Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog

Yesterday, Sam Olens drafted a memo to all departments, agencies, commission, authorities, councils and boards of the state of Georgia. It was drafted in anticipation of Governor Deal signing HB 397 which substantially revises Georgia's Open Records and Open Meetings Acts. HB 397 became effective immediately upon signature of the Governor yesterday.

Mr. Olens stated in his memo to the state agencies that: "Our goal in preparing and championing this legislation was not to substantially revise Georgia's open government law, but, first and foremost, to put it in terms that laymen and public officials alike can more readily understand. Nonetheless, the Act does make several significant changes to prior law, and I write today to highlight several key changes for your reference."

Those changes were mentioned by Mr. Olens as follows:

THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT

1. The Act simplifies the definition of "meeting" to mean any gathering of a quorum
of an agency's governing body at which "any official business, policy, or public
matter of the agency is formulated, presented, discussed, or voted upon."

2. The Act makes clear that all votes must be taken in public. O,C.G.A.
50-14-l(b). Exceptions exist only for votes to authorize settlement of matters in
litigation and for preliminary votes on real estate transactions. See O.C.G.A.
50-14-3(bXl).

3. The minutes requirements for meetings are clarified to include identifying those
who second motions and to identify those voting for or against proposals and
motions except when the vote is unanimous.

4. Minutes must also be kept of executive sessions, though these are not public.
Their purpose is to resolve disputes should a matter go to court regarding an
executive session.

5. In situations involving emergency conditions or health concerns involving a
member, meetings of agencies without state-wide jurisdiction may take place in
whole or part (depending on the circumstances) by teleconference.

6. Meetings of prosecutorial agencies in the state are now not covered by the Open
Meetings Act. O.C.G.A. 50-14-3(aX3).

7. Email communications between members of an agency's governing board are
now not considered a "meeting" although they remain open records.

8. The real estate exception to the Open Meetings Act has been expanded to cover
the sale, lease, and appraisal of real property,
.
9. The personnel exception to the Open Meetings Act has been expanded to allow
closed session interviews for the heads of agencies. The exception, however, now
clearly does not allow closed discussions regarding an agency's employment or
hiring practices.

10. The Act allows discussion in executive session of portions of records not subject
to public review under the Open Records Act when there do not exist other
reasonable means to protect the privacy of the information involved,

11. The Act provides a clearer rule for handling closed meetings when discussions
veer into an area that should be open.

12. The Act increases the penalty to $ 1,000 for first open meetings violations and to
$2,500 for subsequent violations within a 12 month period. It also allows
imposition of penalties in civil actions for negligent violation of the law.

THE OPEN RECORDS ACT

1. The Act now includes "dala" and"data fields" within the definition of "public
record," and it clarifies the electronic records and data that are subject to the Open
Records Act and the obligations of the agency to provide such material.

2. As in current law, agencies must produce the documents they can within a
reasonable period not to exceed three business days, and when they cannot
produce all of the requested documents in this period they must notify the
requester within this period when the documents will be produced.

3, While the Act still permits both oral and written requests, it allows agencies to
designate an open records officer on whom written requests must be made, and it
gives requesters the option of making requests to the head of the agency or the
senior official at a satellite office of the agency, to a clerk so designated as the
agency record custodian or to an angency designated open records officer.
The Act has provisions for providing adequate notice to the public when it
designates an open records officer.

4. Before seeking to enforce the Act in court a requester is required to make a
written request to the agency.

5. The Act clarifies the fees agencies may impose, The cost per page is now capped
at ten cents for letter sized pages.

6. Agencies now do not have to notify requesters of charges less than $25. In
situations where the estimated costs are between $25 to $500 an agency must
estimate the costs for the requester, but may not insist on prepayment before
allowing a requester to review records. If estimated costs exceed $500 an agency
may insist on prepayment before beginning search and production, If a requester
has not paid the charges for a prior request, an agency may insist on prepayment
for future requests until the payment is macle or the issue resolved.

7. Requests for records by civil litigants for use in ongoing litigation must be copied
to opposing counsel and copies of the records produced likewise must be
produced to the counsel ofrecord for the agency unless said counsel elects not to
receive them.

