Judge rules in city’s favor in Sheriff Darr lawsuit

A Macon Superior Court judge has issued two rulings that all but eliminate Muscogee County Sheriff John Darr’s lawsuit against the city and much of its leadership, City Attorney Clifton Fay said Tuesday.

Judge Philip Raymond, the third judge to preside over the lawsuit, ruled in the defendants’ favor in two motions for partial summary judgment, one on grounds that aspects of the sheriff’s case have been rendered moot and one on the grounds that state law supports the Consolidated Government’s budget process, making Darr’s pleas for remedy pointless.

Fay, who is one of the defendants in the suit, said he was of course pleased with the ruling, which he said affirmed the rights of the mayor and Columbus Council to set the city’s budget.

“The rulings in the Darr case follow decades of Georgia law, which recognize the power of local legislative bodies to decide on appropriate levels of funding for county departments and elected officials,” Fay said. “The council and the taxpayers are grateful for these rulings and look forward to a swift resolution of pending litigation concerning these matters.”

Mayor Teresa Tomlinson said she and the other defendants are grateful for the court’s “clear application of the law.”

“The city has been vindicated from these reckless and irresponsible claims,” she said. “Our budget process is and has been proper. We hope all the matters are resolved quickly and the unfortunate expense of this litigation to our citizens is stopped.”

Darr and Superior Court Clerk Linda Pierce filed similar lawsuits in late 2014 against the city, all members of council and several of the city’s executive leaders. The lawsuits claimed, among other things, that their budgets were insufficient for them to carry out their obligations, and that the method the Consolidated Government uses to craft the city’s budget is illegal and/or unconstitutional.

Part of the lawsuit sought relief concerning the fiscal 2015 budget, which the city was in the midst of when the suits were filed, but has long since passed. In fact, there is only a little more than a week left in fiscal 2016.

Raymond ruled that because the fiscal year in question has passed and that, hence, no relief sought in Darr’s suit could be granted, granting the motion for summary judgment was appropriate.

In the motion based on the legality of the city’s budget process, Raymond ruled that Darr’s request for “mandamus” relief was inappropriate. Granting mandamus relief would mean the court would order the city government to act in a certain manner, in this case regarding its budgetary procedure.

“A mandamus is an extraordinary legal tool only to be used in limited circumstances when no other legal remedy is available,” Raymond wrote. “A mandamus cannot issue as a corrective action for the past, as it only provides prospective relief.”

Raymond also ruled that the city’s budget process is legal.

“The Court recognizes that the duties of the Executive Defendants, as related to the Sheriff in the recommended budget process, are completed once the final Mayor’s Recommended Budget is presented to Council and the Sheriff is provided an opportunity to be heard on his budget requests before Council,” Raymond wrote.

Raymond also writes that Darr is in fact subject to the city budget process, which is outlined in the City Charter, and that he has no separate budget power granted by law.

“The Court finds there is no genuine issue of material fact to suggest that Sheriff Darr has been prevented from participating in the recommended budget process,” Raymond wrote. “Instead, Sheriff Darr seeks mandamus relief to require the Executive Defendants to be mere conduits of his budget request, in every particular, in their preparation of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget to Council.”

Further, Raymond found that because it is ultimately Columbus Council who decides the budget, regardless of what the mayor might propose, and because Darr has the opportunity to address council personally to speak against the proposed budget and to present his own proposed budget.

“The evidence of record demonstrates that Sheriff Darr has appeared before Council in this manner and has achieved an increase to his proposed budget from that effort, as recently as FY2016,” Raymond wrote. “The Court finds that Sheriff Darr has a complete remedy available to him …”

In conclusion, Raymond writes that, contrary to the claims in his lawsuit, Sheriff Darr has no legal right to expect that his budget must be provided in full.

“Georgia law is clear that the Sheriff is not entitled to a specific amount of funding, nor is he entitled to a specific method of determining his budget,” Raymond wrote. “Sheriff Darr has failed to demonstrate that the executive recommended budget process interferes with or restricts any powers specifically assigned to Sheriff Darr under Georgia law, or that any Defendant has acted outside his or her delegated powers or authority in the recommended budget process.”

Raymond has yet to rule on similar requests for summary judgment in the lawsuit filed by Pierce.

The city is having to pay legal fees for itself and also for Darr and Pierce because they are constitutional officers. The Darr suit alone has run up more than $1 million in legal fees, Fay said.

The city is also fighting a similar joint lawsuit co-filed by Marshal Greg Countryman and Municipal Court Clerk Vivian Creighton Bishop. The city is not required to pay their legal fees, but must pay the cost of its defense.

Tomlinson announced the rulings after a Columbus Council executive session Tuesday night, after business hours for attorneys representing both sides.

This story was originally published June 21, 2016 at 7:54 PM with the headline "Judge rules in city’s favor in Sheriff Darr lawsuit."