Can a Georgia citizen file a complaint with the Governor to start the process of removing a state board or commission member under O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4?

Plain-English summary

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr issued an Official Opinion clarifying that a private citizen cannot trigger the state's process for removing a board, commission, or authority member simply by sending the Governor a complaint or grievance. The phrase "upon formal charges being filed" in O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 demands a more structured pleading — something with the formality required to give the accused official due-process notice.

Section 45-10-4 establishes the procedure for removing members of state boards, commissions, and authorities who violate the conflict-of-interest prohibitions in § 45-10-3. When "formal charges" are filed with the Governor, he or his designee must:
1. Conduct a hearing on the merits.
2. Give the accused at least 30 days' notice.
3. If the charges are proven, remove the member.
4. Conduct the hearing under the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, with judicial review available.

The AG's opinion concludes the legislature deliberately used "formal charges" — not "complaint," "letter," or "grievance" — because the statute contemplates an adversarial, due-process-protected proceeding that affects an officeholder's tenure. By contrast, when the legislature wants to allow informal citizen-initiated processes (like Open Records Act requests, which can be made "orally or in writing," or rule-making petitions under the APA), it uses different language.

The opinion does not specify exactly what constitutes a "formal charge" but compares the requirement to the Judicial Qualifications Commission process, where "formal charges" follow an investigative stage and resemble pleadings — a structured filing sufficient to give the accused notice of the alleged violations.

What this means for you

If you sit on a Georgia state board, commission, or authority

You cannot be removed under § 45-10-4 based on an informal letter from a constituent or member of the public. The statute requires something more: a structured, formal pleading filed with the Governor that gives you due-process notice of the alleged § 45-10-3 violation. If you are notified that someone has filed a complaint, ask:
- Was it presented as "formal charges"?
- Did it identify specific § 45-10-3 violations with supporting facts?
- Was it filed through a recognized process — by another agency, a commission like the State Ethics Commission, or with appropriate procedural formality?

If the answer to those questions is no, the statutory process arguably has not begun, and you may have grounds to challenge any hearing the Governor's office initiates.

If you are a Georgia citizen who believes a board or commission member has a conflict of interest

You cannot directly trigger the § 45-10-4 hearing process by writing the Governor. Your practical options are:

• File a complaint with the State Ethics Commission, which has its own rules (Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 189-2-.01(2)) authorizing any "person who files a written complaint alleging a violation."
• Request the relevant board or commission to take action against its own member under any board-specific removal authority (e.g., the Professional Standards Commission can remove its own members).
• Petition the Governor's office — the Governor has independent appointment authority and can request that the State Ethics Commission or another agency formalize charges against an appointee.
• Bring information to other accountable entities (legislators, district attorneys, the press) who may pursue the matter formally.

If you are an attorney advising a state board considering removal of one of its members

You can use § 45-10-4 — but the charges must be formally drafted and filed with the Governor. The opinion suggests they should resemble JQC formal charges in structure: numbered counts, specific factual allegations, citation to the alleged § 45-10-3 violation, and sufficient detail to put the accused on notice. The 2002 AG opinion (02-4) advised the State Ethics Commission it could "adopt its own guidelines for how situations such as those described above [involving O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3] would be handled" — suggesting commissions should formalize their own intake procedures.

If you work in the Governor's office

When complaints come in regarding board or commission members, distinguish:
- Informal grievances — these do not trigger § 45-10-4. The Governor has discretion to investigate, refer, or set aside.
- Formal charges — drafted with sufficient procedural rigor to provide due-process notice. These trigger the mandatory 30-day-notice hearing process under the APA.

If staff is unsure which category a submission falls into, the safer course is to require the complainant (or the originating agency) to either restate the matter as formal charges with specifics, or to refer the complaint elsewhere (e.g., to the State Ethics Commission).

If you are a member of the State Ethics Commission

The 2002 AG opinion (referenced here) and this 2024 opinion both contemplate that you may want to develop your own procedures for handling § 45-10-3 violations and forwarding "formal charges" to the Governor. Doing so would create a recognized path that converts informal citizen complaints into the kind of structured pleading § 45-10-4 requires.

