Judge dismisses CMU contempt order

The Canton Mayor and Board of Aldermen won a temporary victory Tuesday when Chancery Court Judge Cynthia Brewer threw out an order of contempt filed by three ousted Canton Municipal Utilities board members as controversy continues to brew over who is serving on the utility board.

On May 1, Judge Cynthia Brewer granted a temporary restraining order filed by the CMU board members — L.C. Slaughter, Cleotha Williams and Isaac Jackson — which barred the aldermen "from conducting Special Call Meetings on the issue of appointment of Mayor Pro Tempe and Removal of CMU Commissioners until further Order of this Court."

Brewer's ruling also voided any actions the board took during specially called meetings on April 27, April 28 and April 29. It was at those meetings that aldermen voted to remove and replace the three plaintiffs from the CMU board and, subsequently, to overrule a veto from Mayor William Truly regarding those appointments.

Aldermen voted to oust the CMU members following a controversial hire of a new CFO for the utility that's related to the Jackson. When aldermen questioned the hire, the CMU board voted to fire Gilkey from his CMU post and General manager Stephen Thompson.

Brewer's initial ruling also set up a hearing on the matter for Tuesday in which Slaughter, Williams and Jackson had to present evidence to keep the temporary order in place.

Ward 2 Alderman Fred Esco, Ward 3 Alderman Les Penn, Ward 4 Alderman Daphne Sims, Ward 5 Alderman Timothy Taylor and Ward 6 Alderman Eric Gilkey — all named in the restraining order — answered the summons, but Esco was the only one Brewer called into the preceding, which was held under new guidelines provided by the CDC because of COVID-19.



Of the three CMU board members, only Jackson was called into the hearing. City Attorney Kim Banks represented the aldermen in their official capacity, while Ed and Barbara Blackmon argued on behalf of CMU.

Ultimately, Brewer took just four hours to render her decision to throw out the restraining order, writing in her ruling that the matter was before the wrong court.

Citing existing precedent, Brewer wrote that it "requires the plaintiffs to seek redress within the remedy of the law offered within Circuit Court jurisdiction, where they may argue the legality or illegality of actions of these named defendants, regarding meetings of (April 27 and April 29)."

It was unclear as of press time whether the defendants intended to refile the motion in Circuit Court. Jackson could not be immediately reached for comment.