NEWTON COUNTY – Dec. 5’s 4.5-hour board of commissioners meeting did not proceed without some contention, as commissioners deliberated over the appointment of Cynthia Butler to the tax assessor board.

It started just mere minutes after the meeting began when District 3 representative Alana Sanders made a motion to amend the agenda to allow the appointment of Butler to the tax assessor board to represent District 3, replacing longtime member Charles Berry.

This came after Sanders says the item was taken off the agenda “per instructions of individuals in the county.”

“Every six years, each commissioner has had the opportunity to appoint their individual from their district to the tax assessor board. But when it came to 2023 – when it was time for District 3 to make their appointment – the tax assessor board contacted our county attorney to deliberate to try to change what has been done over the years,” Sanders said.

Sanders mentioned that, after pulling the minutes from previous meetings, every other appointment has been approved unanimously via the consent agenda without any discussion or consultation from the county attorney. She later claimed that a “perception thereof” may have played a part in why the item was taken off the agenda.

“If you look at the board – the board consists of five males. The only individual that is a female on that board is the secretary,” Sanders said. “So are we stating that a female can not sit on the tax assessor board, the perception thereof?”

The motion made by Sanders to amend the agenda for the appointment of Butler to the tax assessor board was seconded by District 4 representative J.C. Henderson. However, the motion failed 3-2.

District 1 representative Stan Edwards attempted to make a motion to allow discussion. Chairman Marcelo Banes stated that this item was “already on the agenda.”

Butler spoke out during the citizen comment portion of the meeting to list her qualifications and to ask the board some questions.

“Do the commissioners in each district have the right to make their appointments to the district? Should a board member live in the district they represent? Is there any discrimination going up here in Newton County – why you don’t want a black female on the tax assessor’s board that is well qualified,” Butler said. “I need to know if you are all being discriminatory. I need to know that from the board and I need these questions being answered by Jackie Smith [the county clerk].”

An item was placed on the agenda, however, to discuss the process for tax assessor board appointments. This discussion was led by county attorney Patrick Jaugsetter.

Once Jaugsetter went over the rules and regulations behind the appointments, Sanders posed a question

“Why now in 2023 when it’s time for District 3 to make their appointment that there’s an issue – when we just recently a year ago – appoint a tax assessor to the board?”

Jaugsetter said he “didn’t know” and was just “asked to perform the task” he was called to do so. He stated that he was requested by someone to review the laws and regulations behind the appointment of individuals to the tax assessor board.

Henderson then questioned Jaugsetter as to who that individual was behind the request.

Jaugsetter said the individual was his law partner Aaron Meyer and that he was not aware who had brought the topic up to Meyer. 

“I have not asked Aaron what was the behind the scenes conversation – I did not ask him that,” Jaugsetter said. “It wasn’t relevant to my presentation to you today for my purposes.”

Henderson said it was important to know who had asked that question, and that since he’s been on the board, tax assessor board appointments had always been done by each individual commissioner via the consent agenda.

When asked by Banes, Jaugsetter recommended that the board open up nominations across the board and that the board vote on the nominees at a later meeting.

Sanders then made a motion to amend the agenda again and allow the appointment of Cynthia Butler to the tax assessor board.

This drew the ire of District 2 commissioner, Demond Mason.

“This is completely against parliamentary procedures,” Mason said. “This was already done at the very beginning of the meeting to amend this agenda. That motion failed. We cannot come to an actual agenda item that is for a discussion to cause it to be adopted or to have a vote on it.

The motion, again, failed 3-2.

Banes said that the board will follow Jaugsetter’s recommendation and that they will accept names for nominations and vote on those names at the next board meeting.

Sanders stated her displeasure to the board, warning the board for what may be to come.

“I just want the board to recognize what they just did,” Sanders said. “I just want you to be aware on what just happened here – how discriminatory it looks – and be prepared for the lawsuit.”

Commissioners Further Comments to The News

In the Dec. 5 meeting, Sanders and Mason seemed to be the most vocal about the issue. The News reached out to both commissioners for further comments.

Commissioner Sanders reached back out to The News.

