Court Opinion

ID: 9567493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:54:31.273736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:38.273526
License: Public Domain

Smith, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent to this Court’s holding that directs the method and manner of the Board’s publication of its monthly financial statement. It is important to point out that there is no hint or allegation of any dishonesty or wrongdoing in this case. The only question concerns the manner and method of publishing the disbursements and expenses of the county board of commissioners. The Board’s method of publishing this monthly statement is within the commissioners’ discretion, and there is no abuse of discretion in this case.
This Court’s involvement in this matter is not necessary in light of other reasonable alternatives. Any interested citizen can go to the *564Board’s office and review the specifics of the county payroll records. Yet, there is no consideration or claim of a violation of the Open Records Act. OCGA § 50-18-70. This is important considering the Board could spend only $30 per month to publish the statement. With just $30, the Board cannot get very much information published.1 Considering the facts that there was a reasonable alternative for information and slight funding for publication, the Board has published sufficient detail to comply with the local law.
Decided October 6, 1988.
David G. Kopp, for appellant.
W. Seaborn Ashley, Jr., for appellees.
Finally, I agree with the trial court’s finding that the 1961 local act was repealed by implication when the legislature enacted OCGA § 36-81-1 et seq. The purpose of OCGA § 36-81-1 et seq., is to provide consistency and uniformity among the counties concerning information about county budgets. As a general rule local acts are not favored, especially when a general law will suffice, and the general act, OCGA § 36-81-5, adequately and sufficiently covers the rights of all citizens.

 The Board is now in a Catch-22 position. They cannot publish the information this Court has required them to publish without violating the very local law that we hold was not repealed by implication. The next case this Court will hear will be the appellant’s prosecution of the Board for violating the local law for spending more than the $30 alloted for publication that this Court says that it must. For this reason, it is only common sense to say the general statute repealed the local one by implication.