No Decision Yet on Hearing to Halt Recall

The hearing to determine if the recall petition for Monticello City Councilman Bobby Jacobs was held Tuesday in the Jasper County Courthouse.

The hearing, presided over by Administrative Judge Stan Smith of the Eighth District in Dublin, was the result of Mr. Jacobs filing documents in Superior Court requesting a review of the sufficiency of the grounds for a recall after a petition was filed on April 1 in Probate Court petitioning for a recall election for Mr. Jacobs.

The opening statement by Attorney DeAngelo Norris, representing Doris D. Moore who filed the recall petition, told the judge the hearing did not meet the standards of law since it indicated the recall petition was filed by one person instead of all the petitioners, and was simply a lawsuit to quell the recall process.

Attorney W. Dan Roberts, representing Mr. Jacobs, in his opening statement told the judge the statute gives 10 days to file an amended petition and a brief to oppose had been filed in a timely manner.

Mr. Norris agreed they had 10 days to respond but reasonable inquires into the facts had not been made. Judge Smith ruled the motion had been properly filed and instructed Mr. Norris to call his first witness.

Henry Green took the stand and gave the details of how city workers had worked on sewer lines on Mr. Jacobs’ property on November 10, 2007. He also testified his supervisor had instructed him to do the job. It was also established Mr. Green did not sign the recall petition.

On cross examination Mr. Roberts established from the 911 report that it was Mr. Jacobs’ wife and not him who had called to report the stopped up sewer line.

Mr. Norris called his next witness, Doris D. Moore, who established the allegations for filing the recall petition.

On cross examination by Mr. Roberts, Ms. Moore testified the grounds for the recall petition of Mr. Jacobs was the misuse of city employees, the conflict of him being a city councilman and an assistant magistrate judge and trying to make a law so motorists could be ticketed for doing one MPH over the speed limit.

At this point Mr. Roberts made a motion for a ruling in Mr. Jacobs favor because the work done on his sewer line was done in November of 2007 and Mr. Jacobs did not take office until January of 2008.

Judge Smith denied the motion and asked Mr. Roberts to call his first witness. He called Mr. Jacobs, who was his only witness. After taking the stand Mr. Jacobs testified that indeed the work was done before he became a city councilman. He also testified the city attorney had verified there was no conflict of his being a city councilman and a magistrate judge.

He also testified that legal background had been provided by the State Attorney General which stated he could not hold two elected positions, but that he could hold an elected position and an appointed position.

Under cross examination by Mr. Norris, Mr. Jacobs was asked if anyone ever told him the work on the sewer line was on private property. Mr. Jacobs answered that at that time no one had.

In his closing argument Mr. Roberts asked how can you recall an elected official for an action that happened before the person takes office? Even with that, the activity of the sewer clean out was for no personal gain. He added that if a conflict arises it does not make it illegal to hold an elected office and an appointed one. If a conflict does arise, you simply recuse yourself.

In his closing argument Mr. Norris said Mr. Jacobs was elected by the same people who signed the recall and that the recall has been brought to a grinding halt by this suit, and asked that the recall by the people go forward.

Judge Smith informed both parties he was going to take the case under advisement and render a decision in a few days.

However the judge made the observation that he had a problem with the allegation on the sewer line since Mr. Jacobs was not in office at the time. The judge also said he agreed there is potential for conflict when someone is serving as an elected official and an appointed one, but that he was not sure that it was a violation of the Georgia Constitution.

His last word was that his inclination was to sustain the issue filed by the lawsuit and that this may be an issue for the ballot box to decide.