College Park faces lawsuit over June council meeting held in Savannah

College Park faces a Fulton County lawsuit over a June 28, 2026, special-called City Council meeting held in Savannah, where council members considered tourism-marketing proposals and approved the designation of a new Destination Marketing Organization, subject to acceptance and execution of a contract.

The lawsuit alleges that the meeting limited public access and violated Georgia’s Open Meetings Act. The city disputes those claims. The Georgia Attorney General’s Office said it was unclear whether technical violations occurred but concluded that the city’s actions did not appear to foster public transparency.

What the official record shows

College Park’s official agenda lists a 4 p.m. special-called meeting of the mayor and City Council on Sunday, June 28. The meeting location was Boardroom A at the Marriott Savannah Riverfront, 100 General McIntosh Blvd., in Savannah — about 240 miles from College Park in Fulton County.

The agenda listed roll call, approval of the agenda, consideration of Destination Marketing Organization bids and board appointments for Ward 1 and Ward 2 positions on the Business Industrial Development Authority and Board of Zoning Appeals.

The city’s official minutes show that the council approved the designation of Maryland-based Destination Must Visit Tourism Alliance Inc. as the city’s DMO, with the motion amended to make the designation subject to acceptance and execution of a contractual agreement. The minutes also show that the council approved a Ward 2 Board of Zoning Appeals appointment and took no action on the Ward 1 BIDA appointment.

What the lawsuit alleges

Katie Corkren filed the civil lawsuit July 13, 2026, in Fulton County Superior Court, according to local reporting. The complaint alleges that officials impaired public access by holding the College Park meeting in Savannah, roughly 240 miles from the city.

The public-access concerns include the meeting’s short notice, the burden of attending in person and allegations that an agenda was not posted at the meeting site. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that notice was made June 26, two days before the meeting, and that residents who attended said they did not see an agenda posted outside or inside the meeting room. The city said the agenda was available on a table inside.

The meeting was livestreamed, but the dispute is not limited to whether remote viewing was available. The lawsuit and related complaints question whether holding a weekend College Park government meeting in another Georgia city made meaningful public participation more difficult.

Those claims remain allegations. No court ruling establishing a violation or invalidating the meeting or council action was available in the sources reviewed for this article.

What the Attorney General said

The Georgia Attorney General’s Office reviewed complaints about the Savannah meeting and another special-called meeting connected to the tourism-marketing transition. The office said it was unclear whether technical Open Meetings Act violations occurred in the way the meetings were noticed.

The office nevertheless said the city’s actions did not appear to foster public transparency. That was a state transparency criticism, not a court ruling or a formal finding that College Park violated the law.

As of the latest follow-up available before publication, the Attorney General’s Office was reviewing the city’s response to the inquiry.

The city’s defense

College Park City Attorney Winston Denmark called the allegations meritless and said the June 28 meeting was publicly noticed, open to the public and livestreamed. The city has maintained that the meeting location was identified in advance and that notice, agenda and meeting information were posted through city channels and at City Hall.

City officials said the council met in Savannah because members and staff were attending the Georgia Municipal Association convention there. The city also said it needed to act before the existing tourism-marketing agreement expired June 30, while the next regular council meeting was scheduled for August.

Why the meeting mattered

The meeting allowed the council to approve a new tourism-marketing organization before the previous agreement expired, although the official minutes made the designation conditional on acceptance and execution of a contract.

That decision concerns how College Park markets tourism, conventions and visitor-related business. The lawsuit could lead to judicial review of the meeting and the council action taken there, but it has not already invalidated the meeting, the DMO designation or any follow-on contract.

WABE reported that the city had until August 20, 2026, to respond to the lawsuit. Until a court rules, readers should distinguish among the plaintiff’s public-access allegations, the Attorney General’s transparency criticism, the city’s legal defense and the separate question of whether the DMO agreement was ultimately executed.

Sources

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.