Fulton County commissioners failed Wednesday to cut fellow Commissioner Natalie Hall’s office budget by $200,000, an attempt to offset some of the $902,487 the county must pay to settle a sexual harassment judgment against Hall.
Hall was absent from Wednesday’s meeting.
The budget-cutting attempt, proposed by Commissioner Khadijah Abdur-Rahman, failed by a 3-2 vote; it needed support from at least four of the commission’s seven members.
Chair Robb Pitts didn’t vote, but said immediately afterward that he supports the idea. As proposed, however, the budget cut was too broad, Pitts said. He wanted several questions answered and changes made before he votes to approve.
Speaking after the vote, Abdur-Rahman said she planned to reintroduce the item and did not object to making the changes Pitts requested.
Abdur-Rahman introduced the legislation in response to constituents’ requests, not as her own idea, she said. Although the measure would save only a fraction of the money the county must pay out due to Hall’s actions, it’s needed as a gesture to restore some trust in county officials, Abdur-Rahman said.
“This is strictly about accountability,” she said.
Hall had a year-long affair with her former chief of staff Calvin Brock, who filed suit alleging sexual discrimination. In January a judge ruled in Brock’s favor. And because she is an elected official and Brock was a county employee, that makes county taxpayers liable for the payout.
Commissioners agreed to comply with the verdict and not appeal.
Judge Jason Patil found that Hall stalked Brock and then fired him out of jealousy, noting that she refused more than 150 times to answer whether she placed tracking devices in Brock’s vehicles.
In September, following the case’s hearing but before Patil’s ruling, other county commissioners censured Hall.
On Wednesday, Commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr., who has consistently supported Hall, denounced the budget cut as potentially making Hall cut her staff, thus impacting services to people in Hall’s District 4. It wouldn’t reduce Hall’s own pay, he noted.
Answering a question from Commissioner Dana Barrett, Abdur-Rahman said the cuts would be taken from budget areas that wouldn’t affect service to Hall’s constituents. Some would come from staff pay and benefits, but how to allocate that and any personnel decisions would be Hall’s choice, Abdur-Rahman said.
Barrett agreed with Arrington that cutting Hall’s office budget would set a bad precedent. Barrett said she appreciates the sentiment that Hall should bear the financial burden, but the county doesn’t have the ability to take the money from her personally.
Commissioner Bob Ellis said Hall’s office budget was more than $700,000, while at least three other commissioners ran their offices in 2023 on less than $500,000. “The real bad precedent,” he said, was the embarrassment Hall caused the county and the waste of staff time on the litigation.
Commissioner Bridget Thorne said there needs to be some consequence for Hall, who had shown “no remorse” for her actions or the resulting financial judgment.
Arrington predicted that if the budget reduction was approved, Hall would have to cut staff pay or lay someone off — and that person would then sue the county as Brock did.
“We headed back to court, y’all,” Arrington said.
Voters should decide Hall’s fate, he said, denouncing the proposal as unfairly punitive.
Barrett said the judge’s ruling didn’t tell the county to cut Hall’s budget.
“This whole thing is political theater, as far as I’m concerned,” Barrett said.
She and Arrington were the two votes against it.
About the Author
