Something about Tuesday evening’s Democratic Party Executive Committee hearing over Marty Turner’s residency stinks, frankly.
Turner, a first-term Columbus City Councilman, qualified this year to run against incumbent Leroy Brooks in the Lowndes County District 5 supervisor race. Brooks, though, filed a complaint with the DEC claiming Turner did not actually live in District 5, but in District 4 with his girlfriend and campaign manager, which, if true, would mean Turner is not eligible to represent the area on the Board of Supervisors.
A hearing on the matter was held Tuesday at the courthouse and at the end of it, Turner was bounced out of the race. He has filed an appeal of the DEC’s ruling in Lowndes County Circuit Court. We’ll see where that goes.
But in the meantime we are pinching our noses to guard against the foul smell of the whole situation.
To start with, Brooks serves on the DEC — the group that threw Turner out of the supervisor’s race. Granted, Brooks has taken a leave of absence from the committee during his current re-election campaign. But let’s be honest, he has served as supervisor for District 5 since the 1980s and carries real Lowndes County political clout of the Democratic persuasion. He also admitted that “at least half of the people” on the DEC have worked with him on projects through the years. Brooks’ position is that those relationships have “nothing to do” with where Turner lives.
Well. Maybe.
But, by the same token, what does Turner’s performance in two-plus years on the Columbus city council have to do with it? What do claims that Turner has failed to pay his bills have to do with it? What do Turner’s past driving while intoxicated arrests have to do with it?
Brooks presented all of that to the DEC during Tuesday night’s hearing. The hearing was supposed to be about where Turner resides, not a forum for public shaming.
If we consider what evidence was presented regarding Turner’s residency, we are scratching our heads.
Brooks claimed that because Turner’s driver’s license is suspended, he has city officials routinely pick him up and drop him off at his girlfriend’s home in District 4. He claimed Turner has not paid property taxes on the District 5 address since 2010. He claimed Turner deeded the District 5 property to his mother two years ago.
Brooks also told The Dispatch he has “followed” Turner at least once to see where he lives. That seems beneath an elected official, especially one as seasoned as Brooks. (We certainly hope he did not do this “following” in a county-owned vehicle.)
Turner, for his part, presented the DEC with receipts showing that he recently paid an utility bill from his District 5 address. He also presented city documents mailed to the same address, and a voter registration card carrying that address.
None of what Turner showed the DEC proves he does live one place or does not live somewhere else.
But none of what Brooks showed the DEC proves much, either.
What the entire ordeal did prove, though, is that this is not a high-water mark for the local Democratic Party.
We’re not choosing sides. We’re just holding our noses.
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 32 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.