Wednesday, February 27, 2002
|
Wednesday, February 27, 2002 |
|
Lawyers planning round 2 in open meetings suit By DAVE
HAMRICK Lawyers for The Citizen Newspapers and Fayette County's governments are comparing calendars with Judge John Langford this week hoping to set a date for a final hearing in the newspapers' open meetings lawsuit. Visiting Judge Langford Thursday granted The Citizen's request for a temporary injunction halting closed meetings in connection with tax equity mediation between Fayette County and its three largest cities. The injunction will remain in place until a hearing can be set on the company's request for a permanent injunction within 30 days. Meanwhile, Citizen attorney Don Johnson said he plans to amend the suit to include constitutional concerns. "We got what we asked for," said Cal Beverly, Citizen editor and publisher. "The judge said stop the closed meetings. He said he was countermanding the part of Judge [Stephen] Boswell's order that authorized the secret meetings. The clear implication is that no secret meetings should have taken place in the first place. Judge Langford, in effect, is saying that the Sunshine Law must be followed even in these tax negotiations, and for that I'm very gratified on behalf of the taxpayers of Fayette County." Lawyers for the defendants declined to comment, saying the papers' request for permanent injunction is still pending and they don't usually comment on pending cases. Langford's order prohibits any further closed meetings between Fayette and the cities of Fayetteville, Peachtree City and Tyrone concerning their tax equity dispute. Lawyers for the governments, along with a representative from the state attorney general's office, argued that the injunction would be moot because the parties have already stopped meeting. The mediation sessions ended Friday, Feb. 15, the court-imposed deadline for the talks. But Langford pointed out that no official action has been taken bringing the meetings to a close. "You say it's ended, but how does Joe Citizen know that?" he asked. Judge Stephen Boswell ordered the mediation in December in response to a request from the three cities after three years of talks among the four governments failed to resolve the issue. The cities have contended that their citizens don't receive enough services from Fayette County, and should have their taxes reduced or their services enhanced. County leaders say there is no inequity, that city residents get their fair share of services. In ordering the mediation, Boswell included instructions that the sessions, including an initial meeting at which quorums of all the governments were present, be conducted behind closed doors. When Boswell declined to answer inquiries from The Citizen as to the statutory authority for the secrecy order, the paper filed suit asking that the sessions be stopped. "I think [the paper has] got some legal legs to stand on," Langford said after hearing arguments from Johnson. "I think you've got some First Amendment ... questions," he told lawyers for the governments. Clay Collins, a partner of Peachtree City Attorney Rick Lindsey, argued the case on behalf of all three cities, and Phil Grant, a partner of Fayette County Attorney Bill McNally, represented the county. Kathryn Allen of the state attorney general's office represented Judge Boswell, who also was named as a defendant. Collins and Grant argued that privacy in mediation sessions is essential to accomplishing their purpose. "It was an honest attempt to resolve issues," said Collins, adding, "I don't think a city should be treated any differently than any other citizen with respect to mediation." "Mediation by its very nature is confidential," argued Grant. He also cited the Georgia Supreme Court's rules for mediation, written in 1993, which state that mediation must be conducted in private. He also argued that the sessions don't constitute a meeting under state law. "These are not their [city council's and county commission's] meetings this is court-ordered mediation. They've been ordered to go," he said. And even if the sessions were official government meetings, he contended, the laws requiring open meetings state "except as otherwise provided by law." The law otherwise provides for closed meetings to deal with matters of litigation, and the Supreme Court's rules specifically provide for private mediation, he said. "There's no violation of any law here," he said. Citizen attorney Johnson argued that the reason for the privacy clause in Boswell's mediation order was to allow the elected officials involved to avoid public scrutiny. "This is not a mediation," he said. "This is a way to escape the public scrutiny of what they were doing." He said the officials were empowered to act during the meetings in ways that affect the public, violating "the public's right to review the actions of public officials." "They should not be allowed, by an unbelievable twist of the statute, to do it in secret," he said. "I'm not making anybody a villain," Langford said in granting the temporary injunction. He said in considering a permanent injunction, he'll have to consider how to resolve conflicting state laws those calling for private mediation and those requiring public meetings. Separation of powers issues also are involved in the case, he said, because the city and county governments were ordered into closed meetings by another branch of government, the judiciary. Citizen publisher Beverly and attorney Johnson said they consider the judge's order a victory. "The judge treated everyone fairly, but he granted our specific requests," said Johnson.
|
||