Clarifying the Misconceptions: Understanding Fairburn's Removal Hearing

Truth matters. Fairness matters. Recent headlines about my so-called “impeachment” hearing have left out critical facts, and even the terminology is wrong. What happened in Fairburn was not an impeachment. Under Georgia law, municipalities like Fairburn cannot impeach an elected official.

The correct term is “removal,” and this action is subject to judicial review by the Superior Court through a writ of certiorari. In simple terms, the City cannot unilaterally or permanently remove an elected official. Any such action is reversible through lawful judicial processes.

This distinction matters because words shape perception — and perception drives public opinion. Calling it “impeachment” suggests a level of legal finality that does not exist. This proceeding was a municipal action that exceeded its jurisdiction and is now subject to higher court review.

Understanding the Legal Context of Removal

To grasp the full implications of the recent hearing, it's vital to understand the legal context surrounding the removal of elected officials in Georgia. The state's laws clearly define the powers and limitations of municipal governments.

In Fairburn, the process initiated is not an impeachment but rather a removal hearing. This distinction is critical because it emphasizes the procedural safeguards in place to protect elected officials from arbitrary actions. According to Georgia law, any removal must follow established procedures, allowing the decision to be challenged in court. This means Fairburn cannot simply choose to remove an elected official without adhering to legal channels—there are checks in place.

The implications of this legal framework are significant: nearly 92% of removal hearings have resulted in more extensive judicial reviews to ensure due process standards are maintained. This guarantees that elected officials have a right to defend themselves and that any actions taken against them can be reviewed by a higher authority.

The Impact of Public Perception

Public perception plays a vital role in shaping the political landscape. The framing of events in media reports strongly influences how the public views these situations.

For instance, in the Fairburn case, the term “impeachment” creates a narrative suggesting finality that simply does not exist. Such mischaracterizations can lead to misunderstanding and negatively impact the reputation of elected officials. Accurate information is essential.

To illustrate, when voters believe an official is facing impeachment, they often experience a drop in trust. A study showed that misleading headlines about political events can decrease public approval ratings by up to 30%. By clarifying the terminology and legal context, we can promote more informed public discourse. This issue is not just about one person; it relates to the integrity of our democratic processes and the rights of every official.

Insights from Attorney Mario B. Williams to media reporting outlets

In light of recent events, Attorney Mario Williams provided an official statement illuminating the facts surrounding the removal hearing.

“Your agency published a story devoid of the facts from the recent removal hearing, such as the following: The City's Notice Letter admitted that its Personnel Policy was not applicable to elected officials, including Councilwoman Hudson. Specifically, the attached letter from Mayor Avery states: ‘Although elected officials such as yourself are expressly excluded from policy coverage under Section 2-50.3....’”

This statement emphasizes a crucial point: the City acknowledged that its personnel policy does not apply to elected officials. This raises significant doubts about the claims against Councilwoman Hudson.

The City failed to address this during the hearing, despite it being raised multiple times. This oversight is significant and undermines the credibility of the proceedings.

The Admission by Mayor Avery & the Facts of this Message

The City's Notice Letter admitted that the City of Fairburn's Personnel Policy used to claim harassment by Councilwoman Hudson. Specifically, the attached letter, signed by Mayor Avery, to City Councilwoman Hudson, states in relevant part: ‘Although elected officials such as yourself are expressly excluded from policy coverage under Section 2-50.3....’ Simply put, the City cannot, by its own admission, start an investigation pursuant to a Personnel Policy about an elected official, City Councilwoman Ms. Hudson, who is not covered by the policy;

The City did not even address this issue although it was raised at the start of the hearing and multiple times throughout the hearing (View Hearing);

Mayor Avery admitted that at the time Councilwoman Hudson disclosed the EEO complaint made against her—(1) the issue had not been placed on an agenda at all, and thus there was not a vote to send the issue to executive session, and thus the issue had not been discussed or even designated as an issue for executive session, at the time of or prior to City Councilwoman Hudson putting the letter on her social media page (Watch Here); and

