LOCAL
THE CHAMPION, THURSDAY, JANUARY 10 - 16, 2019 • Page 8
A parent asks questions about recent threats made to DeKalb schools. (Photo by Taylor Robins)
Parents ask questions after school threats
BY TAYLOR ROBINS
taylor@dekalbchamp.com
After threats were made to
DeKalb County School District
schools in Dunwoody, city and
school district officials invited
parents and other interested
parties to Dunwoody City Hall
to ask questions about student
safety Dec. 20.
Dunwoody police officials
assured parents that their
students are safe while on
school grounds and that the
threats made on Nov. 16 and
Dec. 13 are not credible.
During November and
December, there were 17
reported threats in Dunwoody.
City Schools of Decatur and
other school districts in the
nation also have been victims
of “swatting incidents,” that
are made to illicit police
response.
The swatting incidents
are considered not credible,
according to Dunwoody
police.
“No incident has occurred,
no bomb has been located
and no school shooting in
reference to these incidents
has occurred,” said Dunwoody
Police Chief Billy Grogan.
“But it is absolutely
disruptive.”
District and city police
responded to each threat with
a lockdown or evacuation of
the schools targeted. There
is currently an ongoing
investigation.
“I’m curious to know the
percentage our community is
experiencing this compared
to a nation or state level,” a
parent asked.
Grogan answered the parent
by saying Dunwoody, as a
whole, has not experienced
many swatting incidents. Aside
from the school threats, the
city’s last swatting incident
was about 18 months ago at an
attorney’s office. Grogan said
that the same phone number
that places calls to threaten
schools is also being used
to call other areas, including
Canada.
Parents voiced their
concerns about how and when
parents are notified when
a school is locked down or
evacuated.
According to DCSD region
I Superintendent Sherry
Johnson, after DCSD protocol
is followed to determine if a
threat is credible and safety
action is determined—lock
down or evacuation—the
parents are then notified.
Parents were not satisfied
with the response, saying that
they get information faster
from their children than from
the district.
“Is there any way that we
can get information saying that
there is an issue and you’ll let
us know more just in case our
children call?” another parent
asked.
Johnson said information
will only be sent after student
safety is ensured, “The first
priority is to make sure that the
kids are safe and then to let the
parents know.”
DCSD officials also defined
the levels of lockdowns
a school can experience.
Lockdowns range from a
level one lockdown—where
no one is allowed to enter or
exit the school building and
people inside the school can
move freely—to a level three
lockdown—where everyone
inside the school is to remain
in place and no one is allowed
in or out of the school
building.
Parents then questioned
why there were inconsistencies
in safety action among the
schools for the same swatting
call. A DCSD elementary
school was evacuated and
two other DCSD elementary
schools were placed on
lockdown after a bomb threat
Dec. 13.
DCSD police officials
said because they know the
swatting calls come from
similar phone numbers that
schools will be placed on a
level one lockdown. Parents
then had concerns on possible
future threats not being taken
seriously
“We treat every threat as
it’s credible,” said DCSD
Police Director Bradley
Gober. “We go to a level one
lockdown until we can assess
the situation.”
“You can’t make that
assumption with our children,”
a parent responded.
Parents also expressed
concerns about schools not
following lockdown protocol.
One parent allegedly to entered
a school while a lockdown was
in place to eat lunch with a
student and then left. Another
parent said her student had to
“hide in a cubby,” during a
level one lockdown.
School officials said they
would communicate proper
protocol with school staff
Mental and emotional
effects caused by the
lockdowns and evacuations
were also discussed during the
meeting.
Officials said they could not
answer all questions because
of the ongoing investigation.
v
DeKalb County Government
MANUEL J. MALOOF
CENTER
Administration Building & Auditorium
1300 Commerce Drive
Decatur, Georgia
Michael L. Thurmond,
Chief Executive Officer
Board of Commissioners
District 1 - Nancy Jester
District 2 - Jeff Rader
Districts - Larry Johnson
District 4 - Steve Bradshaw
ITictrirt R - Moi-oHq n*aviio In)
Commissioner pay raise controversy
reaches superior court
BY HORACE HOLLOMAN
horace@dekalbchamp.com
DeKalb County’s
governing authority and a
DeKalb County resident met in
DeKalb County Superior Court
Jan. 10 in downtown Decatur
regarding commissioners’ vote
to raise their pay.
Judge Gregory Adams
presided over the case.
According to the complaint,
Williams is seeking to be
reimbursed for attorney and
court fees as well as to have
commissioners fined up to
$ 1,000 for violating open
meetings laws.
On Feb. 27, commissioners
voted 6-1 to increase their
yearly salaries from a base
of $40,530 to $64,637. The
approval created backlash
from some DeKalb County
residents. On Aug. 28,
several residents, along with
the organization Concerned
Citizens for Effective
Government, filed a lawsuit
against commissioners alleging
the vote to increase their salary
violated open meetings laws.
According to the complaint
filed in superior court, the
compensation vote violated
the open meetings law, in
part, because the item was not
placed on the meeting agenda.
The complaint also argues
the board of commissioners
lack the power to increase
their salaries without a county
referendum.
“A central tenet and
foundation of self-government
is consent. The basic
right of citizens is to have
unconstitutional laws void by
the judiciary and the right of
taxpayers not to have unlawful
ordinances passed to exact
money from the government
treasury,” said Ed Williams,
chair of Concerned Citizens
for Effective Government, in a
statement.
Georgia Attorney General
Christopher Carr issued an
opinion on commissioners’ pay
raise on June 20.
“The board’s failure to
include their salary increase on
the meeting agenda in advance
of the meeting not only
frustrated the purpose of the
Open Meetings Act, it violated
the Act’s requirement that
‘all matters expected to come
before [the] agency’ should be
included in the agenda,” Can-
said in his letter.
According to Carr,
DeKalb County attorney
Viviane Ernstes said putting
a salary ordinance on the
Feb. 27 agenda would “likely
create confusion amongst
stakeholders and the public
concerning which entity
had the authority to increase
salaries.”
Carr said commissioners
misled DeKalb residents.
“The actions of the board of
commissioners in this instance
fell short of the obligations
imposed by the open meetings
act, which are designed to
ensure that the public’s trust
in its elected officials is not
misplaced as they carry out
the people’s business,” Carr
wrote. “The citizens of DeKalb
County deserve better.”
On Nov. 16, DeKalb
County Solicitor-General
Donna Coleman-Stribling
released an opinion stating
there was insufficient evidence
to support criminal intent by
commissioners.
“Our key factor behind the
decision was the law. After
thoroughly reviewing the
Attorney General and County
Attorney’s opinion, the Open
Meetings Act and the facts
of the allegations, we believe
there is insufficient evidence
to support a finding of
criminal intent by the Board of
Commissioners to violate the
Open Meetings Act,” Stribling
said in a statement to The
Champion.
For an update to this story,
visit thechampionnewspaper.
com.
