Residents File Suit for Sunshine Law violations

[naturegirl]

That 2 day retreat in Douglas County, with the Airport Authority and the FAA..........well the minutes weren't even released until December.

http://www.ajc.com/news/business/residents-file-suit-over-paulding-airport-authorit/nfXL4/

20 seconds into the meeting Blake announces there are minutes from the June retreat. In DECEMBER!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlJQgzRTJMY

 

[ShoeDiva]

Wow. A lot of money being spent by some residents. I have to say I would rather spend my money on some shoes, but that is just me.

disclaimer: I do not know whether there were laws violated or not. I do see that it was stated they have changed how they were documenting meetings. I am unsure as to the why this lawsuit needed to be filed if they
have changed procedures, but if they feel they needed to I have no issue with that.

 

[LisaC]

Have there been any incidents since Blake said that the problem was corrected? Anyone know?

 

[naturegirl]

There haven't been any incidents I'm aware of since. However, the emails Blake sent are pretty damning, he mentioned "Sunshine Laws" in his correspondence about the retreat. This was from his sworn testimony and evidence from the hearing in October. I was in the court room and heard his testimony. He was well aware of the Sunshine Laws at the time.

This is not OK now and it wasn't OK then, they knew it then. If anyone is okay with how they did this, I don't care which arm of the government it is, it's not right and should not be excused.

 

[unionmom]

What is the hope, the goal, of the lawsuit? (No sarcasm or smarta$$edness ... serious question.)

 

[ShoeDiva]

What is the hope, the goal, of the lawsuit? (No sarcasm or smarta$$edness ... serious question.)

Good question.

 

[LisaC]

There haven't been any incidents I'm aware of since. However, the emails Blake sent are pretty damning, he mentioned "Sunshine Laws" in his correspondence about the retreat. This was from his sworn testimony and evidence from the hearing in October. I was in the court room and heard his testimony. He was well aware of the Sunshine Laws at the time.

This is not OK now and it wasn't OK then, they knew it then. If anyone is okay with how they did this, I don't care which arm of the government it is, it's not right and should not be excused.

I'm not excusing it, and with all due respect, but if they acknowledged the problem and have fixed it, why the lawsuit? :dunno

Is it just to force the county to spend more money in legal fees in order to get more citizens to complain? Or do the plaintiffs believe that if they sue over anything and everything, there is a better chance to get stop commercial flights? Seriously, I work for a law firm and I can appreciate a good case, so I'm not bashing anyone's right to sue - I'm just wondering what the real motivation behind it is.

 

[honeybunny]

There haven't been any incidents I'm aware of since. However, the emails Blake sent are pretty damning, he mentioned "Sunshine Laws" in his correspondence about the retreat. This was from his sworn testimony and evidence from the hearing in October. I was in the court room and heard his testimony. He was well aware of the Sunshine Laws at the time.

This is not OK now and it wasn't OK then, they knew it then. If anyone is okay with how they did this, I don't care which arm of the government it is, it's not right and should not be excused.

I'm not excusing it, and with all due respect, but if they acknowledged the problem and have fixed it, why the lawsuit? :dunno

Is it just to force the county to spend more money in legal fees in order to get more citizens to complain? Or do the plaintiffs believe that if they sue over anything and everything, there is a better chance to get stop commercial flights? Seriously, I work for a law firm and I can appreciate a good case, so I'm not bashing anyone's right to sue - I'm just wondering what the real motivation behind it is.

Perhaps the motivation is to simply hold our elected (and not so elected) officials accountable for their actions.


That's good enough for me.



:thumbsup

 

[naturegirl]

There haven't been any incidents I'm aware of since. However, the emails Blake sent are pretty damning, he mentioned "Sunshine Laws" in his correspondence about the retreat. This was from his sworn testimony and evidence from the hearing in October. I was in the court room and heard his testimony. He was well aware of the Sunshine Laws at the time.

This is not OK now and it wasn't OK then, they knew it then. If anyone is okay with how they did this, I don't care which arm of the government it is, it's not right and should not be excused.

I'm not excusing it, and with all due respect, but if they acknowledged the problem and have fixed it, why the lawsuit? :dunno

Is it just to force the county to spend more money in legal fees in order to get more citizens to complain? Or do the plaintiffs believe that if they sue over anything and everything, there is a better chance to get stop commercial flights? Seriously, I work for a law firm and I can appreciate a good case, so I'm not bashing anyone's right to sue - I'm just wondering what the real motivation behind it is.

Perhaps the motivation is to simply hold our elected (and not so elected) officials accountable for their actions.


