Based upon a citizen’s complaint, the Decatur County Grand Jury began a civil investigation of certain actions undertaken by the commissioners of that county Commissioners. Thereafter, the grand jury forwarded to the county attorney its proposed presentments for the May 2005 term. These presentments questioned the propriety of the manner in which the Commissioners handled the vacation and overtime policies applicable to county employees, particularly with regard to payments made to a former county administrator. A cover letter from the district attorney accompanied the proposed presentments, explaining that the documents were being served “on the relevant officials” prior to filing with the superior court and publication so as to give them “an opportunity to respond to said presentments.” During a regularly scheduled public meeting on June 28, 2005, the Commissioners retired into executive session with their attorney to review and discuss responding to the proposed grand jury presentments. Pursuant to OCGA § 50-14-4 b, the Chairperson executed an affidavit of compliance stating that the subject matter of the executive session was devoted to matters that were within an unspecified exception to the Open Meetings Act, OCGA § § 50-14-1 et seq. The minutes of the meeting reflect that, after the executive session, “everyone assembled back in the boardroom. Commissioner Battle made a motion to allow the county attorney to forward the responses he had shown to the Commissioners in executive session to the appropriate parties.” Two days later, the Bainbridge Post Searchlight, Inc. Newspaper, which is distributed in Decatur County, sent the Commissioners an open records request to review the documents to which the minutes of the meeting referred. However, the Commissioners informed the Newspaper that the closed session was authorized and that documents discussed in that session were not available for public inspection because they constituted a confidential response by them to proposed grand jury presentments. The Commissioners went on to inform the Newspaper that the requested records would not be disclosed until they were appended to the presentments and published by the superior court pursuant to OCGA § 15-12-80.
The Newspaper made two more requests for the documents, and both were denied on the ground that the information contained therein was not subject to the Open Records Act, OCGA § § 50-18-70 et seq., or the Open Meetings Act. On July 19, 2005, the Newspaper filed this action, alleging violations of both Acts and seeking mandamus and other relief. On Augustthe grand jury tendered to the superior court the presentments and the Commissioners’ responses. The superior court approved the presentments and ordered their publication, with the responses published as an addendum thereto. Subsequently, in the Newspaper’s action, the trial court found that the Commissioners violated the Open Meetings Act by conducting the closed session and violated the Open Records Act by refusing to comply with the request for the grand jury presentments. Based on those findings, the trial court granted mandamus relief and, pursuant to OCGA § 50-18-73 b, awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the Newspaper. The Commissioners bring this appeal from that order of the trial court.
