O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 50-14-4 (2019)

Procedure when meeting closed

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) When any meeting of an agency is closed to the public pursuant to any provision of this chapter, the specific reasons for such closure shall be entered upon the official minutes, the meeting shall not be closed to the public except by a majority vote of a quorum present for the meeting, the minutes shall reflect the names of the members present and the names of those voting for closure, and that part of the minutes shall be made available to the public as any other minutes. Where a meeting of an agency is devoted in part to matters within the exceptions provided by law, any portion of the meeting not subject to any such exception, privilege, or confidentiality shall be open to the public, and the minutes of such portions not subject to any such exception shall be taken, recorded, and open to public inspection as provided in subsection (e) of Code Section 50-14-1.

(b)(1) When any meeting of an agency is closed to the public pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section, the person presiding over such meeting or, if the agency’s policy so provides, each member of the governing body of the agency attending such meeting, shall execute and file with the official minutes of the meeting a notarized affidavit stating under oath that the subject matter of the meeting or the closed portion thereof was devoted to matters within the exceptions provided by law and identifying the specific relevant exception. (2) In the event that one or more persons in an executive session initiates a discussion that is not authorized pursuant to Code Section 50-14-3, the presiding officer shall immediately rule the discussion out of order and all present shall cease the questioned conversation. If one or more persons continue or attempt to continue the discussion after being ruled out of order, the presiding officer shall immediately adjourn the executive session.

History

Code 1981, § 50-14-4, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 235, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 549, § 3; Ga. L. 2012, p. 218, § 1/HB 397.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article on the

2012 amendment of this Code section, see 29 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 139 (2012). For note on 1999 amendment to this Code section, see 16 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 256 (1999).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Compliance with requirements as to minutes. - Trial court erred in holding that minutes complied with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-14-4(a) since the minutes did not reflect ‘‘the names of the members present and the names of those voting for closure,’’ but only indicated the names of commissioners moving and seconding a motion to go into closed session. Moon v. Terrell County, 249 Ga. App. 567, 548 S.E.2d 680 (2001). Filing of minutes and affidavits. - Because minutes and affidavits are required to be timely recorded and made open to public inspection so that the general public knows when and where to find an official accounting of the business that transpired, the trial court erred in failing to find that the failure of the county board of commissioners to timely file an affidavit and minutes pertaining to a particular meeting constituted a violation. Claxton Enter. v. Evans County Bd. of Comm’rs, 249 Ga. App. 870, 549 S.E.2d 830 (2001). Open Meetings Law does not apply

to judicial branch. - Legislature did not intend for the Open Meetings Law, O.C.G.A. T. 50, C. 14, to apply to the judicial branch of government. Therefore, a judicial commission is not subject to that chapter. Fathers Are Parents Too, Inc. v. Hunstein, 202 Ga. App. 716, 415 S.E.2d 322 (1992). Act not violated when subsequent meeting was open. - Because a bond and a supplemental resolution to the bond were considered at a subsequent meeting at which no closed executive session occurred, and the bond action was discussed and acted upon at the subsequent open meeting, the contentions regarding problems with the prior meeting did not affect the validity of the airport authority’s ultimate decision to issue the revised bond, and the airport authority did not violate the Georgia Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq. Avery v. State of Ga., 295 Ga. 630, 761 S.E.2d 56 (2014). Cited in Atlanta Journal v. Babush, 257 Ga. 790, 364 S.E.2d 560 (1988).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Notice provisions for closed meetings. - Agency must comply with the notice provisions of the Open Meetings Law, O.C.G.A. T. 50, C.14, when a meeting, as defined in the law, is to be held in closed session. Minutes available to the public are limited to the reasons for closure, the names of the members present, and the names of those voting for closure. 1988 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U88-30. Closure of meetings held by Drug Utilization Review Board. - Drug Utilization Review Board may close the

