An investigative committee of Statesboro City Council, advised by City Attorney Cain Smith, has found that two council members erred when they failed to recuse themselves from two unrelated matters during the Jan. 28 meeting but that their actions – or an action and quick reversal in one instance and inaction in the other – were “unintentional and inconsequential.”

The committee’s written findings also assign blame to Smith for giving one council member incorrect advice and commit the city’s attorney anew to “review every agenda moving forward for possible conflict of interest issues and continue to advise Mayor and Council on conflicts.” The mayor and council and staff members also are to review both the ethics section of the Statesboro Code of Ordinances and the recusal process at their annual strategy retreat, to be held March 14-15 in Augusta. Smith said this will be done to make sure that all of the officials are familiar with the rules, not with any thoughts of changing them.

The committee – made up of District 5 Councilmember Shari Barr, who is mayor pro tem, District 4 Councilmember John Riggs and District 1 Councilmember Tangie Johnson – was appointed by Mayor Jonathan McCollar on Feb. 4 to investigate an ethics complaint brought by a citizen. This was after District 2 Councilmember Paulette Chavers voted during the Jan. 28 meeting on a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, involving the city, Habitat for Humanity of Bulloch County and Agape Worship Center. Chavers’ brother, Donald Chavers Jr., is Agape’s pastor and CEO of the church’s nonprofit corporation.

Councilwoman Chavers neither made nor seconded the motion to approve the MOU, but her “yes” made the initial vote of approval 4-0.

In a social media posting the night of the Jan. 28 meeting, Jessica Szilagyi, a reporter and opinion writer for The Georgia Virtue website, pointed out Councilwoman Chavers’ apparent violation of the city’s code of ethics. Chavers then retracted her vote with an email to Smith and City Clerk Leah Harden the next day, Jan. 29.

But then a Statesboro resident, Jeffrey Marshall Webster, sent an email Jan. 30 addressed to McCollar, and copied to Barr, with the subject line “Code of Ethics Complaint against Councilwoman Paulette Chavers,” demanding an investigation.

McCollar replied, also Jan. 30, thanking Webster for his email and stating: “We caught this error after the meeting and since then have taken corrective action. Councilwoman Chavers withdrew her vote by email, and the record will reflect this at the next council meeting along with an acknowledgement form.”

Barr also responded that day, stating that her understanding was that Chavers’ vote had been withdrawn “and no further action is needed.”

But Webster, who has served as an administrator of a “White Heritage” social media group and authored books with titles such as “What to Tell White Children,” then signed up for public comments time during the council’s Feb. 4 meeting and called Chaver’s vote “a breach of city law” and “a gross ethical violation.”

In his remarks, Webster accused McCollar of “refusal to launch the ethics investigation” and of trying “to cover up the crime,” and called both Chavers and McCollar, who are Black, “unfit for office.”

This led to the previously noted public exchange in which the mayor said that Webster “wants to criminalize everything” where Black people are involved, and Webster replied that McCollar was crying “racism” because he didn’t like what he had to say.

Not a city contract

As city officials have pointed out, the memorandum of understanding still passed 3-0 with Chavers’ vote withdrawn, and the MOU was not a contract promising any money to be paid by or to the city. Instead, it’s an agreement meant to support a grant application by the city for an affordable-housing initiative by two local nonprofit organizations.

The plan involves Habitat for Humanity as builder for six of nine houses proposed to be built in the Johnson Street area. Agape Worship Center’s role is to provide land it owns as lots for all nine homes. Under the agreement, Habitat would reimburse Agape $11,111.11 upon sale of each of the nine contemplated homes, so Agape would receive a penny less than $100,000 reimbursement for the land if all nine homes are built and sold.

But Statesboro ordinance Section 2-125, “Conflict of Interest,” states: “A city official may not participate in a vote or decision on a matter affecting a person, entity, or property in which the official has a substantial interest.” Another section defines “substantial interest … either directly or through a member of the immediate family” as, among other things, receiving $5,000 or more in salary and bonuses or other compensation from an organization with business before the city.

So, McCollar appointed the investigating committee, consisting of three council members including either the mayor or mayor pro tem, as outlined in the ordinance. Smith says it was Barr who pointed out that another member recusal mistake had occurred during the same meeting.

Hendley’s promise

Back in August 2024, District 3 Councilwoman Ginny Hendley was approved for a city alcoholic beverages license for her then-new pub, Gators & Gypsies on East Vine Street. To steer clear of conflicts of interest, Hendley not only abstained from the vote approving her own license, she committed to abstain from voting on “any revisions to Chapter 6 (the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance), granting any licenses or disciplinary measures (on alcohol licensees),” as Smith described and insisted at the time.

But during the Jan. 28 meeting, when council with Riggs absent first approved a package sales license for a store on one motion and pouring licenses for three restaurants on another motion, Hendley did not speak up to say she was recusing herself. So, City Clerk Leah Harden recorded the votes of approval as 4-0.

Hendley “didn’t vote, but she didn’t recuse herself either,” Smith said in a text reply.

However, Chavers did vote on the matter involving her brother’s church, and Smith says this happened after he misread the ordinance, not noticing one part, and advised her incorrectly.

“What I did was I read 2-125 and I didn’t get that part in 123 where it says “$5,000,” he said Tuesday. “Anyway, I was reading (the ordinance) on the phone before the meeting, and I know that was not correct.”

Once appointed, the “investigating” committee discussed the matter with nothing really to investigate because the situation was already remedied by Chavers withdrawing her vote, he said.

Committee’s findings

Via Zoom teleconferencing, Smith and Barr met with Riggs with Johnson absent, and then with Johnson with Riggs absent, Smith said, so that all three committee members were never present together, which would have been a quorum of the council.

The committee then issued written “Findings of Fact,” and “Recommendations” on each of two issues.

Regarding Chavers

“Findings of Fact:

1. Paulette Chavers improperly voted on an item involving Agape Worship Center on January 28, 2025 in violation of Section 2-125 as her brother Donald receives over $5,000 annually from Agape.

2. City Attorney Cain Smith advised Councilwoman Chavers in error that she could vote on the item. The City Attorney has since better familiarized himself with the ethics section.

3. Councilwoman Chavers withdrew her vote on the item via email on January 29, 2025.

4. The item still carried on a 3-0 affirmative vote with Chavers’ vote withdrawn.

5. The vote was unintentional and inconsequential.

Recommendations:

1. That the complaint against Chavers be dismissed as moot as the offending vote was properly and timely withdrawn.

2. That the ethics section and recusal process be reviewed at the City Council retreat.

3. That the City Attorney review every agenda moving forward for possible conflict of interest issues and continue to advise Mayor and Council on conflicts.

4. Council members should continue to consult with City Attorney regarding potential conflicts in advance and during the course of the meeting.”

Regarding Hendley

“Findings of Fact:

1. It was discovered that Councilwoman Hendley failed to properly recuse herself from vote on issuance of alcohol licenses on January 28, 2025.

2. Hendley holds an alcohol license and had agreed not to vote on alcohol items when issued. Hendley did not actually vote, but her lack of recusal resulted in an affirmative vote.

3. The matter passed 4-0 with Hendley counted as a yes vote.

4. That the vote was unintentional and inconsequential.

Recommendations:

1. That the ethics section and recusal process be reviewed at the City Council retreat.

2. That the City Attorney review every agenda moving forward for possible conflict of interest issues and continue to advise Mayor and Council on conflicts.

3. Council members should continue to consult with City Attorney regarding potential conflicts in advance and during the course of the meeting.”