That's good enough for me.



:thumbsup

^^^ This! :goodjob

 

[stradial]

There haven't been any incidents I'm aware of since. However, the emails Blake sent are pretty damning, he mentioned "Sunshine Laws" in his correspondence about the retreat. This was from his sworn testimony and evidence from the hearing in October. I was in the court room and heard his testimony. He was well aware of the Sunshine Laws at the time.

This is not OK now and it wasn't OK then, they knew it then. If anyone is okay with how they did this, I don't care which arm of the government it is, it's not right and should not be excused.

I'm not excusing it, and with all due respect, but if they acknowledged the problem and have fixed it, why the lawsuit? :dunno

Is it just to force the county to spend more money in legal fees in order to get more citizens to complain? Or do the plaintiffs believe that if they sue over anything and everything, there is a better chance to get stop commercial flights? Seriously, I work for a law firm and I can appreciate a good case, so I'm not bashing anyone's right to sue - I'm just wondering what the real motivation behind it is.

Perhaps the motivation is to simply hold our elected (and not so elected) officials accountable for their actions.


That's good enough for me.



:thumbsup

While I do agree that part of the motivation is "to simply hold our elected (and not so elected) officials accountable for their actions".
I think there may be a secondary motivation. (just my opinion)

I also think that the first motivation is enough for me and if there is a secondary motivation, then so be it.

I also truly believe that this lawsuit would have been avoided, had:
1. The officials involved not tried to hide what they were doing, from many people.
2. The officials involved been straight up honest when the situation became known.
3. The officials involved not gone into a "bunker" mentality, thus causing many of the public and some elected officials, to wonder what else is going on.

But those are my opinions and we welcome yours.

 

[Ponytail Patriot]

There are six involved in the lawsuit and each probably has a different set of motivators. Regardless of what the motivation of each is, this will keep the airport issue in the news and that will have an impact on the upcoming local election. I think that could be part of the motivation.

 

[ShoeDiva]

There haven't been any incidents I'm aware of since. However, the emails Blake sent are pretty damning, he mentioned "Sunshine Laws" in his correspondence about the retreat. This was from his sworn testimony and evidence from the hearing in October. I was in the court room and heard his testimony. He was well aware of the Sunshine Laws at the time.

This is not OK now and it wasn't OK then, they knew it then. If anyone is okay with how they did this, I don't care which arm of the government it is, it's not right and should not be excused.

I'm not excusing it, and with all due respect, but if they acknowledged the problem and have fixed it, why the lawsuit? :dunno

Is it just to force the county to spend more money in legal fees in order to get more citizens to complain? Or do the plaintiffs believe that if they sue over anything and everything, there is a better chance to get stop commercial flights? Seriously, I work for a law firm and I can appreciate a good case, so I'm not bashing anyone's right to sue - I'm just wondering what the real motivation behind it is.

Also, very good points and questions.

 

[lotstodo]

The Ga Law provides that any decisions made or contracts entered into during a meeting deemed to be in violation of the law shall be ruled null and void if challenged within 90 days. I can find no provision or case law that gives guidance in case the meeting is not discovered within those 90 days. Either way, this suit may have been filed too late to nullify the arrangement between the authority and the FAA.

However, each individual who knowingly participates in such a meeting is subject to criminal as well as civil penalties, and all costs incurred by the plaintiff shall be paid for by the defendant body if found guilty. In other words,Swafford et.al could be fine $500 and the plaintiffs could have their fees paid.

The real shame is that our government is so caviler about doing business in secret. That is reason enough to file suit, JMHO.

 

[unionmom]

There are six involved in the lawsuit and each probably has a different set of motivators. Regardless of what the motivation of each is, this will keep the airport issue in the news and that will have an impact on the upcoming local election. I think that could be part of the motivation.

And, in my own personal opinion, if that truly is the motivation than the 6 should be ashamed of themselves for essentially hijacking taxpayer funds (in the form of the legal fees involved) for the the purpose of furthering a political agenda and basically using it as a campaign platform.

If there is something other than campaigning to be accomplished by the suit, have at it. We should use our system if we feel there is wrong.

 

[Ponytail Patriot]

There are six involved in the lawsuit and each probably has a different set of motivators. Regardless of what the motivation of each is, this will keep the airport issue in the news and that will have an impact on the upcoming local election. I think that could be part of the motivation.

And, in my own personal opinion, if that truly is the motivation than the 6 should be ashamed of themselves for essentially hijacking taxpayer funds (in the form of the legal fees involved) for the the purpose of furthering a political agenda and basically using it as a campaign platform.

