the law change to allow employees of the school board to run for election and then to resign before they serve, then the General Assembly can do that as well. But until then, we are bound by our oath to follow the plain language of the law. Although Mr. Powers may consider our recent hearing as nothing more than a “kangaroo court,” I can assure the voters of Fayette County that we take our oaths very seriously. Something that would not have been a problem had the candidate himself done so as well. Richard D. Hobbs Hobbs is an attorney and member of the Fayette County Board of Elections. login to post comments
|
Copyright 2010 - Fayette Publishing, Inc. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Policy
Server 4
