- -
Help make Bibb County obey the
Georgia "Sunshine Laws"
2-13-09Saturday, May. 23, 2009
POLITICAL NOTEBOOK: Commission has no time for minutes
The Bibb County Commission stopped recording its committee meeting minutes in January, a decision made shortly after Commission Chairman Sam Hart took office.
“It’s just not required, so we decided not to do that,” Hart said
The format of the written minutes also has changed, he said, from relaying discussion verbatim to just denoting action items and the votes.
Hart said the commission is following the recommendations of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia and clerk’s school. State law only requires public agencies to keep written minutes of meetings.
The commission’s board meetings will continue to have audio recordings, Hart said.
The difference between the board meeting and the committee meetings, he said, is that the board takes action while committees discuss and make recommendations.
So what’s become of the devices staff members used to record the meetings?
“We haven’t done anything with them yet,” Hart said. “I don’t know if people are using them in-house.”
http://www.macon.com/198/story/725002.html
http://www.macon.com/198/story/686775.html
Saturday, Apr. 18, 2009
Judge: Bibb commission can vote in secret on land purchases
By Matt Barnwell
A judge said Friday that Bibb County commissioners can continue to vote in secret when deciding to purchase real estate, although they must adhere to laws requiring that minutes reporting the vote be released in a timely fashion.The ruling was prompted by a lawsuit three Bibb residents brought against the commission, alleging board members violated the state Open Meetings Act when they voted last year in closed session to buy land on the edge of downtown Macon for a new courthouse.
Houston County Superior Court Judge George Nunn presided over a nearly two-hour hearing on the matter Friday morning. Nunn agreed with the county’s argument that secrecy is necessary to protect taxpayers from landowners who would ask for more money if they knew it was the government that wanted to buy their property.
“It is to prevent undue speculation, it is to prevent inflation of prices,” Nunn said, explaining why the county should be allowed to vote behind closed doors to buy land. “There are some things that just don’t need to be talked about, dealt with or discussed in public.”
At the same time, Nunn said that county officials must release minutes from meetings closed to discuss or vote on real estate acquisition within two days of adjournment, as the Open Meetings Act requires. They can omit only information that might be used to identify property to be purchased and must state that a vote was taken, who made the motion to vote and who voted which way, Nunn said.
In February, Bibb residents Lee Johnson, Michael Ryan and Lindsay Holliday filed a lawsuit against the county asking the court to nullify votes taken in 2008, in August and November, to purchase property for a new courthouse because the votes were made in secret. They wanted the votes reversed because the public did not learn of the action until after January 2009, when The Telegraph reported it in a newspaper article.
The state Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion agreeing with the residents that the vote should have been taken in public. Open government advocates, including David Hudson, general counsel for the Georgia Press Association, and Hollie Manheimer, executive director of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, also have said the law should be read that way. It has generally been suggested that laws mandating open government be interpreted broadly and their exceptions construed narrowly.
The actual statute allows local governments to discuss the future acquisition of real estate in private, but does not directly address their ability to vote or take action on such a matter.
Nunn, who declined to overturn the commission’s votes, said he relied largely on two previous Georgia court decisions to make his ruling.
In one case, he said, courts had determined that there may be instances when a governing body is meeting with its attorney in a closed session and must vote secretly on business being presented at that time. That ruling came even though the law does not specifically address voting during a meeting closed to protect attorney-client privilege.
In another instance, a county was sued for voting during a meeting closed to discuss a personnel matter, Nunn said. But the complaint was ruled moot because it did not come until after the Legislature amended the open meetings law to expressly require such votes be taken in public.
Virgil Adams, the county’s attorney, said he was pleased with the outcome. The law supports exactly what the commissioners had argued, he said, and he will continue to advise them to follow the law in future proceedings dealing with real estate acquisitions.
“I feel absolutely that it was the correct ruling,” Adams said.
Johnson and her attorney, Charlie Cox, took some comfort in Nunn’s requirement that the meeting minutes be made available on time and in a fashion that notes a vote was taken during closed session.
“Those are all facts the public needs to know,” Cox said.
“I feel like that’s progress,” Johnson said.
