South Fulton’s City Council was expected to take a final vote Tuesday on an amendment that could subject residents and city employees to penalties for disclosing certain unapproved city information. The proposed categories include internal memos, development plans and proposed ordinances.
Councilman Jaceey Sebastian introduced the amendment, which would apply to ordinary residents as well as city employees, according to 95.5 WSB. The measure concerns the city of South Fulton, Georgia, and the council was expected to take a final vote Tuesday, WSB-TV reported.
What Counts as Confidential
As described in WSB-TV’s reporting, the proposal covers memos, documents, information about potential developments, proposed ordinances and other unapproved city business. Complaints could be reported to South Fulton police for investigation and then referred to the city solicitor’s office.
What Georgia’s public-records law says
Georgia’s Open Records Act generally requires public records to be open for inspection unless a court order or law specifically exempts them, according to the Office of the Attorney General of Georgia. That general rule does not, on its own, determine whether drafts, unapproved city business or any other category covered by South Fulton’s proposal qualifies for an exemption.
Accounts of the penalties describe more than one possible formulation. WSB-TV reported that violators could face up to 30 days in jail, a $1,000 fine or work camp; another account described a judge as able to impose up to six months in jail, a $1,000 fine or 30 days of community service. Separately, the city’s services page says state law sets a maximum punishment for ordinance offenses at six months of incarceration and a fine of $1,000 per offense, according to the City of South Fulton.
Sebastian Defends the Measure
Sebastian has described the amendment as enforcing a law already on the books and protecting city operations. He also said it would not affect records obtained through open-records requests, according to WSB-TV.
In defending the proposal, Sebastian said its purpose was to protect the city’s day-to-day operations, WSB-TV reported.
Free Speech and Whistleblower Concerns
The proposal has prompted concerns that residents could be deterred from speaking publicly or acting as whistleblowers. Councilmember Linda Pritchett questioned how the city would decide which information is confidential, according to WSB-TV.
Civil rights attorney Mario Williams criticized the proposal, arguing that residents should not be held to the same standards as city employees when handling government information.
Williams also argued that the proposal could frame an ordinary person’s disclosure of confidential information to another person or the press as a serious offense. He said it should apply only to city employees and could be used to intimidate vocal residents.
City Attorney Pushes Back on Legal Concerns
The city attorney has said the proposal does not violate the First Amendment, Georgia’s Open Records Act or state whistleblower laws. The attorney also said it was drafted around existing state and federal laws, including Georgia’s Open Meetings Act, according to WSB-TV.
A separate code-adoption record shows the city's broader municipal code, titled the Code of City of South Fulton, Georgia, was adopted as a new and original comprehensive ordinance, according to the South Fulton Code of Ordinances.
