Paying Attention Yet?

Paying Attention Yet? Opinion page for local, state, national and world events.

08/21/2026

Some Unsolicited Advice for Sheriff Capitosti

Burke County has been through a lot, and emotions are understandably running high. There are people who strongly support Sheriff Alfonzo Williams. There are people who strongly oppose him. There are questions about the commissioners, questions about the law, political divisions, racial tensions, and plenty of people who simply don’t know whom to trust anymore. Into the middle of all of that steps Sheriff Brad “Cap” Capitosti.

So, if I could offer him some advice, it would be this:

Don’t spend your time trying to prove that Alfonzo Williams was wrong or that the commissioners were right to appoint you. Prove instead that the Burke County Sheriff’s Office is bigger than either one of you.

Sheriff Williams has a legal process ahead of him. Let that process play out. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence and his day in court. There is nothing to be gained by attacking him, defending him, or trying his case through the Sheriff’s Office.

Capitosti’s responsibility is different. His responsibility is to run the Burke County Sheriff’s Office professionally, fairly and transparently. And that starts with the people already working there.

Don’t clean house simply because someone served under Williams. Don’t demand personal loyalty. Demand professionalism. Evaluate employees individually. Keep good people regardless of whom they supported. Correct problems where they exist. Promote based upon qualifications, performance and integrity, not friendship, politics, race or allegiance to one side of this controversy. That principle becomes especially important considering the racial atmosphere surrounding this transition.

Capitosti is a white sheriff temporarily replacing a Black elected sheriff. Some people are inevitably going to view decisions through that lens. Pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing. The answer isn’t to become defensive about race. The answer is to establish a standard so consistent that race cannot reasonably explain the decision:

Nobody gets favored because they’re Black. Nobody gets favored because they’re white. Nobody gets punished because they supported Williams. Nobody gets rewarded because they opposed him. The standard should be conduct, competence and character.

Capitosti should also make transparency one of the defining characteristics of his administration. Explain major personnel and organizational changes. Establish strong financial controls. Make policies clear. Document decisions. Address questions instead of allowing rumors and Facebook speculation to answer them first.

And he should resolve his certification issue as quickly as possible. Regardless of the legal ability to serve while bringing it current, there is no reason to leave an unnecessary distraction hanging over an administration. NOTE- I BELIEVE THIS HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF

Most importantly, don’t arrive as a conqueror. There was no election victory here. There is no mandate to celebrate. There is a Sheriff’s Office that needs leadership and a county that desperately needs some stability.

Meet with people who support you. But more importantly, meet with people who don’t. Sit down with Black community leaders. Sit down with Williams supporters. Sit down with clergy, business owners, deputies, county officials and ordinary citizens who are skeptical of your appointment. And listen more than you talk. Because there is an important distinction that everyone involved should understand:

The commissioners could give Brad Capitosti the legal authority to occupy the Office of Sheriff. They could not give him the confidence of the people of Burke County. He has to earn that himself.

And perhaps the best way to earn it is remarkably simple: Don’t clean house. Clean up the process. Don’t demand loyalty. Demand professionalism. Don’t surround yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear. Surround yourself with people willing to tell you when you’re wrong.

Don’t govern for the people who wanted you there. Govern equally for the people who didn’t. Do that consistently, and something important may eventually happen.

People may stop talking about how Brad Capitosti became Sheriff and start judging him by what kind of Sheriff he became. In the atmosphere Burke County finds itself in today, that would be a pretty good place to start.

None of this is to say Sheriff Capotisti is doing or not doing anything. Just merely observations and simple advice.

Paying Attention Yet...

08/20/2026

A recent social-media exchange involving a citizen complaint about several deputies provides a good opportunity to discuss something that is often overlooked in law enforcement: the responsibility that comes with leadership.

This is not about whether the deputies involved were right or wrong, because at the time the complaint was made publicly, none of us had enough information to make that determination. That is actually the point of this discussion.

According to the social-media post, a citizen’s family members were stranded in a parking lot with a dead battery. The citizen alleged that several deputies who were eating at a nearby restaurant were asked for assistance, were rude in their response, and ultimately did not help. Whether that account is completely accurate, partially accurate, or missing important circumstances is something that should be determined by looking into the matter.

The sheriff publicly responded. “Ma’am let me apologize for their behavior. I’ll look into it. Thank you for bringing this to light!”

On the surface, that probably sounds like a responsive elected official taking a citizen’s complaint seriously. However, from a leadership and management perspective, there is something about that response that should concern anyone who believes employees deserve to be treated fairly.

