The delay in filing an appeal of an ethics complaint decision rendered in Brooklet Municipal Court was an internal matter outside the control of the filer, the petitioner said in court documents.
Background
Becki Gwinnett Hodges, a Brooklet resident and sister of the city’s mayor, filed a complaint against Councilman Brad Anderson, Councilwoman Sheila Wentz, and Councilwoman Rebecca Kelly back in September 2025. The complaint arose over a denial by city council to approve a proposed long-term comprehensive plan, a non-binding blueprint that addresses the entire city and is used to guide growth in the coming years.
Hodges contended that Anderson, who owns a number of properties along Highway 80 in Brooklet, should have recused himself from voting on the Comprehensive Plan because he had a pending zoning application in the city for one of his parcels. Hodges also alleged that the council members Kelly and Wentz colluded to vote in the best interest of Anderson because they opposed the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
You can read the background on the complaint here, including details of Hodges’ press release issued regarding the filing of her complaint and a complete analysis of the parcels in question.
Hodges asked the city, via her ethics complaint, to:
- Formally acknowledge that Councilman Brad Anderson’s conflict of interest exists
- Declare the September 18 Comprehensive Plan vote null and vote due to his participation
- Require Anderson to file a written disclosure of his property interests and recuse himself from all deliberations and votes related to the Comprehensive Plan and his rezoning application.
- Initiate an ethics review of the council members Kelly and Wentz for undermining the the integrity of the process
- Take corrective action to restore public trust in Brooklet’s government
In an Order filed in Brooklet Municipal Court on October 9, Municipal Court Judge Johnny Vines addressed the relevant matters outlined in the city’s ethics ordinance and avoided Hodges’ personal opinion offered in the narrative of the complaint. Judge Vines determined that the complaint should be dismissed for “being unjustified and for failure to state facts sufficient to invoke the disciplinary jurisdiction of the city council.”
You can read the Order here.
You can read the background on the complaint here, including details of Hodges’ press release issued regarding the filing of her complaint and a complete analysis of the parcels in question.
Hodges subsequently appealed to the Bulloch County Superior Court for further review. Her filing was made pro se, meaning she is representing herself.
Though Hodges’ ethics complaint was against three city council members, in her Petition for Certiorari, she listed only Councilman Brad Anderson in her petition. Hodges asked for a superior court judge to vacate the October 9 order and grant ‘other relief,’ though she did not state specifics.
The appeal paperwork is dated October 22, 2025 and some of the paperwork was filed with the Clerk of Superior Court on November 15, 2025, but absent from the filing was the Sheriff’s entry of service – which proves the other party has been served with the filing.
On December 3, 2025, Judge Matthew Hube entered a Case Management Order in which he notified Hodges that a hearing on the matter would not be scheduled until all of the proper paperwork was filed. He noted that the court would review the case again on January 16, 2026.
According to paperwork, Hodges had served the city via a Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office deputy on January 15, 2026.
City Files Motion to Dismiss
In February, attorneys for the City of Brooklet filed a Motion to Dismiss Hodges’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari for two reasons, while also outlining issues with the legal basis of Hodges’ complaint.
First, the city asserted that Hodges failed to file her appeal within thirty days of the filing of the decision in Brooklet Municipal Court. Brooklet Municipal Court Judge Johnny Vines recorded the decision on October 9, 2025, but Hodges did not file her appeal in Bulloch County Superior Court until November 15, 2025. Attorneys also noted that Hodges’ Petition repeatedly cited the certiorari procedure that was in effect prior to the overhaul of the code section in July 2023.
Second, attorneys for the City of Brooklet wrote that even if the filing was filed in a timely manner, the Order from the Court in Brooklet was “supported by sufficient evidence and applicable law and cannot be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”
The filing also noted that Georgia law bars Judge Vines from being listed as a party to the suit because his involvement is only to the extent that Hodges seeks to have his ruling overturned.
Hodges’ Response to Motion to Dismiss
According to court documents filed by Hodges in response to the Motion to Dismiss, she filed the paperwork on October 23 with ‘an Affidavit for Poverty’ but she did not know there was a deadline for submitting financial information. A supplement to her response showed an Order from the court indicating that the denial for the Affidavit of Poverty was denied due to the fact that financial information was not provided by Hodges.
Hodges sought to file the initial Petition for Writ of Certiorari under the state provision for indigency regarding court fees on October 23, 2025. OCGA § 9-15-2 allows a party to a lawsuit to submit an affidavit attesting that because of their indigence, they are unable to pay the costs associated with filing a document in court.
Additionally, the law states that when an individual seeking an exemption from filing fees is also not represented by an attorney, the Clerk of Superior Court is required to present the complaint to a judge for review prior to filing. If the judge determines the complaint to have ‘a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact that it cannot be reasonably believed that the court could grant any relief against any party named in the pleading, then the judge shall enter an order denying filing of the pleading.
Hodges said that she was not given a specific date to provide supplemental financial information or otherwise pay the filing fees. She said there was no documentation provided to her that indicated if she did not pay within 30 days, the case would be dismissed.
“Petitioner was notified of this denial by mail. Upon receiving notice, Petitioner promptly paid the filing fee,” her February 18, 2026 response reads. She said the clerk’s office received her Petition and any internal delay was outside of her control. “Any delay in formal entry resulted from internal processing of the Affidavit of Poverty and mailed notice – matters outside Petitioner’s control.”
In conclusion, Hodges wrote that denial of her petition based on timeliness would “elevate form over substance and deprive Petitioner of review despite timely invocation of jurisdiction.”
The civil case is pending before Judge Matthew Hube. As of March 2, 2026, he had not issued an Order.
Response to Motion to Dismiss
Exhibit to Motion to Dismiss
