The #1 Source of News for
Calhoun-Gordon County
We're NOT Yesterday's News!!!
Phone: 770-547-1044 | Email: staff@gordongazettega.com
Proudly located and operated in Calhoun-Gordon County!
Fairmount City Council hears concerns about upcoming 2025 proposed budget
File photo from December 2024 regularly scheduled meeting of the Fairmount City Council
The Fairmount City Council held a special called budget meeting Tuesday night, Dec. 17, 2024 to discuss potential issues of the proposed budget for 2025.
According to City Clerk Haley Black, the budget is put together each year by auditor Marvin Chance with RL Jennings and herself. The discussion Tuesday night revolved around specific line items in the budget, including a line item for the Police Department fines secured by the speed detection device at Fairmount Elementary.
The meeting opened with Fairmount Mayor Tyler Leamer bringing up House Bill 1126 to begin the budget discussion. HB1126 is an act to amend Article 2 of Chapter 14 of Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to speed detection devices, to repeal all law relative to enforcement of speeding in school zones through the use of automated traffic enforcement safety devices; to provide for conforming changes; to prohibit a local governing body or law enforcement agency from entering into or renewing a contract that provides for enforcement of laws relative to speeding in school zones through the use of automated traffic enforcement safety devices; to provide for related matters; to provide for effective dates; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
Fairmount’s current speed detection device is located outside of Fairmount Elementary, in the middle of the school zone on Hwy. 53.
“That is on the House floor now; they are trying to do away with those speed cameras,” said Leamer. “If that happens, next year, the 2025 proposed budget would have $150,000 in that line item (in the budget) under Blueline Solutions in the Fines category. So right from the (beginning), if this goes through, the City will be $150,000 short.”
Leamer also pointed out other issues he’s been made aware of with the fines collected from the camera concerning budget income.
“We can’t use that money for salaries, hourly pay or anything like that,” said Leamer. “Chief Gillman has some more information on what this money can and can’t be used for.”
Gillman showed Georgia’s O.C.G.A, book, telling the Council “This is the official Georgia Law.”
“This is what we have to go by as far as law enforcement is concerned,” said Gillman. “40-14-18 stipulates what that money can and can’t be used for, and to give you a short version of it, it basically says ‘if the fines from a speed camera are 35 percent or more of a law enforcement agency’s budget, the Georgia Department of Public Safety can revoke the agency’s speed detection device permit.’ What that means is, it’s not just from the (school zone) camera, it means our radars, our cars, our lasers…our speed detection permit (would have) a hold for the department. We would not be allowed to write speeding tickets anymore if we violate this and the Georgia Department of Public Safety comes in and revokes the permit. It also goes on to say the money is to be used for public safety incentives and programs, so not salaries and raises or things like that. I think the only stipulation to that would be if Fairmount had a city school (currently, Fairmount is a county school), and we wanted to hire a school resource officer for that city school, we could use the money from that and supplement that school resource officer, but aside from that, being that the Gordon County Board of Education pays for the (school resource officer at Fairmount Elementary), that money can only be used for public safety programs and incentives. Anything outside of that would be in violation of the law as far as it reflecting on our budget.”
Gillman pointed out that this year’s fines collected from the speeding camera are listed in the budget at $107,994 (which are fines collected through Oct. 31, 2024), but fines collected in the proposed 2025 budget are projected to be $150,000.
“I don’t know how you can make a projection of increasing fines?” asked Gillman. “There are some more areas (in this proposed budget) concerning fine money where it’s nearly doubled (from the previous year) and that’s an issue. We can’t have that.”
City Clerk Haley Black, who stated at the last meeting “I’m still training and I’m still learning” despite being on the job for more than two years, said the only way to “get the other totals is to connect the previous years.”
“A proposed budget is, you just have to look at what you’ve done before,” said Black.
“Another concern that I have, Council, is it is projected for this year and next year $278,000 for Municipal Court fines (each year),” said Leamer. “As of right now, we only have around $134,000, so right there, we’re roughly at (being) $145,000 short. But this will go through, so January will pay December; we rollover 30 days to pay bills.”
“The first 60 days go to the previous year,” said Black.
“So in roughly 10 months, we’ve done right at $134,000. We are going to be off; we simply can’t tell the officers ‘hey, you have to go out here and make this difference up in this amount of time,” said Leamer.
Leamer said the City is currently in talks with the Gordon County Board of Education, because the current contract for the School Resource Officer from the Gordon County Sheriff’s Office is $60 per hour to provide an SRO and that Fairmount PD only gets $35 for providing an SRO.
“We’re trying to renegotiate with the Board of Education to get the same pay that the County is getting,” said Leamer. “That will help some because that’s going to cover (SRO Bray’s) pay and his car will be covered at $60 an hour. We’re trying to get on the same page as the County, but it’s taking a little bit of time.”
Leamer also pointed out that while it’s not listed in the budget, the Maintenance Department will need a new service truck.
“We can use SPLOST money for that, for next year,” said Leamer.
“For the truck we have now, the Legislature gave us a grant for that thing,” said Councilmember Jerry Mauldin. “You might want to check there for a grant for the truck
and the tractor. That was a long time ago, but back then, they was handing out money. It don’t hurt to ask.”
Gillman took the opportunity at that point to highlight that for 2024 YTD spending, there has been $8,900 spent on fleet maintenance at the FPD with $12,000 in the budget for the maintenance, but that the projected fleet maintenance dollars for 2025 has dropped to $10,000.
“That’s kind of going backwards because these cars are getting older,” said Gillman, pointing out that there are a couple of cars that still have some warranty left, but the older ones are starting to have more maintenance performed.
Gillman said that previously, only three to four police cars were on the road, but now, there are six to seven on the road.
“The older ones, we’re beginning to spend a significant amount of money on them to keep them on the road,” said Gillman. “Tires are not cheap, brakes are not cheap, brake rotors are not cheap, air conditioning work, and the way the cars are made these days, you have to take the whole front end of the car and the motor off to replace air conditioning (parts). That cost $3,000 just for that one car.”
Leamer pointed out that all cars in the fleet will be paid off in 2025, and that will fall off the budget after next year.
Gillman then said that he felt the budget was difficult to understand, and that he’d had questions on the way it is presented since he came onboard.
“I can’t really make heads or tails out of how it’s done,” said Gillman to the Council and Black. “As far as the camera fine money, where is that reflected in the budget as to where it goes and what it’s being used for?”
