“This past ordinance we had is not going to happen anymore.”

The Fannin County Board of Commissioners scrapped a controversial EMS ordinance this week after strident public outcry at an August 14th public hearing. This Tuesday’s meeting on the 28th was scheduled as the second public hearing for the ordinance. After sharp opposition to the ordinance on the 14th, however, the BOC decided to scrap it and start anew.

“This past ordinance we had,”

Commission Chair Bill Simonds said this week,

“is not going to happen anymore.”

He went on to say the citizens of Fannin County started a “wildfire,” saying that other counties across the state have passed ordinances like the first Fannin ordinance. As such, he expects they will get backlash for it. He commended the citizens for their involvement, stating that this kind of involvement is what America is all about. Following the regular meeting before the hearing, County Clerk Rita Kirby handed out copies of the new, revised ordinance, allowing citizens to review the document before the hearing began.

Before public commentary, Fannin County EMS Director Robert Graham said a few words, describing the background and purpose of emergency management. The four main tasks of the agency, he explained, are mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. He explained that the ordinance in question gives the county permission to enter on the property of private citizens to rescue them in a state of emergency, comparing it to 911 calls. Graham emphasized that the county has no interest in taking the possessions of citizens, assuaging a common concern from the last meeting.

It was obvious, though, citizens still had concerns about the new ordinance. Resident Joe Webb was concerned that the authority of the ordinance supersedes the consent of the individual. Another citizen was concerned that the ordinance grants the commission chairman or the governor authority to temporarily suspend the enforcement of the ordinances of the county, pointing out that this includes the proposed EMS ordinance, thus depriving citizens of personal property rights.

During the first meeting, Simonds was hit with a barrage of questions regarding the origins of the ordinance. At the time, he said it came from ACCG. On Tuesday, though, Simonds said the ordinance originated in GEMA. Also, during this week’s hearing he said approval of the ordinance was necessary to receive state funding, a topic he previously handled evasively.

Notably, the commentary of this week’s hearing was in stark contrast to that of the first hearing. In the first hearing each citizen cried one voice of opposition. Conversely, this week Simonds found more supporters. One supporter, Computer Consultant John Mullinix, articulated the seeming essence of the need for the law.

“If we don’t have an ordinance,”

he said,

“then we’re basically saying the state and feds could come be our emergency management system,”

suggesting that local governance is more beneficial than that of state and federal. Mullinix also noted that, as it stands now, emergency management defers to the 1981 ordinance, which allows for search and seizure. He went on to commend the board on the progress it made from the first proposed ordinance to the one presented during Tuesday’s hearing. Although other citizens took solace in Mullinix’s explanation, some remained skeptical. After the close of public commentary, Simonds encouraged anyone with suggestion for improving the ordinance to come up to the desk, so Mrs. Kirby could document them.

Two more public hearings will be held for the ordinance. The dates for the hearings, however, have yet to be announced.

See new version of ordinance below.