College Park transparency questions rile city attorney

College Park government is providing no shortage of material for local news coverage during these hazy summer days. But one word seems to dog the city year-round: transparency.

That question has resurfaced in College Park following city attorney Winston Denmark’s response to the Georgia Attorney General’s Office concerning residents’ complaints alleging violation of the Open Meetings Act.

What does transparency mean when the public can witness a vote but cannot see the information behind it, understand the selection process or hear a clear explanation for the final decision?

That question arises time and again in College Park. The city’s handling of its selection of a new destination marketing organization in June has resulted in a lawsuit, complaints filed with the State Attorney General’s Office, and separately to the Department of Community Affairs.

Denmark maintains that the city did not violate Georgia’s Open Meetings Act. He defended city council’s recent actions in a stern letter to the Georgia Attorney General’s Office last week in response to the complaints filed by residents.

The regular refrain from council members and Denmark has been that College Park conducts its business transparently. But transparency is not something government officials can establish merely by declaring that it exists.

Considering the council’s actions over the past few years, Denmark’s tone of indignation in his letter carried an air of irony reminiscent of the famous line from “Casablanca”: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.”

For years, there has been an ongoing tug-of-war between city council and the public, as well as between council members and Mayor Bianca Motley Broom.

A slice of history

I watched in real time in 2024 when city council added two agenda items at the start of a meeting, in an unforthcoming manner.  

Those agenda items were for a rezoning and a $1.6 million payment in exchange for a vote of approval for a project, which a previous council had denied only months earlier.

There was no transparency. Even the mayor had to repeatedly ask what property was being considered and its address.

Transparency should be demonstrated through accessible meetings, timely records, understandable information and decisions that officials are willing to explain publicly.

Residents sued College Park over the rezoning. The case was dismissed after a judge determined that the complaint had not been filed within the 30-day period required under state law.

Residents want answers

Now, following countless battles between residents and their city government, the public wants to know how city council and the city manager determined that a newly established Maryland organization was the best choice to market College Park.

Why was Destination Must Visit, which the Georgia Hotel and Lodging Association alleges has made false claims about partnerships with tourism organizations, selected?

The public still does not have those answers. Residents also remain upset that city council voted on the new firm by holding a special called meeting on Sunday, June 28 in Savannah.  

But Denmark wrote:

“… Nothing suggests that the public was denied access to the subject meeting agenda or lacked knowledge concerning the subject/purpose of the meeting. Rather, it appears that certain citizens are attempting to weaponize a perceived technicality to challenge the City Council’s ability to conduct legitimate legislative business.”

SaportaReport learned that before the special called meeting, council members received a binder containing information on the candidate firms under consideration. Neither the residents in attendance nor the public viewing online was provided with those materials.

When SaportaReport inquired about the materials, the communications officer did not have them. Other requests to the city were unanswered.

Resident Jason Killip expressed his frustration in a post on the Speak Up College Park Facebook page that accompanies a news report.

“Yesterday the city released a statement about the new DMO,” Killip wrote. “It still doesn’t address the fact of the bid packet having potentially fake references. It doesn’t address the letter from the attorney general. The news keeps reporting but the city keeps gaslighting.”

Resident Allyson Blue commented on the post: “The level at which they disregard the citizens is unbelievable. It’s blatantly disrespectful.”

The Savannah gathering was the second special called meeting scheduled in June involving the destination marketing organization.

Another meeting was set to take place at about 11:30 p.m. June 15, following a closed executive session, but it did not proceed after no council member responded when Motley Broom asked who had called it.

In his response to the Attorney General’s Office, Denmark stated that the complaints did not justify state involvement.

“Moreover, certain unfounded and baseless complaints or allegations from a select group of citizens regarding decisions made by elected officials do not warrant the Office of the Attorney General to wade into the realm of local legislative affairs,” he wrote.

Denmark went further, suggesting that the Attorney General’s Office is asking the city to “bend to the will” of residents who were “weaponizing the Attorney General after failing at the ballot box.”

“To put it another way,” Denmark wrote, “the Attorney General is asking that the governing body for the City of College Park govern itself and operate under the direction of an unelected group of residents.”

But when are elected officials not required to answer to the concerns of residents?

On July 13, Katie Corkren filed a lawsuit against the four council members, as well as the city manager, city clerk, and Denmark, alleging violations of Georgia’s open-government laws.

Corkren said she sees a reluctance to hold officials accountable.

“It just seems to me that if you don’t have accountability, it doesn’t matter what the law says, if people aren’t willing to prosecute it,” she told SaportaReport.

Another commenter on SpeakUp College Park said they remain confounded by the city attorney’s response to the Attorney General’s Office.

“…Council held a meeting on a Sunday, 250 miles away,” SunnyOwl6147 said in a critique. “[You’re] telling me they couldn’t wait til Monday or Tuesday and hold it in CP?  Really?”

It is one of the many questions College Park officials have yet to answer.