But Ryan and Holliday, neither of whom had hired attorneys, said they were disappointed. Allowing commissioners to vote in secret leaves too much opportunity for back-room deals and will continue to breed distrust in government, they said.
“The public is really not being made part of the process at all,” Ryan said. “You don’t find out about it until it’s gone so far you can’t do anything about it.”
Holliday said the argument that taxpayers could be fleeced by landowners falsely inflating the value of their property is trumped by the county’s ability to exercise its powers of eminent domain. And requiring the commission to release minutes several days after they vote is only a small step toward the openness that ought to be practiced, he said.
“The public needed a full meal,” Holliday said. “The judge gave us a grain of rice.”
To contact writer Matt Barnwell, call 744-4251
Doc wrote:
" Judge Nunn's reasoning was flawed when he assumed that Open Government Meetings would inflate land prices. The County has the power to force a sale at Fair-Market-Value. This power is called "Eminent Domain". In fact, any price inflation here has resulted from Bibb Secrecy, Not from Openness. Bibb has already paid inflated prices under their secret purchases. Just compare what Bibb paid vs the tax-digest numbers. Profits went to "Bibb's Buddies" - inside traders who knew about this project all along."
jonedit wrote on 04/17/2009 01:52:07 PM:
This is a travesty. Sunshine law clearly spells out how the public entities must conduct business. This seems like a minor complaint, but the implications reach much farther than this one case. In case anyone needs this spelled out for them - this is an important fight to fight.
Daniel_R wrote on 04/17/2009 02:13:59 PM:
Bibb County folks, demand your commisioners vote openly. It is your county. They are your commicioners. They are suppose to be there for you.
olderandwiser wrote on 04/17/2009 02:15:35 PM:
I say we go with Ken's (Stereo Junction) suggestion to purchase the old Dillard's at the mall. Much better deal for the taxpayers and the county government workers as well!
tomkat1 wrote on 04/17/2009 02:33:27 PM:
I guess that this ruling nullifies the Sunshine Law.
mark318 wrote on 04/17/2009 02:38:31 PM:
Yea, Macon has different Sunshine then everywhere else. Elaine is always in the shadows.
oldschool wrote on 04/17/2009 03:27:23 PM:
Who would have expected anything different from a Houston County judge, if things are made public too early the developers and their elected cronies won't get their piece of the pie, that's rule numero uno in Bibb's neighbor county.
Friday, Feb. 13, 2009
Three Bibb County residents filed a civil lawsuit Thursday against the Bibb County Commission, individual commissioners and former Commission Chairman Charlie Bishop, alleging the commission illegally voted behind closed doors to buy property for a new courthouse.
While
the Georgia Open Meetings Act allows discussion of property acquisition
during a closed session, the vote must be taken in public, according to
the lawsuit filed in Superior Court by Lee Johnson, Michael Ryan and
Lindsay Holliday.
On Aug. 5, 2008, and Nov. 18, 2008, the commission authorized in closed session the purchase of about $3 million worth of property for a new courthouse near the Bibb Law Enforcement Center, according to meeting minutes.
The lawsuit asks the court to nullify those votes as a result of the alleged violation and to enforce compliance of the law.
County Attorney Virgil Adams maintains the commission did nothing wrong.
While the Open Meetings Act specifies that governments must vote in public on certain issues, he said it does not make that same specification for property acquisition.
“We followed the law,” he said.
Voting in private ensures the selling price of the property stays at fair market value, and most agencies he knows of vote to buy property in private, he said.
Even if a vote is taken in public, the location of property does not have to be revealed until the purchase is complete.
Adams said the county will file a response to the complaint within the next week and will request an expedited hearing.
State law requires that any challenge to an action alleged to be in violation of the state’s Open Meetings Act must be made within 90 days. Otherwise, the vote stands.
Although 90 days have passed since the Aug. 5 vote, which authorized the purchase of property for the main footprint of the courthouse, the lawsuit requests that vote be nullified because the public didn’t learn of the commission’s vote until recently.
The 90-day clock on the Nov. 18 vote, which authorized the purchase of property for potential parking for a new courthouse, expires next week.
