For over two and a half years, the official record of Spalding County’s laws has been frozen in time. The consequences of this failure are far-reaching, impacting everything from local zoning decisions to basic public trust.
This post details the critical issue of the county’s severely outdated Municode platform and chronicles my efforts to obtain clear answers through the Georgia Open Records Act (ORA). The results so far have been a maze of contradictory excuses and a profound failure of government transparency.
🛑 The Core Problem: A Code Last Updated in 2023
The most fundamental issue is a government’s duty to maintain a current, accessible public record of its laws. Spalding County has failed this duty spectacularly:
- The Last Update: The official Municode library, where residents are required to access our governing ordinances, was last updated on March 13, 2023.
- The Gap: As of late 2025, this represents a delay of well over two and a half years in codifying and publishing our adopted laws.
This isn’t a minor administrative oversight; it is a breakdown of modern governance that creates legal risks, undermines enforcement efforts, and directly erodes public trust.
🗣 The Conflicting Excuses
When challenged on this failure, county officials offered a series of contradictory and implausible explanations:
- Excuse 1: Technical Issues. We were initially told the delay was due to “issues with uploading” on the Municode site.
- Excuse 2: Payment Issues. We were then told that Municode “haven’t been paid,” but that the county has “no other option but to use them because they are a monopoly.”
- The Inconsistency: The claim that a major corporation like Municode would continue to provide a critical, legally mandated public service for over two years without payment is highly questionable. Furthermore, when presented with the fact that there are numerous popular alternatives to Municode, the county’s response was silence.
The lack of a straight, consistent answer suggests a deeper administrative problem or a deliberate attempt to avoid accountability for the delay.
📉 The Real-World Impact: Decisions Based on Bad Law
The failure to maintain accurate public records has immediate and dangerous consequences for due process in the county:
- New Obstruction: Just today, one of our community advocates attempted to obtain the Data Center ordinance for the BOC meeting scheduled for tomorrow. They were told to file an Open Records Request (ORR) to receive it. This is an outrageous demand for a resident to access a law vital for current county business, highlighting a systemic failure to provide even the public with current legal documents ahead of a vote. Not to mention it took them 20 days to reply last time. The meeting is tomorrow.
- Current Decisions Compromised: The Board of Commissioners (BOC) is currently making decisions, specifically regarding the contentious issue of Data Centers, based on Codes and Ordinances that the public does not have access to. How can citizens participate in or scrutinize decisions if the rulebook is hidden?
- Due Process Denied: Arguments made against proposed high-density housing were based on outdated ordinances and codes, fundamentally compromising our community’s ability to exercise its due process rights with current, accurate information.
📜 The Fight for Documentation: My Open Records Journey
To get to the bottom of the delay and expose the lack of documentation, I filed a series of formal Open Records Act (ORA) requests under the Georgia statute (O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq.).
| ORR Number | Information Requested | County Response | Status of Challenge |
| ORR-645-2025 | All documents (emails, reports, memos) explaining the 2.5-year delay in updating Municode. | Claimed “No documents responsive” exist. | Challenged as inadequate search given the county’s own records policies. |
| ORR-651-2025 | The specific address/location, cost, and procedure for acquiring a physical copy of the complete county code. | Marked “Completed” with zero information provided, failing to provide the legally mandated information. | A continued barrier to physical access, violating ORA. |
| ORR-650-2025 | Adequacy of Search Challenge and Formal Demand for a Sworn Affidavit detailing the search process. | DENIED by the County Attorney’s Office. | Escalated to judicial challenge. |
The County Attorney’s Final Roadblock
Following the demand for a sworn affidavit to certify the search terms and custodians, the County Attorney’s office formally denied the request, citing two legal exemptions:
- The “No-Creation” Rule: The attorney claimed the affidavit does not exist and is not required to be created under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(j).
- Attorney Privilege: They stated that even if such an affidavit existed, the County would claim attorney-client privilege or attorney work product (O.C.G.A. §§ 50-18-72(a)(41) and (a)(42)), asserting that an affidavit is a legal document produced for litigation.
By claiming that basic administrative search details are protected by attorney privilege, the County is attempting to shield the entire record-keeping process from public scrutiny.
In addition, the District Attorney’s office was notified of the ongoing Open Government Complaint but has not provided any response or intervention.
🏛️ The Final Step: Demanding Accountability in Superior Court
With the formal denial of the Sworn Affidavit, the series of administrative challenges has been exhausted. The County is on record for:
- Failing to provide evidence of an adequate search for documents explaining the multi-year code delay.
- Failing to provide the location and cost of the official physical code, as required by law.
- Formally denying a request for certification of the search process by claiming privilege over the records custodian’s administrative actions.
This leaves only one option to compel production and demand compliance with the Georgia Open Records Act: filing an enforcement action in Spalding County Superior Court.
A Note on Legal Action:
I am personally committed to pursuing this matter in court if necessary. However, legal action requires significant resources. I am not soliciting funds. I will only look into retaining an attorney and moving forward with litigation if the community formally agrees to rally support and fund the effort. The momentum for this legal step must come from the residents. If the community requests me to proceed and commits to providing the necessary financial support, I will move forward.
Call to Action: This is no longer a matter of administrative oversight; it is a clear choice by the County to obstruct public access. Contact your Spalding County Commissioner and demand to know why the County Attorney is actively preventing the public from verifying the accuracy and completeness of government records. We need to demand access to theses ordinance prior to any hearings.
Leave a Reply