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

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.