Chancellor Jerri Bryant will make a ruling on whether the library lawsuit should be dismissed. In Chancery Court last week, attorney Jimmy Logan, representing the county commission, made three different Motions to Dismiss. Roger Jenne, representing the Friends of the Library and the Polk County Library Board, challenged Logan’s assertions.

Bryant gave the attorneys ten days to provide additional information, especially on any relevant case law, although the attorneys said there is none. Bryant commented that Polk County has been a trend setter on the law with unique cases. She said she would try to rule in the next 30 days.

At issue is FOL’s contention that the county had created a library system and is thus required to provide operating funds, that there was a breach of contract when the commission failed to accept funds raised to build two full-service libraries, and that the fundraising effort relied on a Letter of Intent to provide operating funds. To date, the commission has refused to accept the construction funds and budget for operations of two full-service libraries. A Writ of Mandamus was filed asking the Chancellor to require the commission to fulfill its commitment.

Logan said the Chancery Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, saying a Writ of Mandamus regarding a government’s legal obligations must be heard in Circuit Court. Jenne argued that the law says such cases “may” be heard in Circuit Court. He further said this case is not about a county’s legal obligations. Jenne said the law does not require counties to have a library system, but it does say they must provide funding if they choose to have one. He said this case is not about a county’s legal obligation but rather an obligation that was voluntarily assumed. He said a Writ of Mandamus is used to enforce a right when no other remedies are available. Logan insisted the case can only be heard in Circuit Court.

Logan also questioned whether the Polk County Library Board has standing to bring the case to court, saying the Board does not have authority to take the county to court. Jenne said the Library Board was appointed to enhance access to public libraries. He said Friends of the Library is a non-profit organization that raised more than $700,000 based on actions taken by the county commission, noting the Writ is the only remedy. He added any private person has the right to seek a Writ of Mandamus. Sally Love, also representing FOL, said there is a special interest in the form of a contractual relationship between FOL and the commission. She said FOL offered to raise substantial money to fund construction and the county agreed to run the libraries. “That gave Friends of the Library special standing for a Writ,” she said. She said the Library Board was set up when the county decided to have a library service. The Board was charged with running, staffing and operations. Logan said FOL does not have a unique right to standing. The entire county would benefit from libraries, he said, not just FOL. Logan said the county is uniquely indebted to FOL for their assistance but FOL does not have unique rights to bring this action.

Logan said the action “is fraught with danger,” noting that funding is a legislative matter, not a judicial one. He said the powers of financial well-being are left to legislative bodies except in limited circumstances, such as a county official’s right to go to court over funding. “Nowhere do we find actions where a library determination has been made by the judiciary.” He said there was a case where one county commission voted to fund school construction but after an election the new commission refused to fund it. The court ruled that the first resolution was not binding because the funding mechanism had not been contracted. Jenne said that case involved a School Board decision, not a county commission decision, to build a school.

Logan went on to say it is not the desire of the county commission to not support libraries. Instead, he said, there was a determination of the county’s inability to find funding at this point. That decision rests with the commission, he said, not the courts.

Jenne said the purpose of a Writ is to force a duty to be performed. He said the record clearly shows the commission exercised their discretion to create a library system and thus has a duty to follow through.

Bryant asked if there is any case law about when a legislative body’s action moves from being discretionary to being mandated. She said there is agreement that the commission didn’t have to fund a library but wondered whether a Writ of Mandamus could be sought once it voted to approve property for a library. Jenne said there is nothing in case law other than the wording of the statute that counties shall provide funds once a decision is made. He said he would research further. Bryant said a key question is whether the county can choose to take its decision back, especially if others relied on the decision.

Logan pointed out that when the land was donated it appeared that FOL would build and own the facilities. As it evolved, he said, it was to be owned, built and maintained by the county rather than having the county support FOL.

He further said that acts of the county commission are not binding until a record of evidence is made. He said the Letter of Intent was approved but never made. It doesn’t exist, he said, adding that tacit approval and suggestions are insufficient to bind the commission. He added a Letter of Intent is not binding anyway, that it is not a contract. “The county commission would love to have a library system, but it has suffered a substantial loss of revenue,” he said, adding, “This court can’t intervene and set a level of funding.” He said there’s a good reason that there is no case law on this situation -- because it is a legislative act.

Love said the commission read the Letter of Intent and voted to send it. “They said they would support the libraries,” she said, and based on that vote the state provided services and a grant to the county and private foundations provided funds and grants.

Logan insisted the law does not give the courts the power to force a level of funding.

Bryant said she will ruled first on the question of jurisdiction. If she rules that the case does not belong in Chancery Court, Jenne asked that it automatically be moved to Circuit Court. If she keeps the case in Chancery Court, she will rule on the other motions for dismissal before the case itself will be argued.