“I would have to get with Marvin and Haley on that item; I don’t know exactly what the breakdown is on that Blueline Solution (line item),” said Leamer.
“Because, if it’s being used or supplemented for the Police Department budget, we cannot do that” said Gillman.
“It can’t be,” said Councilman Billy Mauldin.
Gillman again stressed that the House Bill is on the floor and up for discussion at this time, but compared it to traffic light cameras.
“It’s just like the old red light cameras; it’s not a matter of if but when they go away,” said Gillman. “The wrong person’s going to get a ticket or a congressman’s grandson or somebody (will get a ticket) and they’ll do away (with the cameras) and we won’t have that money anymore. It does slow people down; I’m not opposed to the cameras. But we need to be prepared for the ‘what if.’ Also, we don’t want to be currently in violation of the law and lose the City’s speed detection permit as a whole because we’re using that money to supplement the budget when we shouldn’t be doing that.”
“We made more money before we got the camera, really,” said Billy Mauldin.
Leamer pointed out that more citations are being written with the use of the camera with less money collected.
“Thirty-five percent of that money goes back to Blueline Solutions,” said Leamer of the software company that handles monitoring of the camera.
“We’re the only jurisdiction in the county that has one,” said Gillman. “I’m not opposed to having it; it’s a good safety tool and it provides money for good things, I just want to make sure we’re not using it for the wrong thing to get us in a jam. I couldn’t tell, by reading this budget, where the money goes.”
The budget appeared to land in the black, with $54,538.47 in net income for the City at the end of 2025, but certain line items, such as the Police Chief Budget, and employee overtime, did not seem to be included. One of the complaints from several in the police department have been the amount of overtime officers work and do not get paid for.
The budget is to go before a smaller Council at the regularly scheduled meeting in January 2025 after the resignation of the mayor, police chief and others at the meeting on Tuesday.
You can view the proposed 2025 City of Fairmount Budget HERE.
Fairmount Mayor, Police Chief resign after called meeting Tuesday night
Scenes from the Dec. 17, 2024 called meeting of the Fairmount City Council, left, and a list of questions dropped off at City Hall last week that appear to be signed by Council members Billy Mauldin, Jerry Mauldin and Marci Mock, which could be an issue as they appear to show a possible violation of the Open Records Act.
Fairmount now looks to have a Special Election after the called budget meeting that was held on Tuesday night, Dec. 17, 2024 resulted in the resignations of Mayor Tyler Leamer and Police Chief Arnold Gillman.
The resignations after the budget discussion (story soon) come after what both Leamer and Gillman say is a lack of communication and lack of cooperation from three of the Council members, Billy Mauldin, Jerry Mauldin and Marci Mock. The Gazette, by records request, was also provided a list of questions which demanded answers that was dropped off at City Hall last week, that appear to be signed by Councilmembers Billy Mauldin, Jerry Mauldin and Marci Mock, which can potentially cause issues because it appears to show the three privately discussed official City business, which would have created a quorum (a majority of voting members), and may have broken the law under the Open Meetings Act. The Open Records Act states that any person (elected official) who knowingly and willfully conducts or participates in a meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act may be convicted of a misdemeanor and fined up to $1,000.
The questions come after a meeting earlier this month where City Attorney Herman Clark laid out issues with the City's Charter and what the councilmembers can and can't do as elected officials per the Charter. The questions submitted last week appear to be asking for clarification on some of the information discussed in that previous meeting.
Because Leamer was elected a year ago, in November 2023, law requires a special election be held to replace his seat. Council member Fain’s seat, which is up for election next year, should be able to be appointed until the 2025 General Municipal Election.
After the budget discussion Tuesday night, Leamer submitted his letter of resignation to the Council.
“It is with much forethought and consideration that I’m submitting my letter of resignation as the mayor of Fairmount effective January 1, 2025,” said Leamer. “I do not submit this resignation lightly and in so submitting wish to relay by reasoning for resignation:
“Communication between myself, the sitting mayor and City Council members except for one Council member is non-existent. I’ve made myself available via phone, in person as well as via text for conversations and meetings to discuss important matters that involve the City of Fairmount to no avail. I am instead made aware of meetings between Council members and other employees of the City to which these Council members have actively requested that the meeting be kept private and to keep me (as Mayor) out of the loop involving concerns for the City of Fairmount. As the Mayor, it is of the utmost importance to me to play an active part of the day-to-day concerns of the citizens of Fairmount as well as any questions or concerns that are brought to the attention of the Council or of other City employees. It is appalling as well as disrespectful to the Office of Mayor that the Council feels that they have the authority to make and discuss matters which I have taken office to bring to the forefront the concerns of not only the Office of Mayor but the citizens of Fairmount overall. The Council has made it abundantly clear that they do not seek or wish to move Fairmount forward into a more modern city. Attempts to bring adjustments or improvements to the City of Fairmount are met with much distaste or disdain via the Council and are quickly moved to disregard as well as abolished before the matter can be looked into further. This is disheartening to anyone looking to make improvements with the intent to better the community, overall leaving a rift between the citizens of Fairmount and the Council and to a further extent, the office of the Mayor. With regards to my office, the Council has made several attempts to dissuade me from further implementing my office in a way that is designed, outlined and has been previously voted on by the citizens of Fairmount to voice their concerns as well as discuss through City Hall meetings any outstanding matters to which is brought to the attention of my office and the Council, in the attempt of improving the spirit of Fairmount overall. It is disheartening, not only to myself, but to the citizens of Fairmount and the other departments which look to my office to bring forth concerns and look to rectify matters, and to any outside observers made aware of any issues within the City Council. Appalling does not even begin to encompass how this has affected the office of the Mayor and my thoughts on what this will entail for the future mayor of Fairmount.
