Washington, Georgia mayor Bruce Bailey Responds to Allegations He Took Payments Without Authorization.

City of Washington, Georgia mayor Bruce Bailey posted the following statement on his Facebook page today, November 27, 2024. The mayor’s statement can be seen in quotations in the article below:

“This is a beautiful season in our community. As we go into Thanksgiving I want to clear up (again) any mistruths being spoken by certain individuals. The DRAFT for the forensic audit is out but not fully released. For those assuming they know what is in it you’ve either received it inappropriately or are making comments based on what you’re being told. It will be released in a timely fashion.”

The draft summary of the audit and the full audit itself are  public record and to be made available to the public per Georgia Open Records Law unless it falls under very few provisions such as being part of an active or pending lawsuit, real estate transaction or reveals city employee personal information or discipline. If this is the case, a city is not required to keep it private, only that it can if it chooses to or can redact certain portions.  Withholding public records is a violation of  this law     

 The summary of the audit can be viewed here.

“There are things listed our council and town should have been doing. I assure you these corrections will be done and addressed under my tenure as your mayor. The question is to ask the members of council that have served for years and years why these things haven’t been addressed before now? Why did it take a forensic audit that I requested with the councils approval to have these things brought to light? Changes will be made!”

The members of Washington City Council who have served prior to January 2024 are Andy Anderson, Nathaniel Cullars Sr., Larry Hill and Maceo Mahoney. On numerous occasions Cullars Sr., Hill and Mahoney did bring concerns that were mentioned as issues by the auditor. They brought these concerns to the council, both prior and current, regarding the prior city administrator Jerry deBin’s competence, ethics and ability to effectively manage the city.

Specifically, Cullars Sr. brought up the fact that deBin didn't have a signed contract and he and other District 1 councilmen brought up questions regarding deBin's purchasing authority. The code enforcement officer serving as contractor for the CHIPS grant was also brought to council as an issue by District 1 councilman when they discovered it had occurred and no action taken by former administrator deBin. The utility cutoff fees were brought up as a significant concern by every District 1 member of council multiple times last year and this year. The District 1 councilman also did request an independent audit but that motion was voted down in the past. Those motions were voted against by the councilmen representing district 2 and the mayor, both past and current.

It is true that after it was decided by the current city council to ask for the resignation of deBin, a vote was made in favor of the independent audit. You can view video recordings of past city council meetings and see for yourself here.  You can access the minutes from the council meetings however, the minutes are not available past May 2024. Keep in mind that the summary of the audit stated city employees told the auditor that former administrator deBin modified the city council meeting minutes so the accuracy may be in question. 

For those new to Washington or unfamiliar with the city government, the city council is required by law to have three city council representatives from each of the two districts. District 1 is predominantly African American and representatives Cullars Sr. Hill and Mahoney are African American and District 2 citizens are predominantly white with Councilman Anderson, Fisher and Gunter being white. This is relevant because in 1992 there was a federal lawsuit brought by African American citizens who were represented by the ACLU because they felt that over many years of elections, they were unable to achieve fair representation in local government. This led to the creation of the two districts and the division by racial makeup and representation on the council. You can learn more about that lawsuit here. There has been one African American mayor in the history of Washington, Georgia,  mayor Willie Burns. The history of contention between the two districts and displayed at the city council meetings has been long standing. The Washington Post even wrote about the racial division in an article in 2011.

It is also worth noting the mayor himself was acting as city administrator since July of this year and by his account, has spent 20-68.5 hours per week managing the city directly. None of the elected councilman have spent time directly managing the city or are involved in the day-to-day operation of the city of Washington nor is it an elected official’s duty to be involved in the direct operation of the city, only to hire and supervise the city administrator. The city councilmen do not get paid as city employees and only receive a monthly stipend, as does the mayor, for their service as elected officials. For city council members, less than $500 per month.