Common questions

Q: What does "formal charges" actually look like?
A: The opinion doesn't define it precisely but draws the analogy to JQC proceedings. Inquiry Concerning Judge Coomer, 315 Ga. 841 (2023), describes JQC formal charges as "compris[ing] 36 counts alleging [violations]." So a formal charge under § 45-10-4 should be structured similarly: numbered counts, specific facts, the statutory provision allegedly violated, and sufficient detail for the respondent to mount a defense.

Q: Why can't a citizen complaint count as "formal charges"?
A: The opinion's reasoning is textual and contextual. The legislature used "formal" — defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "of, relating to, or involving established procedural rules, customs, and practices." When the legislature wants to allow any citizen to initiate something, it uses different language: Open Records requests can be "oral[] or in writing"; rule-making petitions can be filed by "an interested person." The deliberate choice of "formal charges" signals more is required.

Q: Is this opinion saying citizens have no recourse?
A: No. Citizens can file complaints with the State Ethics Commission, raise issues with the relevant board or commission, contact legislators, or take complaints to district attorneys. The opinion only addresses what triggers the specific Governor's-hearing process under § 45-10-4. Other accountability mechanisms remain available.

Q: What's a § 45-10-3 violation?
A: O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3 imposes various conflict-of-interest prohibitions on members of state boards, commissions, and authorities — restrictions on transactions with the state, holding incompatible offices, and similar concerns. Section 45-10-4 is the enforcement mechanism for those prohibitions: it provides the removal process when such violations occur.

Q: What about Roberts v. Deal — didn't a local resident file a complaint there?
A: Yes — Roberts v. Deal, 290 Ga. 705 (2012), references a "[l]ocal resident [who] along with other residents, filed a complaint with the Governor" against local school board members, and the § 45-10-4 hearing process did proceed. But the AG opinion notes that the Georgia Supreme Court in Roberts "does not address the adequacy of the 'formal charges' submitted to commence that process." So Roberts does not stand for the proposition that any citizen complaint suffices.

Q: Does this opinion apply to local government bodies?
A: § 45-10-4 applies to "any such board, commission, or authority" referenced in § 45-10-3 — broadly, state-level entities. Local-government removal procedures are governed by separate statutes and charters.

Q: What if a board doesn't have its own removal mechanism — does that mean § 45-10-4 is the only option?
A: For boards without specific statutory removal authority, § 45-10-4 may indeed be the primary mechanism. The opinion notes "many boards, commissions and authorities of state government are not granted their own specific express provision regarding removal of members" and that § 45-10-4 "is designed in part to provide for boards, commissions and authorities to have a process to submit formal charges related to removal where not otherwise provided by law." Even then, "formal charges" — not citizen letters — are the threshold.

Background and statutory framework

O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3 establishes conflict-of-interest prohibitions for members of state boards, commissions, and authorities. Section 45-10-4 provides the enforcement mechanism: a Governor's hearing process when "formal charges" are filed alleging a § 45-10-3 violation.

Georgia courts apply textualist interpretive canons: "Statutory interpretation begins with the plain language of the text itself." Star Residential, LLC v. Hernandez, 311 Ga. 784 (2021); Green v. State, 311 Ga. 238 (2021). The AG's opinion applies that approach to "formal charges" and concludes the term carries its ordinary meaning of structured, procedurally rigorous accusations.

The opinion draws extensively on the Judicial Qualifications Commission framework as a comparator, because the JQC also uses "formal charges" terminology under O.C.G.A. § 15-1-21. In that context, "formal charges" follow an investigative stage and operate as pleadings sufficient to provide due-process notice. The Georgia Supreme Court in Inquiry Concerning Judge Coomer observed that disciplining a judge based on responses to inquiries "without the JQC first filing formal charges against the judge … might raise due process concerns."

The opinion also contrasts § 45-10-4 with statutes that explicitly allow citizen-initiated processes — Open Records Act requests under § 50-18-71, rulemaking petitions under § 50-13-9 — to underscore that when the General Assembly wants an informal triggering mechanism, it says so.

