Court Opinion

ID: 9586816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:15:30.634367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:52.907294
License: Public Domain

Marshall, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the judgment of the court but for reasons not expressed in the opinion. This court determined in McLarty v. Bd. of Regents of University System of Ga., 231 Ga. 22 (200 SE2d 117) (1973), that the Open Meetings Act applies to those bodies empowered to take official action. Advisory groups do not have the power to take official action and are not governed by the Act. In my view the Administrative Review Panel in this case is an advisory group. It was created to review and evaluate actions of city officials and to make a written report of its findings and recommendations. That is all. If action is to follow it must be done by the city in a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Act where the public may observe.
The majority views the subpoena power vested in the Panel as sufficient to bring the Panel under the purview of the Act. But the subpoena power is incidental to the real function of the Panel. If some issue should arise as to the use of the power to subpoena, perhaps a meeting of the Panel related to that matter would come within the Act. That is not the issue before us however.
Another issue not presented by the parties but relied on by the majority is the validity of the delegation of subpoena power to the *402Panel. I would not reach that issue in this case.
Decided September 10, 1987.
Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, R. Keegan Federal, Jr., Jonathan D. Hart, for appellants.
Emmet J. Bondurant, Richard H. Sinkfield, for appellees.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, George P. Shingler, Assistant Attorney General, amicus curiae.