“The other issue is I am posting the municipal code below for the mayor serving as city manager in the absence of a city manager. This is something that was written and passed years ago. If anyone and I mean anyone takes issue with this then these council members have had years to change it. Everything I’ve done was legal and I took half the salary paid to the former city manager. The most hours I put in was during the Hurricane Helene timeframe. All of this was also cleared with the city attorneys and if you read the code it clearly states “shall be compensated accordingly” I wholeheartedly believe that not one member of council and/or the community would have done this job for “free”. The mistruths being shared by certain and a very small minute group of individuals are in fact incorrect. I’m certain they won’t go and share this post. However it’s fine because I know what I’ve done, what I’m doing and how I follow the rules and will continue to do so.”

The city of Washington municipal code does state that the mayor can fill a vacancy as city administrator and be paid. This appears contradictory to Georgia law that states it as a conflict and has settled court cases indicating as such: 

The highest level of state law governing municipal corporations is the Georgia Constitution of 1983 and its amendments. It is supreme to all general and local acts of the General Assembly as well as to city ordinances and resolutions. Any legislation inconsistent with the constitution is void from the time of enactment (City of Atlanta v. Gower, 216 Ga. 368, 116 S.E.2d 738 (1960); City of Savannah v. Hussey, 21 Ga. 80, 68 Am. Dec. 452 (1857)).

City of Washington Municipal Code

Sec. 2-75. - Vacancy.

Any vacancy in the office of city administrator shall be filled as soon as possible after the effective date of such vacancy. During such vacancy, the mayor shall discharge the duties and functions of city administrator for a period not to exceed 180 days and shall be compensated accordingly.

Sec. 2-74. - Compensation.

The city administrator shall receive such compensation as the mayor and council shall fix from time to time.

The above are rules created by the city of Washington and you can view them in full for yourself here.

As far as payment, the city code states that is also set by the city council and mayor. It does not say the mayor has sole authority to decide payment made to himself or any city employee. In Washington, the mayor only can vote in the event of a tie and in a case involving his own compensation, he would not be able to break a tie because of the obvious conflict. Nowhere in the city municipal code does it say the mayor can decide on his own compensation for any city role. I am not aware of a vote of council being take to set compensation for Bailey. 

It is also important to note that the city changed from what is known as a strong mayor form of government to a weak mayor form of government when Willie Burns was elected mayor. This change left the majority of the power to the city council. Changes to the charter at the time of the change would have been important to stay in compliance with the law. Allowing the mayor to fill in as city administrator when the mayor already held significant power is very different than doing so when the council is the predominant decision making body. It is unclear at this time if the code regarding the mayor filling in as city administrator was revisited at that time or as state laws and court cases have been decided in similar matters. 

Laws of the State of Georgia and the Georgia Constitution

The laws of the Georgia state constitution or any state typically, regarding what elected officials are allowed and not allowed to do,  take precedent over a city, also known as a municipality. It is upon the city to know the laws of the state as well as federal laws when creating their municipal codes. Cities hire attorneys to guide them on staying in compliance with all laws. The attorney for the city of Washington is Adam Nelson who has stated in at least one city council meeting that it is his opinion, that the mayor is allowed to fill in as city administrator. Again, this appears to contradict the Georgia state constitution that considers being in dual roles, an ethical conflict for the reasons many have issue with Bailey allegedly deciding himself, without approval of council, how much to compensate himself and the number of hours he was compensated for.

Georgia law has a number of statutory provisions regarding ethics in the conduct of government business. These provisions consist of both civil restrictions and criminal sanctions. They can be read here at the Georgia Municipal Association handbook.

Some of the Georgia State Statutes

Holding incompatible or inconsistent offices is another potential situation that can give rise to an ethical violation. A municipal official is ineligible to hold any other municipal office at the same time he or she serves as a member of the municipal governing body (O.C.G.A. § 36-30-4). (1971 Op. Att’y Gen. U71-107; 1967 Op Att’y Gen. 67-36; 1962 Op. Att’y Gen., p. 333).

Any public officer who willfully and intentionally violates his or her oath of office is to be punished by imprisonment for not less than one or more than five years (O.C.G.A. § 16-10-1). A public official or other person commits the offense of conspiracy to defraud a political subdivision when he or she conspires or agrees with another to commit theft of property that belongs to a local government or that is under the control of a public official in his or her official capacity. Conviction calls for imprisonment of not less than one to not more than five years (O.C.G.A. § 16-10-21). Also, a city official who receives, takes, or contracts to receive or take, either directly or indirectly, any part of the pay or profit arising out of a public works contract is guilty of a misdemeanor (O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(g)).
 