The problem is contained in the order of two statements: “I apologize for their behavior,” followed by, “I’ll look into it.”

If you have not looked into the allegation, how can you already apologize for the behavior of the employees involved? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a sheriff acknowledging a citizen’s complaint. In fact, that is exactly what should happen. Citizens should be able to bring concerns about law enforcement to the sheriff, and those concerns should be taken seriously. Taking a complaint seriously, however, does not require accepting the allegations as fact before the employees involved have even had an opportunity to explain what occurred.

A more appropriate response would have been something along the lines of, “I’m sorry your family had this experience. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will look into the circumstances and determine what occurred.” There is a significant difference between apologizing because someone had a negative experience and apologizing for the behavior of your employees before determining what that behavior actually was.

Having spent many years working with law-enforcement officers and administrators, I believe this distinction is important. A leader has an obligation to the public, but that same leader also has an obligation to the employees who work under his command. Those responsibilities do not conflict with one another. A good administrator can demand accountability from employees while also ensuring that those employees are treated fairly when accusations are made against them.

Consider this from the perspective of the deputies involved. Before anyone has interviewed them, reviewed the circumstances, or determined exactly what happened, the person ultimately responsible for their agency has publicly apologized for their behavior. If an administrative investigation follows, those employees could reasonably wonder whether the facts are actually being investigated or whether a conclusion has already been reached. That is not how confidence in leadership is built.

The deputies may have behaved exactly as the citizen described. If an investigation establishes that they were rude or violated agency expectations, then the matter should be addressed appropriately. On the other hand, there may be additional circumstances that were not known to the person making the complaint. There may have been a misunderstanding, there may be another explanation, or the deputies may have an entirely different account of what occurred. None of us knows, and that is precisely why an investigation should come before a conclusion.

This principle extends well beyond this particular incident. Law-enforcement administrators routinely expect their officers to gather facts, interview everyone involved, examine the available evidence, and avoid reaching conclusions until they have sufficient information. Leadership should be held to that same standard.

We frequently talk about accountability in law enforcement, and we should. However, accountability should apply throughout the organization. Deputies should be accountable for their conduct, supervisors should be accountable for properly supervising them, and command staff should be accountable for exercising sound judgment when complaints are made.

Good leadership does not mean automatically defending employees, nor does it mean automatically siding with the person making the complaint. It means having enough discipline and professionalism to withhold judgment until the facts are known. Listen to the citizen. Listen to the deputies. Determine what actually happened, and then take whatever action the facts justify.

That is not protecting bad behavior. It is simply good leadership.

Paying Attention Yet?

08/20/2026

One of the goals of Paying Attention Yet has always been to encourage open discussion. I’ve intentionally allowed disagreement, criticism, and even heated debate because an open forum should actually be open. I’ve also engaged with profiles that appeared fake, anonymous, or of questionable identity, operating on the principle of addressing arguments rather than individuals. That approach is now ending.

Going forward, clearly fake accounts and anonymous profiles will be removed. This is not about limiting disagreement. I welcome it. If you think I’m wrong, say so. If you have facts that challenge a post, bring them. If you see things differently, make your case. But participation in public discussion should come with accountability. There is a clear difference between disagreement and deception.

Fake profiles enable people to attack others, make accusations, and disrupt discussion while avoiding responsibility for their words. That does not support meaningful public discourse. Accountability is central to what this page is about. It would be inconsistent to demand accountability from public officials, agencies, and community leaders while allowing anonymous or fabricated identities to avoid it here.
The standard is simple: You don’t have to agree with me, have to like what I post or have to share my views. But if you participate, do so as a real person.

Paying Attention Yet is not an echo chamber. It is meant to be a space for honest conversation. And honest conversation starts with knowing who is speaking.

Paying Attention Yet!
rwd

08/19/2026

In just the past 24 hours, the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office has suffered the tragic loss of two of its deputies.

Two families are grieving. Friends and coworkers are hurting. And an entire law enforcement family is mourning.

Please keep their families, their fellow deputies, and everyone whose lives they touched in your thoughts and prayers during the difficult days ahead.

Rest easy, Deputies. Your service will not be forgotten.
🖤💙🖤

08/19/2026

People are saying Burke County is somehow being dragged backward by an antiquated “1911 law.” It makes for a powerful slogan, “It’s 2026, not 1911. Change the law.” The problem is that the slogan leaves out some rather important facts.

