College Park faces continued scrutiny over Savannah council meeting

College Park officials have responded to an inquiry from the Georgia attorney general’s office concerning two special-called City Council meetings, including a June 28, 2026, meeting held in Savannah, about four hours from College Park.

The dispute raises questions about whether residents had lawful and practical access to a meeting where the council conducted city business. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the council selected a tourism-marketing firm during the Savannah meeting. The city has not established the contract’s value or released a complete vote tally in the records reviewed for this report.

City says there was no intent to violate the law

In a response reported July 24 by WABE, College Park City Attorney Winston Denmark said city officials did not intend to deceive the public or deliberately violate Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.

The Georgia attorney general’s office was reviewing complaints and remained in discussions with the city about compliance. The available reporting does not establish a final finding by the attorney general, and it does not show that the office has ordered a remedy.

The city’s official notice process also included a public notice issued June 26 for a special-called meeting scheduled for July 9. That notice is part of the period under review, but the approved records do not establish that the July 9 meeting was the Savannah meeting or provide a final legal assessment of the notices.

Complaints and lawsuit continue

Residents have filed complaints connected to the recent meetings. The AJC reported that the attorney general’s office received four additional complaints in the weeks surrounding the challenged meetings.

The newspaper also reported that the office had received 37 complaints against College Park in 2024, placing the latest dispute within a broader period of open-records and open-meetings scrutiny involving the city. That complaint count describes reports received by the attorney general’s office, not a final determination that the city violated the law.

A lawsuit concerning the Savannah meeting was reported as moving ahead in July 2026. The available sources do not provide the case’s docket number, a hearing date or an outcome.

What happens next

The attorney general’s review and the litigation leave the central questions unresolved: whether the meeting arrangements complied with state open-meetings requirements and whether residents had a practical opportunity to participate in decisions affecting College Park.

For residents, taxpayers and local businesses, the outcome could influence how the city schedules, notices and conducts future special-called meetings. At this stage, however, the record supports scrutiny and continuing proceedings—not a settled conclusion that College Park violated the Open Meetings Act.