Read Part 1 – Interview with Commissioner Ray Davis
Read Part 2 – Interview with Clay & Megen Conner, owners of Sand Creek Land Construction
Read Part 3 – Interview with Bulloch County Public Works Employees
Read Part 4 – Interview with Commission Chairman David Bennett
Read Part 5 – Interview with Commissioner Timmy Rushing
Read Part 6 – Interview with Commissioner Anthony Simmons
The GBI Interviews with Commissioner Ray Mosley and Commissioner Nick Newkirk are posted together because neither interview offered ‘new information’ for the investigation. Both interviews are transcribed in the same manner as other interviews and the complete audio recordings are below.
GBI Interview with Commissioner Ray Mosley
This interview appears to be conducted by phone.
0:30 – Agent Jones shares the scope of his investigation with Commissioner Mosley and asks for his perspective on all of it with regard to the Bulloch County Commissioner’s Office. Mosley shares that the relationship with Sand Creek went back to ‘before the storms’ because the county was short personnel. “So Public Works reached out to them,” Mosley said. He said outsourcing work is up to Public Works and they just make a recommendation to the commissioners.
2:10 – Agent Jones asks about the bidding procedures for contract work and why Sand Creek Land Construction’s procedure was different in this case. Mosley says the phone was “ringing off the hook with people demanding services.”
3:22 – Agent Jones asks if the county commissioners rely on others to ensure the accuracy of invoices and information.
3:47 – Agent Jones asks if Mosley noticed any irregularities or if it was brought to his attention. Mosley said he heard about it when he was going through an unexpected storm of his own (a family illness and ultimate death of said family member). Discussion then moves to Mosley’s history in Bulloch County government.
5:58 – Agent Jones asks if he had ever detected any criminal intentions in Public Works, Dink Butler, or Sand Creek Land Construction. Mosley replies that he had not.
7:00 – Mosley shares that Commissioner Toby Conner brought it up to the county attorney “a number of times” that he wanted to know if there were issues with voting on certain matters.
“I, you know, up until then and even now I had trust that Public Works was just doing the right thing and they brought the information to us. So, based on that trust factor, I didn’t see any improprieties that needed to be brought to any attention,” Mosley said.
The interview ended with Mosley saying he would cooperate however he could and that he trusted Public Works was doing the right thing.
Listen to the audio interview
GBI Interview with Commissioner Nick Newkirk
1:15 – Agent Jones shares the scope of the criminal investigation. He goes on to ask Newkirk his perspective on the allegations and the claims that there are more hours logged than what could be possible.
1:48 – Newkirk shares that he was attending commission meetings in 2024 when the storms came through he ‘thought it was a little fishy’ when the former Board started using Sand Creek as a no-bid contractor while also acknowledging that emergency situations afford more leeway.
“The optics look bad. I didn’t think anything was illegal then, but the optics looked really bad,” Newkirk told Jones. “And I know he’s done some previous work, Clay’s actually done work for me back in the day, and my family’s used him in Effingham…they’re all good people, that I know, on the outside. You know, I don’t think they’re criminally doing or trying to do intentionally wrong. I could be wrong with that, but the optics look bad.”
3:20 – Newkirk then talked about the first time that Commissioner Toby Conner recused himself from voting on the invoices, but then did not recuse himself from future votes. “I thought that was bad…But as far as that being criminal to vote on it, I don’t know where that line is. I knew it just looked bad.”
3:55 – Agent Jones asks Newkirk if the votes for Sand Creek would have changed if Conner had abstained.
4:10 – Newkirk shares that the billing for Sand Creek in the commissioner’s packet was not itemized, that invoices only had a total amount of hours and the amount due. He said that other vendors submit a couple pages of supporting documentation to a couple hundred pages of documentation.
5:00 – Agent Jones tells Newkirk that he thinks it’s unfortunate that it played out in a commission meeting. “It’s unfortunate, from my perspective, as far as how some of it kind of played out during an agenda meeting. I believe it was Cassandra Mikell who got up there. Dink kind of seemed like he was defending himself, understandably of course, as the Director of Public Works.” He then asks Newkirk when he became aware. Newkirk answers that he’s not sure if he ‘knew if it was anything,’ he just knew Sand Creek didn’t submit the hours.
5:39 – Newkirk shares that he did receive a few phone calls about the third party trucks, but he was unaware of the details of the subcontracting specifics.
Newkirk shares that one of the phone calls asserted that trucks were going to the pit and just sitting, without doing the work. He says he went out there the following Monday and saw trucks coming and going. “From what I could tell, it was all legit.”
7:05 – Newkirk says that after the meeting where Cassandra Mikell spoke and Dink Butler responded, they did start providing more detailed invoices to commissioners.
8:20 – Agent Jones asks Newkirk about if commissioners comb through invoices that appear in agenda packets for meetings. Newkirk replies that much of it is trusted upon who they get it from. “I’ll go through and look at everything, but as far as trying to itemize ‘ok this dump truck was here on this day, where’s this,’ unless somebody tells me…” He said it’s the department heads who sign off on the itemizing and invoices.
11:10 – Agent Jones if he has ever detected any kind of criminal intent, to steal or anything like that from Sand Creek or Dink or anybody…
“No, as far as them being criminal, I don’t think. You know, there might have been a slip up here, my perception of them, I’ve known the Conners for a while. They’ve always seemed legit and straight up with me. I’ve done business with them in the past.” He then goes on to say that he moved to Bulloch County in 2003, built a house in 2005, and at the time, Dink Butler was the building inspector. “If it hadn’t been for him, I wouldn’t ever been able to get that house built cause he was along the way the whole time…he was a hands-on guy.” He goes on to say that based on his experience with Dink, he does not think he would do anything intentionally.
