CopyCited 42 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 13, 2020 | 308 Ga. 265
...public’s confidence in its officials.” (citation omitted)).
One of the ways the General Assembly has provided to
encourage compliance with the Act by agencies is by creating a
mechanism for holding accountable the individuals who make
decisions for the agency. OCGA §
50-14-6 provides in pertinent part:
Any person knowingly and willfully conducting or
participating in a meeting in violation of this chapter
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
shall be punished by a fine...
...good faith in his or her actions.
As we have explained, “in general, the Open Meetings Act addresses
the obligations of agencies, as defined by the Act, and not specific
individuals or governmental officers[,]” but it is significant that
OCGA §
50-14-6, the section of the Act that imposes penalties for
violations of the Act, “refers to ‘any person’ who violates the
requirements of the Act.” Lue v. Eady,
297 Ga. 321, 331 (3) (b) (773
SE2d 679) (2015).
Although the open meetings requirements of the Act
apply to agencies, the natural and reasonable reading of
OCGA §
50-14-6 is that the General Assembly recognized
that decisions to comply, or not, with the Act are made by
individuals, or “persons,” who are held accountable by the
provisions of that Code section.
Id....
...For this reason, OCGA § 50-14-
6 may be enforced only against a person in his or her individual
capacity, not in the person’s official capacity. Id. at 330-332 (3) (b).
See also Gravitt v. Olens,
333 Ga. App. 484, 493 (774 SE2d 263)
(2015) (“OCGA §
50-14-6 applies only to natural persons[,]” not to
any “artificial entity.”). And accountability includes being held
financially liable personally for civil or criminal penalties. OCGA §
50-14-6.
(a) The first question is whether Williams, as a private person,
has standing to seek to impose a civil penalty for noncompliance
with the Open Meetings Act....
...ce the civil
penalty provision and, if so, whether a private citizen may receive
any civil penalty paid.16 The Act authorizes trial courts to impose a
15 See Lue,
297 Ga. at 332 n.14 (In the case of the criminal penalty
provision of OCGA §
50-14-6, “only the Attorney General has standing to collect
the criminal penalty on behalf of the State, which receives any fine paid.”); see
also Cardinale v. City of Atlanta,
290 Ga. 521, 526-527 (722 SE2d 732) (2012)
(Private citizens lacked standing to seek to impose a penalty under former
OCGA §
50-14-6 for noncompliance with the Open Meetings Act, because the
statute then provided only for misdemeanor criminal penalties and private
citizens lack standing to initiate a criminal prosecution.).
16 See Lue, 297 Ga....
...884, 887 (II) (799 SE2d 225)
(2017) (questioning whether a private citizen is eligible to recover civil
penalties under the Open Records Act, OCGA §
50-18-70 et seq., given that the
civil penalty “in any civil action brought pursuant to [the Act],” not
only actions brought by the Attorney General. OCGA §
50-14-6....
...It follows that, although only a prosecutor
Act, in OCGA §
50-18-73 (a), refers only to the Attorney General in relation to
the authority to seek civil penalties).
empowered to initiate a criminal prosecution on behalf of the State
may seek a criminal penalty under OCGA §
50-14-6, any person,
firm, corporation, other entity, or the Attorney General may request
that the trial court impose a civil penalty. For these reasons, we
conclude that Williams had standing to request that a civil penalty
be imposed against the commissioners under OCGA §
50-14-6 and
to receive any penalty paid.
(b) The next question is whether Williams’ complaint alleged
a violation of the Open Meetings Act....
...17 The dissent’s caution that courts should be reluctant to look behind
the veil of the legislative process is well taken. But the Act plainly involves
courts in the enforcement of its requirements under some circumstances.
OCGA §§
50-14-5;
50-14-6....
...ry board and commission of each
county. OCGA §
50-14-1 (a) (1) (B), (C).
contrary to the trial court’s ruling, a person participating in a
violation of the Open Meetings Act may be subject to the criminal
and civil penalties authorized by OCGA §
50-14-6, notwithstanding
the agency or committee acting “as a whole.” See Lue, 297 Ga....
