Bulloch Commissioner Approved More Than $79K in County Contracts for Brother Before Abstaining from Votes

A Bulloch County Commissioner voted to award his brother more than $79,000 in county contracts before he started abstaining from official votes, records show. 

At issue are votes cast by County Commissioner Toby Conner regarding hauling invoices submitted by Sand Creek Land Construction, which is owned by his brother, Clay Conner. The invoices have been ratified by commissioners on a rolling basis following Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Helene under the emergency spending ordinance. To date, Sand Creek Land Construction has received nearly $226,000 for hauling, along with another company – J.L. Derriso Trucking, which has received similar compensation for hauling.  

GBI Investigation

The votes are garnering attention after the county confirmed via its’ Communications Director that the Board of Commissioners Office is fully cooperating with the GBI investigation regarding the Public Works Department’s use of an independent contractor. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation also confirmed that the agency has launched an investigation.

The investigation followed a request for GBI assistance on February 28 by District Attorney Robert Busbee. Because of the fiscal relationship between the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office and the county commissioners, it would be inappropriate for the Sheriff’s Office to conduct an investigation into the county. Additionally, Sheriff Noel Brown endorsed Toby Conner in an in-office video when Conner was running for office in 2022. 

Another Bulloch County-based media outlet reported on March 10 that the GBI investigation is focused into “financial discrepancies within the Bulloch County Public Works Department, focusing on contracts related to disaster cleanup funding.” The outlet further stated that the financial discrepancies “related to invoices and bidding procedures within the Bulloch County Public Works Department.”

It is unusual for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to state specifics of their inquiry or investigation as the agency traditionally limits comment to confirming whether or not an investigation is underway. 

With regard to the invoices, those that are reportedly in question are related to previous appropriations by county commissioners for emergency and disaster clean up in the wake of Debby and Helene, allowing county staff to oversee the day-to-day cleanup and recovery operations while approving invoices for contractors after work is completed. 

It would be unusual for the bid process itself to be under investigation given that OCGA 36-91-22 allows for exceptions on bidding requirements for local governments when the government entity is responding to an emergency so long as the local governing authority describes the nature of the emergency in the meeting minutes. County commissioners did just that in their meetings last fall after Debby and Helene. By law, commissioners are required to ‘ratify’ the contracts (or invoices) as soon as practicable, which is consistent with the county’s ratification of the most recent invoices at nearly every county commission meeting since September.  

Ethics Violations by Conner

Irrespective of whether or not there was a bid process for any contract awarded in the wake of Debby and Helene there is one certainty – a conflict of interest.

In the aforementioned article detailing the GBI investigation and Sand Creek Land Construction, it was erroneously reported that Commissioner Conner had abstained from every vote involving Sand Creek Land Construction.

At the time the GBI investigation was initiated on February 28, Conner had voted to approve more money for Sand Creek Land Construction than he had abstained from appropriating. As of the February 18, 2025 commission meeting, Conner’s votes on Sand Creek Land Construction totaled as follows:

According to the official meeting minutes of the county commission, Conner voted to approve and ratify invoices for Sand Creek Land Construction on November 7, 2024, December 3, 2024, and December 17, 2024. It was not until the January 27, 2025 meeting that Conner formally recused himself from voting and announced that he had a familial connection. 

Both the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia and Robert’s Rules of Order for Parliamentary Procedure recognize abstentions and recusals as two different acts.

Abstaining from a vote is the process of withholding a vote. Contrarily, recusal is the act of removing oneself from not only the vote, but the entire matter so as not to influence any part of the process for a specific reason – usually a conflict of interest.

The conflict of interest is one that is prohibited by the Bulloch County Code of Ethics and the Georgia Code of Ethics for Government Service, which was enacted in 1968 by the General Assembly, and is discouraged by the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia.

Section 2-35 of the Bulloch County Code of Ordinances states that it’s a violation of the county’s code of Ethics to cast a vote where there is a conflict of interest. Subsection (a) of the code section specifically states:

“It shall be a violation of this code of ethics for any officer to participate directly or indirectly through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation or in any other manner upon the following: (1) Any proceeding, application, vote, request for ruling, claim, controversy, contract or any other matter involving an immediate relative or any interest of an immediate relative of the officer.”

Subsection (b) of the ordinance further states that it is not unlawful for the county to conduct business with an immediate relative of an officer so long as the business relationship does not violate the code section, the business relationship is fully disclosed in writing, and that, when applicable, the business entity is required to use the bid system when conducting business with the county. 

In Section 2-42, the Code of Ordinances addresses ‘Abstentions,’ in which “An officer who has an interest that he or she has reason to believe either violated this code of ethics or may affect his or her official acts or actions shall abstain from participating in any official acts or actions related to it.”

Under the ordinance, Conner’s August abstentions and his votes in favor are a violation.

Section 2-43 of the Code allows for censure or reprimand of any public official by the board of commissioner if it is determined that said public official violated the provisions of the County Ethics Code.