“We are concerned that our local government operates in an open and candid manner with its constituents,” said Ryan, one of the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit was filed in response to a Telegraph article in which a spokesman for the state Attorney General’s Office said voting in secret on any matter is illegal.
Bibb County Chairman Sam Hart, who was not serving on the commission at the time of the votes, said he’s confident commissioners did what was “legal and allowed.”
In an afternoon news conference, Hart acknowledged “a firestorm of controversy” has developed surrounding the issue of a new courthouse.
Some downtown boosters and business owners have openly opposed the proposed site in the Oglethorpe Street area, saying that relocating the courts will hurt businesses in downtown’s core.
Hart defended commissioners, saying they “made a sound decision” in securing the property.
Purchasing the properties will help expand downtown, ease parking problems, eliminate dilapidated housing and complement the work of other developers, he said.
However, he stressed the commission is still in the process of reviewing all possible options for a courthouse.
The county has issued a request for qualifications to architectural firms to evaluate the existing courthouse on Mulberry Street, review alternate site locations and analyze use for the recently purchased land, he said. A committee made up of elected officials, sheriff’s officials, judges, the downtown business community, the Macon Bar Association and others will be involved in selecting the architect.
If everything continues as planned, the courts would not move into a new building for at least three years, Commissioner Elmo Richardson said. And if the project doesn’t continue as planned, the purchase of property would not be a waste, Hart said.
“Purchase of the property was a good investment in our community, whether it is used for a judicial center or not,” he said.
Following the afternoon news conference, Hart said he hopes making more information available about the process will ease concerns of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Commissioner Joe Allen said it’s now up to the court to decide whether the secret votes to buy property were legal.
“We’ll now find out who’s right or wrong,” he said.
To contact writer Jennifer Burk, call 744-4345How
many acres are encompassed in the two blocks that the County is
purchasing? $3.1 million divided by X-Acres = $? dollars per acre?
shhhhhhh,
now we're seeing the dirty little secrets of 2nd Street. Backroom deals
and conflicts of interest, welcome to Bibb County....
It
appears the commission did not give much thought to the businesses
surrounding the counthouse. Most depend on the foot-traffic to survive.
Tourism is created by businesses and citizens on sidewalks draw more
citizens. This is important during certain events such as the Cherry
Blossom Festival. I guess it is a good thing that Commissioner Bishop
has been removed. This was a poor decision. Mr. Hart lets leave the
courthouse where it is and either remodel, rebuild, or buy some
surrounding property. MACON, please stop making poor decisions! We must
turn things around.
Joe, you don't know how to tell the whole truth.
moving the courthouse closer to the jail sounds like a smart
move
I
hope & pray these Bibb County residents are sucessfull in their
lawsuits against these 'cheesy, low-life politicians! These well
educated 'pork pigs' & part-time workers/full time golfers vote
behind closed doors to ensure they are receive something beneficial to
them, being money lining their pockets, sports tickets or free trips!!!
Sounds
like the MOVE is the right one (sorry folks, but courthouse closer to
jail just makes sense) but the way they went about it was wrong. Sorry
commissioners, recock and do-over the legal way.
Sam
H. and Robert R. just need to go to the courthouse and get a divorce.
Sam H. is too smart- not to see the folly of moving the courthouse out
of downtown. I won't speak for "Jerry Springer" Reichert... Smart
cities don't move their architecturally significant institutional
buildings. Security is a separate issue. Don't tell me that $80 million
won't buy a lot of security without building a separate courthouse to
get it. Put only the criminal courts- and the judges that keep their
revolving doors open- next to the downtown prison (LEC). You can do
that for a lot less than $80 million.
I
must have missed something. At the time of the vote, Sam hart was not
on the commission. Robert Reichert has never been on the commission. He
is the mayor of the city. Not he county, not the state - the city. He
has noting to do with the courthouse or the jail other than as a
resident of Bibb County. He doesn't vote on the commission, he doesn't
appoint county judges. He has nothing to do with the magistrate judges,
the Probate judge, the State Court judges or the Superior Court judges.
He does not appoint the D.A. He does get to vote on them just like any
other resident, but that is all. To misquote Clinton, "it's the city,
stupid"
That's two lawsuits for Bibb in 2 months. Who will sue the
Bibb County Commission next month?
