O.C.G.A.
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.
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. Alternatively, a civil penalty may be imposed by the court in any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter against any person who negligently violates the terms of this chapter in an amount not to exceed $1,000.00 for the first violation. A civil penalty or criminal fine
not to exceed $2,500.00 per violation may be imposed for each additional violation that the violator commits within a 12 month period from the date that the first penalty or fine was imposed. It shall be a defense to any criminal action under this Code section that a person has acted in good faith in his or her actions.
History
Code 1981, § 50-14-6, enacted by Ga. L. 1988, p. 235, § 1; 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 annual survey on local government law, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 177 (2018).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Citizen lacked standing to initiate criminal prosecution. - Portion of a citizen’s complaint seeking to impose criminal liability on city council members for the members’ violation of the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(e)(2), was properly dismissed because the citizen lacked standing to initiate criminal prosecution; at most, only the Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-6, is subject to a strict construction. Cardinale v. City of Atlanta, 290 Ga. 521, 722 S.E.2d 732 (2012). Suit for civil penalty to be brought against individual. - City councilmembers’ claims against a mayor under the Open Meetings Act for a civil penalty under O.C.G.A. § 50-14-6 were subject to dismissal because the complaint only named the mayor in the mayor’s official capacity; § 50-14-6 recognized that decisions to comply with the Act were made by individuals, or ‘‘persons’’. The claim for attorney’s fees, O.C.G.A. § 15-14-5(b), was in essence against the city and was not subject to dismissal. Lue v. Eady, 297 Ga. 321, 773 S.E.2d 679 (2015). Citizen had standing to request civil penalty. - Plaintiff, as an individ-
ual, had standing to request that a civil penalty be imposed against the commissioners under the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., because the provision plainly contemplated that a private person (or firm, corporation, or other entity) can bring an action to enforce the Act to protect the public from closed-door politics. Williams v. DeKalb County, 308 Ga. 265, 840 S.E.2d 423 (2020). Impact on type of damages sought. - Trial court erred in dismissing an action by the taxpayers alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1, et seq., by a local airport authority in planning and submitting an FAA application because the limitation period in O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(b)(2) pertained only to suits to invalidate public agency actions, and the taxpayers sought only declaratory relief, injunctive relief, attorney fees, and civil penalties. Avery v. Paulding County Airport Auth., 343 Ga. App. 832, 808 S.E.2d 15 (2017). Cited in Wiggins v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 258 Ga. App. 666, 574 S.E.2d 874 (2002); Heiskell v. Roberts, 342 Ga. App. 109, 802 S.E.2d 385 (2017).
CHAPTER 15 PUBLIC LAWSUITS Sec.
Definitions. Petition by political subdivision for posting of bond by opposing party or intervenor; hearing; dismissal upon failure to file bond; appeal.
Cross references. - Reimbursement of expenses of state officers generally, § 45-7-20 et seq.
Sec.
Expeditious hearing and determination of lawsuits and appeals. Commencement of subsequent actions.
Law reviews. - For annual survey article on local government law, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 341 (2000).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case:
Williams v. Dekalb Cnty., 840 S.E.2d 423 (Ga. 2020).
Williams v. Dekalb Cnty., 840 S.E.2d 423 (Ga. 2020).
· cites it 20× “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 not to exceed $1,000.00. Alternatively, a civil…”
Lue, Mayor v. Eady, 773 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 12× “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. In the second-filed motion, Mayor Lue asserted she, in her capacity as mayor, is…”
Gravitt Et Al. v. Olens, 774 S.E.2d 263 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 90× “Pursuant to this authority, Attorney General Olens brought the present civil enforcement action against the City of Cumming and Mayor Gravitt, individually, alleging that the defendants violated the OMA by prohibiting Tisdale from videotaping the City Council meeting and by…”
Cardinale v. City of Atlanta, 722 S.E.2d 732 (Ga. 2012).
· cites it 10× “Cardinale’s complaint challenges the minutes’ compliance with the Act; the Council’s refusal to amend the minutes; and the failure of some Council members to disclose their votes.”
Avery v. Paulding Cnty. Airport Auth., 808 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “OCGA § 50-14-6. The taxpayers contend that the limitation period found in OCGA § 50-14-1 (b) (2) pertains only to civil actions that seek to invalidate public agency actions that fail to comply with OMA, which remedy they expressly did not seek; they argue that the same…”
Martin v. City of Coll. Park, 802 S.E.2d 292 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “15 Accordingly, we remand for a determination of the appropriateness, if any, of a civil penalty as authorized under OCGA § 50-14-6 and/or any other relief as pleaded by Martin.”
Wiggins v. Bd. of Com'rs of Tift Cnty., 574 S.E.2d 874 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 50-14-6 (“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 $500.”
Tisdale v. Gravitt, 51 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (N.D. Ga. 2014).
· cites it 2× “As a result of the decision of the Superior Court and the fines levied on Defendants in that case, this Court finds that Plaintiffs Open Meetings Act claim under O.C.G.A. § 50-14-6 is moot and as such is DISMISSED.”
Phillips v. Hawthorne, 494 S.E.2d 656 (Ga. 1998).
· cites it 4× “stituted a mere “conclusion” that a crime was committed due to the absence of language specifying that a quorum wás present at the meeting (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…”
Matthew Charles Cardinale v. Tim Keane (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “) OCGA § 50-14-6, and it includes a similarly worded section setting out the ability of the Attorney General of Georgia to enforce the Act’s provisions.”
Lue, Mayor v. Eady (Ga. 2015).
· cites it 10× “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. In the second-filed motion, Mayor Lue asserted she, in her capacity as mayor, is…”
Silver Comet Terminal Partners, LLC v. Paulding Cnty., Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “ed as “to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; especially: dispute, challenge”12; “to argue against; dispute”13; and “[to o]ppose (an action or theory) as mistaken or 11 Because this case does not involve criminal penalties, we need not consider or decide…”
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.