dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
1. Pretermitting the, issue of whether or not the Board of Regents was subject to be sued, and assuming that all of the documents in question are “public records” within the meaning of OCGA § 50-18-70, I would hold that all of the records sought here come within the exclusion of OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (5).
While it is true that the statute provides that “[tjhis Code section shall be interpreted narrowly so as to exclude from disclosure only that portion of a public record to which an exclusion is directly applicable,” OCGA § 50-18-72 (f), I view the entire search process as an “evaluation” or “examination” of the candidates for the presidency of Georgia State University. The so-called Open and Public Meetings Act, or “Sunshine Law” does not apply to “[m]eetings when discussing or deliberating upon the appointment, employment, hiring, disciplinary action or dismissal, or performance of a public officer or employee. . . .” OCGA § 50-14-3 (6). These two Acts, including the two provisions exempting meetings and records respecting the hiring and appointing of government officers and employees, were significantly amended and rewritten in the 1988 legislative session. They must be construed in pari materia, as has been held in The Atlanta Journal & The Atlanta Constitution v. The Atlanta Convention & Visitors Bureau, Inc., Fulton County Superior Court Civil Action File *220No. D-63684, decided March 14, 1989. The trial court’s construction of the Open Records Act in the present case is contrary to the legislative intent, as expressed in that Act and the Sunshine Law, to protect from disclosure the process of selecting new government officers and employees. In addition, under the trial court’s order, minutes of the very meetings which are closed under the Sunshine Law would be subject to disclosure.
The trial court’s refusal to construe the Open Records Act in pari materia with the Sunshine Law was based upon the case of Irvin v. Macon Telegraph Publishing Co., 253 Ga. 43 (316 SE2d 449) (1984). In that case, the court did not even refer to the doctrine of in pari materia. The issue in that case was only whether or not a 1980 amendment to the Sunshine Law defining “public records” should be read into the Open Records Act. This Court held only that it should not, because the Court had, prior to the 1980 amendment, defined “public records” under the Open Records Act, and, had the Legislature wished to depart from that established definition, it also could have amended the Open Records Act. That case is not applicable here. It is not necessary to look to the Sunshine Law for the definition of an Open Records Act previously defined by this Court. We need only apply the basic doctrine of in pari materia so as to construe the exclusion set out in OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (5) in harmony with its sister Sunshine Law exclusion. Furthermore, the Irvin case was decided before the Legislature significantly amended both Acts. Indeed, the subject Open Records Act exclusion in question was added in 1988, and thus conformed the Open Records Act to the parallel Sunshine Law exclusion.
The judgment of the trial court was erroneous to the extent that it permitted disclosure of any portion of the records maintained in connection with the presidential search.
2.1 also find that the records should be exempt by order of court. In Napper v. Ga. Television Co., 257 Ga. 156, 161 (356 SE2d 640) (1987), we held as follows:
If the records are public records and do not fall within any of the exemptions set out in the Public Records Act, the question is whether the records should be protected from disclosure by court order under § 50-18-70 (a) [redesignated as subsection (b) by Ga. Laws 1988, pp. 243, 244].
In regard to whether public records should be protected by court order, we have held, “[w]hen a controversy of this nature arises between a citizen and a public official, the judiciary has the rather important duty of determining whether inspection or non-inspection of the public records is in the *221public interest. In short, the judiciary must balance the interest of the public in favor of inspection against the interest of the public in favor of non-inspection in deciding this issue.” [Cit.] [Emphasis supplied.]Decided April 25, 1989 Reconsideration denied May 10, 1989. Alston & Bird, G. Conley Ingram, Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Walter G. Elliott II, Richard T. Fulton, for appellants. Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Terrence B. Adams, Peter C. Can-field, for appellees. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Stephanie B. Manis, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Paul R. Vancil, amici curiae.
Accord Athens Observer, Inc. v. Anderson, 245 Ga. 63, 66 (263 SE2d 128) (1980).
Applying the foregoing balancing test to the records in question, I conclude that the public interest in favor of non-inspection outweighs the public interest in favor of inspection.
I am authorized to state that Justice Smith joins in this dissent.