Marlow to Stay In Office

Cherokee County School Board member Kelly Marlow will remain on the job, at least for a while, according to a press release issued today by Governor Deal’s office:

The Governor’s Office today received a decision from Attorney General Sam Olens, Tim Stultz of the Cobb County school board and Ann Crow of the Forsyth County school board not to suspend indicted Cherokee County school board member Kelly Marlow from office.

The review commission determined that the indictment does not relate to or adversely affect Marlow’s ability to perform her official duties. The commission’s ruling is final.

Marlow was indicted by a grand jury in October on charges of making false statements to police that the school superintendent tried to run her and two others down with his car after a heated School Board meeting in June.


  1. gcp says:

    She is charged with making a false statement concerning the school superintendent and she is allowed to remain on the school board? Bad ruling here.

  2. Anyone But Chip says:

    So Don Balfour can pad an expense report by a couple of dollars and that qualifies as “relates to or adversely affects his office” but allegedly accusing the superintendent of the same school board you sit on of attempted murder does not? There needs to be a new ‘Murrica for this kind of governing / representation. Something like Geog’a.

  3. Napoleon says:

    For a little perspective:

    1. Like I said with Balfour, the presumption is “innocent until proven guilty.”
    2. Balfour was a long time Senator with power to influence a whole state while Marlow is a pion single member of a multi-member school board.
    3. Balfour is basically accused of stealing from public funds while Marlow is accused of letting a personality conflict get out of control.

    You can’t necessarily remove someone from office simply because they are a moron.

    • John Konop says:


      I agree to extent……But Marlow is being charged of falsely accusing a politically enemy of a felony charge of trying to run her over with a car. In my book playing with a anyone’s freedom is way bigger than a few bucks on an expense account. Also the night in question, I think we had major issues with real emergencies via the weather…..

      From the reporting nothing backs up her claim……at best they can argue if she stopped walking she could of been hit by a car. Not sure of Georgia law if that is a felony what she did….but obviously her claim was not even close relative to what she claimed. I would bet Dr. P no matter the outcome will go after her in a civil court.

      If it was just a minor he said she said argument than I would agree….But taking away freedom is a different story….

      BTW I am no expert from a legal stand point, just looking at as tax payer.

      • Three Jack says:

        A little more in-depth reporting here, at least as in depth as a biased local paper can get ––Deal-says-Marlow-to-keep-seat-on-board?instance=home_lead_story

        Finally the video is discussed. From the ‘reporting’, it appears that this is a classic case of she said/he said. With so little evidence supporting either side, it would appear the panel made the right decision to let Marlow continue. If they had suspended her, then it would be logical to do the same to Dr. P…I doubt they wanted this to snowball any more than it already has.

        • Anyone But Chip says:

          Dr. P did not accuse Marlow of falsifying a police report and was not indicted of any crime, why would he be suspended? Don’t forget who the victim truly is in this fiasco.

        • John Konop says:


          I would agree if Dr. P had made the same type of accusations, but this was only she said. Once again not saying she committed felony, not a lawyer…..but what she did was not right from what I saw on the video……

          • Three Jack says:

            John, Can you provide a link to the video? I’m going strictly by what is published in the Trib and from that report, it appears to be at least possible that Marlow’s complaint had merit. Not saying it does, just forming an opinion based on the story.

            • John Konop says:


              I saw parts of it on TV news…..It look like she was jay walking, way past his lane, and he drove by. No one was pushed, rushed…..Not sure if what Kelly did is a felony, but it really never look like she was in any risk….In fact she was jay-walking…..BTW I have jay walked in downtown Canton not like NY…..As I said I am not a lawyer…..but I would bet from what I saw Dr P has at least a good civil case…..

              • Three Jack says:

                I just saw it on WSB –

                Definitely ‘jaywalking’, but that is the norm for downtown Canton, very few use crosswalks.

                I guess it comes down to whether or not Dr. P changed lanes from the right to the one closest to Marlow (not available from video). She was definitely not ‘way past his lane’ as you imply and definitely not ‘pushed out of the way’ as someone on her side stated. It appears he was moving along at a pretty good clip for Canton where I believe the speed limit is either 20 or 25mph. So again it appears to be a big she said/he denied thing that in reality should just be dropped. Big waste of time and funds.

                • John Konop says:


                  Let us be honest in no way does that clip shows Kelly was in any danger. And one of your political foes had filed criminal charges based on that video you saw, you would be screaming bloody murder. I realize Robert Trim is your body…….but this should not be tolerated. You and I have been on the same side or different side on various issues through the years. What Kelly did from what I saw jumps way over the line.

                  • Three Jack says:


                    First this has nothing to do with Robert who I haven’t spoken with in years. I’m just posting an honest opinion of the video presented.

                    The video I linked shows a vehicle driving by in the left lane just after Marlow comes into the picture after crossing the left lane. They were in close proximity, that can’t be argued. But due to the limited camera coverage, for all we know, Marlow could have been standing in the middle of the street flipping Dr P the bird and he reacted. The video really proves nothing other than Marlow was not pushed to safety. Anything could have happened before the camera picked up the 3 indictees stepping onto a sidewalk (after oh my, jaywalking!!)

                    Personally I wouldn’t have called the police even if Dr. P had done what they accuse him of doing. I think they made a big mistake doing so and if it turns out they totally made up the story, then they should suffer the consequences. If he did alter his course or speed to scare Marlow, then so be it. No blood, no foul in my book.

    • Anyone But Chip says:


      #1 is moot. There’s no point in that argument. The constitution / laws enacted provide a method of addressing someone ACCUSED of a crime during the period that the courts are working through their process. There is no presumption of “innocent until proven guilty” in this process as it is outside of the legal system and has been enacted to ensure that someone cannot continue to harm their constituents while the legal process grinds on.

      #2 is moot. The law equally addresses all public servants. There is no judgement of “harm” or “influence” in the code, simply of whether the indictment has an impact on the office they currently hold.

      #3 is inaccurate. Balfour is charged with stealing from public funds, Marlow is charged with falsely accusing someone of attempted murder.

      • Napoleon says:

        It’s not moot as I was not making a legal argument but one based on perspective vis-a-vis Balfour vs Marlow.

        It is obvious that a legal system exists otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. The issue is not if there IS a legal process but the decision RENDERED by that legal process.

        Also, did Marlow accuse him of “attempted murder” or was it “attempted assault?” Because if you actually read the newspaper article, it was an accusation of aggrevated assault that Marlow is accused of falsely making.

        • John Konop says:


          Does it really matter which violent fellony Kelly and friends made a false acusation about to the police? The real,question is not about what political side you are on, it is simple, should we have laws to protect people for whatever reasons going to the police and making false threats against your liberty? If you at all understand our history as a country ie ” Life, Liberty and Justice” than this is obvious…….

  4. saltycracker says:

    There is just something about a public servant with a felony indictment or unpaid taxes that a rational person would want settled/paid before we allow them to be involved in making decisions for the public.

    But, the rationale for a free pass knows no boundary if the elected performs our way.

Comments are closed.