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 15, 2015 | 773 S.E.2d 679
...er of the Superior Court of
Wilkinson County after a hearing on a complaint filed by any resident of the
city. In addition to removal from office, the complaint sought the award of
attorney fees and fines, pursuant to OCGA §
50-14-5 (b) and OCGA §
50-14-6.
The trial court denied Mayor Lue’s motions to dismiss the complaint.
Shortly thereafter, the trial court granted the motion for a temporary restraining
order filed by plaintiffs (who are appellees in this appeal), pursuant to w...
...Open Meetings Act and thus is not a proper party to a complaint for damages
under the Act. Finally, Mayor Lue asserted that even if the plaintiffs were to
prove a violation of the Open Meetings Act, they are not entitled to enforce civil
penalties against her pursuant to OCGA §
50-14-6....
...ddresses the obligations
of agencies, as defined by the Act, and not specific individuals or governmental
officers. That section of the Act that imposes penalties, however, refers to “any
person” who violates the requirements of the Act. OCGA §
50-14-6 states as
follows:
Any person knowingly and willfully conducting or participating in
a meeting in violation of this chapter shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not
to exceed $1,000.00....
...of the Open Meetings Act, but reversing dismissal of that portion of the
complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations).
Shortly after this Court issued its opinion in the Cardinale case, the General
Assembly amended OCGA §
50-14-6 to provide, in addition to a criminal
12
See Ga....
...its terms.
Atlanta Independent School System v. Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School,
Inc.,
293 Ga. 629, 631 (748 SE2d 884) (2013). Although the open meetings
requirements of the Act apply to agencies, the natural and reasonable reading of
OCGA §
50-14-6 is that the General Assembly recognized that decisions to
comply, or not, with the Act are made by individuals, or “persons,” who are held
accountable by the provisions of that Code section.14 The complaint in this case,
13
Ga....
...nt to OCGA § 50-14-
6 fails to name a proper party defendant and should be dismissed.15
(c) The complaint also seeks an award of attorney fees, pursuant to
OCGA §
50-14-5 (b), for alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act. Unlike
OCGA §
50-14-6, which provides for the imposition of civil and criminal
penalties against a person who violates the Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-
5 (b) does not refer to a person who has violated the Act....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 4, 2013 | 751 S.E.2d 51, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3337
...Had MAC done any of those things, there likely would be no meaningful dispute about whether and when the “decision” was “entered” and “filed” under OCGA §
5-3-20, because as discussed below, Georgia’s Open Meetings Act, OCGA §§
50-14-1 to
50-14-6, would have required Commissioner Jones to decide the issue in an open meeting, with the decision written and filed in the official minutes of the meeting, if nowhere else....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 6, 2012 | 722 S.E.2d 732, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 339
...d the failure of some Council members to disclose their votes. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and requests that the trial court impose a $500 fine on the individual defendants1 and “charge each with misdemeanors.” See OCGA §
50-14-6.
We review the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted de novo, Southstar Energy Svcs., LLC v....
...Next, contradicting their characterization of the Act as a civil statute, appellees argued for the first time at oral argument that because the complaint requests that the trial court charge the individual defendants with misdemeanors and impose a fine of $500 on each of them under OCGA §
50-14-6, the Act is a criminal statute that must be strictly construed against Cardinale.3 The fact that the Act contains a penal provision does not render the entire statute penal in nature such that all of its provisions must be strictly construed....
...1969) (penal provision of Florida sunshine law did not make entire statute penal); Laman v. McCord, 432 SW2d 753, 755 (Ark. 1968) (provision of Arkansas Freedom of Information Act making a willful violation a misdemeanor did not make entire statute penal).
At most, only OCGA §
50-14-6 is subject to a strict construction....