“Further speaking on communication, the City Council does not speak with Department Heads within the City of Fairmount to endorse open communication or flows of ideas which can improve the City of Fairmount overall. This further causes rifts and divides and a take-it-or-leave-it approach to any and all manners of ideas that are not ideas that have come directly from City Council members,” said Leamer. “Heads of Departments are not able to exercise their office and work directly with the City Council, and all ways that are looked at to improve the City of Fairmount are instead discouraged from reaching out to the City Council. These ideas are often shot down before they can be fully heard and appreciated. One such Council member went above and beyond to discourage open discussion between the citizens of Fairmount and the City by personally contacting a citizen’s spouse in an attempt to dissuade the citizen from voicing concerns about a department head that would have led to the department head, a valued member of the Fairmount community, from resigning. It is personal agendas that seem to be a driving force as opposed to what is in the best interest of the citizens of Fairmount as a whole. This is also duly reflected that there are other instances where Council members have made it their personal goal and mission to silence voices within the community who bring legitimate concerns and this impacts my ability to speak on their behalf as this impacts communication with my office and that of the City Council. I have personally reached out to City Council members numerous times over my time in office with no returned response, no face-to-face meetings. Again, I bring to your attention that agendas seem to be at play and what the Council feels is in their best interest, whether that is to keep things status-quo or if this is a personal feelings on these matters, I cannot say. However, it is my perspective that the City Council does not wish to place the best interest of the citizens of Fairmount at their forethought or judgment when it is in regards to what is in their best interest overall. During my time in office, I have made every attempt to resolve conflict to the best of my ability and capability to no avail.
“It is again, with much forethought, that I submit this resignation. To the citizens of Fairmount, it has been my honor to serve you as mayor during this brief term, and I wish for the upcoming mayor to find a Council that seeks to work alongside the mayor as opposed to working against the mayor,” finished Leamer.
One citizen spoke up after Leamer read his resignation and asked that if the Council was doing these things, why, as mayor, was he not letting the citizens know?
“If the City Council is doing all that stuff, why are you letting them do it without letting the citizens know so if that is fact, we can say what we want, being that it may not be them?” asked the man.
“People have to come to the City Council meetings to voice their concerns,” said Leamer. “As you can see, we have a select few that show up every time. What people say on the street doesn’t (have an) effect. You have to come to the City Council meetings to make change; nobody will know what you want done unless you voice your opinion at a Council meeting.”
Effective January 1, 2025, Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Mauldin will become mayor until an election can be held.
Chief Gillman turned his resignation in to Mayor Leamer effective this Friday, Dec. 20, 2025. In his resignation, he said:
“The continued lack of communication from certain Council Members has created an enormous amount of controversy since my starting with this agency. This is to include the argument over my salary, lack of city provided health insurance on myself and other Officers, lack of knowledge or concern with the Police Department daily functions as well as the job and duties of a Police Chief, and certainly the lack of open dialog between myself and the aforementioned Council Members.
“As you are aware, I have conquered difficult tasks that were long past due concerning the inner workings and legalities of the Police Department and have corrected numerous issues that could have resulted in litigation with the City of Fairmount. I have had the full support of the Mayor, my staff and the community as well, and although this is important, it does not fix the long continued issues with the inner government of this city. Certain Council members continue to create a hostile work environment and make it difficult to do my job and wear the many hats this city requires the Police Chief to wear.
“I had high hopes that I was brought in to correct these issues and put a stop to the constant turnover of Police Chiefs and Officers and bring the reputation of the Fairmount Police Department back to what it once was decades ago. Sadly this task will remain impossible until the governing body changes or takes a deep look into what the citizens demand of them.
“As I have also made you aware, there are deeper issues concerning budgetary ethics and working within the confines of the law. I cannot continue to work under these conditions and refuse to continue to defend my own reputation and record as a Law Enforcement professional under the current administration, removing Mayor Tyler Leamer and Council Member (Steve) Fain. I hereby officially resign my position effective 12/20/2024.”
The Gazette, by records request, was presented the immediate resignation of Lt. Jim Banks with the FPD, who said, “I am officially resigning my position with the Fairmount Police Department. The continued stress created by certain members of the city government has made it apparently clear to me that they do not support the Chief or the Police Department itself. I can speak for the department as a whole that the low pay, stressful work environment and lack of support create the decision to leave this agency. Any of the fine Officers employed by this agency could easily go to any of the surrounding agencies and make far better money, have better benefits, as well as better equipment and be allowed to do the job of a Police Officer without the stench of “small town politics.”
It was mentioned to the Gazette that Council member Steve Fain has also resigned effective immediately, but that has not been confirmed in writing.
The Gazette is working to confirm whether any of the Open Records Act has been violated by the Mauldins and Mock and will follow-up after consulting with Fairmount’s City Attorney.
As the Gazette previously reported, tensions rose after a special called meeting that was held on Nov. 21, 2024, where the Council voted 3-1 against giving the recently sworn-in-to-office Gillman $10,000 that he, the Mayor and Councilman Steve Fain claim was supposed to be part of his salary when he accepted the position and had been disclosed in talks with all four members of the Fairmount City Council. At that meeting, the agenda included two items brought to a vote. The first item was to move $10,000 from a City Administrator position to the police chief’s salary. Council member Marci Mock brought the motion to deny moving the money, with Council members Billy Mauldin and Jerry Mauldin voting with her against moving the money. The next item was a basic vote to set the police chief’s salary at $60,000; Council member Steve Fain brought the motion to set the salary at $60,000 but the motion did not receive a second and it died, leaving the chief’s salary at $50,000. At the Dec. 4, 2024 regularly scheduled meeting of the Council, all seemed to be better at the City after Gillman’s salary increase was finally able to happen after Leamer asked City Attorney Herman Clark to research Fairmount’s City Charter and confirm the exact powers that the position of Fairmount mayor legally possesses. It was discovered during that research that it is the mayor’s job to run the day-to-day operations of the city, including hiring and setting salaries.
THE WAY IT’S ALWAYS BEEN DONE...NO MORE
Changes appear to be coming now that Fairmount Police Chief Arnold Gillman will get extra $10,000 originally promised after town attorney discovers issues researching City’s charter; Residents ask tough questions, demand accountability
Fairmount City Attorney Herman Clark, standing, presents his findings on the City's Charter to those in attendance at the Tuesday night, Dec. 3, 2024 meeting of the Fairmount City Council while Council members Billy Mauldin and Marci Mock, seated left, and Mayor Tyler Leamer (back) listen.
All appears well in Fairmount this week after it was announced at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting that Police Chief Arnold Gillman will be getting the additional $10,000 in salary he was originally offered when he agreed to take the position.
