Columbus Councilors won’t apologize or retract statements after cease-and-desist
Six Columbus Councilors who were sent a cease-and-desist letter from city manager Isaiah Hugley’s attorney last week over allegations of ethical violations will not retract their statements or apologize, according to a written response provided to the Ledger-Enquirer.
Hugley’s attorney, Scott Grubman, sent the cease-and-desist letter to Councilors Byron Hickey of District 1, Charmaine Crabb of District 5, Joanne Cogle of District 7, Glenn Davis of District 2, John Anker of District 9 and Toyia Tucker of District 4.
The move followed accusations that Hugley violated the city’s code of ethics by not disclosing to the Columbus Council that his wife, state Rep. Carolyn Hugley (D-Columbus), received a small-business grant of approximately $29,000 for her State Farm Insurance agency.
Hugley disclosed the grant application to Mayor Skip Henderson and city attorney Clifton Fay and followed Fay’s instructions by sending the application to deputy city manager Pam Hodge to handle it rather than himself.
Grubman gave the named councilors seven days to apologize and retract public statements accusing Hugley of wrongdoing, or he would proceed with legal action.
Attorney Leslie Hartnett said the councilors would not do this and rejected the suggestion that their conduct constituted “unlawful harassment, intimidation, discrimination or defamation.”
“Your demand that my clients issue public apologies and retract statements made in the course of their official duties is both inappropriate and unsupported by the Charter and applicable law,” Hartnett wrote in the letter on behalf of the councilors. “Mr. Hugley is a public figure and, therefore, is subject to oversight and scrutiny by both the public and the elected members of Council.”
Hartnett argued the cease-and-desist was not sent in good faith because of the speed that it was made available to media outlets and the inclusion of Davis, who has been absent from the past few council meetings.
“Your client was undoubtedly aware of this fact, yet chose to include him by name in a document clearly intended for public consumption,” Hartnett wrote. “That decision reinforces the conclusion that the letter is, more than anything, an attempt to intimidate elected officials and deflect attention from the issues raised.”
In response to questions about Hugley’s handling of the grants, Hartnett referenced Appendix Two of the city charter. This is the portion of the charter Hickey brought up during the April 8 council meeting, when he asked why Hugley did not disclose his wife’s grant to the council.
“To be clear, the Councilmembers do not dispute that Mrs. Hugley’s business may have qualified for an ARP (American Rescue Plan) grant,” Hartnett wrote. “The issue is not eligibility — it is transparency.”
Councilors have a responsibility to raise concerns when questions of public trust are raised, she wrote.
“Public officials are entitled to speak on matters of public concern,” Hartnett said in the letter. “And in the performance of their legislative functions, they are afforded strong protections under the law.”
This story was originally published April 23, 2025 at 5:39 PM.
