Open Records Reveal Why Acting Columbia County District Attorney Declined Action in School Board Contract Dispute

by Karin Parham

Records obtained through the Georgia Open Records Act provide the first public explanation of why Acting Columbia County District Attorney Natalie Paine declined to pursue allegations surrounding a June 5, 2025 Columbia County Board of Education meeting involving Superintendent Dr. Steven Flynt’s employment contract.

The June 5 meeting became one of several allegations raised by Martinez activist Janet Duggan in what she publicly described as a 61-page complaint alleging fraud, waste, abuse and corruption involving the Columbia County School District. Questions surrounding that meeting later became the focus of Board member Katie Allen’s request for guidance from the District Attorney’s Office and are also part of Board Chairman David Dekle’s libel lawsuit against Duggan. According to Dekle’s complaint, Duggan falsely accused him of fraud.

The records obtained include an 18-page packet submitted by Allen, along with a memorandum documenting the DA’s legal conclusions. Readers can view the memo below in its entirety.

How the Columbia County Board of Education Meeting Reached the District Attorney

Martinez conservative activist Janet Duggan has been a frequent critic of the Columbia County School District for several years, initially becoming involved through local efforts challenging school library materials before expanding her focus to district finances, and other district policies.

In March 2026, Duggan questioned during a Board of Education meeting whether Flynt’s employment contract had been properly approved during the June 5, 2025 special called meeting in Savannah. Those concerns later became Count One of what she publicly described as a 61-page complaint alleging fraud, waste, abuse and corruption involving Flynt and Dekle.

Duggan publicly released only the first three pages of the document through Facebook and Substack. Although she stated the report contained more than 1,300 pages of supporting documentation, she did not provide the complete report to reporters who requested it.

Duggan initially stated she filed the complaint with the Georgia Attorney General’s Office before later stating it had instead been submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. On May 21, a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records related to that reported submission was submitted. As of publication, the Department has not produced responsive records or provided a timeline for production, despite a followup email.

Allen, who served as campaign manager for Duggan’s husband, John Duggan, during his unsuccessful 2022 Board of Education campaign, said Duggan’s public comments prompted her to revisit the June 5, 2025 meeting.

What Allen submitted

Allen’s submission included a notarized statement, Board Share screenshots, emails with fellow Board member Philip Kent, copies of meeting agendas and minutes, Chairman David Dekle’s May 18 demand letter to Duggan, and prior reporting related to the controversy.

In her statement, Allen contends the June 5 special called meeting minutes were not included in the Board Share materials she reviewed before the June 10, 2025 regular meeting. She included screenshots that she says reflect the materials available to her at the time.

The agenda posted for the June 10 meeting and displayed to the public, however, listed both the May 13 regular meeting minutes and the June 5 special called meeting minutes under the consent agenda. Video of the June 10 meeting shows the Board approved the consent agenda without discussion, and the official minutes reflect that both sets of minutes were approved. It is not clear from the available records whether the materials displayed to board members on their individual screens were identical to the agenda displayed to the public.

Allen’s packet also includes a March 11 email asking Kent whether he had located the June 5 meeting minutes in his Board Share materials.

Allen was not the only Board member to publicly question the process. During an appearance on The Austin Rhodes Show, Kent said he opposed Flynt’s FY2026 raise and described the manner in which the June 5 meeting was handled as “misleading.” His public comments focused on the board’s procedures rather than offering a legal conclusion about the validity of the contract.

What the District Attorney concluded

According to the memorandum, the District Attorney’s Office reviewed Georgia’s Open Meetings Act and consulted with the Georgia Attorney General’s Office, attorney David Hudson of Hull Barrett, and the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office before reaching its conclusion. The memorandum states Hudson was consulted because he is “an expert on matters regarding government transparency.”

Following that review, the memorandum states there was “no actionable crime.” It also notes that more than one year had elapsed since the June 5, 2025 meeting, the meeting occurred in Savannah rather than Columbia County, and the executive session was not recorded. The memorandum further states that because both parties had substantially performed under the agreement, the superintendent’s employment contract would not automatically be voided.

Recommendations

Although the memorandum concluded no further legal action was warranted, it recommends several changes intended to help avoid similar disputes in the future:

• Each board member should sign his or her own executive session affidavit rather than having the chairman sign on behalf of the board.
• If discussion during executive session begins moving toward a vote, a board member should remove himself or herself from the discussion, and place the objection on the public record once the board returns to open session.

Questions remain

The records explain why Paine declined to pursue the matter. However, they do not resolve the differing accounts surrounding the June 5, 2025 meeting.

Allen has publicly maintained that the superintendent’s contract was effectively approved during executive session and that the June 5 minutes were not included in the Board Share materials she reviewed before the June 10 meeting. Kent publicly described the process as “misleading.” Dekle has consistently maintained that the superintendent’s evaluation and contract were the only personnel matters discussed during executive session and that the Board subsequently approved those matters in open session through a motion approving the personnel matters discussed in executive session. The June 5 meeting remains one of several issues raised in the ongoing public dispute and in Dekle’s pending libel lawsuit against Duggan.