As the Gazette previously reported, a special called meeting was held on Nov. 21, 2024, where the Council voted 3-1 against giving the recently sworn-in-to-office Gillman $10,000 that he, the Mayor and Councilman Steve Fain claim was supposed to be part of his salary when he accepted the position and had been disclosed in talks with all four members of the Fairmount City Council. At that meeting, the agenda included two items brought to a vote. The first item was to move $10,000 from a City Administrator position to the police chief’s salary. Council member Marci Mock brought the motion to deny moving the money, with Council members Billy Mauldin and Jerry Mauldin voting with her against moving the money. The next item was a basic vote to set the police chief’s salary at $60,000; Council member Steve Fain brought the motion to set the salary at $60,000 but the motion did not receive a second and it died, leaving the chief’s salary at $50,000.
The salary increase was finally able to happen after Mayor Tyler Leamer asked City Attorney Herman Clark to research Fairmount’s City Charter and confirm the exact powers that the position of Fairmount mayor legally possesses. In the research, a large can of worms was opened, such as the Council's inability to hold executive sessions.
“I’ve had some questions for the City Attorney over the last couple of weeks, that we have been in discussion about, so I would like for him to answer these questions in front of the Council and the public,” said Mayor Leamer.
At the meeting, Clark presented to those in attendance, just like he was presenting a case in court to a jury. He said he was also asked by “vice-mayor” (Mayor Pro Tem) Jerry Mauldin what his powers were. Clark explained the powers for both positions, and said that he had discovered certain veto powers for the mayor when researching the Town Charter, and that because there was enough money in the Police Department’s budget under a different line item, the Mayor had the authority to hire Gillman at the $60,000 and move the money to Gillman’s salary line without a vote from the Council.
“You started off with a Charter; the Charter is like the Bible as far as (Fairmount) is concerned,” said Clark. “It sets forth the rules; the State of Georgia has a charter called the Constitution, and it’s what we live by. In 1897, (Fairmount) got their first charter and it rocked along for a number of years (without) a lot of changes. In 1975, the very first change to that one came up and it had a provision in it called a remitter, where something is submitted back to you and tells you ‘this is what you’ve got to do.’ In common language, this was then overridden by the General Assembly and it changed all of the laws, and said ‘get rid of the old one and you’re going to have to follow this one.’ A little later on, in 1985, there was another one that was less cumbersome. These are what make changes to the first document. The next one was in 1991 and there was one in 2016.”
Clark said when he first became the town’s attorney year’s ago, he requested to review the charter but it was going to cost a bit of money for him to do so, and that Fairmount didn’t have a lot of money at that time and didn’t want to spend it to review the charter.
Clark said that in the 1980’s and through the early 90’s, he served as a state representative for part of Cobb County, and worked on issues like what was being presented at Fairmount’s meeting.
“One of the first things that I noticed in the 1975 (change) was that the corporate boundaries were registered here and were put into effect. Those corporate boundaries did not get reclassified until 2016. That was a problem. There are numerous, numerous problems contained within these documents. They really need to be redone and consolidated into one document. I’m not sure that we can get it put before a state representative or state senator between now and the ending of (the upcoming) General Assembly.”
City Clerk Haley Black then spoke up, saying that in 1975, the corporate boundaries were classified but the reason they were changed in 2016 were because of roadway annexations.
“I understand,” said Clark. “But when they did that, they didn’t reinstitute, so as far as the boundaries are concerned, (1975) is the one that (is legal) even though it was amended. Remember, at one time, there was a vote taken to take in some property out in one of the other areas; I happened to be here that night and you voted to take in (that property). It’s never been incorporated into a document that is gone before the General Assembly and been voted on. In order to get it to where anybody doing research on this would find it; they don’t come and go through all of your (meeting) minutes to say, ‘yeah, these people have to be taken in and we took them in.’ The only thing done with the 2016 amendment was to take in the (state) roadway from the north of town and south of town.”
“That changed our corporate boundaries,” said Black.
“Well, it did and it didn’t,” said Clark. “The ownership of that right-of-way is vested in the State because it’s a U.S. Highway, but you have certain powers that are related to it, and those powers are that your officers can go out there and enforce the law on it and perform accident investigations.”
Another point in the document that Clark pointed out was that there was a change made in 1991 that eliminated certain powers that the mayor has.
“It took away (the mayor’s) right to veto certain resolutions and things,” said Clark. “Not all of them; it only took away a certain select group which was identified in (the document). That should have been cleaned up a long time ago, but it hasn’t been. There is nothing in any subsequent document that we can find anywhere that says that.”
One citizen asked, “Is the problem the fact that, the City made the amendments and voted on the amendments but never went forward through General Assembly so it was not formalized?”
“That is exactly right,” said Clark. “So if you had a lawyer come in here to do research on any of these issues, they’re going to pull their hair out because they can’t find it.”
“All these amendments that came through, you’re saying they’re not valid unless they go back to the state legislature,” asked one citizen.
“There is an official vote, taken in the General Assembly that’s called a Local Legislation Vote, it’s approved in one chamber, passed to the other chamber for approval and then goes to the Governor to sign,” said Clark.
“I guess the scary part of that is, how many amendments have we been in violation of,” said the citizen.
“Let’s not talk that you’re in violation,” said Clark. “There are elements of every single one of them that are problems. There are numbering problems. Someone did not do a very good job of going through and editing this thing and looking at it before putting it on the table down there to be voted on.”
Clark said that what he’s been told in talking to Councilman Jerry Mauldin and Councilman Billy Mauldin is that all of the “stuff” that the mayor could not do in vetoing, not all of it was wiped away, and said that the issue needs to be resolved to stop the infighting that’s happening within the Council.
“Only a one-line paragraph in there takes (it) away,” said Clark. “Someone had taken the copy and ‘x’ed it out and said ‘Amendment 1991.’ If you’re a lawyer and looking at that, you’re going to say ‘okay, where’s 1991?’ You go get 1991 (document) and it doesn’t link it back to that and cover everything. There’s a whole host of stuff that covers the issues of what the mayor can do in a veto. I don’t care what they want; if they want veto power in the mayor or they want to keep him with no veto power it needs to be put in a document (like this). The logical place would have been to put it in the 1991 amendment but it’s not in there. How do we get around it? These folks (Council) just have to adopt a resolution and get ahold of the State Representative (Matt Barton) and let him know something’s coming. This needs to be straightened because it will eliminate a lot of infighting. You don’t need that. You’re a small town and you need to be as cooperative as you can to get the job done and fighting over what is in or not in these documents here is very, very important in my opinion.”