A handful of state-entity statutes (Lake Lanier Islands Development Authority, Savannah-Georgia Convention Center Authority, Professional Standards Commission) provide entity-specific removal authority. For boards lacking such provisions, § 45-10-4 is the residual mechanism — but only when invoked through formal charges.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3 (Conflicts of interest — board members)
- O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 (Hearing procedure on formal charges)
- O.C.G.A. § 15-1-21 (Judicial Qualifications Commission)
- O.C.G.A. § 50-13 (Georgia Administrative Procedure Act)
- O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71 (Open Records Act request procedure)

Cases:
- Star Residential, LLC v. Hernandez, 311 Ga. 784 (2021) — statutory interpretation begins with plain text
- Green v. State, 311 Ga. 238 (2021) — read text as ordinary speaker would
- GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Atlanta Botanical Gardens, Inc., 306 Ga. 829 (2019) — context informs statutory interpretation
- Inquiry Concerning Judge Coomer, 315 Ga. 841 (2023); 316 Ga. 855 (2023) — JQC formal charges
- Roberts v. Deal, 290 Ga. 705 (2012) — § 45-10-4 hearing process (formality not addressed)

Prior AG opinions:
- 2002 Op. Att'y Gen. 02-4 — State Ethics Commission may adopt its own § 45-10-3 procedures

Original opinion text

This responds to your request for an official opinion regarding O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4. You have specifically asked about the meaning of the phrase "upon formal charges being filed" as used in O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 and whether this language provides for a citizen to present information that constitutes "formal charges" within the meaning of the statute. As discussed herein, it is my official opinion that as used in O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4, the phrase "[u]pon formal charges being filed" does not mean that a citizen can simply submit information to the Governor and trigger the hearing process contemplated by the Code Section.

O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 provides as follows:

Upon formal charges being filed with the Governor relative to a violation of Code Section 45-10-3 on the part of a member of any such board, commission, or authority, the Governor or his designated agent shall conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence relative to the merits of such charges. The member so charged shall be given at least 30 days' notice prior to such hearing. If such charges are found to be true, the Governor shall forthwith remove such member from office and the vacancy shall be filled as provided by law. Such hearing shall be held in accordance with Chapter 13 of Title 50, the "Georgia Administrative Procedure Act," and judicial review of any such decision shall be in accordance with such chapter.

(emphasis added). By its terms, O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 applies only to the prohibitions contained in O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3.

Statutory interpretation begins with the plain language of the text itself. Star Residential, LLC v. Hernandez, 311 Ga. 784, 785 (2021). "[W]e begin by examining the statute's plain language, reading the text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary speaker of the English language would." Green v. State, 311 Ga. 238, 242 (2021) (internal citations omitted). The General Assembly chose the phrase 'formal charges' to indicate the requirement of something more than simply a generalized grievance brought by a member of the public.

"Formal" is defined to mean "of, relating to, or involving established procedural rules, customs, and practices." Black's Law Dictionary 794 (11th ed. 2019). While the phrase "formal charges" remains undefined in the statute, it appears fairly obvious that the phrase requires something more than "informal" complaints, grievances, or letters. Instead, a "formal charge" must be sufficient to provide due process notice to the "member of any such board, commission, or authority" being accused of a violation of O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3. This heightened requirement of formality is further supported by the fact that O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 provides that any decision of the Governor under this statute may be appealed in accordance with the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act and is subject to judicial review. O.C.G.A. § 50-13-19.

