Dear Editor,
Hail Southern! As the fall 2025 semester has come to a close and I still have access to Lexis+AI, I am eager to apply what I have formally learned in my legal research and writing class. So, when T.W. Tinley challenged me to research the gratuities clause as it pertains to allocating public funds to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), I happily accepted.
For those who are not aware of how legal research is formally applied, I am paying the knowledge forward.
Enter IRAC, the acronym for Issue(identifies the specific legal question to be resolved),Rule(outlines the relevant laws or legal principles that apply to the issue),Application(analyzes how the rule applies to the facts of the case), and Conclusion(summarizes the outcome based on the application of the rule to the issue).
This is the method I will use to answer Mr. Tinley, who I am thankful to have received this assignment from.
That said, let us dive into the meat of the matter:
Issue: Do the Augusta-Richmond County Commissioners have legal authority to allocate public funds to NGOs?
Rule: Ga. Const. Art. III, § VI, Para. VI
Ga. Const. Art. III, § VI, Para. VI (a) provides, “Except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, (1) the General Assembly shall not have the power to grant any donation or gratuity or to forgive any debt or obligation owing to the public, and (2) the General Assembly shall not grant or authorize extra compensation to any public officer, agent, or contractor after the service has been rendered or the contract entered into.”
In plain language: The gratuity clause prohibits the General Assembly from granting any donation or gratuity or forgiving any debt or obligation owed to the public.
Some may say, “the section mentions the General Assembly not municipalities.” That is correct. However, in “Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. v. City of Thomasville, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the “Paragraph is applicable to cities and counties as well as to General Assembly.” Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. v. City of Thomasville, 226 Ga. 4, 172 S.E.2d 612, 1970 Ga. LEXIS 407 (1970)
Here I will use secondary authority (Opinion of Attorney General) to provide an interpretation of the text. “A contribution by a city to a private person, corporation, or association for any purpose which is not authorized by the charter of that city or by any provision of the Constitution or general law of this state is prohibited by this paragraph.” 1974 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U74-59 (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Para. VI).
For the record, I think we all can agree that the current charter is still a living document until changes are lawfully made.
Application: Augusta-Richmond County allocation of public funds to NGOs in the form of a donation or gratuity is a direct violation of Ga. Const. Art. III, § VI, Para. VI unless the organization receiving the benefit serves a “legitimate public purpose.” Allocating public funds to private entities (in this case, NGOs) without a clear public benefit is unconstitutional.
Supporting Case Law: Smith v. Board of Commissioners of Hall County, 244 Ga. 133 (1979)
In Smith, the Court ruled that “expenditures” must benefit the public at large, not just private parties. Although the commissioners inSmith were deemed by the court to be well within their right to allocate public funds to a private entity for fire protection services in return, the bigger question in Augusta is whether every discretionary NGO that just lost funding “benefited the public at large.”
I will leave that answer up to the citizens of Augusta-Richmond County.
Conclusion: If the discretionary NGOs that lost funding were not serving a “legitimate public interest” by “benefiting the public at large,” then allocating public funds to those organizations was unconstitutional and therefore should have ceased anyway. Going forward, the NGOs that were receiving public funds should be analyzed carefully to see if they serve a “legitimate public interest” in order to comply with how Ga. Const. Art. III, § VI, Para. VI has been interpreted by the Courts.
Personal Note: If I am not mistaken, Commissioner Brandon Garrett wanted to see the data detailing how some the organizations that lost funding were actually benefiting the public commenting that NGOs should be able to stand on their own.
Now, I recognize that my IRAC may contain flaws that a fellow legal mind can easily point out. Again, I am only answering a challenge by applying what I learned this past semester. As for AI, I used it to help conduct research, but final product is all mine (if my IRAC is poorly written, my reasoning is off, or my legal analysis is completely idiosyncratic, please do not hesitate to issue constructive feedback). Lastly, I will again communicate that I am not declaring that some NGOs do not serve a “legitimate public interest” or “benefit the public at large,” I am only trying to grow in my ability to analyze and apply the law, which is why I happily obliged when challenged.
Law Brannen
Georgia Southern University
(B.A. Political Science), Class of ‘26