12:25 – Agent Jones asks Newkirk, “If the numbers are off due to human error, is that, like, understandable or is there something?”
Newkirk replies that it depends on what the numbers are. Agent Jones replies, “Well, if it’s something egregious, then obviously…”
14:00 – Newkirk asks Jones when something becomes a criminal issue versus an ethical issue. Jones explains that they look for patterns of behavior and they consider the actual number – whether or not the number is egregious. “And it all, it’s all regarding intent. If it’s obvious that there’s intent here to deprive people of funds and things like that to manipulate the system or anything like that…”
15:30 – Newkirk details when the Sand Creek Land Construction invoices first came up and he mentioned the ethics ordinance to other commissioners and the county attorney. He referenced the prohibition on voting on matters pertaining to siblings and was told by County Attorney Jeff Akins that a ‘brother’ was not a sibling.
He also shares that efforts have been made to fix some of the confusion over what to do and when regarding abstentions before mentioning that there was another ethical issue with a leak to a real estate
The agent shared he was having a difficult time getting in touch with two of the commissioners because he had office numbers and asked if Newkirk could provide personal cell phone numbers.
19:00 The interview concludes and Agent Jones walks Newkirk out.
Listen to the audio interview
Case Timeline
Friday, February 28, 2025 – Commissioner Ray Davis contacts District Attorney Robert Busbee.
Friday, February 28, 2025 – District Attorney Robert Busbee requests assistance from the GBI after receiving information from a concerned resident. The letter says Busbee was notified of concerns regarding 1) bidding, and 2) an unnamed county commissioner, and) a county employee named “Dink Butler.”
Tuesday, March 4, 2025 – Bulloch County Commissioners hold their regular meeting. The issue of invoices and Sand Creek Land Construction are discussed during the public comment portion of the meeting. Meeting can be viewed here.
Wednesday, March 5, 2025 – 8:45 a.m – GBI Interviews Commissioner Ray Davis. Listen to his interview here.
Wednesday, March 5, 2025 – 1:31 p.m. – GBI Interviews Clay & Megen Conner Listen to the interview here.
Thursday, March 6, 2025 – 8:53 a.m. – GBI Interviews Public Works Director Dink Butler & Asst. Public Works Director Robert Seamans. Listen to the interview here.
Chairman David Bennett Date of interview unclear – Listen to interview here.
GBI Interviews Commissioner Timmy Rushing – Date of interview unclear – Listen to interview here.
Commissioner Anthony Simmons Date of interview unclear. Listen to interview here.
Commissioner Nick Newkirk [Interview date not listed on audio recording or in case file. Time ~8:25 a.m. (based on interview end time)]
GBI Interviews Commissioner Ray Mosley [Interview date not listed on audio recording or in case file. Time 9:53 p.m. (based on interview end time)]
Monday, March 10, 2025 – GriceConnect breaks the news that there is a GBI investigation. TheGeorgiaVirtue also notes an active GBI investigation in an article about the ethical concerns about Commissioner Toby Conner voting on the approval of funding for work completed by his brother.
GBI Interviews Commissioner Toby Conner [date not listed but comments from agent in the audio indicate it occurred after the month of March]. Time 10:06 a.m (based on interview end time) ]
No one else was interviewed by the GBI, but in July, the GBI does interview Clay Conner a second time.
April 11, 2025 – The District Attorney’s Office notifies PAC that the GBI investigation, which is still ongoing, will create a conflict for his office. The DA’s office did not formally ‘conflict out’ because the office did not receive the case file since Busbee notified PAC while the investigation was ongoing. The GBI does not forward its eventual findings to the Ogeechee Circuit DA’s office and instead consults with PAC.
Monday, July 14, 2025 – Clay Conner and his attorney submit a proffer to the GBI and Prosecuting Attorney’s Council of Georgia which prohibits the use of the content of Conner’s interview in any criminal or civil proceeding against him so long as the content is truthful and complete. The fact that the proffer has been made is also prohibited from being used in any criminal or civil proceeding against Clay Conner. Read the proffer. A copy of the document signed by the prosecutor in the case is available here.
Tuesday, August 19, 2025 – Conner and his attorney appear at the Bulloch County Commission meeting. Conner’s attorney, Jim Durham, tells the commissioners his client has been treated unfairly and that Conner voluntarily sat down with the GBI with all of the information about his business. Read the story.
Wednesday, Aug 20, 2025 – The Executive Director of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Council signs an order appointing a District Attorney Pro Tem to handle the case. (Note: This is when the order was signed, but PAC was handling the case prior to this date because the PAC prosecutor is referenced in the case file prior to this date and Busbee notified PAC of the potential conflict on April 11, 2025.)
Wednesday, Aug 20, 2025 – The Prosecuting Attorney’s Council pens a letter to the GBI stating, “Based on your findings and our analysis of the case, there is no readily provable criminal intent, and the case is declined.” Read the story.
Thursday, Aug 21, 2025 – TheGeorgiaVirtue filed an Open Records Request for the complete case file. The GBI replies the same day to report that the case is still open and pending and, therefore, the records are not available. View the email response from the GBI indicating that the file was not subject to release.
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2025 – TheGeorgiaVirtue again files an Open Records Request for the complete case file. [Documented in response from GBI here]
Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2025 – The GBI replies with the cost estimate for the case file and states the file will be ready on or before November 19, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. (Not a typo on the part of TGV, the GBI invoice lists the completion date as more than one year from the date of request. View the email response from the GBI.)
Friday, Oct. 3, 2025 – The GBI file is provided to TheGeorgiaVirtue. It notes that some personally identifiable information was redacted during preparation of the file, as is permitted under the Georgia Open Records Act.[View the email dated October 3 indicating that the case file is available for download]
