Recall Response Is Heard

UPDATE (06/16/2023): Judge H. Gibbs Flanders has ruled in favor of Commission Chairman Don Jernigan. Judge Flanders cites “insufficient probable cause to support the recall application,” effectively ending the chances of a recall for Mr. Jernigan. A full story will be released in the June 22 edition.

***ORIGINAL STORY***

Jasper Superior Court was in session on Monday, June 12 to determine if the recall for Commission Chairman Don Jernigan could move forward.

Court was in session beginning at 10 a.m., and was presided by H. Gibbs Flanders Jr. Mr. Flanders was formerly the chief judge of the Dublin Circuit in Dublin. Chairman Jernigan was represented by Caleb Saggus. The chairperson of the petition, Rob Alexander, represented himself during the proceedings.

Mr. Saggus began discussing the topics that Mr. Jernigan was alleged to taking part in, including malfeasance, a violation of the open records policy, as well as unprofessional conduct. Mr. Saggus said that these alleged claims had no merit. He also mentioned that none of the evidence presented would fall into any of the three legal grounds brought against Mr. Jernigan.

Mr. Alexander then presented his case, providing a rough timeline of evidence backing up the allegations. After an objection from Mr. Saggus, Judge Flanders reminded Mr. Alexander that all evidence would have to be testified under oath and subject to cross examination. Once sworn under oath, Mr. Alexander continued to present his timeline.

His timeline alleges communication that Mr. Jernigan conspired with two other commissioners to talk about policy in both text and email communication. Logs of text messages and emails were presented to back up his claim.

Following his testimony, Mr. Saggus cross examined Mr. Alexander asking if the text messages and emails sent were one on one communication as opposed to a three way communication. Mr. Alexander said that all pieces of evidence were one on one communication.

After the cross examination, Mr. Alexander continued with his case. He repeatedly emphasized the swift time it took to achieve the minimum number of signatures needed to move forward with the recall. In total, Mr. Alexander said this case affected the entire community with a striking statement saying “all citizens are affected by the actions of Don Jernigan,” citing involvement in the recall effort from across the entire community.

Mr. Saggus then provided a rebuttal mentioning the overemphasis of how many signatures were achieved. He said that this was not relevant to the case in which the legal grounds were on. Mr. Saggus also reiterated that all forms of digital communication were one on one.

He states that this would not be a violation of the open records or meetings law, and that there is no basis or law preventing government officials from communicating in a one on one manner. Mr. Saggus ended with the statement that the evidence and claims presented don’t “adequately plead facts.”

In a unorthodox move, Mr. Alexander then asked to speak again following the rebuttal. Despite being told this is normally not allowed, Judge Flanders granted Mr. Alexander to speak, giving much leeway to him, as those seeking the recall did not hire an attorney for this proceeding.

Mr. Alexander then reiterated his previous points in his argument, calling the actions of Mr. Jernigan a “blindside” to the community and fellow commissioners who were “left in the dark.”

Mr. Saggus was then presented another opportunity to rebut, but declined to do so.

Following this, court was adjourned. Judge Flanders took the issue under advisement, and said he would offer a written ruling soon. He had mentioned the law suggests this be handled expeditiously.