Councilwoman Marci Mock asked, “Why hasn’t it already been, between (former mayor) Steve Brannon and now, hows come it hasn’t already been…I mean, all those years?”
“I was hired on when Calvin (Watts) was mayor,” said Clark. “At the time, I suggested we get these redone. Because the cost of me doing it was too excessive, I suggested they get the General Assembly but nothing ever came from it and it’s still on the books that way. The only change we have gotten done is the 2016 amendment, I was very concerned when they adopted that and it was submitted to the State Representative at that time because I didn’t want these officers out here going out there (in the annexed property), having a shootout and it be on property other than what we had jurisdiction on.”
Concerning the 1991 amendment on the mayor’s veto powers, Clark said, “The one thing it did not address is that you (the mayor) have a line item veto where you can veto items in a budget; that’s spelled out in black and white terms.”
“What are we talking about, the mayor’s ability to veto, and veto what?” asked one resident.
“Anything in the way of resolutions,” said Clark.
“So the mayor, it sounds like, would still have that ability with the exception of city ordinances,” said the resident. “The mayor cannot veto city ordinances but he still has the power to do everything else, is that what we’re hearing?”
“Correct,” said Clark. “The other issue I was asked to opine on was the issue of what powers do the mayor pro tem have and what legally can he do. In the absence or disability of the mayor, for any cause, the mayor pro tem, who shall be elected (by the Council) under section 2.20, ‘shall be clothed with all the rights and privileges of the mayor and shall perform the duties of the office as mayor as long as such a disability shall continue.’ So, he (Jerry Mauldin) has no power at all; he is a council member (unless the mayor can’t do his job). The Council, all they really can do is set policy. They adopt resolutions and direct the mayor to enforce them. But the vice-mayor (mayor pro-tem) doesn’t have any authority to interfere with those; the mayor is the executive officer of the city. You can’t have two masters, go back to the Bible. You’re going to cause chaos (if there are two)….you can’t have four council members trying to go out here and direct (city employees) from doing their job. It’s not going to work.”
Clark pointed out what he called a “pretty big issue” that he found while researching; Fairmount City Council is not allowed to have executive sessions.
“We’re not allowed, the Council, to have confidential monthly meetings (executive sessions),” said Clark. “We did that, what, two weeks ago (before the special called meeting)? Well, you can’t do that, the way this (charter) is written. We need to get this changed if you want to have it changed, and I strongly recommend that you have it changed because you need to have it set up where you can discuss things in an executive session.”
“I have a question on that, too, Herman,” said Black. “I know that executive session is a state law as well.”
“But that doesn’t make any difference,” said Clark. “This (the charter) is what you have to occupy. This (the charter) is what the State is agreeing that you folks want to operate by because they give you the liberty of putting together a lot of the rules in this document. And they don’t strong arm you unless they see something that is contrary to good practices and contrary to law.”
“So the elephant in the room is, how does all of this affect the decision that was made two weeks ago (denying the $10,000 to Gillman)?” asked a resident.
“So all of this transpires that it is my job to run the day-to-day operations of the city,” said Mayor Leamer. “That’s what I’m here for and why I was elected. It is their (Council) dual role to vote on ordinances and regulations and I am to see that they are followed.”
Clark also gave those in attendance the proper procedures on how to “get rid of” elected officials in the city.
“Number one, you have to be able to convince this Council here or a court, and this matter said (in the charter) that ‘any information filed in the Superior Court of Gordon County as provided by law,’ so if you’re going to get rid of them technically without the ballot, you’re going to have to declare there is incompetence, there’s misfeasance or malfeasance in office, and those are difficult terms to handle; the next is conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, the next thing is failure at any time to possess any of the qualifications of office that is set forth in the charter, willful violation of any expressed prohibition of this charter….abandonment of office or neglect to perform the duties thereof.”
“So, what decision was made two weeks ago that everybody seems to be so upset about now but it seems like 90 percent of us in the City didn’t know anything about it until it started get talking about?” asked one resident.
“It was presented to the Council to move $10,000 from one category in the budget to another category in the budget and they denied that; the reason behind it was ‘for the conditions of the city.’ The second line item in that meeting was to put the police chief’s salary at $60,000 and it died for lack of a second motion so nothing could be voted on at that time,” said Mayor Leamer.
“So we make an agreement for this man to come to work for us for a certain amount of money in the beginning and now all of a sudden that changed?” asked the resident. “We elected all of you as Council representing us and y’all are making deals and going backwards.”
“I would like to know who made that agreement,” said Councilwoman Mock. “I was never (aware) of that.”
Councilmen Billy Mauldin and Jerry Mauldin agreed with Mock that they were not aware that an agreement was ever reached for the $60,000.
“Well if everyone is saying they didn’t (agree on the $60,000), then why are we having this conversation?” asked the resident.
“Who offered the $60,000?” asked Mock.
“I offered the $60,000,” said Mayor Leamer.
“Did you have the authority to?” asked another resident.
“Yes,” said Mayor Leamer. “It had been discussed with the Council.”
“But you didn’t have it in writing?” asked a resident.
“We did discuss in a meeting,” said Councilman Steve Fain.
“No we didn’t,” said Billy Mauldin.
“That was a confidential meeting that you can’t talk about,” said Clark.
“It had been discussed, with the Council, what it would take to hire (the Police Chief,” said Mayor Leamer. “I did what I had to do; we had to have a Chief of Police, so I hired him.”
“We made a mistake; we didn’t get it in writing,” said Fain. “If we had a contract, there would be no problems. I’ll take 100 percent of (the blame).”
“I’m trying to figure out where’s the problem?” said the resident. “Everyone is sitting here saying they agree, where’s the problem?”
“We did not agree to anything; we haven’t heard anything said about that in a public meeting,’ said Billy Mauldin.
“For anyone hired through the City, is that not hired through (the mayor)? It’s not the decision of everyone else on the Council to hire someone or set their salary That’s up to you, correct?” asked another resident.
“Yes ma’am,” said Mayor Leamer.
“Then if that’s up to you, why are we going through all of this?” asked the resident.
“Yeah, why did we have the vote?” asked Mock.
“Because a mistake was made,” said Mayor Leamer. “I’m new (began serving in January 2024), you’re new (Mock began serving in January 2024) and I have had hardly any communication (from some members of the Council). I’ve had to converse with Herman multiple times during this whole episode.”