8. The Act clarifies the information a requester should provide when seeking email.

9. Provisions are made for production of records through websites, and the Act
clarifies how this relates to the production of electronic data.

10. As with the Open Meetings Act, the Act increases the penalty to $ 1,000 for first
open records violations, and to $2,500 for subsequent violations within a 12
month period. It also allows imposition of penalties in civil actions for negligent
non-compliance with the law.

Mr. Olens concluded his memo stating that he intends this only to highlight significant changes in the Open Records and Open Meetings Acts. It is not meant to be exhaustive.

If you believe a public agency is violating your rights under the Georgia Open Records Act, contact Williams Oinonen LLC for more information at 404-654-0288.

This past year the United States Supreme Court dealt one of the most devastating blows to consumers yet, allowing big corporations to cheat Americans out of millions of dollars. In the case of AT & T Mobility v Concepcion, the Supreme Court ruled that a California's prohibition of allowing corporations to waive class action lawsuit rights was trumped by the Federal Arbitration Act.

What is the result? Now companies can now tack on unlawful, small fees on consumer bills without threat of recourse, making it even easier for the American consumer to be exploited by corporate fraud.

Have you ever looked at a bill, like your cell phone bill for example, and been shocked by the many different little fees that are included which end up totaling to a large amount? Back before the Supreme Court Case of AT & T Mobility v Concepcion was decided, lawyers were able to meaningfully help consumers who were being cheated out of money by companies who were adding wrongful, exorbitant fees to their bills. While corporations may cheat one consumer out of just a few dollars or even a few pennies, added up that can amount to millions of dollars that corporations are illegally stealing.

No lawyer would be able to afford representing a consumer to sue for just a few pennies or dollars. The way lawyers were able to help consumers and deter corporations from exploiting the American consumer is through consumer class action cases. Consumer class actions acted as the "watch dog enforcer" to prevent or at least deter big corporations from cheating millions of consumers.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision now stated that class action waivers in arbitration agreements must be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act. This means all corporations need to do is include a mandatory arbitration agreement in the fine print. Thus, if any consumer gets cheated out of a few dollars, their only recourse is to go to individual arbitration. Obviously that is not worth the time and money for a lot of people. Nor would any attorney in their right mind, especially one who wants to keep their lights on and their doors open, be able to take a case like this. The result of course is that corporations have a blank check to cheat Americans out of millions of dollars without recourse.

How many times have you signed a credit card application, computer or cell phone agreement without reading the fine print? Do you know that most corporations will include a "mandatory arbitration" clause which waives your right to a lawsuit? Whereas courts were able to deem that part of the contract unconscionable and unenforceable prior to this Supreme Court decision, now the new law is binding. And corporations are going to have blanket protections from being held accountable because all they will now need to do is to include a "mandatory arbitration clause" every time they enter into a contract with anybody. And since most people don't have a choice whether they sign up for a cell phone, credit card, or other service---since most every corporation will now include such an agreement---there is no fear or deterrence to corporations.

Previously, consumer class actions lawsuits were the only real deterrent that the little guy had against the big corporation cheating them out of money. Obviously, a company isn't scared out of being sued over cheating someone over $10.00. They also know that every single individual consumer isn't going to sign up for arbitration. What they do know now is that they have a blank check to cheating consumers out of millions of dollars without the threat of a consumer class action lawsuit.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decision gives corporations license to commit theft without ever having to face the consequences. They are able to make massive profits by cheating consumers and the decision robs Americans of any meaningful way to fight back.

Good Georgia Lawyer's favorite advocacy group Public Citizen states that this is a dangerous decision which has impacts beyond consumer cases. Binding arbitration agreements can hit employees who sue their workers for discrimination, even if they haven't signed a clause.

For years, Congress have proposed bills, such as the Fairness in Arbitration Act, designed to minimize corporations' abilities to enforce fine-print lawsuit bans in consumer contracts. A form of such relief was passed as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill which we have written about earlier.

The new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will study the issue, and after reporting to Congress, will have the right to restrict arbitration uses by companies. That agency's fate however is still up in the air in this political climate.

Good Georgia Lawyer urges Congress to insure that the rights of American consumers are protected.