by Ron Gregory
ronjgregory@gmail.com
Perhaps we expect too much of legal counsel to government bodies.
While Richwood and Williamson battle for the title of “strangest town governments in the state,” we are as much concerned about the Williamson attorney situation as anything else. Oh yes, we are alarmed – and have said so – that Richwood city council somehow thinks it can usurp the power of the citizens and remove the elected mayor without due process. In Nicholas, too, is a county prosecuting attorney who allegedly tells police officers to silence duly-elected mayors and their legal counsel at public meetings.
Williamson’s council simply cannot seem to get the simple steps needed to remove a department head, namely Police Chief Barry Blair. One reason council has now stumbled through three attempts to legally fire Blair is what appears to be ridiculously inadequate legal advice.
Last week, council met, went into executive session and when they came out Mayor Charlie Hatfield announced a 3-1 vote had been taken in chambers to terminate Blair. The major problem with that is that even an elementary reading of state law dictates that NO votes can be taken by a public body in executive session.
Mayor Hatfield, apparently a good and sincere man, told media outlets that council voted in executive session on the advice of City Attorney Joshua Ferrell. Ferrell, who claims to be a graduate of the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, perhaps never attended a governmental meeting much less offered legal advice to officeholders. How he possibly came to the conclusion that a public body could vote in secret will likely remain a permanent puzzle.
More outrageous, Ferrell is an Assistant Mingo Prosecutor giving this incredible advice. Get the picture: Ferrell is on the staff of Prosecutor Duke Jewell charged with enforcing the law. Yet, in his capacity as a city attorney, he advises the Williamson council to violate the same law he is charged with enforcing. Does anyone misunderstand why justice is underserved in Mingo County?
This week, after apparent discussions that led the esteemed city attorney/county prosecutor to the conclusion that council CANNOT vote in executive session, a “special meeting” was called. The agenda for the meeting had one item: discussion and vote on terminating a department head (Blair).
Mayor Hatfield called the meeting to order and apparently felt compelled to introduce Ferrell’s partner, Nathan Brown, who the mayor said would be sitting in for Ferrell. Then Hatfield asked for a motion, second and vote on employing Brown as temporary city attorney. A unanimous vote followed with Brown sitting in silence as council acted on an item that clearly did not appear on their agenda. That’s another violation of state law.
Subsequently, council voted 2-1, according to Hatfield’s “official” vote tally, to terminate Blair. The mayor said that verified the firing. However, Hatfield had attempted to vote on the matter as well and originally announced the vote as “3-1.” Councilwoman Sherri Hairston Brown immediately corrected the mayor, saying he could vote only in a tie situation. That’s when Hatfield announced the “official” vote as 2-1. Attorney Brown still sat in silence.
Without saying, the 2-1 vote (one council member was absent) raised the question as to whether it takes a majority of “council” or a majority of a “quorum of council” to terminate a department head. If a majority of a quorum is required, Blair is now finally legally terminated. If a majority of the entire council is necessary, he has not been fired since only two voted for it.
When the mayor hit the gavel to adjourn the meeting, a reporter immediately approached Brown to ask how he could be employed by the city since such action was not on the called agenda. He said he would not answer any questions and neither did the other town officials.
Two Williamson police officers were present, in uniform, apparently designated to enforce the “no-question; no-comment” rule. One told the reporter that he could not ask any more questions. This was similar to Richwood, two weeks earlier, when the police chief told the elected mayor and his attorney that he had been instructed to “take you to jail” if either spoke in a council meeting.
In Williamson, the “don’t ask and we sure ain’t going to tell” policy meant no official could be questioned about which was required: a majority of council or a majority of a council quorum. Frankly, after their recent performances, we would hesitate to ask either Ferrell or Brown for their legal interpretation of that question. We might be told “one” is a majority of “four.”
Incredibly, in Richwood, it was the elected Prosecuting Attorney Jonathan Sweeney who allegedly gave the police chief the instruction to muzzle the mayor and his lawyer. So, are West Virginia prosecutors committed to enforcing the law regarding transparency in public meetings or are they determined to keep the public in the dark? Sweeney has refused to return phone calls or emails to his office asking for clarification of his advice to Richwood. Who could blame him on that one?
To be fair, some governmental units go the extra step in complying with open meetings laws. Kanawha County’s commission, for example, has long insisted that even its boards and agencies must be open and transparent. Those who ignore the rules soon find themselves facing stiff verbal reprimands from Commission President Kent Carper and often, no longer have seats on the boards.
Overall, we still give some benefit of the doubt to both Richwood and Williamson officials. In the cases of both, pitiful legal advice has apparently led to clear violations of the law these attorneys are sworn to uphold. On the other hand, Casper the Ghost would apparently know more about transparency than many of these officials.
Both are sad states of government affairs with no “winners.” Thusfar, only the public is losing.