Records show that members of the Statesboro City Council were appointed by the mayor to investigate an ethics complaint about one of their fellow council members. Members ultimately issued findings and recommendations, but the city said Wednesday that the full committee never met.
Complaint Background
The complaint arose after a vote during the January 28 Statesboro city council meeting. Council members voted unanimously to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with Habitat for Humanity and Agape Worship Center for residential real estate development. The agenda packet cited an advantage in obtaining grant funds if the city had the MOU in place.
According to the Georgia Secretary of State, Donald Chavers Jr. was the listed CEO for Agape Worship Center. Similarly, the Agape Worship Center website lists him as the pastor. Donald Chavers Jr. is the brother of Councilwoman Paulette Chavers. Councilwoman Chavers voted YEA on the MOU during the city council meeting, a violation of Sections 2-213, 2-214(b), and 2-125 of the Statesboro Code of Ordinances.
At the root of the complaint filed against Chavers was her failure to disclose her “substantial interest,” established via her brother, and cast a vote despite the city ordinance prohibiting her from doing so. The ethics violation was published by TGV the night of the vote and almost 24-hours later, Chavers sent an email rescinding her vote.
A complaint was filed with Mayor Jonathan McCollar two days after the vote in accordance with the Statesboro Code of Ethics. McCollar thanked the complainant for the email, but said the error was ‘caught’ after the meeting and corrective action was taken. He did not suggest any further action would be taken or state that a committee would be created as required, but said at a council meeting a week later that he ‘did not dismiss the complaint.’
A committee, which was made up of three members of city council, was ultimately instituted to investigate the complaint and included Councilmembers Shari Barr, John Riggs, and Tangie Johnson.
Findings of Fact and Recommendations
The committee determined that the city attorney was to blame, finding that City Attorney Cain Smith advised Chavers “in error” that she could vote on the agenda item involving a contract with her brother. The committee noted that the item carried in a 3-0 affirmative vote after Chavers’ vote was withdrawn and that Chavers vote was “unintentional and inconsequential.”
The recommendations of the committee included:
- That the complaint against Chavers be dismissed as moot as the offending vote was properly and timely withdrawn.
- That the ethics section and recusal process be reviewed at the City Council retreat.
- That the City Attorney review every agenda moving forward for possible conflict of interest issues and continue to advise Mayor and Council on conflicts.
- Council members should continue to consult with City Attorney regarding potential conflicts in advance and during the course of the meeting.
The Findings of Fact and Recommendations of the Investigative Committee were provided in an undated, unsigned Microsoft Word document with no logo from the City of Statesboro and no details of the complaint for which the committee was created.
City Attorney Responsibility vs Responsibility of Elected Official
The determination that the city attorney was to blame for the vote by Chavers presents a problem for future ethics matters, namely because the city attorney cannot be aware of every conflict. Attorneys for local governments are expected to act in an advisory role, when asked, not in a proactive advocacy role in which they represent the individual elected official. Their job is to represent the local government and the ordinances of that local government. More specifically, an attorney for a local government is incapable of knowing every familial connection, every business venture, and any other possible conflict of individuals who are serving in elected office.
The duty is on the elected official to bring forth and disclose the conflict of interest, which is why the ethics principles are taught to elected officials at their training and continuing education put on by the Georgia Municipal Association.
No Need for Georgia Open Meetings Act
The committee avoided Georgia Open Meetings Act requirements triggered by a quorum by having members of the committee meet two at a time. By city ordinance, a quorum is three city council members.
Records obtained by TGV show that Councilmembers Barr and Riggs were invited to a Zoom meeting on February 18, 2025 at 11:30 a.m. Thirty minutes later, at 12:00 p.m., Barr and Johnson participated in a Zoom meeting.
The city attorney participated in the Zoom meeting as did the city clerk, in accordance with the ordinance. It is unclear why City Manager Charles Penny participated in either meeting.
Ethics Committees in Other Cities
The ethics complaint process in Statesboro does not mirror that of other municipalities.
In order to be certified as a City of Ethics by the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA), the city must have a process for an ethics committee. Statesboro does, but in the majority of municipalities in the region, the ethics committee does not include any elected officials. Instead, the appointed members of the committee are nominated by elected officials but are members of the general public and citizens of the respective community.
This is true in a number of neighboring cities, including Alma (Bacon County), Claxton (Evans County), Glennville (Tattnall County), Guyton (Effingham County), Metter (Candler County), Savannah, and Reidsville (Tattnall County).
In these communities, ethics committees convene in-person for a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Act and conduct their business before the general public. This occurs irrespective of who is the subject of the complaint.
In places like Brooklet, Port Wentworth, and Sylvania, the Municipal Court is responsible for hearing complaints.
The recurring theme among the other cities is that elected officials who serve alongside the subject of the complaint are not the ones serving on the committee and the proceedings are conducted before the public.
The committee decision concludes the complaint process for Chavers, who has not publicly addressed the allegations against her or issued an apology for the misstep..
