Lowndes County Supervisors and the Columbus City Council are set to meet Friday in an attempt to settle a months-long dispute over $455,000 in jail and emergency services bills the city has declined to pay.
How much of those discussions taxpayers will be privy to is a separate debate.
At the center of the dispute are conflicting claims regarding unpaid invoices: the county seeks $263,000 for jail housing and $192,000 for E-911 services, while the city contends it has overpaid jail costs and is owed $172,725.89 for municipal services such as animal control, recycling, and airport operations. The county is withholding payments to the city, citing budget shortfalls triggered by these unpaid bills.
Beyond the dollar amounts, a significant point of contention ahead of the meeting is the level of public transparency.
City Attorney Jeff Turnage has suggested the city-county meeting be held in executive session, citing potential litigation. He argues that open-session negotiations could undermine the city’s bargaining position.
While litigation is a valid legal consideration for private consultation, relying on it to avoid public scrutiny is a frequent tactic that warrants skepticism.
In contrast, Board Attorney Tim Hudson advocates for a public discussion, emphasizing the importance of transparency.
It has always been our position that discussions that involve taxpayer dollars should be held in public.
When public officials meet behind closed doors, it breeds suspicion. Even if a board is doing everything legally, the lack of transparency can lead citizens to assume backroom deals, cronyism or cover-ups are taking place.
Citizens should be able to know how individual members voted, what arguments they made and who influenced a decision. If the real debate happens in secret, and the public meeting is just a rubber-stamp vote, citizens lose their voice in local government.
Potential litigation can be a legitimate reason to conduct an executive session, but all too often that exception has become a sort of catch-all maneuver to avoid public scrutiny. Additionally, the reason potential litigation is allowed to happen behind closed doors is so one side of a legal dispute can discuss the issue without revealing its strategy publicly. That doesn’t apply here since both the city and county are participating in the discussion are the potential litigants.
We understand that these discussions might be uncomfortable, but we argue that the taxpayer needs to know how the sausage is made in this case because any outcome involves taxpayer dollars.
We urge the city and county to meet in open session.
The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 37 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
