January 5, 2009

Today the Hall County Commissioners had their work session, and yes, the sewer rate issue was on the agenda. Unfortunately I was unable to attend, but Councilman Lutz was able to and please read here what he has to say about what went on, and then read the rest of my blog.

After reading what Craig had to say, I would like to say the State of Georgia has Sunshine Laws to protect the people to prevent elected officials from conducting business without clarity to the people. Here are two excerpts fro the Sunshine Laws that are particularly important as it pertains to executive session. The first is the explanation of executive session or a closed meeting and the second is explanation of what the Georgia Supreme Court ruled as the meaning of attorney-client discussion of actual or
potential lawsuits or claims.

The Open Meetings Law provides exceptions for certain closed meetings
and some confidential actions, and a government entity may close a meeting
only if a specific statutory exception applies26, see O.C.G.A § 50-14-3 in the
Appendix. Like the exceptions to the Open Records Law, exceptions to the
Open Meetings Law should be narrowly construed so as not to undermine
the general purpose of the Law.27 The most commonly used exceptions are
for personnel matters (but only for discussion and deliberation by the
governmental entity, not for votes); attorney-client discussion of actual or
potential lawsuits or claims28; and acquisition of real estate.

28. The Georgia Supreme Court has determined that the attorney-client exception
to the Open Meetings Law applies to discussions of potential litigation in limited
circumstances. The Court has stressed that “potential litigation” does not
include an “unrealized or idle threat of litigation.” Rather, to close a meeting to
under the attorney-client exception to discuss potential litigation, the
government entity must show “a realistic and tangible threat of legal action
against it or its officer[s] or employee[s], a threat that goes beyond a mere fear
or suspicion of being sued.” The Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors
for determining whether a tangible threat of litigation exists, including (1) a
formal demand letter or other writing showing an intent to sue; (2) prior or ongoing
litigation between the parties; or (3) proof that a party has retained an
attorney and expressed an intent to sue. Decatur County v. Bainbridge Post
Searchlight, Inc., 280 Ga. 706, 707 (2006) (quoting Claxton Enter. v. Evans
County Bd. of Comm’rs, 249 Ga. App. 870, 873 (2001))

When I go into executive session with the whole council, I take it serious to follow the law as it pertains to our meetings because that is the trust I was given by the people and I refuse to abuse their trust.