When former Cobb County Commission Chairman Sam Olens walked in the door in January as Georgia’s new attorney general, he was like a homeowner moving into an old house that had been sealed up.
He couldn’t wait to fly around the place and throw open the windows.
In his first month, Olens’ office issued more press releases than predecessor Thurbert Baker’s office issued in all of 2010. Olens’ staff set up a Facebook page and got on Twitter, while Olens vowed one of the priorities of his office would be aggressive enforcement of Georgia sunshine laws.
Since taking office, Olens and his office of about 120 attorneys -- who act as legal counsel to the state, state agencies and Gov. Nathan Deal -- have engaged in high-profile litigation with heavy political overtones. They advised state officials on the legality of enforcing Georgia’s new immigration law. They also argued and lost the state's case for its charter school law before the Georgia Supreme Court.
As an attorney representing the state in those cases Olens won't discuss them in detail. But he did answer a few questions about his first 10 months in office and what’s next.
Q: Have you had the resources to enforce open records and open meetings laws as aggressively as you said you would when you took office?
A: Our resources are stretched thin due to budget constraints and cutbacks. Unfortunately, delays do exist because of lack of manpower. Additionally, we have seen an increase in the number of complaints and are on track to receive about 400 this year alone. That is almost double the number of complaints received in 2010.
Q: What do you think the chances are of the U.S. Supreme Court taking the health care case filed by Georgia and other plaintiffs?
A: This is a case of national importance, and I feel confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear it.
Q: And what do you think the prospects are if the high court takes the case?
A: I think we raise very strong arguments about the limited powers of the federal government enumerated by the Constitution. When the suit was filed in 2010, it was labeled by many as frivolous. Since then, at least four different federal courts have struck down part of the law. Both the plaintiffs and the Obama administration have requested expedited review of the law by the Supreme Court.
Q: Your office pays a lot of money to private attorneys as special assistant attorneys general. Have you been able to cut the cost paid to the special assistants and are you going to ask the Legislature for more staff attorneys?
A: Approximately half of the [special assistant attorneys general] budget goes toward attorneys who provide representation in the Department of Family and Child Services and child support cases in all 159 counties. In these cases, it is actually more cost-effective to hire SAAGs, who we compensate at a very competitive hourly rate. However, in many other cases it would save the state money if we had enough in-house lawyers to handle the caseload. We requested funds for additional attorneys during the last budget cycle, and we will continue to seek the resources to hire more in-house attorneys in the future.
Q: What are your legislative priorities, beyond open records, for the upcoming session?
A: In addition to HB 397, our proposed rewrite of the state’s sunshine laws, my priorities for the upcoming session include addressing foreclosure fraud and the growing number of pill mills opening in Georgia.
Q: Are you concerned with the newspaper’s findings that the death penalty in Georgia has been imposed arbitrarily, with less heinous murders often resulting in death sentences while some of the most egregious and vile murderers avoid the death penalty?
A: Our jurisdiction is limited to handling the appeals in cases where the death penalty has already been imposed at the trial court level. We are satisfied that the law has been properly followed in those cases where the death penalty has been carried out.
Q: Do you think it would be a more efficient use of taxpayer dollars if local district attorneys reserved their right to seek the death penalty in only the most aggravated murder cases?
A: This issue falls under the purview of the duly-elected district attorneys, not the attorney general’s office. I would note, however, that the Legislature has set out the aggravating circumstances under which it is appropriate to seek the death penalty and the district attorneys may only pursue a death penalty case when those circumstances exist.
Q: Do you think the AG's office and GBI should take on a more aggressive role in doing white-collar crime, organized crime and political corruption investigations? For instance, car theft rings often cross jurisdictional lines, as do methamphetamine traffickers, and that makes them complicated for single jurisdictions to investigate.
A: Our office has limited jurisdiction over criminal matters. We do not, for example, have authority to prosecute car theft rings or meth traffickers. In those areas where we do have jurisdiction -- state-level corruption and Medicaid fraud, for example -- we have worked closely with the GBI and other law enforcement agencies to aggressively investigate allegations of fraud and corruption.
The Sunday conversation is edited for length and clarity.
About the Author
