City Ordered to Pay $12k in Fines for Open Meeting Violation

In 2012, the Mayor of Cumming, Georgia, Henry Ford Gravitt, demanded that a citizen attending a city council meeting stop videotaping the proceedings and ordered her to leave. When the woman returned with another camera, she was again told to stop recording. This incident directly violated Georgia’s Open Meeting Act, which expressly permits citizens to make video and audio recordings of public meetings.

The case was significant because it became the first lawsuit brought by the Attorney General’s office under the state’s newly reformed transparency laws. The 2012 overhaul of Georgia’s open government laws had introduced stronger enforcement mechanisms and civil penalties, and this case put those new provisions to the test.

A judge ordered the City of Cumming to pay more than $12,000 in fines and legal fees, which was the maximum allowable penalty at the time. The ruling sent a clear message that violations of the Open Meetings Act would carry real financial consequences for government agencies that fail to comply.

The case was widely celebrated by transparency advocates as a landmark victory. It demonstrated that the reformed laws had teeth and that the Attorney General’s office was willing to use its enforcement authority to protect citizens’ rights to observe and record public meetings.

Yes, Georgia’s Open Meeting Act expressly provides that members of the public are allowed to make video and audio recordings of public meetings. This right is clearly stated in the law and cannot be restricted or denied by government officials presiding over the meeting.

This right exists to ensure that citizens have a complete and accurate record of government proceedings. Official minutes may not capture every detail of a meeting, and recordings provide an independent means of documenting what was said and done during public sessions.

Government officials who attempt to prevent citizens from recording public meetings are in violation of the law. As the City of Cumming case demonstrated, such violations can result in significant fines and legal penalties. Citizens who are told to stop recording should politely assert their legal right and, if necessary, document the incident for potential enforcement action.

It is worth noting that this right applies to meetings that are open to the public under the Open Meetings Act. Executive sessions, which are closed portions of meetings held for specific limited purposes, are not subject to the same recording rights. However, the vast majority of government business is conducted in open session and is subject to the public’s right to record.

Following the 2012 overhaul of Georgia’s transparency laws, the penalties for violating the Open Meetings Act were significantly strengthened. Courts can impose civil penalties on government agencies and officials who violate the Act, with fines that are designed to be meaningful deterrents against non-compliance.

In the City of Cumming case, the court imposed the maximum allowable penalty of more than $12,000 in fines and legal fees. This amount was intentionally set at the maximum to signal the seriousness of the violation and to discourage similar behavior by other government officials.

Beyond financial penalties, courts can void actions taken in meetings that violate the Open Meetings Act. This means that decisions made during improperly conducted meetings may be declared invalid, requiring the government body to reconsider the matter in a properly noticed and conducted public meeting.

The Attorney General’s office has the primary authority to investigate and prosecute Open Meetings Act violations. Citizens who witness violations can file complaints with the AG’s office, which will evaluate the evidence and determine whether to pursue enforcement action. Individual citizens can also file private lawsuits to enforce their rights under the Act.

Attorney General Sam Olens played a pivotal role in establishing the enforcement framework for Georgia’s reformed transparency laws. The City of Cumming case was the first lawsuit brought by his office under the new provisions, setting an important precedent for future enforcement actions.

The Attorney General’s office has broad authority to investigate and prosecute violations of both the Open Meetings Act and the Open Records Act. This includes the power to subpoena documents, conduct investigations, and bring legal action against government agencies and officials who fail to comply with the law.

Olens made clear that his office viewed enforcement of transparency laws as a priority, stating that Georgians deserve a government that operates openly and honestly. By taking aggressive action in the Cumming case, he sent a message that the new civil penalties provisions would be actively used to hold violators accountable.

The role of the Attorney General in transparency enforcement is critical because it provides a centralized mechanism for addressing violations statewide. Individual citizens may lack the resources or legal expertise to pursue enforcement on their own, making the AG’s office an essential ally in the fight for open government.

The 2012 overhaul of Georgia’s transparency laws represented a significant strengthening of the state’s open government framework. The reforms introduced new civil penalties for violations, giving enforcement authorities additional tools to hold non-compliant agencies accountable and creating real financial consequences for breaking the law.

Before the reforms, the enforcement mechanisms available were limited, making it difficult to deter violations effectively. The new provisions allowed courts to impose meaningful fines on agencies that violated the Open Meetings Act or the Open Records Act, as demonstrated by the $12,000 penalty in the City of Cumming case.

The reforms also clarified and expanded certain aspects of the transparency laws, including explicit provisions protecting the public’s right to record public meetings. By making these rights more explicit, the legislature reduced ambiguity and made it easier for citizens to understand and exercise their transparency rights.

Additionally, the 2012 reforms enhanced the Attorney General’s enforcement authority, providing the office with better tools to investigate complaints and take legal action against violating agencies. The combination of stronger penalties and enhanced enforcement authority created a more robust framework for ensuring government transparency in Georgia.