The 14-day clause and how government agencies are abusing laws
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
Jamie Gardner
According to Georgia Press Association Attorney David Hudson, there is a law firm in the state that has been advising boards of education that they can select only one candidate for superintendent and only provide the name and documents of that finalist 14 days in advance of the selection. This newspaper wholeheartedly agrees with Hudson that this undermines the purpose of O.C.G.A. 50-18-72(a)(11).
Hudson cites, “The purpose of requiring the documents to be produced on at least three preferred candidates is so that citizens can provide their opinions to the members of the BOE at least 14 days in advance of voting on the candidates in a public meeting. If the BOE only produces documents concerning a candidate that it has already determined to be the finalist, members of the community will not be able to provide their opinion of their preference for the BOE member to consider before the 14 days.”
Hudson stated that this has happened in other instances besides school boards as well.
Locally, this has happened on one or two occasions within our government agencies. These agencies claim this is legal, but it goes against the spirit of the law. There have been concerns expressed to me over the years that public release could hurt an individual who is applying for the position with a current position or job. Individuals applying for the head position of a board of education, city manager, or county manager position should understand that this is a public government position, and as such, their information could be subject to the open records act and public release.
The actual law states, “all documents concerning as many as three persons under consideration whom the agency has determined to be the best qualified for the position shall be subject to inspection and copying.” This would only apply when a request is made. This newspaper does try to make that request every time a head position is opened. The law continues, “Prior to the release of these documents, an agency may allow such a person to decline being considered further for the position rather than have documents pertaining to such person released.” The word “may” means something could be possible. It is not definitive in nature, meaning an agency doesn’t have to allow the out clause at all.
This law was updated a few years back. The previous version was clear, saying a government agency must provide three names. Maybe state legislators should revisit the language of the law and make the wording crystal clear so that there is no doubt to the intent. Otherwise, government agencies and certain attorneys will continue to attempt to erode the public’s right to know.
-Jamie Gardner
