Judge weighing revisiting of initial Meza appointment ruling

After hearing 40 minutes of oral arguments and responses to his questions regarding the dueling perspectives presented by attorneys to justify or deny revisiting his April 7 ruling that Jacob Meza could be reseated on the Front Royal Town Council four days after the term he chose not to run for reelection to expired, Judge William W. Sharp took what he heard Tuesday afternoon, May 25, under advisement.

His ruling, which he noted would be given in writing unlike his verbal decision of April 7, will determine whether the Town and Meza’s defense counsel’s demurrer for dismissal of the plaintiff removal petition remains upheld by the court or will face re-argument. Heather Bardot appeared as counsel for the defendants – neither Meza nor anyone from the Town was present for the hearing. David Downes represented plaintiff Paul Aldrich, a town citizen who also applied to fill the vacancy created by Chris Holloway’s election to mayor in November 2020.

Plaintiff Paul Aldrich, right, and his counsel David Downes outside the Warren County Courthouse following Tuesday’s oral arguments for reconsideration of the court’s April 7 ruling Jacob Meza’s Jan. 4 council appointment to fill now Mayor Chris Holloway’s vacant council seat was allowed by Town Charter. Royal Examiner Photos by Roger Bianchini

Bardot began by telling Judge Sharp the defense opinion was “We don’t think we should be here” retreading ground she believes has already been adequately covered by both sides in the courtroom.

Downes countered that he disagreed that all aspects of core issues had been settled. He opened his case for revisiting the court’s initial ruling by pointing to one pivotal issue – Is the office of a councilman under the jurisdiction of council collectively?

Plaintiff counsel added that the 1937 Town Charter where the disputed chapters and sections reside, must be read in the context of its entirety to root out issues of vague or cloudy language. Otherwise he reasoned that “14-year-old convicted felons, living out of town” could be appointed to council. Downes said what began as a simple argument rooted in Charter Section 47 had been complicated through “creative” defense arguments rooted in vagaries of language.

Downes reasserted the plaintiff contention that Town Charter Section 47 prohibits “appointment or election” of former members of council by council for one year after their term in office expires.

“No member of the council of the Town of Front Royal shall be appointed or elected to any office under the jurisdiction of the council while he is a member of the council, or for one year thereafter,” the relevant Section 47 passage reads, continuing to note for an unexplained reason an exception for the position of Town Treasurer. On Tuesday Bardot pointed to the absurdity of the above wording’s implied notion that a council person would be “appointed” to a council seat while they were a member of council. Plaintiff counsel countered that the wording referred to two different actions, appointment to a staff position while a counsel member or reappointment to a council seat after leaving council.

In her Demurrer filing for dismissal, Bardot pointed to Section 6D and related wording on filling council vacancies, such as the one created by Councilman Chris Holloway’s November 2020 election to mayor. “The council may fill any vacancy that occurs within the membership of council for the unexpired term, provided that such vacancy is taken within 45 days of the office becoming vacant,” Section 6D states. No reference to a one-year hiatus per appointments is made here, Bardot noted.

Citing the inclusion of the words “appointed or elected” Judge Sharp’s initially ruled that Section 47 applied only to paid staff appointments, not council member appointments. Sharpe said it seemed clear that the Town Charter’s intent, dating to its 1937 adoption, was not to prevent council members from running for re-election for a year. So, the court sided with Bardot’s stance for the defense that Sections 6 and 9 of the Charter were the applicable sections on council appointments, rather than Section 47.

In revisiting these issues Tuesday afternoon, Downes said it was “dangerous to take one word out of context” in trying to decipher the intent of town fathers 84 year ago. That intent with Section 47’s application to council appointments was to avoid the appearance or fact of political cronyism in council vacancy appointments. Downes raised the specter of Meza’s decision not to run for re-election after a sometimes controversial final two years in office revolving around a vote in support of his employer Valley Health’s $60-million loan application for new hospital construction through the Town-County EDA after initial potential conflict of interest recusals from that discussion.

Rather, Downes told the court Meza cast his electoral future in the hands of his political allies within council, all save one who are fellow county Republican Committee members. Avoiding such appearances of cronyism was the intent of the town fathers who authored the charter in 1937, Downes asserted, as he had on April 7.

Sharp said he remained aware of the desire on both sides to have the matter resolved in a timely fashion and said he would strive to accomplish that with his written ruling this time around. In his April 29 letter to the attorneys authorizing Tuesday’s oral arguments for reconsideration, Judge Sharp explained, “Not a small part of my decision to enter the stay order, and give one last chance for oral argument, is my realization that I gave a very poor articulation of my reasons for my original decision, and I do not want to make that mistake again. It is therefore my intention to give a written explanation of my decision, whichever way it goes, in which my words are more carefully expressed.”

Stay tuned for what may or may not be the final chapter in the Jacob Meza council appointment drama as we await news of Judge Sharp’s written ruling.