The law being referenced is not the criminal law under which Sheriff Williams was indicted. It is a Burke County local act originally passed in 1911 that established the county’s Board of Commissioners and, among other things, gave the commissioners authority to fill vacancies in county offices. That authority became relevant when Williams was suspended and someone had to serve as sheriff during his absence.

There is another fact conveniently missing from the “1911” narrative. This is not simply some forgotten law that has been sitting untouched for 115 years. The General Assembly has amended the Burke County act numerous times over the years, including legislation as recently as 2022 that specifically references the 1911 act “as amended.”

So, is this really about an outdated 1911 law, or is it about not liking what the law allows the county commissioners to do in 2026 Those are two very different arguments.

If the citizens of Burke County believe their commissioners should no longer have this authority, there is absolutely nothing wrong with advocating for change. Take the issue to the General Assembly, make the case, and change the law through the legislative process. That is precisely how our system is designed to work.

But let’s also be clear about what this law did not do. It did not indict Alfonzo Williams. It did not determine his guilt or innocence. It did not create the criminal charges against him. It simply provides the legal mechanism for filling a vacancy when one exists.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with that arrangement. There is nothing wrong with wanting it changed. But repeatedly calling it a “1911 law” as though Burke County is operating under some untouched relic from another century creates an impression that simply does not tell the whole story.

Perhaps the better question isn’t why Burke County is following a law that originated in 1911. Perhaps the question is why the age of that law suddenly became such an issue only after it produced an outcome some people didn’t like.

That’s a conversation worth having.

Paying Attention Yet?

There is something developing around the Sheriff Alfonzo Williams case that deserves a serious conversation. I have made...
08/19/2026

There is something developing around the Sheriff Alfonzo Williams case that deserves a serious conversation. I have made my concerns about this case known, and I certainly don’t expect his supporters to agree with me. Nor do I fault his friends, family, or supporters for standing beside him. There is nothing improper about attending a prayer vigil, marching in his support, praying for his family, or believing that he will ultimately be vindicated.

What I do find difficult to understand is the demand from some of those same supporters that everyone else “give it a rest.” We are told to stop discussing the case and allow the judicial process to work, while at the same time there are prayer vigils, marches, social-media campaigns, and increasingly forceful declarations about the law under which Williams has been charged. If his supporters have the right to publicly advocate for him, and they do, then others have the same right to question the circumstances, discuss the law, and express a different opinion.

My greater concern is that some of the rhetoric is moving beyond supporting a man who is presumed innocent and toward creating a narrative in which anything short of his complete vindication will be unacceptable. That becomes dangerous when emotion begins replacing reason.

A good example is the slogan, “It’s 2026, not 1911,” accompanied by demands to change the law. There may be a legitimate argument that a law enacted in 1911 should be amended or repealed. Laws should be periodically examined, and those that no longer serve a legitimate purpose should be changed. But dismissing a law simply because it is old is not much of an argument.

Consider the logic. The United States Constitution was written in 1787 and became effective in 1789. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Many of the constitutional protections Americans cherish, including freedom of speech and religion, protection against unreasonable searches, due process, and the rights of the accused, are considerably older than 1911. Yet no serious person would suggest that those principles should be discarded as outdated “1700s thinking.”

The age of a law does not determine its legitimacy. What matters is whether it is constitutional, what conduct it prohibits, whether its purpose remains valid, and whether it applies to the circumstances at hand. If Georgians believe a statute from 1911 no longer serves the public interest, then make that case to the General Assembly and change it through the legislative process.

But there is an important difference between arguing that a law should be changed and determining whether someone violated that law while it was in effect. We should be especially careful not to blur those questions simply because the person charged is someone we admire or support, or race.

That brings me to the issue that concerns me most: What happens if Sheriff Williams is not completely vindicated?

He may be. The charges could be dismissed, the prosecution could fail to prove its case, a court could determine that the statute was improperly interpreted or applied, or he could be acquitted. But another outcome is possible as well: he could be convicted.

Respect for the justice system requires acknowledging both possibilities. The danger comes when public rhetoric convinces people beforehand that only one outcome can be legitimate. If people become emotionally committed to the belief that complete vindication is the only acceptable result, then a conviction is no longer viewed as a legal judgment to be challenged through the courts. It becomes evidence that the prosecutor was corrupt, the judge was biased, the law was illegitimate, or the entire system was against them. That is a dangerous place for any community to find itself.

