City of Statesboro v. Dabbs

The plaintiffs were not required to provide ante litem notice of their intent to seek attorneys' fees in their action alleging Open Meetings Act violations, and the plain text of the Act authorized the trial court to order equitable relief such as substitute hearings or hearings held in compliance with the Act.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This appeal involves the manner in which a superior court may enforce the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-1, against a municipality. The record shows that Earl Dabbs, Charles Olliff, Raybon Anderson, Jody P. Stubbs, Ray Hendley, and Ellis Wood, who are private citizens collectively “Plaintiffs”, filed a complaint alleging an Open Meetings Act violation against the City of Statesboro, its mayor, Joe Brannan, and its city council members, Will Britt, Travis Chance, John Riggs, Gary Lewis, and Tommy Blitch collectively “City”. In their complaint for injunctive relief, Plaintiffs requested, among other things, an award of attorney fees and an injunction preventing the City from holding any future “secret” meetings. At the hearing on this matter, the City ultimately conceded that it had violated the Open Meetings Act by holding closed meetings regarding the City budget on April 1, 2010 and April 19, 2010, either without proper public notice or without the required transcription of meeting minutes. Based on the evidence that it gathered of these violations, the trial court held that: 1 the City was enjoined from conducting any future meetings in violation of the Open Meetings Act; 2 the City must repeat the April 1 and April 19 meetings in an open manner that complies with the Open Meetings Act; and 3 pursuant to OCGA § 50-14-5 b, plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $4,250. Following the trial court’s ruling, the City filed the present appeal, arguing that the imposition of attorney fees was improper due to the lack of ante litem notice and that the issuance of an injunction was improper because Plaintiffs never made a proper request for mandamus. In a cross-appeal, Plaintiffs maintain that the trial court erred by failing to award the full amount of their attorney fees and expenses, which totaled over $8,000. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Open Meetings Act, on its face, authorized the trial court to rule as it did.

S11A0760

City of Statesboro v. Dabbs

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report