I
guess some people feel that they have to be notified whenever a county
commissioner blows his nose. People, we need to let our elected
officials do their jobs and not whine so much about stuff that will
only make our government more effective and efficient.
It's the law tgerard123. They are required to notify the
public of such actions.
It may have sounded like a smart move, but the public should
have been informed of their actions and the vote.
How
many acres are encompassed in the two blocks that the County is
purchasing? $3.1 million divided by X-Acres = $? dollars per acre?
Bibb County sued over secret courthouse votes
Saturday, Mar. 07, 2009
Bibb commission responds to lawsuit over courthouse
http://www.macon.com/198/story/642315.html
The Bibb County Commission has filed its response to a lawsuit by three residents who alleged that commissioners voted illegally in a closed meeting to purchase property for a new courthouse.
In the county’s answer to the suit, filed late Wednesday, the panel admits to voting in two closed meetings, but it denies any wrongdoing. It says the residents’ complaint is “frivolous, groundless and filed for the purpose of harassment of defendants and should therefore be dismissed,” according to court documents.The county also requests that all costs associated with the suit be assessed to the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit stems from two meetings, on Aug. 5, 2008, and Nov. 18, 2008, in which the commission authorized in closed session the purchase of about $3 million worth of property for a new courthouse near the Bibb County Law Enforcement Center.
While the Georgia Open Meetings Act allows discussion of property acquisition during a closed session, the vote must be taken in public, according to the residents’ suit.
The complaint — filed by Lee Johnson, Michael Ryan and Lindsay Holliday — came in response to a Telegraph article in which the state Attorney General’s Office gave that same opinion.
As a result, the residents have asked the court to nullify the two secret votes. Actions in violation of the Open Meetings Act may be set aside if a complaint is filed within 90 days of the vote, according to state law.
The county’s response states that even if the commission was in violation of the law, commissioners later ratified the private votes during a public meeting in February. Therefore, the residents’ complaint is now moot. That meeting was held after the residents already had filed suit.
Furthermore, the actions at the Aug. 5, 2008, meeting should not be overturned because the lawsuit was filed outside of the 90-day period, according to the county’s response. The residents had argued for the court to overturn that vote because the public did not learn of the action until this year. The county also denied the residents’ allegations that meeting minutes were not available until January, and that the actions were not made public until on or after Jan. 15. County Attorney Virgil Adams said he could not elaborate on that response.
Ryan, one of the plaintiffs, said the county’s answer was an attempt to intimidate them.
“The costs (of the lawsuit) are already being assessed against us,” Ryan said. “We’re taxpayers also, and it’s our taxes that are paying for the county’s opposition to our effort to have the county conduct their business in an open and public manner.”
To contact writer Jennifer Burk, call 744-4345What
we have is a classic example of a so called "eliteist" group. They are
above the law and use the courts to intimidate the citizens when they
are reminded that their "part time" job is working for the citizens and
not the other way around!
Wow,
the wonderful thought police have removed my post.... Amazing. These
people who supposedly are harnessed to free speech.... Well, all I said
was the crooks on second street can be counted on to do one thing...
They will use the asset base of Bibb County to defend themselves...
That's millions of dollars... Then they will go to the media and tell
you what good stewards they are... None dare criticize the commissioner
that goes by bibbcommish and has the initials J.A..... The tell a lie
thought police will remove your post. Wonder how long this one will
last????
These
commissioners are trying to purchase needed property at the least
possible cost, on YOUR behalf. PERIOD. Once word gets out that property
is needed for a public project, guess what happens? The demand curve
for that property stiffens. For you folks on Forest Hill Road, that
means the price immediately rises. Acquisition of property through
eminent domain is an incredibly expensive and arduous process. Real
estate purchases must be handled in this manner. To do otherwise is
just downright foolish...
Carpediem
seems to have an abiding interest in Secret Government. Hmmm....
$$$???. Your time in the Sunshine will come. The thin veil covering
your annonymous blogs will melt like snow in the summer. You will be
judged by your actions; no longer protected by your secret friends.
Time is near - you will all be unmasked.