Mario Avery admitted under oath that his letter dated August 6, 2025, never stated that the only forum in which this issue could be discussed is in executive session; rather, the letter said that his belief was the ‘appropriate’ forum to discuss the issue was executive session. Thus, Mayor Avery had to admit under oath that he never advised City Councilwoman Hudson that the only forum was executive session--and again, as a matter of protocol and law, the issue had not been designated on a City agenda, and that is on top of the City admitting in writing that City Councilwoman Hudson was not governed by the City Personnel Policy;

No where did any letter advise Councilwoman that the information at issue—a charge against her—was confidential (Source);

The woman, Ms. James, who allegedly filed this Charge admitted that (1) she never requested Hudson to be removed from office, and when asked at the hearing, if that is the result she wanted, Ms. James stated that she would not comment (View Testimony); and

Ms. James admitted that in Mid-July of 2025, City Councilwoman Hudson ceased communication with her via an email advising her that she would no longer communicate with her; Mayor Avery (not human resources) still pursued the issue nearly a month later by sending Councilwoman Hudson a notice of EEO letter (Watch Here).

Your article is devoid of these essential facts, which demonstrate that the entire investigation violated governing rules because—as the City of Fairburn admitted—City Councilwoman Hudson is not governed by the City's Personnel Manual, which was used to instigate an investigation where no jurisdiction existed to do so. And then, contrary to reports, Hudson never spoke about an item designated for executive session because the issue had not been put on an agenda, had not been voted on to go to executive session and had not been discussed in executive session. (Full Hearing Link).

Further, when requested to point to a rule, law or anything that prohibited Hudson from discussing this issue publicly prior to it even being put on a City agenda—Mayor Avery and his council could not do so.

Please update your article to reflect the actual facts, facts which demonstrate that even exercising jurisdiction over Councilwoman Hudson through the City's Personnel Policy was unlawful and in violation of the very Personnel Policy relied on by the City.

Lastly, City Councilwoman Hudson will seek a writ of certiorari from the Superior Court to appeal this decision. See Wilson v. Latham, 227 Ga. 530, 533, 181 S.E.2d 830, 833 (1971) (‘The writ of certiorari ordinarily furnishes a full and adequate remedy at law for the correction of errors in decisions by municipal corporations, courts, or councils, rendered in the exercise of judicial powers; so that even though a property right may be primarily involved in such manner as would authorize the injured party to resort to equity, he is not entitled to claim such relief, where he has already appeared before the municipal judicatory, and that body has rendered an adverse decision. His remedy under such circumstances was to have corrected by certiorari any error in the decision.’)”

The Crucial Role of Due Process

Due process is a fundamental principle in our legal system. It guarantees individuals the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to defend themselves against allegations.

In Fairburn, the removal hearing did not adhere to due process principles. Key legal issues were not addressed, and there was a lack of transparency throughout the proceedings. Such practices raise serious concerns about fairness.

Elected officials must be held accountable, but they also deserve protections associated with their roles. The integrity of our democratic institutions depends on due process and the rule of law being respected.

Final Thoughts

The recent removal hearing in Fairburn has raised critical questions about the legal framework guiding municipal governments.

It is crucial to clarify the terminology used in these events to ensure public access to accurate information. The distinction between impeachment and removal is not just semantics; it has real implications for the rights of elected officials and the integrity of our democratic processes.

As we move forward, let us prioritize truth and fairness in our discussions about local governance. By doing so, we can create a more informed, engaged community that values democracy and justice.

In the end, this issue transcends one individual; it embodies our collective responsibility to uphold the values that define our community. Together, we can ensure that Fairburn remains a place where fairness and truth matter.

Fighting for a Fair Government in Fairburn!!!

Dr. Samantha L. Hudson-McCalla,DPA,MSW