“Well, we didn’t bring this episode on,” said Billy Mauldin.
“Yeah, you did,” said Fain.
“So, if I’m understanding from Clark, our mayor has the authority to hire our police chief and/or fire; and as such, I would assume that would include they could (set) the salary. So the question I have is, it sounds like there was a mistake in going to the City Council to get their approval for that salary because that was not necessary,” said a resident. “Is that correct; am I understanding that correctly? Does the City Council have to approve the police chief’s salary?”
“I have represented about 12 cities and four counties, and whoever is the CEO has very liberal dealings to do that,” said Clark. “If the Council does not like it, they can call that person on the carpet and say, ‘you didn’t do it right, we don’t like it and we’re going to take it,’ because they can control where the money is. It was my understanding when this all started (months ago) that the $10,000 that would have covered (the extra for the police chief) was in the mayor’s budget. In order to move it from the mayor’s budget to the police department’s budget, you legally have to do a resolution.”
“So the question that the Council would need to decide on is not whether or not he gets the salary he was promised by the mayor, the question is whether or not we use funds from the administrative account and move it into the police account?” asked the resident.
“That is what brought it to the forefront,” said Clark.
“Is that what the decision is?” asked the resident.
“Yes,” said Clark.
“Okay, so if everyone can say, ‘the mayor had the right to hire the chief, he had the right to set the salary for the chief so now we just need to find the money to pay the chief his salary, and the council is not agreeing on where the monies are coming from?” asked the resident.
“Right,” said Leamer. “And the money there under the police line item we can balance that within the means in the police department extra funds that we can move around. So technically there’s not a move that needs to be made or voted on.”
“But we did come back and make a counteroffer for (Gillman),” said Mock, seemingly admitting that in fact, the Council members had discussed the $60,000 salary at some point, contradicting what she and Billy Mauldin argued just minutes earlier about not knowing that $60,000 had been offered. “I don’t know if (he was) told that, but we did, to give you your $10,000 by the end of the year.”
“By the end of next year,” said Billy Mauldin, again seemingly admitting that in fact, the Council members had discussed the $60,000 salary at some point.
“We made an offer and the man came to work based off of that offer and the information given, why would we give a counteroffer?” asked a resident.
“Yeah, what’s the purpose of that?” asked another resident. “He’s come in, he’s done the job he’s been asked to do so far; he’s not said ‘no, I’ll do it in a year when you feel like paying me my salary.’ I guess I’m just having a hard time understanding why this has become such a point of contention. Do we not like what the chief is doing? Are we not happy with the work?”
“It’s nothing personal at all,” said Mock.
“This thing, moving this money, has been brought up in the Council meeting on three separate occasions?” asked a resident.
“Four,” said Mayor Leamer.
“Why was it not acted upon on one of those earlier occasions?” asked the resident. “Why did we wait until we had a separate meeting, away from the regular Council meetings to determine that we’re not going to do it?”
“You will need to ask the Council; they are the ones that called that meeting,” said Mayor Leamer.
“Would one of you Council people who voted against it like to answer that question, why didn’t you start this at day one and not day 90 or 120?” asked the resident. “I respect Officer Gillman because he stayed on, even though by all rights he wasn’t getting (what he was supposed to).”
“Was it in the budget?” asked Mock. “When he was hired, was it in the budget?”
“The budget salary for police chief was not that, no,” said Black.
“We made a deal with this man with the City,” said another resident. “We have a discrepancy. Have you ever bought a car and made a deal with the dealership? You don’t get the car and take it home then renegotiate it. That’s not how it works. I feel (the offer) we made, as a city, we need to honor, regardless of what it is.”
“Rightfully so,” said Mayor Leamer.
“We should not be holding him hostage,” said another resident. “If we have a problem internally on how to pay for something, we need to figure that out as adults and not just unilaterally say ‘we’re not going to pay it.’ That’s going to open us up to a lawsuit.”
“Can they answer the question, why did they wait until day 120 we’re doing this and not day one,” said a resident.
“I was under the impression that it was not in the budget,” said Mock.
“No, No, No, No!” said the resident. “Why didn’t we act on it on day one if it wasn’t in the budget? Why did we wait until two weeks ago to vote?”
“I’d like to know, too,” said Mock. “I would like to know why he was offered ($60,000) when it wasn’t in the budget.”
“No, he was offered three months ago,” said a resident.
“Well, this has been going on three months,” said Billy Mauldin.
“Why has it gone on for three months?” asked a resident. “Why didn’t you vote on it months ago? Why did you wait and call a special meeting outside of normal time, outside of normal meetings, to vote on it?”
Rebecca Champion, the principal of Fairmount Elementary, spoke on behalf of the school on the importance of Chief Gillman in the community. She had her staff members, which numbered close to half the audience, stand while she read her statement as a show of solidarity with Gillman.
“While most people in this town think that learning is a priority at Fairmount Elementary School, in 2024, safety is a priority,” said Champion. “Nothing is more important to me than the safety of our students and staff. In the six months that Arnold Gillman has served as the Chief of Police for the Fairmount PD, he has exemplified the values of integrity, compassion, and dedication to our school and community. Under his leadership, our police department has not only enforced the law, but has also prioritized building trust and fostering relationships within our community. Chief Gillman has encouraged open dialogue between students and officers, creating an environment where our young people feel safe and supported. He serves on our crisis response team and is a lunch buddy to a student who desperately needs a positive role model in his life. We all know that safety is a shared responsibility. It is through collaboration that we can create a safe haven for our students to learn, grow and thrive. Chief Gillman has been an incredible ally in this mission. He brings knowledge and experience to the police department that is among the best of the best. In the five years that I have been in a leadership position at Fairmount Elementary School, I have worked with four chiefs in this town’s PD, none of whom I could put complete faith and trust in except for Chief Gillman. Council men and women, you are all huge supporters of Fairmount Elementary School and I thank each of you for your personal dedication and support for the school. I hope you will take a close look at the impact your decisions have on our school community. I hope you value us and the efforts we make every day to make the best choices for our students and our families. I hope you value their safety as much as we do and understand the amount of knowledge, integrity and dedication to our town that Chief Gillman brings every time he answers a phone call, reports to work, conducts an investigation and leads his staff at the PD. Leadership is hard; doing the right thing is hard. Being leaders and doing hard things together can make profound impacts on our town. I ask that you do what you said you would do when you offered him the job. Pay him what you offered him and trust him to keep safety first in all areas of our community. My favorite quote is, ‘if not now, when?’ I ask you, when will you make effective changes for Fairmount, Georgia? If you truly do what’s best for our town and specifically our school, you will choose Chief Gillman.”
