The Machinations of Mackey (Part Four)

Stonewalling the Vote - Denying the law

A Question and Answer Summary

Last night, the County Commission met in closed session to once again discuss the Mackey situation, the law and the process going forward. Later, a version of that discussion was held in public.

The GOP believe that the 'problems' with the Democrat Party, its Byzantine rules, and various complaints are not related to the duty of the County Commission to 'select' the best candidate for the job of Sheriff. All of the members of the County Commission (D's and R's) publicly endorsed Chipp Bailey. Later, one Democrat, Commissioner Woodard, has indicated that she supported Mackey.

For months I have said that the Commission has the responsibility to pick the Sheriff's replacement not the Democrat Party.

On 12-18-2007 the Board received info in closed session that the law gives the power to replace the Sheriff directly to the County Commission (and not to an Party). This law (162 3) is amplified and clarified by a NC Appeals court decision (the relevant part is cited below):

§ 162 3. Sheriff may resign -  Every sheriff may vacate his office by resigning the same to the board of county commissioners of his county; and thereupon the board may proceed to elect another sheriff.

WestLaw 621 S.E.2d 1, 169 N.C.App. 460, 621 S.E.2d 1, (Cite as: 169 N.C.App. 460, 621 S.E.2d 1)   In North Carolina, the State has no control over the selection of sheriffs. Initially, that is the responsibility of a county's citizens. N.C. Const. art. VII, § 2. If a sheriff wishes to resign, he tenders his resignation to the county commissioners and they may then appoint a new sheriff. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 162 3 (2003). If a vacancy occurs for any other reason, it remains the responsibility of the county commissioners to select a new sheriff to serve the remainder of the term. N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 162 5,  5.1 (2003). The board of county commissioners must also approve the sheriff's bond, and if the commissioners deem it insufficient, the sheriff must forfeit his office, allowing the board to choose a replacement. N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 162 9,  10 (2003).

____________________________________

Question:  So......if the Commission knew on December 18, 2007 that we collectively had that authority why would we need a 'committee' to evaluate the appeals to the State Democrat Party?

Answer: We don't which is why the GOP saw no reason to be involved in a Committee to evaluate the failings of Democrat party's rules. We think it is appropriate for the Democrats to police their own party's actions but that is not related to the selection of a Sheriff which, according to the law, doesn't involve the Democrat Party at all. Parks Helms and Norman Mitchell will be the two Democrats on this 'committee'.

____________________________________

Question:  If the law gives the County Commission unfettered authority to select a Sheriff, why did the Democrats hold a vote on December 6th, 2007?

Answer: Because they didn't know the law, never researched the law and just made 'broad assumptions' that the same process applied to the Sheriff's position as applied to the replacement of Jim Black.

____________________________________

Question: Did anyone in the Democrat Party locally, consult with the County Commission and County Attorney as required by law about this matter?

Answer: No. The Chair, Jennifer Roberts, communicated with David Erdman the Chair of the Democrat Party locally (forwarded a brief e-mail from the County Attorney). There was no communication with the County Attorney directly or with the Board prior to calling this local party meeting. 

____________________________________

Question: Did the knowledge that law and this NC Appeals court opinion gives the Commission (not the Democrat Party) the right only come to light last night as Chairman Roberts indicated today on WBT?

Answer: No. The Commission was informed about the NC Appeals Court case law and the Statute on December 18th, 2007. We have known about the matter for weeks.

The GOP (initiated by Commissioner Bishop and seconded by Commissioner Ramirez) made a motion to appoint Chipp Bailey. That vote was 4-4 (tie).

We believe that if the law gives authority to the Commission, the Commission should exercise that authority. The fact that the Democrat Party locally relied on bad advice and never consulted with the Commission before hand is their problem but does not diminish the Commission's rights under 162-3.

____________________________________

Question: If the Commission 'waits' as the Democrats wish and the State Party affirms Mackey do we (the Commission) have to accept him?

Answer: No. We have unfettered authority to select whomever we wish.

____________________________________

Question: If the Commission 'waits' as the Democrats wish and the State Party DENIES Mackey do we (the Commission) have to have a new "party election"?

Answer: No. The Commission does not require input from the Party to make the selection under current law. Waiting is a waste of time as it is unrelated to what the law says.

___________________________________

Question:  SO.............if the Commission clearly has the authority and we have known about it for weeks, WHY did the Democrats vote against Chipp?

Answer: The Democrats are looking for a political solution that gives them a 'reason' (excuse if you prefer) to vote for Chipp. The 'reason' they are hoping for is a denial of the Election by the State Democrats and voiding of Mackey's selection.

The reason for this delay is to try and patch up the current fight between African-American Democrat activists who generally support Mackey and the vast majority of the rest of the Democrats who do not.  If they voted for Chipp last night, it would have created a rift that they were afraid could not be repaired. So..........they decided to wait, use this committee process as a cover and hope that the State Democrats give them political 'reason' to tell these African-American activists that 'they had no choice but to support Chipp' - redirecting the anger away from the Democrat Pol's in Mecklenburg, bringing them back into the Party so that they will work to get the D's on the Commission re-elected this fall.

____________________________________

Question: Did some of the African-American speakers last night threaten to withhold support for Democrats (including some of the Democrat Commissioners) unless they voted for Mackey.

Answer: Pretty much. It is a fair reading of what was said by some of the speakers.