When asked why she had recommended Butler to the board, Sanders had this to say.

“Before diving in, I want to emphasize that my intent is not to be disrespectful. Has this question been posed to all the Commissioners who have made appointments? I can confirm that it hasn’t; typically, it’s placed under the consent agenda and voted on as a single agenda item without discussion. This procedure has been in place since 1980 and remained unquestioned until it was my turn to make appointments upon joining the board in 2021.

“Cynthia Butler willingly took on the responsibility of serving as my comprehensive plan appointment, and I have witnessed her dedication and expertise firsthand. Beyond being fair and thorough in her approach, she is a community-minded resident who genuinely cares about the well-being of our community. In my view, this shouldn’t even be a topic of discussion, especially considering that other Commissioners have never publicly stated their rationale for appointing current members to the board.

“I have consistently championed transparency and fairness as a public servant, driving positive change in our county. The current situation, where Mr. Charles Berry has served on the board for an impressive 24 years and resides in District 1, leaves District 3 without representation, while all other districts are duly represented, and District 1 has two representatives.

“It’s noteworthy that, in the case of the six-year appointment for the Tax Assessor in 2021 for District 5, the appointment was made under the consent agenda with no discussion. As seen on Tuesday night’s agenda, there were six appointments listed, and curiously, no one requested a discussion or sought clarification on the reasons behind these appointments.”

Sanders was then asked why she felt that the item was taken off of the agenda, and responded with the following answer.

“It appears that the removal of the agenda item might be linked to the individual who has served for an impressive 24 years, having been appointed by four commissioners since 1999, and possibly not expressing a willingness to step down from the board.

“The situation unfolded as follows: Upon being advised by the attorneys representing Newton County in 2021, I graciously called, Mr. Berry, as I was informed that he no longer resided in District 3. The attorneys facilitated the communication, and during our conversation, it seemed as though Mr. Berry may have been aware of the situation. He explicitly stated his decision to remain in his position until the term’s end on December 31, 2023, and suggested that any further attempts to address the matter might lead to legal action.

“Considering the legal advice and the potential complications involved, our law firm recommended that I wait until 2023 to appoint a replacement for the position. This context sheds light on the decision to remove the agenda item and provides insight into the challenges faced in addressing the situation.

“The appointment of the Board of Assessors position has been a recurring topic of interest, with individuals expressing curiosity for years about my choice for this citizen-serving board. Mr. Berry, at an event in 2022, explicitly conveyed his reluctance to be replaced. Furthermore, the Chair of the Tax Assessor board actively sought meetings, both through messages and an in-person encounter at an event. This heightened interest has raised concerns and prompted me to delve deeper into the underlying motivations. What do they not want to be discovered on this board?

“In 2021, our former county attorney advised against altering established processes within this board merely due to a new commissioner or personal agendas. The same occurrence happened when it was my turn to become Vice-Chair during my first year as a Commissioner. I was provided with false information and learned that the policy relayed to me was inaccurate. I became the first commissioner ever to be on display to discuss my qualifications, subjecting myself to public scrutiny from my new colleagues on my first day on the job and a public vote — a departure from the usual practice of handling such matters under the consent agenda.

“Interestingly, the widespread awareness of the appointment, even before it was officially on the agenda, raises questions about how the information was disseminated. The county clerk is the individual who requests our appointments and places them on the agenda when the time comes. She informs us when terms are up and that we need to appoint, and she is responsible for placing appointments on the agenda. She received Ms. Butler’s appointment, contacted her, and invited her to attend the meeting to be acknowledged. I only shared this information with the county clerk. This suggests a possible agenda-driven motivation, especially if my appointment diverged from expectations or historical patterns.

“It’s crucial to acknowledge the perceptual lens through which these dynamics unfold. The fact that Ms. Butler is a woman in what seems to be a male-dominated board could contribute to the complexities and resistance encountered in this process. The need for transparency and fairness remains paramount, and I am committed to navigating these intricacies to ensure equitable representation.”

Numerous attempts were made to contact Commissioner Mason, but The News was unable to reach him.