Jim's GA Politics Page

www.JimN2010.com
About Me

Blogging on the economy and current events at www.JimNichols4.com

My state politics blog

My personal twitter: @JimNichols

I am 30 and live in Stockbridge GA with my wife Deana and our dog Preston! I work at UPS, am proud to be a Teamster at local 728, and am working on undergraduate degrees in economics and philosophy at GA State.

My interests include Economics, Philosophy, Cognitive Science, International Relations, Political and Economic Theory...

My Other Sites
TwitterJaikuPlurkDeliciousTumblrBlogger
Contributors
Archive
2012 (8)
2011 (58)
2010 (88)
Archive for

September 2011

 

Atlanta-to-Griffin rail line getting second look

A commuter rail line linking Atlanta with Griffin, Ga., that appeared to be out of contention for funding through a proposed regional transportation sales tax may get a new life.

The committee of metro-Atlanta mayors and county commissioners that has been assembling a list of highway and transit improvements to submit to voters in 10 counties next year will reconsider the commuter rail project on Wednesday.

An amendment to the $6.1 billion project list proposed by Clayton County Commission Chairman Eldrin Bell, a member of the regional “roundtable” developing the list, would set aside $350 million to build the rail line.

The roundtable had rejected the Atlanta-to-Griffin line last summer as too expensive. But Bell’s amendment, seconded by Union City, Ga., Mayor Ralph Moore, contends the work could be done for more than $900 million below original estimates by scaling back the scope of the project.

“As the first investment in the corridor between Atlanta and Savannah, this is the only project of significant regional and state impact,” Bell wrote in the form he submitted requesting the amendment. “This will be the only rail investment south of I-20, has strong support in the corridor inside and outside Atlanta, and meets every roundtable criteria.”

Supporters, including commuter rail advocates, complained vigorously when a five-member subcommittee of the roundtable recommended a project list that did not include the commuter rail line.

Under the 2010 state law that established the roundtable process and next year’s referendum, the full 22-member roundtable has until Oct. 15 to finalize the project list that will appear on the ballot.

Bell’s amendment recommends a series of cuts to the list to offset the $350 million that would go to the rail line. The largest would involve reducing the funds that would go toward a planned light rail line from Midtown Atlanta to the Cumberland Mall area by $85.7 million and cutting the proposed Clifton Corridor rail line by $70 million.

Posted by Jim Nichols 
 

Georgia Supreme Court Seeks Olens's Opinion on Atlanta's Secret Vote

As previously covered by APN, at issue is whether the Open Meetings Act requires agencies to list in the minutes who voted against a proposal or abstained in the case of a non-roll call vote.

Councilwoman Felicia Moore (District 9) conducted a vote at lunch at the February 2010 Council Retreat over whether to limit public comment at Committee Meetings, but the minutes do not state who voted which way.
OCGA 50-14-1(e)(2) states that in the case of a non-roll call vote, "It shall be presumed that the action taken was approved by each person in attendance unless the minutes reflect the name of the persons voting against the proposal or abstaining."

Lower courts, including Fulton County Superior Court Judge Christopher Brasher and a Court of Appeals panel, ruled that this section does not require the listing of the names of those voting nay or abstaining, but merely requires citizens to presume the vote is unanimous if the minutes do not list any names.

APN's Editor has argued that the Court should look at the intent of the law, that is, open and transparent government, when interpreting the clause.
Case law states that statutes should be construed in terms of their plain language, unless such a construction leads to an absurd or irrational result.

APN's Editor has argued that it is an absurd or irrational result, that citizens should have to assume a vote is unanimous when the vote is split.
In a recent Appellant's Brief filed by the City of Atlanta on August 22, 2011, the City of Atlanta argued that the vote was not a secret vote because it was taken at an open meeting.

"In an interpretation of the Act allows for the presumption of unanimity in non roll-call votes, where the vote may not have actually been unanimous, would not have the effect of allowing closed-door meetings or secret votes.  This is illustrated by the fact that in this case, the vote at issue was taken in a meeting which was open to the public during which anyone could have witnessed the details of how the City Council voted," the City states in its Brief.
However, this only highlights the absurdity of their interpretation of the statute: If a citizen attends the lunch at the Retreat, they can know who the seven yeas and eight nays are; however, if a citizen reads the minutes, by law they "shall" assume the vote was unanimous.  So, who is right?  The effects of the City of Atlanta's interpretation is to create a Tower of Babel where a fraction of the City believes, under legal mandate, that all fifteen Council Members voted nay, and where another fraction of the City, who witnessed the vote, believes the vote was seven to eight.

The Attorney General's office has stressed in its statements about the case that there clearly is some ambiguity in the way the current statute is written; that case law says that the Open Meetings Act is remedial in nature and should be broadly construed; and that when there are doubts of interpretation regarding a statute, that they should be resolved in favor of openness.

Posted by Jim Nichols