Troubled over commission’s decision
For the past week The News-Banner has been in a battle to retrieve a document from the Appling County Board of Commissioners or the Appling County Recreation Authority, which is reportedly some type of settlement agreement for Appling County Recreation Director Michael Coleman in return for his resignation. County attorney Bob Highsmith has cited the attorney/client provision in the Open Records Act (O.C.G.A. 50-18-2(e)), in that the settlement agreement is still in negotiations as the reasoning that the request is not being honored at this time.
For two consecutive days last week (Tuesday and Wednesday) the commissioners and the recreation authority held joint meetings and immediately went into closed-door sessions to discuss what was assumed to be personnel and/or potential litigation issues with regard to the Appling County Recreation Department. After hours of meetings behind closed doors, a resolution was recommended and unanimously adopted by the commissioners to not fund the position of recreation director for the 2012 fiscal year (see front page story). The recreation authority then in turn voted, by majority vote, to accept the resolution from the commission. It has been reported to this newspaper that Coleman was asked to clean out his office on Thursday morning and that the settlement agreement was presented to him at that time.
Highsmith argues that the county has a right to protect/withhold release of settlement agreements until so-called agreements can be negotiated or agreed to by the parties involved as part of the attorney/client provision. This newspaper has and will continue to argue that if settlement agreements are being offered using the county’s treasury, or better stated “taxpayer’s money”, the public is entitled to know what is being offered regardless of the stage of negotiation.
Elected or appointed officials work for the people. The people hold their elected or appointed officials accountable for their actions. If the public is not made aware of deals being bartered then how can it hold its government accountable? Let’s say for the sake of argument that a settlement agreement were being offered that could be considered among many in the community to be an exorbitant amount, don’t you feel as a taxpayer you have the right to know what your elected government is offering? Highsmith has told The News-Banner that if and when a settlement is reached, then it would become a public record. Keep in mind, according to this logic, if a deal is signed and becomes legally binding, it is taxpayers that are left “holding the bag” to whatever agreement has been concocted by their elected and appointed officials.
The News-Banner consulted with Georgia Press Attorney David Hudson on this issue and Hudson told this newspaper that any document that has been presented as a possible settlement agreement by the county to Coleman (who would not be considered the client) would not fall under the attorney/client provision of the Open Records Act.
This newspaper champions the idea of openness in government. It is not written anywhere in the law that a body of government “must” enter into a closed-door session, however if the need arises there are certain exceptions that a meeting can be legally closed for the purpose of discussion only. Exceptions include personnel, real estate, or litigation. At no time is it allowable for a government body to vote during a closed session; the body has to reopen the meeting to the public to take any form of action.
On the side of caution I would encourage all local bodies of government to consider the following opinion offered by former Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker concerning litigation as a reason for closing a meeting:
“It is clear that a government agency, whether it is state or local, will always be subject to the threat of some “potential litigation.” Indeed, in our litigious society virtually any action taken by a government entity could potentially lead to litigation. To construe the “potential litigation” exemption found in O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2(1) broadly, however, would emasculate (or weaken) Georgia’s Open Meetings Act and do irreparable damage to the jurisprudence developed in this area. Thus, a narrow reading of the exclusion of O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2(2) requires that the closure of a meeting to discuss “potential litigation” be based on more than a mere unrealized possibility of a lawsuit. There should be a realistic and tangible threat of litigation facing an agency before it may invoke this legal provision which excludes members of the public from attending a meeting.”
This newspaper is troubled by the decision by the board of commissioners to withhold information that we feel is of extreme public interest. The News-Banner will continue its efforts to have this information brought out of the dark and into the light.
-Jamie Gardner
Highsmith argues that the county has a right to protect/withhold release of settlement agreements until so-called agreements can be negotiated or agreed to by the parties involved as part of the attorney/client provision. This newspaper has and will continue to argue that if settlement agreements are being offered using the county’s treasury, or better stated “taxpayer’s money”, the public is entitled to know what is being offered regardless of the stage of negotiation.
Elected or appointed officials work for the people. The people hold their elected or appointed officials accountable for their actions. If the public is not made aware of deals being bartered then how can it hold its government accountable? Let’s say for the sake of argument that a settlement agreement were being offered that could be considered among many in the community to be an exorbitant amount, don’t you feel as a taxpayer you have the right to know what your elected government is offering? Highsmith has told The News-Banner that if and when a settlement is reached, then it would become a public record. Keep in mind, according to this logic, if a deal is signed and becomes legally binding, it is taxpayers that are left “holding the bag” to whatever agreement has been concocted by their elected and appointed officials.
The News-Banner consulted with Georgia Press Attorney David Hudson on this issue and Hudson told this newspaper that any document that has been presented as a possible settlement agreement by the county to Coleman (who would not be considered the client) would not fall under the attorney/client provision of the Open Records Act.
This newspaper champions the idea of openness in government. It is not written anywhere in the law that a body of government “must” enter into a closed-door session, however if the need arises there are certain exceptions that a meeting can be legally closed for the purpose of discussion only. Exceptions include personnel, real estate, or litigation. At no time is it allowable for a government body to vote during a closed session; the body has to reopen the meeting to the public to take any form of action.
On the side of caution I would encourage all local bodies of government to consider the following opinion offered by former Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker concerning litigation as a reason for closing a meeting:
“It is clear that a government agency, whether it is state or local, will always be subject to the threat of some “potential litigation.” Indeed, in our litigious society virtually any action taken by a government entity could potentially lead to litigation. To construe the “potential litigation” exemption found in O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2(1) broadly, however, would emasculate (or weaken) Georgia’s Open Meetings Act and do irreparable damage to the jurisprudence developed in this area. Thus, a narrow reading of the exclusion of O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2(2) requires that the closure of a meeting to discuss “potential litigation” be based on more than a mere unrealized possibility of a lawsuit. There should be a realistic and tangible threat of litigation facing an agency before it may invoke this legal provision which excludes members of the public from attending a meeting.”
This newspaper is troubled by the decision by the board of commissioners to withhold information that we feel is of extreme public interest. The News-Banner will continue its efforts to have this information brought out of the dark and into the light.
-Jamie Gardner
As far as how the Commissioners handled the situation....I definately DO NOT agree!!!! I am not even talking about the closed door sessions, I understand the need for privacy rights, but it bothers me (NO, it ticks me off) that this guy was given a "package" to leave!!! If he wasn't doing is job and needed to be fired then I'll be dang if he deserves a "package" because I guarantee you that if I wasn't doing my job and my boss fired me...he would not give me a "package"!
Be careful Commissioners DO NOT get caught in a BOE style situation where you are agreeing to pay someone to leave because it will backfire on you...PROMISE.....you will only serve 1 term! My tax dollars DO NOT need to be spent on someone not doing their jobs so they can retire like a fat cat! The people of this county deserve better!