Julia Pierce | August 4, 2026

In a previous publication written on July 20, 2026, I shared information from the Board of Commissioner’s meeting minutes from August 13, 2024, where former Tax Commissioner of Marion County, Phyllis Blocker, requested of the Board of Commissioners of Marion County to approve voiding $10,187.99 in tax refund checks that were unclaimed, most of which is stated by Phyllis Blocker as being $5.00 or less.

I indicated in that publication that I requested that the Georgia Department of Revenue perform an investigation to find whether or not Phyllis Blocker and the commissioners violated the Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (O.C.G.A. 44-12-190) which requires that all unclaimed property being reported to the Department of Revenue.

On July 21, 2026, I sent an open records request to the county manager and her clerks requesting a digital (electronic copy) of (1) the list of voided tax refund checks (totaling $10,187.99) that were voided as of August 13, 2024 approval by the Board of Commissioners to include check number, amount, and name for each check and (2) the specific fund from which these voided checks were written. Notice how there have been 44 views of this email when it was sent to only three people.

On July 22, 2026, Georgina Harvey, who was elected to complete the unexpired term of Phyllis Blocker, who resigned earlier this year, responded and indicated that she had received my request for records, was reviewing it, and would respond when records are available or any exemptions that prohibited production.

On July 27, 2026, Georgina responded that there were no digitized copies of the voided checks, that they would be available for personal review, and that there would be a cost for search, retrieval, and supervision of my inspection of such records.

The problem with this response is that, Georgina, just five days prior, indicated that she would respond when records were available or provide me with an appropriate exemption indicating why she was not required to produce them. Georgina did neither. I pride myself on keeping my word to others and I pay attention to when our elected officers do not keep theirs.

Approximately 45 minutes later, I responded to Georgina Harvey that she was required to provide me with a cost for search, retrieval, and digitization and indicated that it was my belief that since Phyllis Blocker presented this information to the Board of Commissioners, there should already be something available. I also graciously provided Georgina an additional three days, pursuant to the requirements of the Georgia Open Records Act, since it appeared that she was unfamiliar with the provisions and requirements of it. I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt and allow her the opportunity to correct her mistakes and comply with my request.

Georgina then responded that she has responded within the time required pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act and reiterated that the records were available for inspection. I had just communicated to her that my request was for an electronic copy, which requires her to formulate the cost for search, retrieval, and digitization. I did not ask to inspect these records, so when public officers who are accountable to the Open Records Act, refuse to adhere to the public’s request and instead offer some other alternative, the question must be asked, “Is this person lazy? Are they not able to comprehend for what I am asking? Are they intentionally frustrating the process because they don’t want to produce the document I am asking for?”

Once more, I responded to Georgina that she cannot just decide when she wants to adhere to the provisions of the Open Records Act, reminded her that she had yet to provide an exemption that prohibited her from producing the electronic records, and questioned whether she was “either ignorant to what the Open Records Act, which is law in Georgia, require[d] of [her], or [she was] doing what [she could] to evade production.” I simply stated that she did not have the authority to exclude herself from following the law, when she felt like it. I also cautioned her that if she refused to proceed legally with my request, I would have no choice but to make a complaint with the Attorney General’s office for her violation of the Open Records Act.

I also followed this email up with a notice to Ms. Harvey that I was requesting this information as supplemental evidence to a request for investigation I had sent to the Department of Revenue on July 20, 2026.

The email I sent to the Georgia Department of Revenue is below.

It was then that Ms. Harvey responded that there were 925 checks that were voided and that she was going to charge me .10 a page to scan/copy them and that there would be an additional charge for search and retrieval.

Again this presented a problem. Ms. Harvey does not have the authorization to charge me a fee per page to scan these documents into an electronic format. They do not take paper or toner to do so. They do take time, which is why in my request, she is required to indicate how long it will take to do so. I was not refusing to pay an appropriate cost, as I have clients who have requested my research and have approved paying for the open records fees, but I will not allow their money to be abused during this process. Georgina also indicated that it would take time to review each check individually and that the cost of this process could not be determined ahead of time. This is why it is important to provide an estimate of time and indicate that this could reflect differently, but that a general cost is required for approval. If she were to say it would take 8 hours to perform such request, that would have been fair. If she were to say that it would take 16 hours, that would be fair, but she gave me nothing. Why wouldn’t she throw an approximate out there for me? Was this just one more attempt to frustrate the process?