Fairmount PD Officer James Hayden also spoke to the Council on behalf of all the officers who share his commitment of protecting the community of Fairmount and brought up concerning issues within the department.
“I’m a veteran of both the United States Army and United States Air Force and during my military service, I learned that leadership is about more than titles or authority; it’s about action,” said Hayden. “It’s about taking care of the people you lead so they can take care of the mission. That principal, mission first, people always, is the foundation of any strong organization whether it’s a military unit, a police department or a governing body. Right now, this police department is struggling. We began this year with high hopes, but those hopes have been tested by broken promises, insufficient resources and lack of the support we need to do our jobs effectively. One officer has already left the department; the chief of police, despite his dedication is (lacking) a significant portion of the salary he was promised. This isn’t just about the chief; it’s about every officer in this department, past and present, who has had to contend with a system who seems more concerned with excuses than solutions. Let’s talk about what this department looks like today. We’re down to four (regular patrol) officers. Officer Nesbitt, Officer Payne, Officer Bray and myself. Officer Bray serves as the school resource officer, a critical role that ensures the safety of the town’s children but limits his ability to assist with regular patrols. Soon, I will be on leave that will leave us even more shorthanded; I recently had a child and am going to be with my baby. This is an unsustainable situation; we cannot continue to provide the level of service this community expects and deserves with such limited staffing. Response times will suffer, coverage gaps will grow, officers will become overworked, burned out and vulnerable physically and emotionally and ultimately the safety of this town will become compromised. My fellow officers and I stay because we believe in the mission; we believe in protecting the citizens of this town but belief is not enough to carry us through the challenges that we face. Morale is at a low, not because we don’t care but because we feel abandoned by those that are supposed to have our backs. Since I began working here in April 2024, I have yet to receive the health insurance I was promised after 90 days of employment. This isn’t just an inconvenience; it’s a risk. It means I can’t afford to take a day off if I’m sick, it means I can’t afford to go to the doctor without significant financial strain, it means I go to work every day knowing that if something happens to me, I’m on my own. I’m not the only one; my fellow officers face similar conditions. This is not how a police department should operate; this is not how we should take care of people who put their lives on the line for this community every single day.
“We need a Council that understands that public safety is not an optional expense; it’s a fundamental responsibility,” continued Hayden. “This isn’t about asking for luxuries, it’s about asking for the basics: fair compensation, proper staffing and the resources to do our jobs safely and effectively. These aren’t unreasonable demands; they’re the minimum standards for any functioning police department. To the council members who have voted against (the chief’s salary), I ask you to look around this room. Look at the citizens, who have come here tonight, they are here because they care about their town. They’re here because they value their safety, and they value the officers who work tirelessly to protect them. Your decisions have real consequences when you fail to provide the support this department needs, you aren’t just impacting us, you’re impacting every single person in this town. You’re impacting the business owner who relies on us to deter theft and vandalism, you’re impacting the parents who rely on us to protect their children; you’re impacting the residents who rely on us to respond when they’re in danger. To the citizens of this community, I want to thank you being here tonight; you’re presence shows you care deeply about your town. But caring is not enough; you must demand accountability from your leaders. Let them know that public safety is a priority for you and that you expect them to act accordingly.”
It was also disclosed that several employees, including Chief Gillman, do not have health insurance at this time, despite passing the 90 day mark of employment.
“This is my understanding of what’s going on,” said one resident. “We have (different account allotments) of money; we have elected you as mayor. So look through these pools of money and say, ‘This is what we’ve got for this,’ and ‘This is what we’ve got for this.’ In your job as executive officer for the city, you have said, ‘When I look at all the pools of money, there is enough money to cover this decision I have made to the best of ability.’ You come to the city council at some point in time, whether it was a meeting or behind closed doors, it does not matter. But we’ve said, ‘Hey, this is money we can find in the budget, and we want to hire this guy. I will hire this guy and we’ll balance it or our accountant will balance it from whatever pool of money it’s from to accommodate this.’ At this point in time, we’re just kind of sitting in limbo of not whether or not it’s been promised, but whether or not it can be moved from whatever pools it’s in to get it into a unified source where it can be actually utilized (for the salary). Is that about right?”
“Correct,” said Mayor Leamer. “It has been identified that there is money there to give this man in his salary.”
“So at this time point in time, we’re just kind of waiting on getting it moved to the right place where it be utilized?” asked the resident.
“It is actually in his category under his line item budget,” said Mayor Leamer. “It’s under the police admin line item.”
“So what are we doing?” asked the resident.
Black then announced she had a comment for Gillman and Hayden.
“Did we not just update a lot of technology in the PD? We had to get the new modem and body cams straightened out. We got dash cameras for the cars,” said Black, referencing some of Hayden’s concerns.
“It’s much more than that,” said Gillman.
“I am just wanting it to be said we’re working on it,” said Black. “And James, Open Enrollment for insurance is in November.”
“You don’t wait until Open Enrollment (for new hires),” said Gillman. “You do it at the end of 90 days. Open Enrollment is to make changes to existing insurance. There are three of us in the police department that have been here longer than 90 days that still do not have (health) insurance. I’ve addressed this with you. You said we wait until Open Enrollment but that is not correct.”
“Well, it’s not correct now, but it was, but they are backdating all of your stuff. That’s what I told you, too,” said Black.
“So how does that help them being sick three months ago, though?” asked one resident.
“To resolve the issue, the primary issue, which is Chief Gillman’s salary, do we have the money where it needs to be where we can pay the man,” asked another resident.
“Yes,” said Mayor Leamer.
“Who told the Council that the money was not there?” asked another resident. “Who has been having these meetings where the Council was informed that they didn’t have the money that Marci mentioned. She said she was told the money wasn’t there, well if they would have gone to (the Mayor), you would have gladly informed them ‘Hey, the money’s here, let me show you the budget,’ but it sounds like (these council members) are not communicating with who they need to be communicating with.”
“It’s not so much that we said that the money wasn’t there,” said Jerry Mauldin.
“That’s what she (Mock) said,” said the resident.
