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
Read Part 7 – Interview with Commissioners Ray Mosley & Nick Newkirk
Read Part 8 – Interview with Commissioner Toby Conner
Clay Conner & His Attorney Meet with the GBI, Special Prosecutor
GBI Interview with Clay Conner, Conner’s attorney Jim Durham, special prosecutor Christopher George (via Teams), Ava Smith, and GBI Analyst Laketa Lee (via Teams) from the Prosecuting Attorney’s Council (PAC). This interview occurred on July 14, 2025.
GBI Agent Justin Jones opens the interview by announcing who is present for the recording. Conner’s attorney notes that the interview is taking place as part of a proffer agreement signed by Conner, his attorney, the GBI, and the prosecutor.
The proffer prohibits the use of the content of Conner’s proffer 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.
It only applies to Clay Conner and not any other individual.
2:00 – Agent Jones notes that some discrepancies were noted, particularly with amounts that were written on the invoices. Jones offers to go through each one individually and then asks Clay Conner to walk him through the process of totalling the amounts on the invoices.
Conner replies that on any given day, trucks went to the county yard and they received a radio from the
County. “Each truck has a truck ticket, the truck number on it, the amount of loads he hauled that day, at the end of the day, whatever road it was, somebody with the county would sign the ticket, they’d get the copy of the ticket, my driver gets a copy of the ticket. They bring the ticket back to the yard, fill up with fuel, put the ticket in the box, it’s the same process every day. I either go and do my paperwork that afternoon when all the trucks are home or first thing the next morning…before the trucks leave. We tally up the hours at the end of the week. Usually on Monday or Tuesday or the following week, we send an invoice in to the county or to whoever we’re working for. They have copies of the tickets as well as I do.”
3:55 – Agent Jones asks Conner how long he’s been working with Bulloch County.
4:10 – Jones asks if the process for reporting and tracking has been the same for the entire time he’s worked for Bulloch County.
5:00 – Jones asks Conner about calculating hours once all the tickets are done. Conner answered it was done on pen and paper. Jones then asks if the respective contractor doubles back and checks the tickets.
6:00 – Jones asks Conner if there’s ever been a dispute. Conner replies that there have been several times that he’s been ‘long on some and short on some.’ Conner’s attorney asks him to clarify if that’s in general or as it relates to Bulloch County. Conner said ‘in general,’ and that Bulloch County had only questioned one [invoice].
6:40 – Jones asks Conner if he ever doesn’t receive the full payment owed from Bulloch County or if he received more than he invoiced for. Conner replied, “Not that I can recall.”
7:12 – Jones asks if Conner is familiar with Dink Butler and how long he’s known him in a professional capacity.
8:00 – Jones asks Conner how he thinks the allegations arose. Conner’s attorney instructs him to respond ‘without getting angry.’ Conner answers “They didn’t like how my brother voted and it’s one commissioner and the Bulloch County Coalition started all of this and it was a way to get at me and my brother.”
8:39 – Jones asks Conner to be a little more specific about how he voted or what vote is that. Conner replies, “He didn’t give Ray Davis what he wanted.” He goes on to explain that they [the county] called and wanted him to put magnets on the leased trucks that were doing work for the county. “I lease some days 2, some days 15 dump trucks, and I never have a question ever to put a magnet with my name on the side of their truck. That started, I got the magnets made, and I sent a picture of them to Ray Davis cause I’ve known him my whole life, sent a picture of ‘em to him, and he sent me a text back that said “Somebody brought it to my attention so I asked about it, I’ve got bigger fish to fry.”
10:02 – Jones goes back to the issue of the invoices and asks Conner if he believes that is the actual purpose for his business being involved in the investigation.
“I think they realized they paid me over half a million dollars and it was ongoing and nobody knew the extent of all this work that was going on. I didn’t know that it was going to do all this, far as the amount of work that was there, but I mean, I’m in that business and I live in this county, always lived in this county, and I’m going to take the business if they give it to me. I didn’t do nothin’ wrong. I haven’t stole from this county.
10:57 Jones and Conner discuss his ongoing projects with the county.
11:45 Jones asks if Conner is still under contract with Bulloch County. Conner replies that there never was a contract. Conner’s attorney clarifies, “There was no written contract, right?” which Conner affirms. Agent Jones notes that he reviewed the county policy on bidding.
12:25 Jones then pivots to a powerpoint he’s displaying (though the recording is audio only). He notes that the GBI calculated just under $5,000 “as far as a surplus amount.” Jones references his total based on the 30+ invoices that were obtained beginning in August 2024 and when the investigation began in March 2025.
Jones then states that the difference was a surplus in favor of Conner in the amount of $4,964.25. Jones notes that this is out of several hundred thousand in invoices.
13:20 Jones asks Conner if there was any intent to steal. Conner replies “No sir.”
Jones then asks if there was any intention on masking actual work done and calculating different totals. Conner replies, “No sir, we do it honest.”
14:30 Conner’s attorney instructs him to explain why there’s a difference between what Sand Creek billed and what they paid.
Jones replies that the GBI numbers were pretty solid based on calculations from the invoices and Conner replies “I went back and done the math.”
Conner explains that there is “probably some unused guarantee on there.” Conner explains that the process of billing for an 8-hour minimum day, which he says is the industry standard. He refers the prosecutor to another business that operates under the same practice.
Conner’s attorney then stated that the December 10 invoice referenced on the GBI presentation invoice notes there is a charge for the ‘8 hour minimum.’
Note: Conner’s attorney does not indicate whether or not the notation regarding the 8 hour minimum applies to the total invoice amount or a portion of it. The case file shows there are two invoices dated December 10, 2024 – #2265 and #2270 – and neither offer a specific line item that delineates how much of the invoice is made up of 8-hour minimums, if any.
19:45 Jones asks Conner if the discrepancies were ‘simple miscalculations.’
Conner replies “Yes, I’m human. But I didn’t, but they ain’t pay me no more than what I should’ve been paid. I haven’t done nothing wrong here. I sent an invoice to the county and they paid me.”
Conner’s attorney clarifies, “But when you wrote on the ticket that there were 7 hours of work and you charged for 8, that wasn’t an accident, correct? You did that because that’s the standard practice.” Conner replied affirmatively.
20:45 Conner’s attorney asks him if there are instances, after Conner went back through the invoices, where there were overcalculations and under-calculations. Conner replies affirmatively. His attorney then asks if those were mathematical errors, which Conner again affirms.
Discussion then shifts to Conner’s subcontract work with Bulloch County through Reeves Construction.
21:00 – Agent Jones asks Conner if there was any attempt to deprive or steal. Conner says “No sir.”
This document was created by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and was included in the case file under the Georgia Open Records Act. It was watermarked only due to the cost of the case file incurred by TGV.
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2183
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2187
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2188
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2191
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2192
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2198
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2199
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2205
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2206
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2207
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2208
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2215
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2216
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2222
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2223
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2253
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2258
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2260
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2263
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2265
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2270
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2283
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2289
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2292
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2300
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2308
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2314
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2316
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2318
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2322
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2325
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2334
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2335
Sand Creek LLC Invoice – 2335 Duplicate
Sand Creek LLC Invoices List
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]