Board’s meetings in accordance with the procedures outlined in O.C.G.A. § 50-14-4. That being said, it is up to the Department of Community Health to make the decision regarding whether to close any Board meeting. The decision to close a meeting, however, must be made on a case-by-case basis and supported both by the facts of the particular situation and the affidavit of the presiding officer justifying the closure. 2010 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U10-1.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Emergency exception under state law making proceedings by public

bodies open to the public, 33 A.L.R.5th 731.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Atlanta Journal & Atlanta Constitution v. Babush, 364 S.E.2d 560 (Ga. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Atlanta Journal & Atlanta Constitution v. Babush, 364 S.E.2d 560 (Ga. 1988). · cites it 14× “” OCGA § 50-14-4: “This chapter shall not apply to the following: .”
Claxton Enter. v. Evans Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 549 S.E.2d 830 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “Moreover, the procedure that an agency must follow to close a meeting is plainly set out in OCGA § 50-14-4. Although we cannot determine if a closed meeting took place in this case to discuss whether to conduct a closed session, we do find that the testimony adduced reveals a…”
Moon v. Terrell Cnty., 548 S.E.2d 680 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 16× “Moon contends the trial court erred in finding that the board complied with the requirements of OCGA § 50-14-4, which mandates that the minutes reflect the names of those commissioners who voted to close it.”
Lue, Mayor v. Eady, 773 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “13 See also OCGA § 50-14-1 (e) (2) (B) (requiring minutes to include the identity of “persons” making motions and voting); OCGA § 50-14-4 (b) (stating that if a meeting is closed to the public, the “person” presiding must execute an affidavit, and if one or more “persons” in an…”
Irvin v. MacOn Tel. Publ'g Co., 316 S.E.2d 449 (Ga. 1984). · cites it 4× “" Analogizing to OCGA § 50-14-4 (6), which exempts personnel meetings from the open meetings requirement of the Sunshine Law, appellants argue that the GBI investigative records and the order of the administrative law judge are "personnel-related" files which the legislature…”
Harris v. Cox Enter., Inc., 348 S.E.2d 448 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 2× “An in camera inspection is necessary to determine whether the meeting comes within one of the exceptions set forth in OCGA § 50-14-4 to the provisions of OCGA § 50-14-1 et seq.”
Evans Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Claxton Enter., 566 S.E.2d 399 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “at 876-877 (4); OCGA § 50-14-4 (b). 6 Claxton Enterprise, supra at 878 (5).”
Avery v. State of Georgia, 761 S.E.2d 56 (Ga. 2014). · cites it 2× “4 The Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-4, provides: (a) When any meeting of an agency is closed to the public pursuant to any provision of this chapter, the specific reasons for such closure shall be entered upon the official minutes, the meeting shall not be closed to the public…”
Matthew Charles Cardinale v. Matt Westmoreland, in His Pers. Capacity (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 25× “Nonetheless, the Act further provides that [t]his chapter shall not be construed so as to repeal in any way [t]he attorney-client privilege recognized by state law to the extent that a meeting otherwise required to be open to the public under this chapter may be closed in order…”
Decatur Cnty. v. Bainbridge Post Searchlight, Inc., 632 S.E.2d 113 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to OCGA § 50-14-4 (b), the Chairperson executed an affidavit of compliance stating that the subject matter of the executive session was devoted to matters that were within an unspecified exception to the Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-1 et seq.”
Catherine Corkren v. David Maynard (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 50-14-4 (a). Corkren contends that the phrase “the names of the members present” refers to the names of the members present during the executive session, and she contends that the various minutes at issue did not list those names.”
Lue, Mayor v. Eady (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, that portion of the complaint seeking to enforce a civil penalty “against any person who negligently violates the terms of this chapter,” pursuant to OCGA § 50-14- 13 See also OCGA § 50-14-1 (e) (2) (B) (requiring minutes to include the identity of “persons” making…”
— 50-14-4(6) — 1 case
Moon v. Terrell Cnty., 548 S.E.2d 680 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). “Moon contends the trial court erred in finding that the board complied with the requirements of OCGA § 50-14-4, which mandates that the minutes reflect the names of those commissioners who voted to close it.”
— 50-14-4(a) — 1 case
Moon v. Terrell Cnty., 548 S.E.2d 680 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). “Moon contends the trial court erred in finding that the board complied with the requirements of OCGA § 50-14-4, which mandates that the minutes reflect the names of those commissioners who voted to close it.”
— 50-14-4(b) — 1 case
Decatur Cnty. v. Bainbridge Post Searchlight, Inc., 632 S.E.2d 113 (Ga. 2006). “Pursuant to OCGA § 50-14-4 (b), the Chairperson executed an affidavit of compliance stating that the subject matter of the executive session was devoted to matters that were within an unspecified exception to the Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-1 et seq.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.