...733 (2) (409 SE2d 564) (1991) (although Workers’ Compensation Act is liberally construed to effect its beneficent purposes, section providing penalties against employers is subject to strict construction). We need not apply a rule of strict construction to determine that Cardinale’s attempt to invoke OCGA §
50-14-6 fails because, as a private citizen, he lacks standing to initiate a criminal prosecution....
...) that a non-unanimous, non-roll-call vote was unanimous. This argument is inapposite. The issue here is not whether the General Assembly is authorized to create a presumption contrary to fact but whether it did so in OCGA §
50-14-1 (e) (2).
OCGA §
50-14-6 states that “[a]ny person knowingly and willfully conducting or participating in a meeting in violation of this chapter” is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine “not to exceed $500.00.”
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 3, 1991 | 261 Ga. 410, 19 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1063
...Page Corp.,
259 Ga. 556,
385 S.E.2d 406 (1989), we remanded this case to the trial court for it to determine whether an inquest by Kilgore, the Coroner of Muscogee County, must be open to the public under either our Open Meetings Act, OCGA §§
50-14-1 to
50-14-6, or our Open Records Act, OCGA §§
50-18-70 to
50-18-75, On remand the appellee newspaper publisher also sought access under the First Amendment to the U.S....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 26, 1998 | 494 S.E.2d 656, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 325
...(so as to constitute a meeting required to be open, see OCGA §
50-14-1 (a) (2)) and that appellees’ participation in a closed meeting was knowing and wilful (so that the violation of the Open Meetings Act would qualify as a misdemeanor, see OCGA §
50-14-6)....
...ttee ... at a designated time and place ... at which official action is to be taken.” A closed meeting is a crime only where a person “knowingly and willfully conduces] or participates] in a meeting in violation of” the Open Meetings Act. OCGA §
50-14-6.
See Index to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Population Tables, p....
Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 15, 2015 | 494 S.E.2d 656, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 325
...order of the Superior Court of
Wilkinson County after a hearing on a complaint filed by any resident of the
city. In addition to removal from office, the complaint sought the award of
attorney fees and fines, pursuant to OCGA §§
50-14-5 (b) and
50-14-6.
The trial court denied Mayor Lue’s motions to dismiss the complaint.
Shortly thereafter, the trial court granted the motion for a temporary restraining
order filed by plaintiffs (who are appellees in this appeal), pursuant to whic...
...Open Meetings Act and thus is not a proper party to a complaint for damages
under the Act. Finally, Mayor Lue asserted that even if the plaintiffs were to
prove a violation of the Open Meetings Act, they are not entitled to enforce civil
penalties against her pursuant to OCGA §
50-14-6....
...ddresses the obligations
of agencies, as defined by the Act, and not specific individuals or governmental
officers. That section of the Act that imposes penalties, however, refers to “any
person” who violates the requirements of the Act. OCGA §
50-14-6 states as
follows:
Any person knowingly and willfully conducting or
participating in a meeting in violation of this chapter shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine
not to exceed $1,000.00....
...of the Open Meetings Act, but reversing dismissal of that portion of the
complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations).
Shortly after this Court issued its opinion in the Cardinale case, the General
Assembly amended OCGA §
50-14-6 to provide, in addition to a criminal
penalty for knowing and willful violation of the Act, for the imposition of a civil
penalty “in any civil action ....
...its terms.
Atlanta Independent School System v. Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School,
Inc.,
293 Ga. 629, 631 (748 SE2d 884) (2013). Although the open meetings
requirements of the Act apply to agencies, the natural and reasonable reading of
OCGA §
50-14-6 is that the General Assembly recognized that decisions to
comply, or not, with the Act are made by individuals, or “persons,” who are held
accountable by the provisions of that Code section.13 The complaint in this case,
however, do...
...21
6 fails to name a proper party defendant and should be dismissed.14
(c) The complaint also seeks an award of attorney fees, pursuant to
OCGA §
50-14-5 (b), for alleged violations of the Open Meetings Act. Unlike
OCGA §
50-14-6, which provides for the imposition of civil and criminal
penalties against a person who violates the Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-
5 (b) does not refer to a person who has violated the Act....
