Efforts to recall Athens mayor likely to continue

By Mara Zuñiga

A recall effort that had been started by a citizen of Athens by the name of James Lee DePaola against Mayor Kelly Girtz has landed in court. A recall is an effort to withdraw a public official from their position by registered and qualified voters.  At the beginning of the recall, the mayor dismissed the efforts as “unserious”. As momentum rose, the mayor sought to stop it by suing the Athens-Clarke County government (Board of Elections) for not notifying him of the recall in a timely manner, as well as Mr. DePaola for allegedly not filing applications correctly nor having “factual or legal basis.”

On Wednesday July 10, 2024, judge J. David Roper heard arguments from Mayor Girtz attorney, Ms. Amy Gellins, to invalidate recall efforts by James Lee DePaola on the grounds that he did not check off boxes delineating specific reasons on the recall application, and that there was no factual or legal basis, nor probable cause for doing so. Gellins also argued that the Board of Elections “violated its duties under the state Recall Act to notify him of the status of various steps in the recall effort.” 

The attorney for the Athens-Clarke County government (Board of Elections), Mr. Matthew Bennett, reiterated what he had previously filed, “that other than failing to provide Girtz with timely notification that DePaola had filed a completed application for a recall petition.” The application had also been verified. Per O.C.G. A 21-4-5(f)(2)- “The election superintendent in verifying the application determines the “legal sufficiency” of the application.” He also reiterated that the local government “is not a necessary party to this action and can offer no relief to Girtz whatsoever. Instead, the filings contend, the only proper parties to Girtz’s petition are Girtz and DePaola.” Therefore, Mr. Bennett asked the judge to dismiss Athens-Clarke County government (Board of Elections) from mayor Girtz’s petition.

https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/politics/2024/06/25/see-whats-happening-in-the-recall-effort-for-the-athens-mayor/74195064007/

DePaola, who was representing himself, argued that the mayor was aware of the recall actions. He stated that per an article by Athens Banner Herald, dated March13,2024, the mayor was asked to “comment on the recall initiative, Girtz called it an “unserious” effort.” Mr. DePaola contends that by Mayor Girtzresponding to this interview, he acknowledged the recall process. Mr. DePaola also cited the 2019 resolution which he said outlined sanctuary policies implemented by Mayor Girtz. Additionally, he read GA Code 36-80-23 9 which states that “no local governing body, whether acting through its governing body or by an initiative, referendum, or any other process, shall enact, adopt, implement or enforce any sanctuary policy.” Mr. Depaolastated in his application, dated March 13, 2024, that the mayor had “violated oath & failed to perform duties prescribed by GA Law by knowingly operating Athens as a Sanctuary city…and by secretly entering into contract with federal officials and/or NGO to make Athens a Refugee Resettlement Area.”

A request, by Mr. DePaola, to have a secret witness testify in a closed courtroom was denied because there was no evidence that the witness would be in immediate danger by testifying.

After about 4 hours of Judge J. David Roper asking questions of each party and a few breaks, he came back with his determination.

The judge did not dismiss the Athens-Clarke government (Board of Elections) from the petition because in doing so, Mayor Girtz’s attorney would have called for an injunction which would stop Mr. DePaola’s recall actions.

The judge agreed that some fault in the notification process by the Board of elections existed, however the recall application submitted by Mr. Paola had been properly done, verified, signed off on, and permitted to proceed. The argument by the mayor’s attorney that the unchecked boxes in the recall application invalidated the application was dismissed.

The judge agreed with Mr. DePaola that the mayor should have known about the recall process.

The judge, however, did have an issue with the fact stated in the application, about the term sanctuary city. He said there was no legal definition for a sanctuary city. In reference to the other fact stated about the mayor entering secretly in a contract to designate Athens a Refugee Resettlement site, the judge said that mayor has some discretion in doing certain things on his own.

Mr. DePaola showed me a copy of the recall procedures given to him by the Board of Elections, which explained the 3-step process. He first had to fill out a recall application, check some boxes, make a statement outlining the reasons he believed the mayor should be recalled and get 100 signatures. Once the application was verified and approved by the Board of Elections, he could go to step two and fill out a recall petition, check of the same boxes and make a statement outlining the reasons he believed the mayor should be recalled and proceed to collect more signatures. Once he collected all the required signatures, then he could go to step three, the recall election.

The recall process was halted by the mayor’s petition but not dismissed by the judge. However, the thousands of signatures that Mr. DePaola obtained would not be counted. Reason being that the statement in the recall application was worded slightly differently than the one in the Recall Petition. The judge said that the wording should not have been different from the application to the petition, therefore he was nullifying all the signatures collected on the recall petition.

Per DePaola, the recall procedures did not seem to make any clear distinction that any changes made from the recall application (step 1) to the new and separate recall petition (step 2) would result in any negative outcome. Also, the Board of Elections had already checked off, approved and granted the recall petition. If there had been any fault in that second step, the Board of Elections would not have given a green light.

Mr. DePaola stated to me that he was getting signatures daily,but the mayor’s petition sabotaged the momentum. Nevertheless, Mr. DePaola is confident that even with all the obstacles imposed on him he can pick up where he left off and succeed in the process.

In the end, it seemed that every party had something to gain and something to lose equally. However, upon preparing to leave the court room, the mayor’s attorney did not seem content with the outcome, so she challenged the judge on the cases he used to come up with his determination. The judge said that the attorney was free to submit additional comments and he would take them into consideration since an official ruling had yet to be done via a written order to be filed with the court.