A public officer or any other person who steals, alters, forges, defaces, or falsifies any records or documents, including minutes or digital records, shall be guilty of a felony if convicted and be subject to imprisonment for two to ten years. Under this statute, willfully removing public records from the premises of the public office with the intention of concealing it or keeping it for one’s personal use is considered stealing the public records (O.C.G.A. § 45-11-1).
 
In addition to the infractions described above, state law also addresses malpractice, partiality, and demanding more cost than that to which a public official is entitled. Any local elected official charged with the foregoing may be indicted by the grand jury. If a true bill is returned by the grand jury and the public official is found guilty in a criminal proceeding, the official will be subject to fine, imprisonment, or both, at the discretion of the court. In addition, the official will be removed from office (O.C.G.A. § 45-11-4).

Document shows Bailey was paid more than deBin per hour.

"The handful of faithful followers to these people and are news agencies will continue to believe those lies. I will remain transparent with the citizens and will continue to provide the ethical and moral standards I was raised with as well as those I exhibit in my life. I will always share things with this community that are within the realms of the law. I did this job for half the pay and it involved nights and weekends."

The last regular payment to deBin that can be seen on the last page of the draft audit document shows he was paid $3,901.55 at a biweekly. Interval not including overtime. The hours listed for these pay periods range from 80-120 but for calculation purposes, a 40 hour work week utilized so 80 hours in the pay period. That is a breakdown of $48.76/hour paid to deBin. If the rate were calculated using the actual hours deBin stated he worked, the hourly rate is as low as $29.88/hour.

The highest non-overtime rate deBin was paid per hour was $57.69 which is the exact same hourly rate it appears Bailey paid himself. There is only one payment made to deBin noted in the audit on April 27, 2024 that is at a rate of $57.69/hour and the auditor designated this hourly rate as having no supporting documentation for this rate of payment. 

There were some pay periods where deBin took overtime payments but those were not consistent in the document in the audit.

A document showing payments made to Bailey (see below this article) show the payment made for the period 10/26/24 through 11/01/24 and is shown as being for 39 hours which breaks down to $57.69/hour paid to Bailey. A total for time worked beginning 07/20/24 and ending 11/02/24 and stated as 354 hours is $20,423.07 which is again, an hourly rate of $57.69/hour.

This is $8.93 more per hour paid to Bailey than deBin was getting paid that was noted by the auditor to be without exception.

There is not a rate shown where deBin was paid more than $57.69/hour and it is known that deBin received pay increases over the time he served as city administrator so it is highly unlikely there was a time in prior years where deBin was paid a rate higher than this. There is nothing in the documents to support Bailey's claim that he took half of what deBin had been paid.

If there is some other payment consideration that is not indicated in these documents and his assertion he paid himself half of what deBin was being paid, I invite Bailey to contact me and I am happy to make a correction. 

Bailey closed his statement with the following:

“It was time for a city manager to be put in place. And we have a great one with human resource and business experience that is definitely needed. I will not sit silently while blatant lies are being spoken. I will share truths with you and people really need to think long and hard before spewing false statements. There’s a fine line in slander and defamation of character. I can take it all, I did sign up for this role and that includes the good and the bad. My family should be off limits. My time with them has suffered over the last few months while I have worked hard to do my own full time job as well as the city manager job. I take pride in what I did get accomplished and just hope you the community recognize that. I am looking forward to the holidays and family time with grand babies as well as seeing the wonderful events to come in our beautiful town. There’s so much good here! If you want to spread the truth, please feel free to share this information. I am as always honored to be your mayor.”

I don't think anyone would dispute that working 50 and 60 plus hours/week in addition to a full time job is a tremendous and almost implausible number of hours. Some may feel Bailey should be compensated even more than what he chose to pay himself from taxpayer funds. The issue seems to be whether or not he made the decision without the approval of city council and if it was a violation of state or federal law to do so.