Lawyer: Darr v. Columbus may not be over

The case of John T. Darr v. Columbus, Ga., et al., may not be over, an attorney for Darr said Wednesday.

Most of the sheriff’s lawsuit against the city was tossed out Tuesday by Superior Court Judge Philip Raymond. The judge ruled that a request for relief in regards to the sheriff’s Fiscal 2015 budget was moot because the budget year is over and done and no relief would be available. He also ruled that the process the city leaders use to prepare the mayor’s proposed budget is legal and follows guidelines set forth in the Columbus City Charter.

Left to be decided is a ruling on the sufficiency of the amount of money the City Council approves for Darr’s budget for Fiscal 2016 and the budget just approved for Fiscal 2017. Darr attorney Kerry Howell said he has not yet had a chance to discuss the rulings and the options available to him going forward.

He said he, Darr and other attorneys hope to meet soon and decide on how to move forward. An appeal of the judge’s rulings to othe Georgia Supreme Court is one possibility, Howell said, but he couldn’t comment on the likelihood of that avenue until talking to Darr and his other lawyers.

“I have a lot of respect for this Superior Court judge, so I respect his decision in this case,” Howell said. “We don’t agree with it. We believe respectfully that when Section 8-105 of the Charter says that ‘The sheriff’s budget request shall be incorporated in the overall consolidated budget,’ it means just that.

“We respectfully disagree that it means that the mayor or the finance director or the city manager can take his recommended budget and change it, disregard it in total and come up with their own budget to submit to city council for them to consider.”

Howell said that differing interpretations of that charter clause have been “a basic disagreement from the beginning.”

The judge, however, sided with the defense on that interpretation.

“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.

Darr has not returned a voice mail request for comment on the rulings.

In late 2014, Darr and Superior Court Clerk Linda Pierce filed similar lawsuits against the city and its top executive leadership, claiming that the city budgets insufficient funds for them to carry out their duties and that the process by which the budget is crafted is contrary to the City Charter and possibly unconstitutional.

Municipal Court Clerk Vivian Creighton Bishop and Marshal Greg Countryman soon co-filed a similar suit against the city and its leadership.

Howell acknowledged that Darr has political considerations to take into account when deciding how to go forward. He is standing for re-election in November as an independent against Democrat Donna Tompkins and Republican Mark LaJoye. Pierce lost her position in the Democratic Primary to newcomer Ann Hardman. Countryman and Bishop won their bids for re-election.

“He is in the middle of an election,” Howell said.

Finally, Howell also said he respects all the attorneys who worked on the city’s defense team and has congratulated them.

“I want to congratulate all of the city’s attorneys on a well-won, hard-fought victory,” Howell said. “I think it would be a mistake not to acknowledge that they did a good job.”

This story was originally published June 22, 2016 at 3:36 PM with the headline "Lawyer: Darr v. Columbus may not be over."