A more important question is, “How did she know there were 925 checks if she hadn’t already located them? Did she have someone sit down and count them individually?

On July 28, 2026, I responded to Georgina that if I calculated all 925 checks at $5.00, since Phyllis Blocker presented to the commissioners that most of the checks were $5.00 and under, the total of those refunds would only be $4,625.00, which is less than half of the $10,187.99 that Phyllis Blocker indicated was the total of all the refund checks she was requesting to void. I asked Georgina to provide me a breakdown of how many checks were $5.00 and under and how many checks were over $5.00. My reasoning was two-fold. I was looking to validate if in fact most of the checks were $5.00 and under and I was looking to see if she would be able to come up with a better cost for production. Ideally, I was now suspicious that there were several larger checks that were voided and that those citizens were entitled to their substantial refund. Notice that there have been 88 views of this email thread that involved myself and Georgina.

Ms. Harvey then sent an entirely new email indicating that she was going to open up a separate request just for the checks for $5.00 and under, which is not what I requested. In addition, she cited that a “public agency to create a new record, compile information, or prepare a report in response to a request.” It is true that they do not have to prepare reports that are not in existence, but I was not asking for her to make any new reports, but this request was not asking for new reports. It was asking for her to scan copies already in existence. here is another county employee that used this as an excuse because she did not want to produce documentation I was requesting.

Ms. Harvey also indicated that it would take anywhere between 12 and 29 hours and cited $240.00 to $580.00. That’s a large gap between how many hours it is going to take and again, there is no breakdown for me of the cost per hour, which is required, since this is based on the lowest paid person able to produce the report. At this point, it is now hard not to question if Georgina was intentionally frustrating this process.

Many people, when they see that there is frustration by a public officer to an open records request, plausibility of that officer not wanting to produce those documents because of what the contain, is a reasonable inference. Was Georgina refusing to participate in this process because those records could implicate her office? Why would she even be concerned about that if she was not the person who participated in this process? It wasn’t her that was responsible for the voiding of checks. It was Phyllis Blocker, and at the word of Phyllis Blocker, the commissioners. The commissioners could claim that they trusted their tax commissioner’s word and they could also claim that they didn’t know what the law required of them. And though ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law, there is leniency that is applied for ignorance.

Ultimately, I went back and forth with Ms. Harvey multiple times. I made her aware of what her duty is regarding the open record act. I indicated to her that I would be reporting on her part in this process and that I would be allowing the Department of Revenue to require those documents via their investigation. She had the opportunity to show me that she was committed to transparency and to the people who she serves. In my experience, she failed this test miserably.

At this time, I have further requested that the Department of Revenue include Ms. Harvey in their investigation citing my allegations of her violation of the following Georgia laws:

• O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71, governing the inspection and production of public records;
• O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(d), governing the calculation and assessment of permissible copying and administrative fees, including limitations on labor charges and the requirement that fees reflect the actual cost of responding to a request;
• O.C.G.A. § 50-18-71(b), requiring agencies to provide timely access to records or a lawful explanation for withholding records;
• O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72, concerning the limited statutory exemptions from disclosure; and
• O.C.G.A. § 50-18-74, which authorizes civil enforcement and penalties for knowing violations of the Act.

As it stands there are 89 views of both the request for investigation into the alleged violation of the Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act and the request for investigation into the allegations I have presented of Ms. Harvey’s violations of Georgia Statutes. Those views range from all over the nation in such places as: Chamblee, Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia, Nashville, Tennessee, Cleveland, Tennessee, Hazard, Kentucky, Ashburn, Virginia, Colorado, and Phoenix, Arizona. I have not forwarded this email to anyone.

Where there more checks that were of higher value? How many checks were only $5.00 or less? Why does it seem that Georgina Harvey is making an easy process difficult? Do you think she is purposely frustrating the process? If so, do you think she is doing it because she doesn’t want us to know the truth about whose money they refused to return or process according to Georgia law?

What are your thoughts?

If you have a story, feedback, or questions, please feel free to contact me at Plumblyne Productions by email at plumblyneproductions@gmail.com or call me at 229-329-2179. Don’t forget to subscribe, share, and follow to stay up to date.