Kilgore v

R.W. Page Corp., 259 Ga. 556, 385 S.E.2d 406 (1989). Provision of videotape of meeting is not compliance. — Atlanta Housing Authority did not substantially comply with the statute by providing a citizen with a videotape of a meeting of the Olympic Task Force Selection Committee after the agency accepted the recommendation of the committee. Jersawitz v. Fortson, 213 Ga. App. 796, 446 S.E.2d 206 (1994). Open meetings cannot be closed by one citizen. — Because the public has the right to access to a meeting declared open to the public, one citizen cannot elect to close a meeting that should be open. Moon v. Terrell County, 249 Ga. App. 567, 548 S.E.2d 680 (2001). Error to hold closed executive session. — Grand jury presentments questioning the propriety of certain policies of 50-14-1 county commissioners did not amount to pending or potential litigation so the attorney-client privilege did not apply to a meeting conducted to fashion a response to the presentments, and the commissioners violated O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(b) by conducting an executive session concerning the presentments. Decatur County v. Bainbridge Post Searchlight, Inc., 280 Ga. 706, 632 S.E.2d 113 (2006). Injunctive relief not available to compel compliance in the future. — Trial court erred in issuing temporary and permanent injunctions ordering a county board of commissioners to comply with the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., in the future as the board already had a duty to obey the law, and the complaint for injunctive relief, which was filed by the director of a county agency, averred no more than apprehensions of future injury, for which injunctive relief was not available. Wiggins v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 258 Ga. App. 666, 574 S.E.2d 874 (2002). Violation of agenda-posting requirement not found. — Because no allegation, much less evidence, was presented by a county property buyer that a technical violation of the agenda-posting requirement under O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(e)(1) deprived the buyer of a fair and open consideration of its claim or in any way impeded the remedial and protective purposes of the Open Meetings Act, the posting of the agenda at the regular meeting place of the county board of commissioners, rather than at the actual meeting site, sufficiently complied with the statute’s requirements. EarthResources, LLC v. Morgan County, 281 Ga. 396, 638 S.E.2d 325 (2006). County could not recover judge’s salary paid in violation of act based on 90-day limitations. — In a dispute between a county and a county state court judge over a supplement to the judge’s salary, summary judgment for the judge was proper on the county’s claim for reimbursement of the judge’s salary supplement because the county failed to show that the supplement was paid with the total absence or want of power. Even if the supplement was paid in violation of the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., the county’s counterclaim was filed 120 well outside the 90-day limitation period in O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(b)(2). Heiskell v. Roberts, 342 Ga. App. 109, 802 S.E.2d 385 (2017). Claims for lack of notice untimely. — Because a citizens group’s claims for lack of notice under the Georgia Open and Public Meetings Law, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(d), were untimely, and because the group failed to show that the actions by a county and a company in operating a landfill violated O.C.G.A. §§ 12-8-32 and 48-8-121(a)(1), the company was entitled to summary judgment in the group’s action for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Anti-Landfill Corp. v. North Am. Metal Co., LLC, 299 Ga. App. 509, 683 S.E.2d 88 (2009). Chairperson of county school board in contempt for interfering with agenda items. — Evidence supported a trial court’s conclusion that the chairperson of a county board of education deliberately prevented board members from appealing the chairperson’s decisions at a board meeting and would not recognize any appeals of the chairperson’s decisions to the other members of the board, and the trial court properly held the chairperson in contempt of the court’s order requiring that all board members be entitled to place matters on the agenda consistent with O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1. Cook v. Smith, 288 Ga. 409, 705 S.E.2d 847 (2010). Voting on employment decision. — Georgia Supreme Court held that the language of the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A. § 50-14-3(b)(2), did not mandate a vote on a relevant employment decision, the statute simply referenced such vote and required that any such vote be taken in public. City of College Park v. Martin, 304 Ga. 488, 818 S.E.2d 620 (2018). Names of persons voting omitted from minutes of meeting. — Court of appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of a citizen’s action alleging that a city and city counsel members violated the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(e)(2), because the complaint stated claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-5(a), based upon alleged violations of O.C.G.A. 50-14-1 § 50-14-1(e)(2) since the minutes of a counsel meeting omitted the names of council members who voted in the minority to amend certain council rules; the court of appeals erred in interpreting O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(e)(2) to allow minutes of an agency meeting to omit the names of persons voting against a proposal or abstaining when the vote was not taken by roll-call and was not unanimous. Cardinale v. City of Atlanta, 290 Ga. 521, 722 S.E.2d 732 (2012). Letter from single county commissioner was not a decision. — Letter from a county to a developer advising that proposals would be considered under an amended ordinance limiting the development of private sewer systems was not a ‘‘decision’’ of the county for purposes of triggering the 30-day period to appeal under O.C.G.A. § 5-3-20; therefore, the developer’s claim of inverse condemnation never ripened. Mortgage Alliance Corp. v. Pickens County, 294 Ga. 212, 751 S.E.2d 51 (2013). Action challenging cell tower construction timely. — Suit challenging the denial of an application to construct a cellular tower was timely because under Georgia’s Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., the 30-day clock for filing suit under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332, commenced upon the county board’s approval of the minutes of its prior meeting denying the tower application, rather than when the county clerk, according to custom, entered a document in the county’s books. Athens Cellular, Inc. v. Oconee Cty., 886 F.3d 1094 (11th Cir. 2018). Action time barred. — Trial court properly denied a challenger’s claim for injunctive relief against a city because the challenger failed to file the suit within 90 days of the city council meeting ratifying the purchase of the real property challenged, therefore, the action was untimely under the Open and Public Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(b)(2). Tisdale v. City of Cumming, 326 Ga. App. 19, 755 S.E.2d 833 (2014). Citizen had standing to request civil penalty. — Plaintiff, as an individual, had standing to request that a civil penalty be imposed against the commis- 121 Application (Cont’d) sioners under the Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et seq., because the provision plainly contemplated that a pri- 50-14-1 vate 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).