Melton, Presiding Justice.This case concerns the constitutionality of the appointment process created by House Bill 597 (HB 597), a DeKalb County local law that delegates to private entities the power to appoint certain members of the DeKalb County Board of Ethics.[2] Prior to the approval of HB 597 by DeKalbCounty voters in a 2015 referendum, appointments to the Board of Ethics had One member shall be appointed by a majority vote of the DeKalb County legislative delegation; One member shall be appointed by the judge of the Probate Court of DeKalb County; One member shall be appointed by Leadership DeKalb; One member shall be appointed by the six major universities and colleges located within DeKalb County (Agnes Scott College, Columbia Theological Seminary, Emory University, Georgia State University, Mercer University, and Oglethorpe University), which member shall not be an attorney; and One member shall be appointed by the chief judge of the Superior Court of DeKalb County. The members shall each serve for terms of three years; provided, however, that the initial terms of the first DeKalb County Chamber of Commerce appointee, the first Leadership DeKaIb appointee, and the first DeKalb County legislative delegation appointee shall be two years; and provided, further, that the initial terms of the six major institutes of higher learning within DeKalb County appointee and the judge of the Probate Court appointee shall be one year. Successors to all members of the Board of Ethics and future successors shall be appointed by the respective appointing authorities not less than 30 days prior to the expiration of each such member’s term of office, and such successors shall take office on January 1 following such appointment and shall serve terms of three years and until their respective successors are appointed and qualified. been made by the DeKalb County CEO and the County Commissioners. HB 597 changed this process by allowing four of the seven appointments to be made by private entities, and by eliminating the practice of allowing the CEO or County Commissioners to make such appointments.[3]The new Board of Ethics was established on January 1, 2016, pursuant to HB 597. On March 9, 2016, Sharon Barnes Sutton, a sitting DeKalb County Commissioner with pending ethics complaints against her, filed an action for awrit of quo warranto[4] to challenge the makeup of the Board, claiming that HB 597′s delegation of power to private organizations to appoint four members of the Board of Ethics was unconstitutional.[5] See HB 597, supra, at § 22A (h) (2) (B) (i), (ii), (v), and (vi). The trial court agreed with Sutton that the appointment process created by HB 597 was unconstitutional and granted the writ of quo warranto as to the four challenged Board members. The Board appeals from this ruling,[6] and, for the reasons that follow, we affirm.The Board argues that the trial court erred in granting the writ of quo warranto on the basis that the private organization appointment provisions ofHB 597 ran afoul of Ga. Const. of 1983 Art. I, Sec. II, Pars. I and II. We disagree.This Court has previously examined issues very similar to those presentedin the instant case in Rogers v. Med. Ass’n of Ga., 244 Ga. 151 (259 SE2d 85)(1979). Rogers involved a state law that required the Governor to acceptrecommendations made by a private organization – the Medical Association ofGeorgia – to fill vacancies to the State Board of Medical Examiners. Inconcluding that the statute unconstitutionally delegated the power ofappointment to a public office to a private organization, this Court explained:Fundamental principles embodied in our constitution dictate that the people control their government. “All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Public officers are the trustees and servants of the people, and at all times, amenable to them.” Code Ann. § 2-201.[[7]] “The people of this State have the inherent, sole and exclusive right of regulating their internal government and the police thereof . . .” Code Ann. § 2-202.[[8]] This is accomplished through elected representatives to whom is delegated, subject to constitutional limitations, the power to regulate and administer public affairs, including the power toprovide for the selection of public officers.“The General Assembly shall have the power to make all laws consistent with this Constitution, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which they shall deem necessary and proper for the welfare of the State.” Code Ann. § 2-1401.[[9]] These constitutional provisions mandate that public affairs shall be managed by public officials who are accountable to the people. As important as any other governmental power is the power to appoint public officials. They are the persons who control so much of our lives. . . . In our opinion, it is clear that the constitutional provisions cited above demand that the power to appoint public officers remain in the public domain. The General Assembly may, within constitutional limitations, establish qualifications for public office and designate a governmental appointing authority. But it cannot delegate the appointive power to a private organization. Such an organization, no matter how responsible, is not in the public domain and is not accountable to the people as our constitution requires . . . . This is violative of our Constitution.(Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 153-154 (2).As was the case with the appointed officials in Rogers, the appointedofficials to the Board here wield government power. Also as was the case withthe statute in Rogers, HB 597 delegates the power of appointment of officialsto a public office with governmental powers to private organizations that are“not accountable to the people as our constitution requires.” Id. at 154 (2).Specifically, four of the appointments to the Board are to be made by “theDeKalb Bar Association, cho[osing] [one member] from the attorney members of the association; . . . the DeKalb County Chamber of Commerce, [choosing one] member [who] shall not be an attorney; . . . Leadership DeKalb [choosing one member]; . . . [and] the six major universities and colleges located within DeKalb County (Agnes Scott College, Columbia Theological Seminary, Emory University, Georgia State University, Mercer University, and Oglethorpe University), [collectively choosing one] member [who] shall not be an attorney.” HB 597 § 22A (h) (2) (B) (i), (ii), (v), and (vi). As these private entities do not answer to the people as required by our Constitution, they are not authorized to wield the power to appoint public officials to the DeKalb County Board of Ethics.[10] See Rogers, supra; Ga. Const. of 1983 Art. I, Sec. II, Pars. I and II.[11]Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted the writ of quo warranto as to the four challenged Board members appointed by private entities pursuant to HB 597, as these appointments were unconstitutional. See Rogers, supra.Judgment affirmed. Hines, C J., Benham, Hunstein, Nahmias, Blackwell, Boggs, and Peterson, JJ., concur.Pickering v. Campbell, 146 Ga. 636 (92 SE 74) [(1917)]; Foster v. College Park, 155 Ga. 174 (117 SE 84) [(1923)]. . . . If the people of this State desire to modify the Constitution so as to enable the courts to uphold legislative acts which have been approved in a referendum, although they do not conform to the requirements of the present Constitution, this can be done in a legal and constitutional manner by amending the Constitution to that effect.Smith v. City Council of Augusta, 203 Ga. 511, 518 (2) (47 SE2d 582) (1948).