The phrase "formal charges" is also used in the context of a similar investigatory framework under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC"). See GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Atlanta Botanical Gardens, Inc., 306 Ga. 829, 834 (2019) ("For context, we may look to other provisions of the same statute, the structure and history of the whole statute, and the other law—constitutional, statutory, and common law alike—that forms the legal background of the statutory provision in question.") (internal citations omitted). Under O.C.G.A. § 15-1-21, the JQC is responsible for, among other things, "[a]djudicating formal charges filed by the investigative panel." O.C.G.A. § 15-1-21(e)(3)(A) (emphasis added). Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 15-1-21(k) states that all disciplinary action is to be kept confidential prior to issuance of "formal charges" against a judicial officer. In the context of a JQC proceeding, the "formal charges" result from an investigative process and resemble pleadings sufficient to provide due process notice to judges being investigated. See Inquiry Concerning Judge Coomer, 315 Ga. 841 (2023) ("formal charges . . . comprise 36 counts alleging [violations]"). In contrasting "formal charges" with other inquiries in the context of the JQC, the Supreme Court has noted that "imposing discipline on a judge based solely on the judge's response to a JQC inquiry, without the JQC first filing formal charges against the judge … might raise due process concerns." Inquiry Concerning Judge Coomer, 316 Ga. 855, 874 n.19 (2023); see also Inquiry Concerning Judge Baker, 313 Ga. 359 (2022). Implicit in the Supreme Court's holding is that "formal charges" are distinguished from mere inquiries and are in the nature of notice sufficient to satisfy due process.

In a 2002 Opinion, this Office advised the State Ethics Commission that it could "choose to adopt its own guidelines for how situations such as those described above [involving O.C.G.A. § 45-10-3] would be handled so that it would be prepared to address this problem should it ever develop." 2002 Op. Att'y Gen. 02-4. Thus, Op. Att'y Gen. 02-4 contemplates formality to the process of invoking O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 by a commission.

A number of entities of state government are granted the express power to take action to remove their own members. For example, the Lake Lanier Islands Development Authority is empowered to remove or discipline its members for failure to disclose certain interests to the Authority. O.C.G.A. § 12-3-340(a). Members of the Savannah-Georgia Convention Center Authority are subject to removal "for failure to perform the appropriate duties of membership." O.C.G.A. § 50-7-55(i). Members of the Professional Standards Commission are subject to removal by the Governor "for misconduct or malfeasance in office, incapacity, or neglect of duty." O.C.G.A. § 20-2-983(a). The members of the Professional Standards Commission are also subject to removal by the Commission itself "for neglect of duty, incompetency, or revocation or suspension of his or her certificate issued by the Professional Standards Commission or when such commissioner ceases to be employed full time as an educator in the capacity and position from which he or she was appointed." O.C.G.A. § 20-2-983(e). Many boards, commissions and authorities of state government are not granted their own specific express provision regarding removal of members. It appears that O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 is designed in part to provide for boards, commissions and authorities to have a process to submit formal charges related to removal where not otherwise provided by law.

Where the General Assembly intends to provide for an informal process that can be initiated by citizens, it has done so with clear language. The General Assembly did not do so in O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4. In contrast to the formality requirements contained in O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4, the requirements and obligations for government bodies under the Georgia Open Records Act are triggered simply by a citizen request made "orally or in writing," with no legislative requirement that this request have any formal procedure involved. O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(b)(1)(B); see also Howard v. Sumter Free Press, Inc., 272 Ga. 521, 531 (2000), overruled in part, Blalock v. Cartwright, 300 Ga. 884 (2017). Under any interpretation, "formal charges" definitely must require some significantly more heightened standard than that which triggers a government response to an Open Records Act request.

Similarly, under O.C.G.A. § 50-13-9, "[a]n interested person" may request that a state agency promulgate, amend, or repeal a rule upon petition to that agency. O.C.G.A. § 50-13-4 also obligates that notice about agency rule changes must be given to "all persons who have requested [notice] in writing." Both of these Code Sections reflect the clear intention of the General Assembly to authorize any citizen to initiate or participate in these related rule-making processes in sharp contrast to the process created under O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4, which the General Assembly specifically provided is commenced only "upon formal charges being filed."

In summary, had the General Assembly intended to create an informal process in O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4 that could be initiated by any member of the public, it would have done so as it has in other areas of the law discussed herein. Instead, it provided for a structured process that is only commenced "upon formal charges being filed."

Based on the foregoing, it is my official opinion that as used in O.C.G.A. § 45-10-4, the phrase "[u]pon formal charges being filed" should not be interpreted to mean that a citizen can simply submit information to the Governor and trigger the hearing process contemplated by the Code Section.

Prepared by Chief Deputy Attorney General Wright Banks