Whether intentional or not, some of what we are seeing also has the effect of positioning the narrative for either outcome. If Williams is acquitted, supporters can say they stood with him and were proven right. If he is convicted, the groundwork is already being laid to argue that the law was outdated and the prosecution unjust. When every possible outcome can be interpreted as confirmation of what we already believed, we are no longer allowing evidence and due process to shape our conclusions. We are protecting a predetermined position.

I do not support Sheriff Williams in this matter, but I absolutely support his right to due process and a fair adjudication of the charges. I want the allegations tested, the law properly interpreted, and the evidence fairly considered. The final judgment should come through the judicial process, not through Facebook, public demonstrations, political loyalties, or personal feelings.

His supporters should continue to exercise their rights. Pray for him. Stand beside him. March peacefully. Advocate for changing the law if you believe it is wrong. But understand that those same freedoms belong to the people asking difficult questions.

You cannot reasonably tell critics to “give it a rest” while organizing events intended to keep the case before the public. Nor should any of us become so emotionally invested in an elected official, or any individual, that we decide beforehand that only the outcome we want can possibly constitute justice.

There is a difference between standing beside someone while he faces judgment and deciding in advance that you will reject the judgment if it does not go his way. The first is loyalty. The second places loyalty to an individual above confidence in the process itself.

Support the man if you choose. Question the prosecution when the facts warrant it. Challenge the law through the legislature if you believe it should be changed. But allow the evidence, the law, and the courts to determine this case rather than deciding what the answer must be and then working backward to justify it. Justice cannot simply mean the outcome in which our side wins.

If we reach the point where that is how we define justice, the age of a 1911 statute will be the least of our problems. And I firmly that's the intentional direction we're headed

Wake up and Pay Attention

08/18/2026

There has been a great deal of discussion surrounding the appointment of Brad “Cap” Capitosti. Unfortunately, much of the disagreement seems to come from people arguing about what they think the law says rather than taking the time to actually read it. The legal distinction is fairly straightforward.

Williams remains the elected Sheriff, and suspension does not automatically mean permanent removal from office. He also remains entitled to the presumption of innocence. However, while Williams is suspended, he is not exercising the powers and duties of Sheriff.

Georgia law specifically provides for a replacement officer during the suspension of an elected county official. Under the law applicable to Burke County, the County Commission appointed Capitosti to serve in that capacity. He was sworn in and is exercising the authority of the office during Williams’ suspension. That is where people need to separate politics from law.

Whether Capitosti previously opposed Williams politically, whether someone agrees with the Commission’s choice, or whether the appointment creates good or bad optics does not determine its legality. The law does. And this principle extends beyond Burke County.

A private, nonprofit organization, regardless of how influential it may be, how powerful it believes itself to be, or how many public officials belong to it # cannot override statutory or constitutional law.

Professional organizations can adopt policies, establish membership requirements, issue opinions, and take whatever organizational positions their governing documents allow. But those positions do not carry the force of law and cannot supersede the authority granted by the Constitution or the General Assembly. Influence is not legal authority.

People are certainly free to disagree with the Commission’s decision. They can criticize it, support Williams, oppose Capitosti, or argue that someone else should have been appointed. But political disagreement does not make a lawful action unlawful.

Frankly, there would be far less dissension surrounding situations like this if more people took the time to learn what the law actually says before declaring what it means. The rule of law isn’t determined by personalities, loyalties, organizations, or appearances. And it doesn’t change simply because we don’t like the outcome.

If someone believes the appointment is unlawful, there is a very simple way to make that argument: Cite the law.

Otherwise, we’re debating opinions rather than facts. Optics may influence public opinion. Organizations may influence their members. Politics may influence personal opinion. But legal authority is determined by the law.

Paying Attention Yet?

08/16/2026

PAYING ATTENTION YET?

There is a report circulating claiming that 6 of Georgia’s 15 worst-performing schools are in Augusta. I have not verified that specific ranking, so I won’t present it as fact. But the official numbers are troubling enough.

Richmond County has multiple schools appearing on state lists tied to low academic performance. That should concern every parent, taxpayer, and elected official in this community. Especially when you consider the enormous amount of taxpayer money flowing through the Richmond County School System.

So here’s the question, WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR OUR MONEY?

This isn’t an attack on teachers. Teachers are on the front lines dealing with the consequences of decisions often made far above their classrooms. This is about leadership, accountability and oversight.

When hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent, we should be able to clearly answer: Where is the money going, and what measurable academic results are we getting for it? How much goes directly into classrooms? How much goes toward administration, consultants, contracts and programs? And when programs repeatedly fail to produce results, why are taxpayers continuing to fund them?

