Government councils, commissions and boards cannot withhold from the public the names of members who voted against or abstained from voting on a non-roll-call item, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In a 4-3 decision, the court found that the city of Atlanta violated the Open Meetings Act in 2010 by refusing to name the City Council members who voted against amending its rules regarding public comment at committee meetings. The court's three dissenting justices said a plain reading of the sunshine law did not require such disclosure.
The court handed a legal victory to Matthew Cardinale, editor of Atlanta Progressive News, who filed suit on his own behalf and then argued his case before the state's top court. Cardinale, 30, attends almost every City Council meeting.
The case stems from a vote during the council's annual retreat at the Georgia Aquarium, where the council voted 8-7 to maintain existing rules for public comment. Cardinale asked for a vote tally and filed suit when the city refused to disclose it.
"This is a tremendous victory," Cardinale said. "They were trampling on representative, participatory democracy."
Chief Justice Carol Hunstein, writing for the majority, said the Open Meetings Act was enacted to protect the public from "closed-door" politics and the potential abuse of power.
Allowing agencies to decline to release the names of those voting against or abstaining from a non-roll-call vote, Hunstein wrote, "would potentially deny non-attending members of the public access to information available to those who attended the meeting. Such a result conflicts with the act's goal of greater governmental transparency."
State Attorney General Sam Olens praised the decision, saying it "set a strong precedent that government should err on the side of openness."
In a statement, the city said it was disappointed and believes its interpretation of the sunshine law was straightforward and reasonable. "Nevertheless, the city accepts and will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court."
The court also upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed Cardinale's attempt to hold council members criminally responsible for any violations.
Staff writer Jeremiah McWilliams contributed to this article.
About the Author
