County argues approval of taxpayer-funded legal contracts is discretionary under Oklahoma law.
OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma County commissioners are asking a district judge to reject Sheriff Tommie Johnson III’s request to compel approval of an outside legal services contract, arguing Oklahoma law gives the board discretion over taxpayer-funded legal contracts and does not require automatic approval.
The Board of County Commissioners filed a 22-page response Monday in Oklahoma County District Court opposing Johnson’s request for a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary court order used to compel a public official or governmental body to perform a legal duty. The commissioners argue the sheriff has failed to establish that state law imposes a mandatory duty requiring the board to approve his proposed contract.
The filing is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute involving Johnson, the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority and county commissioners over legal representation and responsibilities related to inmate transportation.
Commissioners challenge sheriff’s interpretation of state law
The dispute centers on Oklahoma statutes governing when county officers may retain outside legal counsel.
According to the commissioners’ filing, state law authorizes county officers to seek outside legal representation under certain circumstances but separately requires Board of County Commissioners approval before contracts for outside counsel become effective. The board argues that approval is a discretionary function intended to protect public funds rather than a ministerial act that must be granted upon request.
The filing contends Johnson’s interpretation would effectively eliminate the board’s statutory oversight by reducing its role to a “rubber stamp” for contracts involving taxpayer dollars. Commissioners argue the law allows them to consider factors including cost, necessity, potential conflicts of interest and fiscal responsibility before approving an outside legal services agreement.
The board also argues that a writ of mandamus is inappropriate because Oklahoma courts generally may compel a public body to perform a mandatory legal duty but cannot direct how discretionary authority must be exercised.
Filing cites attorney general’s decision
As part of their response, commissioners attached a June 5 letter from the Office of Attorney General Gentner Drummond declining Johnson’s request for a recommendation supporting the retention of outside counsel under a separate state statute.
According to the letter, the attorney general concluded such a recommendation was not appropriate because the dispute involves county officials and governmental entities, the Board of County Commissioners had already declined to approve the proposed contract, and the Sheriff’s Office already employs in-house legal counsel. The letter also states that recommending outside counsel could increase taxpayer costs because other county entities would likely require separate legal representation.
Commissioners argue the attorney general’s decision further supports their position that Johnson is not entitled to court-ordered approval of the contract.
Broader dispute continues
The outside counsel dispute is part of broader litigation between Johnson and the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority concerning inmate transportation responsibilities following the sheriff’s effort to terminate an agreement under which sheriff’s deputies transport detainees between the Oklahoma County Detention Center and district court.
The commissioners asked the court to deny Johnson’s request for a writ of mandamus.
