Supervisors Immunity arguments denied, Removal Petition moves forward

On January 2nd Judge Bruce D. Albertson filed a written decision on dueling motions in the citizen’s Removal Petition against two Warren County Supervisors not retired or turned out of office in the new year. The Removal Petition targeting the entire elected county board was filed on October 18. However, after retirements and the November Election result only two of the then-sitting supervisors, Happy Creek’s Tony Carter and the Fork District’s Archie Fox who were not up for re-election in 2019, remain impacted by the Removal effort.

For Supervisors Tony Carter and Archie Fox, the criminal allegations of municipal negligence are behind them, but the civil court fight to retain their board seats continues. Royal Examiner File Photos/Roger Bianchini

Judge Albertson gave the petitioners, now represented by Rockingham County Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Parker (and privately-secured attorney Timothy Johnson), 21 days to file an amended petition; and denied a defense motion seeking dismissal of the Removal Petition against County Supervisors on claims of Legislative Immunity and Separation of Powers.

The court ruled that, “legislative immunity does not apply to exempt the governing bodies of localities when there have been allegations of ‘unauthorized’ appropriation or misappropriation of funds,” continuing to observe that, “In this case embezzlement is the main contention of the petition for removal. Therefore, Respondents (defendants) cannot succeed on a plea of legislative immunity in this case for that reason as well.”

As to the separation of powers argument that the judicial branch of government should not be involved in interfering with the legislative branch process, Judge Albertson split some fine legal and political hairs.

“In this case, if the Court were to find against the Board on all counts and award the full relief sought, no legislative act would occur. The Court would be exercising ‘the essential function of the judiciary – the act of rendering judgement in matters properly before it’ and not ‘the function of statutory enactment, a power unique to the legislative function.”

EDA civil and criminal case Judge Bruce D. Albertson has ruled the citizen Removal Petition against two remaining County supervisors has grounds for an amended filing and further judicial scrutiny.

In prefacing that observation the judge wrote that, “the separation of powers doctrine and legislative immunity are distinct concepts lying with separate entities: the first establishing our form of government and ensuring the protections of the people against aggrandizement leading to tyranny, and the second ensuring the independence of a legislator. One belongs to and is for the benefit of the people while the other belongs to and is for the benefit of the individual legislator.”

So, Judge Albertson appears to be ruling that in cases of alleged misappropriation of public funds, neither the legislative immunity nor separation of powers doctrines can be utilized to protect legislators from legal scrutiny demanded by their constituents.

As to the rewording of the original petition the judge noted that during the December 17 motions hearing both sides agreed that several paragraphs reference “inapplicable statutes” because while Warren County has an elected county board, its legislative-administrative form of government is not categorized as a “county board form of government”.

“As a result, the Petition does not outline a cause of action as currently written with regard to those paragraphs,” the judge wrote, adding that, “The Commonwealth asserts that other statutes and authorities implicitly impose some or all of the duties outlined in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, so leave to amend is granted.”

So amended to reference the proper codes the Commonwealth asserts will support the Removal Petition’s claims of administrative negligence against county supervisors, it appears the case will continue to revolve around the dueling arguments as to whether the county board of supervisors had the necessary level of direct administrative oversight to stem the alleged activities of former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald through 2018 after alleged “red flags” appeared; and more particularly over the final three-plus months of that year.

Citizens seeking removal of two County supervisors believe that myriad red flags regarding former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald, including a February 2018 claim of a three-year run of luck at Charles Town’s Hollywood Casino slots totaling around $2 million, were ignored by those supervisors and their former colleagues.

Those red flags eventually led the County and EDA Boards to contract a financial fraud investigation into EDA finances in September of 2018. Despite that investigation that zeroed in on the activities of EDA Executive Director McDonald, the Removal Complaint asserts that McDonald’s financial authority was not adequately reined in by either her board of directors or the county supervisors who appoint the EDA board.

Now dismissed criminal misdemeanor charges of misfeasance and nonfeasance against past and current EDA and county board members cited McDonald’s movement of $309,000 of allegedly misdirected EDA assets over the last three-plus months of 2018 as the Cherry Bekaert investigation of EDA finances was under way.

McDonald resigned on December 20, 2018, under increased scrutiny by her board in the wake of closed session reports from contracted forensic auditor Cherry Bekaert regarding McDonald’s use of EDA assets. She has since been named the central of 14 human or business entity defendants in what is now a $21.3 million EDA civil litigation; and has been indicted on 32 financial felony counts related to the Cherry Bekaert findings. However, many involved citizens wonder if the EDA investigation’s focus has been too narrow in determining peripheral accountability.

McDonald and a number of her fellow EDA-related criminal defendants are scheduled to be in court on civil and/or criminal motions hearings Friday, January 10.

Removal Petition organizer comments on judge’s motions ruling