“The main thing was, we didn’t ever agree totally on the man’s salary,” said Jerry Mauldin.
“The Council did not ever vote on the chief’s salary. What good is a council if we can’t have influence in people’s (salary)?”
“You have input but you cannot override something (the mayor) does without proper adherence to the charter,” said Clark.
“I’m just going to say this, I cannot have much respect for this man (Gillman) for calling me an idiot,” said Jerry Mauldin.
“Sorry, what you did was idiotic,” said one resident.
“So, it is personal,” said another resident.
“That came five months after I didn’t get what I was promised,” said Gillman. “I tried working with you, I tried having discussions with you, but there is no communication in this City.”
“There is not,’ said Mayor Leamer. “And I will speak on that. I have text, I have called and tried several different ways to converse with council members, to no avail. My phone will not ring or text back. There is a known (lack of) communication. I can call one council member and almost guarantee every time I call, no matter where they are at, will answer the phone.”
“We knew this day one,” said a resident. “There was never any discussion as far as money in the budget. So nothing ever was addressed on that. And then we have this meeting where they (both Mauldins and Mock) are denying to move it. Well, it must be moving from somewhere, and if there’s no money in the budget, then that should’ve been discussed as well. I don’t know why (the Council) is not speaking on why this wasn’t addressed on day one. Day one. Not Day 120.”
“Did we have money in the budget to pay this man what you rightfully have him he could have?” asked another resident.
“Yes,” said Mayor Leamer.
“What is the problem where the Council will not move the money?” asked the resident.
“Technically now, it does not have to be moved,” said Mayor Leamer. “We were wanting to move it from one category to the other, therefore, to move from one category to another, it has to be done a particular way. But if it’s under his category, there’s a surplus at the end of the year under his category, it can be moved to balance his budget.”
“So he’s going to get paid what he was promised?” asked the resident.
“Yes, I will see it through,” said Leamer.
“Now, why did the Council drag their feet when the money was there? I mean, $60,000 for a police chief for putting his life on the line? It’s not much. And there’s not (a good) reason we don’t have insurance? Who’s in charge of doing the insurance?”
“I’m in charge of doing the insurance,” said Black, who has been the city clerk of Fairmount for at least a couple of years. “They will and do have insurance, and I’m sorry, I’m still training and I’m still learning. I was told Open Enrollment was when I had to put all my new hires in. I did not learn about putting them in front day one and I told Arnold that. When I fixed all of that, they are backdating all of your coverage.”
“You said they were backdating our life insurance,” said Gillman. “That’s the form I signed. Three times I sat down with you about the health insurance. First you told me Open Enrollment, and I told you that was not correct, it has to be at the end of 90 days. You said to me, ‘That’s how we’ve always done it.’ That seems to be the theme here in the City of Fairmount, that’s how we’re always done it. Then, you said November. In November, I came to you and you said it had just been submitted and would be in December. Well, we’re in December and I still don’t have insurance.”
“Well, I will look into that for you,” said Black. “I will look into it for all of you and see if I can get that fixed.”
Fain gave Black a list of five new hires that needed insurance.
“I respect each and every one of you,” said one resident. “I think you have a load of responsibility on your shoulders. But this is a city full of real people that are impacted minutely by the decisions that you guys make. And what I’m hearing is very disappointing because I am hearing that we have leaders that would rather quibble over line item entries or over semantics or over lack of knowledge that make sure that the people that are protecting this city are being paid? Are insured and are being taken care of the way they take care of us? How would you like it if somebody breaks into your house and holds you at gunpoint and these gentlemen come and say, ‘Well, I’d be more than happy to help you with that, it’ll take effect on January 1st.”
“They’re covered on the job,” said Billy Mauldin.
“Whoop dee doo!” said the resident. “What about their families? What about the fact that they’re here putting their lives on the line every single day and we can’t even give them the basics? So yes, I am glad to hear they are covered while they are on duty. That’s good to know.”
“I do apologize for the insurance,” said Black. “I am learning and am fixing it.”
“Fair enough,” said the resident. “It needs to be a number one priority that these guys have what they need ASAP, not a week from now, not next month. They need it now. Whatever needs to happen, we need to make it a priority. Our leaders, you guys have got to come together and start leading and stop fighting, because things are falling through the loopholes. I was blown away when I came here two weeks ago, to come to a meeting that had been called emergency, I had to take time off of work, I had to leave people stranded to come here to a meeting only to get here three minutes after 4 o’clock to see you guys walking out the door and saying, ‘Meeting’s over, we’re done.’ What the heck? What kind of public meeting is that? How are you leading this town? How are you representing me? How do you serve anybody in this room when you just get up and say, ‘We’re done.’ Start leading and stop doing whatever this is you’re doing, because our city is hurting and our city is embarrassed. Our city is on the brink of being in some serious trouble because this is not stuff that just goes away.”
Another resident forced the question on the Council, “Is this man (Tyler Leamer) our mayor?” All agreed he was the elected mayor of the town. “Then why are we disputing an issue that he’s made a deal with a man to come to work because the money is there? You all just agreed he’s our mayor, we all support him. So why are we arguing a deal that he’s made with somebody after the fact?”
“Why did he not just go ahead and pay the man the $60,000 when he hired him?” asked Billy Mauldin.
“I understand the Council said no,” said the resident.
“We didn’t know nothing about it,” said Billy Mauldin.
‘Because at the time the City Clerk said I couldn’t do that, and I had to set the (salary) at $50,000. At the end of 90 days, I tried moving to $60,000, and that is when (the problems) started,” said Mayor Leamer.
“Are we now paying this man what we agreed on?” asked the resident.
Mayor Leamer said that he was under the impression that the salary request had to go before the Council; when they denied it a couple of weeks ago, he then went to the City Attorney to ask about his duties as mayor and what he can and cannot do.
“It’s settled now, right?” asked the resident.
“It’s settled; you have done your part, so pay the man,” said Billy Mauldin. “And if we get attacked, you’re (Mayor Leamer) going to be responsible for it.”
Another resident pointed out the Mayor represents all of the people of Fairmount and that he doesn’t need to be micromanaged, and there doesn’t need to be any secret closed door meetings where others show up in the clerk’s office for private discussions.
Fairmount City Council meetings at 6 p.m. the first Tuesday of each month at Fairmount City Hall, located off Hwy. 411 in the Town Square.