Coggin v. Davey, No. 29020

• Decision Date: 06 January 1975
• Docket Number: No. 29020
• Citation: 211 S.E.2d 708,233 Ga. 407
• Parties: Frank COGGIN et al. v. Harry DAVEY et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 708

211 S.E.2d 708

233 Ga. 407

Frank COGGIN et al. v. Harry DAVEY et al.

No. 29020.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 6, 1975.

Charles E. Tidwell, Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Timothy J. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for appellant.

Larry W. Thomason, Decatur, Stanley M. Lefco, William B. Hollberg, Atlanta, for appellees.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

GUNTER, Justice.

This appeal raises the issue of the applicability of Georgia's 'Sunshine Law' to the General Assembly and its committees. This statute (Ga.L.1972, p. 575; Code Ann. §§ 40-3301 Through 40-3303) was enacted in 1972, and, as pertinent to this appeal, it provides: 'All meetings of any State department, agency, board, bureau, commission or political subdivision . . . at which official actions are to be taken are hereby declared to be public meetings and shall be open to the public at all times. No resolution, rule, regulation or formal action shall be binding except as taken or made at such meetings. Any action contesting a resolution, rule, regulation or formal action on the ground of noncompliance with this law must be commenced within 90 days of the date the resolution, rule or regulation was passed or the formal action was taken.'

This statute further provides that the minutes of such meetings shall be public; and it also provides that the superior courts shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the Law upon application by any citizen of the state.

The appellees (complainants below) contend that they were excluded from General Assembly committee meetings during the 1974 Session of the General Assembly, and that such exclusion was a violation of the 'Sunshine Law.' The original complaint was filed on February 20, 1974, by three employees on WRNG Radio in behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. A few days later Common Cause, an unincorporated association, intervened as a complainant in behalf of its members and others similarly situated. The defendants were a member of the Senate and a member of the House of Representatives. The complainants asserted that they had been excluded from specified committee meetings of the General Assembly, that they expected that such exclusions would continue, and that such exclusions were unlawful; and they sought to temporarily and permanently enjoin such exclusions, and they sought a declaration that the 'Sunshine Law' is applicable to all meetings, at which official action is to be taken, of the following: Georgia House of Representatives, Georgia Senate, Legislative Services Committee, Legislative Counsel of the General Assembly, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Secretary of the Senate, Standing Committees of the House and Senate, Conference Committees, and Interim Committees.

The appellants filed responsive pleadings which admitted most of the factual allegations and set up as their basic defense their contention that the 'Sunshine Law' did not apply to them as legislators or to any actions taken by them as committee members of the General Assembly. Appellants also moved to dismiss the complaints or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds (a) that the 'Sunshine Law' does not apply to the committees of the General Assembly, and (b) that no claim for injunctive relief was stated since the judiciary will not enjoin the legislative process. Common Cause, the intervenor complainant, then filed a motion to dismiss defendants' answer or, alternatively, to bar representation of the defendant by the Attorney General and the Office of Legislative Counsel.

After conducting hearings the trial judge on May 6, 1974, entered a final judgment, and this appeal is from that judgment.

The pertinent parts of that judgment are: 'III. (2). The applicable Georgia laws pertaining to representation of appointed counsel for a legislator are set out in Georgia Laws 1965, pp. 270, 271 (Georgia Code Ann. Sec. 47-1203) and Georgia Laws 1958 (1959), p. 19 (Georgia Code Ann. Sec. 89-920). Since neither of these Code sections was conformed to, representation by Mr. Harold Hill is not authorized by Georgia law. Wherefore, the court further rules as follows: (1) defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition is denied. (2) The 'Sunshine Law' (Georgia Laws 1972, p. 575) is applicable to the General Assembly and to conference committees of both Houses of the General Assembly. (3) The proceedings of the Appropriations Conference Committee meetings on February 19, 1974, and February 20, 1974, which took action on the appropriations bill, are rendered void and of no effect.'

I

The first two enumerated errors complain that the trial court erred in holding that the Attorney General was not authorized to represent appellants on his own motion, and that the court erred in holding that the appellants were not entitled to representation by the Office of Legislative Counsel.

First, the trial court's judgment did not make any ruling with respect to representation of the defendants by the Office of Legislative Counsel. Second, the counselrepresentation issue as posed and decided in the judgment was much narrower than the error enumerated and argued by appellants in this court. The judgment of May 6, 1974 states that one of the issues to be decided was 'whether representation by the defendants' counsel was authorized by Georgia law.' The entire ruling of the trial court on this issue is quoted above from the judgment.

We conclude that this ruling does not raise broad issues as to the constitutional or statutory powers of the Attorney General to represent members of the General Assembly in connection with their official acts and duties. The judgment below merely quotes two statutes and then says: 'Since neither of these Code sections was conformed to, representation by (the Special Deputy Assistant Attorney General) is not authorized by Georgia law.'

Code Ann. § 47-1203 creates the office of Legislative Counsel, and it neither authorizes nor prohibits representation of legislators by a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. This statute, therefore, did not prohibit the representation...