Appellant Matthew Cardinale, pro se, brought an action in the trial court against appellees the City of Atlanta the “City”, the President and seven members of the Atlanta City Council the “Council”, and the City’s Municipal Clerk alleging violations of Georgia’s Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-1 et seq. the “Act”. Cardinale alleges that the minutes of a Council meeting in February 2010 omitted certain information concerning the outcome of a non-roll-call vote in violation of OCGA § 50-14-1 e 2, namely the names of Council members who voted, in the minority, to amend rather than maintain certain Council rules. The trial court dismissed Cardinale’s complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the language of the Act does not support Cardinale’s claims. We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting OCGA § 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 is not taken by roll-call and is not unanimous. Finding that the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation the Act, we reverse in part and conclude that only that portion of Cardinale’s complaint seeking to impose criminal liability upon the individual defendants was properly dismissed. Cardinale’s complaint alleges as follows: The Council held its annual elected official retreat at the Georgia Aquarium on February 18 and 19, 2010. The retreat was a meeting required to be open to the public under the Act. See OCGA § 50-14-1 a-c. On the second day of the retreat, the Chair of the Council’s Committee on Council “COC” polled Council members to determine whether they were in favor of amending the existing rules governing public comment at Council committee meetings. By show of hands, seven Council members voted in favor of amending the current rules while eight members voted to maintain the existing rules. The minutes of the retreat, however, state only that “after an extensive discussion it was determined that the membership was not in support of amending the existing law.” After obtaining a copy of the minutes, Cardinale requested on several occasions that the minutes be amended to include further vote details. In response, Cardinale received a memo authored by the City’s law department opining that in the case of a non-roll-call vote, the Act “does not require that the names of each Council member voting for and against the proposal be recorded in the minutes.” Cardinale then attempted to poll Council members regarding their votes. Six members did not disclose their votes; two disclosed voting to amend the existing rules; and seven disclosed voting to maintain the existing rules.
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. 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.
