Mableton Hair Ordinance Advances While Contract Compliance Oversight Off the Table: Citizens Demand Immediate Agenda Action on Comp Plan and Contract Compliance

MABLETON, Ga. — As the City Council moves forward with a high-profile hair discrimination ordinance, critics say the city is failing to implement a formal contract compliance framework, leaving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars without meaningful oversight. Advocates warn that while symbolic ordinances are important, real governance requires accountability for how city funds are spent.

At the heart of the controversy is an estimated $500,000 or more in taxpayer funds already being spent under arrangements that critics say lack clear compliance standards tied to the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Advocates argue any ordinance must include a retroactive clause to review, audit, and, if necessary, remedy past expenditures.

“This is not a future problem — it’s happening right now,” said one advocate. “Taxpayer dollars are being spent without the guardrails a new city should have in place. Waiting only deepens the exposure.”

A concerned citizen echoed these frustrations: “They paid a contractor $500,000 to do a job but are using Mableton city employees to do a portion of the work they contracted out. Are our tax dollars being spent twice? Maybe they don’t want a compliance plan because it will shed light on their own incompetence and lack of fiscal responsibility. Not only are we fighting double taxation against Cobb County for police services, but we are also victims of city officials using our tax dollars to pay twice for a comprehensive plan that isn’t based on a large enough sample of citizens to state it is a true plan for the people.”

City Manager William Tanks and Mayor Michael Owens have pushed back in words and action, suggesting that no immediate action can be taken, but citizens dispute this, arguing that both, as well as the Council have full authority to establish a compliance framework and enforce transparency. The issue is not authority — it’s political will, and they question whether the delay is intended to shield the contractor – a friend and elected official – from another county, from Mableton government oversight.

Out of approximately 80,000 residents in Mableton, the contractor has presented data from a survey of just 200 people – suggesting this represents the broader community. Critics say that this small sample cannot reliably reflect the needs or opinions of the entire city and raises serious questions about the validity of those making decisions tied to city planning, contracts, and taxpayer dollars. Open Records to City Manager Tanks and Mableton’s Government have not been received.

“This isn’t just a technicality — it’s a fundamental flaw in how decisions are being justified,” said one advocate. “Using such a tiny sample to guide expenditures of hundreds of thousands of dollars shows why a retroactive contract compliance review is essential. Residents deserve transparency, accountability, and a process grounded in real community input, not selective data that fails to be challenged by thise in Mableton’s government.

Multiple councilmembers have reportedly acknowledged that the city manager instructed them not to discuss the matter, a move critics say effectively shuts down debate over whether Mableton should adopt a formal contract compliance ordinance.

“The absence of a clear compliance framework is not accidental,” one advocate said. “You can pass ordinances on appearance and symbolism, but when it comes to enforcing the rules that govern millions of taxpayer dollars, suddenly there’s nothing the city can do. The message is that equity matters — unless it involves contracts and political relationships.”

City leadership insists that existing policies are sufficient and that the city is still building its administrative infrastructure. Critics counter that silence from elected officials — particularly when councilmembers are discouraged from speaking — raises serious governance concerns.

Advocates are now calling for the council to demand a public debate and the adoption of a contract compliance ordinance that establishes clear standards, oversight mechanisms, and conflict-of-interest safeguards. They also call for a review of the contractor, his work, and if what he presented to obtain the contract is occurring. Without it, Mableton risks setting a precedent where accountability is optional and political protection takes precedence over the public interest.

“As a new city, Mableton is deciding what kind of government it wants to be: transparent and accountable, or quiet and protective of power,” one advocate said. “The longer this is ignored, the more it looks like protection, not process. A comprehensive plan with retroactive review is the bare minimum to restore public trust.”

As one of Georgia’s newest cities, advocates say Mableton is at a defining moment. Whether leaders choose transparency and accountability now — or continue to remain silent — will set a precedent shaping the city’s governance for years to come.