Georgia POST ADA Correspondence Record Through September 10, 2026

Exhibit · Georgia POST · Correspondence Record

A dated chronology of the correspondence and records concerning access to the complaint process of the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council. Every statement below is tied to a dated email, a POST determination, or a record POST itself produced.

The record, in order

February 24, 2026. A complaint is filed with POST by email. POST’s own Citizen Complaint Tracking Sheet, produced August 31, records it that day. The sheet has six intake fields. It has no field for disposition, outcome, due date, or closure.

April 14, 2026. A final supplemental submission arrives. It is not separately acknowledged.

April 16, 2026. A written follow up asks why. No response.

April 23, 2026. The complainant writes to POST, discloses a disability, identifies the barrier, and asks for an accessible written route and a written disposition. POST’s own administrative log, produced in August, records the message arriving at its ADA address the same evening. The log entry reads Receive.

April 24 or April 27, 2026. POST’s own records give two dates for the same referral. POST’s August 31 response letter states, at Item 12:

“Your April 23, 2026 correspondence was referred to Jay Pontrelli, Office of the Georgia Attorney General, on April 24, 2026.”

The forwarding email POST produced is dated April 27, 2026 at 8:14 AM. Both are POST documents. The record does not reconcile them and no attempt is made here to reconcile them.

April 28, 2026. POST replies. It says the correspondence has gone to counsel, whom it does not identify to the complainant. It does not answer where a member of the public with a disability files.

July 15, 2026, 11:48 AM. POST’s designated ADA Coordinator writes to the State ADA Coordinator’s Office:

“I am the ADA coordinator for POST. Honestly, I was asked to take on this role primarily to protect our employees, given that we are a small agency. Also, I was under the impression that because we are so small, I would not have to deal with public issues. I have never received training or gained any real knowledge of ADA. We have received some public complaints stating our website is not ADA compliant or that the agency is not compliant. I need help on how to interact with the public when they question our procedures. I figured emailing you was the best approach since I am currently unfamiliar with the requirements and not yet comfortable having in-depth conversations with the public.”

July 16, 2026. The day after that email, POST tells the complainant in writing that the requested ADA information will be forwarded. POST does not send it. The July 16 email blind copies Paul Jay Pontrelli. He replies internally twenty seven minutes later.

July 20, 2026. The State ADA Coordinator’s Office replies to POST’s coordinator that her request has been forwarded, and that the person assigned is out of the office and will respond the following week.

July 27, 2026, 12:13 PM. The State ADA Coordinator’s Office answers POST’s coordinator with a written plan for a new ADA coordinator. It tells her that from what she described, she had accepted a Title I employment role that now carries Title II duties:

“it appears that you accepted a role as your entity’s Title I (Employment) ADA Coordinator and that this role now includes Title II (State and Local Governments) ADA Coordinator duties”

Item 3 of the plan reads:

“Start reviewing the ADA requirements for State Government entities, especially the requirements for an ADA Public Notice and ADA Grievance Procedure”

August 5, 2026. The complainant contacts the Office of the State ADA Coordinator.

August 6, 2026. That office asks POST to identify its Title II contact and its grievance procedure. POST’s ADA Coordinator forwards the request to the Executive Director and writes:

“See below. I am not sure how to respond to this.”

August 7, 2026. POST’s Title II notice, grievance procedure and public complaint form appear on its website. The complaint form file records a last edit at 2:16 PM, and the web server records the file arriving at 3:00 PM the same day. That is one hundred sixty four days after the February complaint and one hundred six days after the April 23 written request. The State ADA Coordinator’s Office sends the complainant the links that afternoon. POST does not.

August 21, 2026. The complainant files a formal Title II grievance.

August 27, 2026. POST issues a written determination signed by an Assistant Attorney General. It accepts the existing submission without requiring duplication, grants written communication, removes the meeting requirement, and otherwise denies the grievance.

September 9, 2026, 8:24 PM. The complainant serves a litigation hold and evidence preservation notice. It states that it asks POST to produce nothing.

September 9, 2026, 8:25 PM. One minute later, POST’s Open Records office replies with the subject line “Acknowledgement of ORR” and the text “We have received your open records request.”

September 10, 2026, 8:28 AM. The complainant writes back that the September 9 letter is not an open records request, and asks that the preservation clock and the records clock be kept separate.

September 10, 2026, 8:35 AM. Open records requests go to POST and to two other state bodies.

September 10, 2026, 3:00 PM. The complainant sends a written response to the August 27 determination, asking POST to withdraw and reissue it through a reviewer who did not participate in the matters under review. A written response is requested by October 1, 2026.

September 10, 2026, 6:40 PM. A clarification narrows that morning’s records request: one item is narrowed to records held by the Council itself, one is limited to existing records, and one is limited to records existing when POST received the request. The same letter confirms that nothing in the morning correspondence withdraws or narrows the September 9 preservation notice.

Four things the determination says, in its own words

On the meeting the procedure requires:

“The Council’s grievance procedure provides that the Council will schedule a meeting, in person or by telephone, within fifteen (15) working days after receiving a completed complaint form.”

On what replaced it:

“Your August 21, 2026 grievance and its incorporated record constitute your submission, and this letter is the Council’s response.”

On the only route offered to discuss the outcome:

“If you wish to discuss this determination by telephone or in person notwithstanding your request for written communication, please advise and the Council will arrange it.”

On the reviewer:

“This grievance has been reviewed by the undersigned, as legal counsel to POST, in the Office of the Georgia Attorney General, who did not participate in any of the matters described in the grievance.”

What this shows

POST’s own records establish the sequence. On April 23, a disabled member of the public sent a written disability access request to POST’s ADA address. POST’s administrative log records the message as received. POST’s response letter says the correspondence was referred to counsel on April 24. The produced forwarding email is dated April 27 at 8:14 AM.

On July 15, POST’s designated ADA Coordinator told the State ADA Coordinator’s Office that she had never received ADA training, had believed her role would not involve public issues, and needed help responding to members of the public. On July 16, POST told the complainant that the requested ADA information would be forwarded. POST did not send it.

On August 6, after the State ADA Coordinator’s Office asked POST to identify its Title II contact and grievance procedure, the ADA Coordinator forwarded that inquiry to the Executive Director and wrote that she was not sure how to respond. On August 7, POST’s public Title II notice, grievance procedure and complaint form were published. The State ADA Coordinator’s Office sent those materials to the complainant.

On August 27, POST issued a written determination. It accepted the existing submission without requiring duplication, granted written communication, removed the meeting requirement, and otherwise denied the grievance.

On September 10, the complainant asked POST to withdraw and reissue that determination through a reviewer who did not participate in the matters under review. A written response was requested by October 1, 2026.

What this does not show

These records do not establish why POST published its public Title II materials on August 7, who directed their publication, or whether the State ADA Coordinator’s inquiry caused them to be published.

The produced records include internal correspondence, but they do not disclose the substance of legal advice or the full internal decision path.

This record does not decide the merits of the separate certification complaint. It does not establish anyone’s motive or intent.

POST also gave explanations and granted accommodations. Its August 27 determination attributes the failure to separately acknowledge the April 14 submission to an employee’s retirement. The determination accepted the existing grievance record without requiring duplication, granted written communication, and removed the meeting requirement. Those facts belong in this record too.

What remains is the dated sequence and the documents themselves.