Audits and SPLOST oversight are important, but financial oversight should extend across the entire operation, and it should be tied to measurable outcomes. Our children only get one opportunity at an education.

Before taxpayers are asked for more money, perhaps it’s time to demand a complete accounting of how the money we’re already spending is being used, and whether it’s actually working. Asking those questions isn’t attacking public education. It’s demanding accountability for it.

Paying Attention Yet?

08/15/2026

As the legal troubles surrounding suspended Burke County Sheriff Alfonzo Williams continue, one argument has increasingly been offered by Williams and some of his supporters, that race is a driving force behind his prosecution and the opposition that has developed against him. That is a serious accusation, and serious accusations require evidence.

No one should dismiss the possibility of racial discrimination simply because no one wants to discuss. If there is evidence that Williams has been targeted because he is Black, that evidence should be exposed, investigated and condemned. But so far, the argument seems to rest primarily on the fact that Williams is a Black sheriff facing investigation, criticism and prosecution. That alone does not establish racism.

In fact, the history of Williams’ relationship with Burke County government raises an important question that his defenders should be willing to answer, if race is the reason for the opposition to Williams today, how do we explain the support he received during the earlier years of his administration?

For years, the same county government now portrayed by some as hostile to Williams worked with him and supported his administration. His Sheriff’s Office received substantial budgetary support, commissioners attended events and programs associated with his office, and there was no comparable public battle between the sheriff and county leadership.

Williams was Black then, too. Something changed. The relevant question, therefore, is not simply whether Sheriff Williams is Black. The question is what happened between those earlier years of cooperation and the deterioration of the relationship that followed That is where reasonable people should focus their attention.

As Williams moved into his second term, disputes involving finances, expenditures, administrative practices and the operation of the Sheriff’s Office became increasingly public. Relationships that had once appeared cooperative became contentious. Eventually, questions surrounding the Sheriff’s Office expanded beyond disagreements with county commissioners and became matters for outside investigators and prosecutors.

Today, Williams faces separate federal and state criminal cases. The federal indictment includes allegations that he accepted payments in connection with the dismissal of DUI citations, while the state indictment includes allegations involving training records and the handling of money. Those are allegations, not convictions.

Sheriff Williams is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and prosecutors carry the burden of proving their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot do that, Williams should be acquitted. But the same principle of evidence should apply to the accusation that these prosecutions are racially motivated. If racism is the explanation, then identify it.

Who made the decision based upon Williams’ race? What discriminatory statement was made? What evidence demonstrates racial motivation? What similarly situated sheriff of another race engaged in comparable alleged conduct and was intentionally treated differently? Those are fair questions because this situation extends far beyond a disagreement between Williams and a few Burke County commissioners. Federal investigators and prosecutors became involved. A federal grand jury returned an indictment. State investigators became involved, and a Burke County grand jury subsequently returned separate state charges.

None of that establishes Williams’ guilt. Grand juries determine whether sufficient probable cause exists for charges to proceed; guilt remains for the courts and ultimately a trial jury to determine. But neither can all of those independent actions simply be swept aside with an unsupported accusation of racism.

Perhaps the more revealing question is the simplest one, what changed during Williams’ second term? If county officials who had previously supported him later withdrew that support, what caused it? If relationships deteriorated, what events preceded that deterioration? If concerns about finances, administration and official conduct stated coming out, were those concerns legitimate? And if they were not legitimate, what evidence demonstrates that they were manufactured because of Williams’ race? Those questions can be answered with facts.

Reducing everything to race without identifying evidence of racial motivation does a disservice not only to the public, but also to legitimate cases of racial discrimination where real evidence exists. Accountability and racism are not synonymous. An elected official does not become immune from scrutiny because of his race, just as an accusation or indictment does not make that official guilty.

If evidence ultimately demonstrates that Alfonzo Williams was targeted because he is Black, then those responsible should be exposed and held accountable. But if the evidence instead demonstrates that the relationship changed because the conduct, management or circumstances surrounding his administration changed, then the public should have the courage to acknowledge that as well.

Sheriff Williams deserves a fair trial. The citizens of Burke County deserve the truth. And those alleging racism owe the public something more substantial than the accusation itself. If race is truly the reason all of this happened, show us the evidence. Otherwise, perhaps the question we should have been asking all along isn’t what color is the sheriff, but rather what changed?

PAYING ATTENTION YET?

Address

Augusta, GA
30906

Telephone

+18035943741

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Paying Attention Yet? posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Paying Attention Yet?:

Shortcuts

Share

Category