If there is something other than campaigning to be accomplished by the suit, have at it. We should use our system if we feel there is wrong.

Unionmom, I NEVER said the individuals involved were motivated by a political agenda. My EXACT words were that "this will keep the airport issue in the news and that will have an impact on the upcoming local election" and that is true. I only know of one of the opposition airport crowd that is running for office and she is not one of the individuals on the lawsuit. One thing I have heard from ALL of the candidates is that while knocking on doors, the airport is an issue they are asked about. That's why I say it will have an impact on the upcoming election.

I had also stated that there are six different individuals involved and each probably have different motivations for joining the lawsuit. But that doesn't mean their motivation is political. Two of the people involved have different reasons and I have spoken to them directly. They have no political agenda. They just want to protect their home.

 

[unionmom]

Ok, so the AJC article says:

"...The plaintiffs — residents Anthony Avery, Bob Board, Mary Board, Janice Louie, Jordan Louie and Sue Wilkins — represented by Atlanta attorney Charles McKnight are asking for civil penalties of $1,000 on each defendant and for the court to bar the airport authority from future violations of the open meetings act.

Swafford said after learning last year “that we weren’t exactly documenting our closed sessions exactly the best way” that the airport authority has “already made quite a few changes.”...

Ok, seems to me that there might be other ways to accomplish this and there's no doubt in my mind that there is hope to use the publicity and suit for political gain but ... if you have doubts about how the government is handling the people's business, you absolutely verify it. And if they are wrong, they should be corrected.

 

[unionmom]

Unionmom, I NEVER said the individuals involved were motivated by a political agenda. My EXACT words were that "this will keep the airport issue in the news and that will have an impact on the upcoming local election" and that is true. I only know of one of the opposition airport crowd that is running for office and she is not one of the individuals on the lawsuit. One thing I have heard from ALL of the candidates is that while knocking on doors, the airport is an issue they are asked about. That's why I say it will have an impact on the upcoming election.

I had also stated that there are six different individuals involved and each probably have different motivations for joining the lawsuit. But that doesn't mean their motivation is political. Two of the people involved have different reasons and I have spoken to them directly. They have no political agenda. They just want to protect their home.

And I commented on the hypothetical. No, you did not definitively state anyone's motive. I certainly did not mean to come across as though you had. I would think that reading the posts would be enough for folks to see that but ...

She didn't say that was definitively anyone's motive and I merely commented in the hypothetical.

We good? Everybody clear? lol

 

[stradial]

Unionmom, I NEVER said the individuals involved were motivated by a political agenda. My EXACT words were that "this will keep the airport issue in the news and that will have an impact on the upcoming local election" and that is true. I only know of one of the opposition airport crowd that is running for office and she is not one of the individuals on the lawsuit. One thing I have heard from ALL of the candidates is that while knocking on doors, the airport is an issue they are asked about. That's why I say it will have an impact on the upcoming election.

I had also stated that there are six different individuals involved and each probably have different motivations for joining the lawsuit. But that doesn't mean their motivation is political. Two of the people involved have different reasons and I have spoken to them directly. They have no political agenda. They just want to protect their home.

And I commented on the hypothetical. No, you did not definitively state anyone's motive. I certainly did not mean to come across as though you had. I would think that reading the posts would be enough for folks to see that but ...

She didn't say that was definitively anyone's motive and I merely commented in the hypothetical.

We good? Everybody clear? lol

I rarely know what is happening, but that is just me.

 

[unionmom]

)

 

[ShoeDiva]

Unionmom, I NEVER said the individuals involved were motivated by a political agenda. My EXACT words were that "this will keep the airport issue in the news and that will have an impact on the upcoming local election" and that is true. I only know of one of the opposition airport crowd that is running for office and she is not one of the individuals on the lawsuit. One thing I have heard from ALL of the candidates is that while knocking on doors, the airport is an issue they are asked about. That's why I say it will have an impact on the upcoming election.

I had also stated that there are six different individuals involved and each probably have different motivations for joining the lawsuit. But that doesn't mean their motivation is political. Two of the people involved have different reasons and I have spoken to them directly. They have no political agenda. They just want to protect their home.

And I commented on the hypothetical. No, you did not definitively state anyone's motive. I certainly did not mean to come across as though you had. I would think that reading the posts would be enough for folks to see that but ...

She didn't say that was definitively anyone's motive and I merely commented in the hypothetical.

We good? Everybody clear? lol

I rarely know what is happening, but that is just me.

) You are not alone, by a long shot!