Austin answers critic on taxpayer-funded legal fees

Editor’s Note: Yadkin County Board of Commission member Kevin Austin responds to a letter published in the last edition of the Ripple questioning the use of taxpayer money to pay legals fees in the ongoing dispute over the proposed jail.

In a letter sent to the Ripple, Austin defends hiring outside legal help to answer what he considered challenges to the constitutional authority of the county commissioners and its actions to build a new jail and the attempt by a state superior court judge to move the process forward.

Austin’s letter follows with information in parentheses added for context and background. 

“Three months ago Yadkin County was on a crash course with infamy. Some people enjoy fame, but trust me, this was not going to be good. Nor was it going to be cheap.

“Following an earlier email request from the former Board of Commissioners Chairperson, Superior Court Judge John O. Craig III had summoned the Yadkin County Commissioners to appear before him to explain why they had not carried out action on a vote they had taken earlier.”

(Craig was appointed by Gov. Mike Easley in February 2002 and was elected in November 2002 for a term starting in January 2003 for an eight-year term. He is a Democrat and attended Davidson College.)

“It is within the court’s inherent authority to see that legislative decisions are carried out, and he intended to enforce the inaction with sanctions, fines and even possible incarceration,” Austin wrote to The Ripple.

“But exactly where are the lines between branches of government drawn? Students of U.S. law and kistory are no doubt familiar with the case of Marbury vs. Madison. It was the landmark case that first declared an act ‘unconstitutional’ and established the concept of judicial review.

“In the case, the Supreme Court determined that Justice of the Peace William Marbury had overstepped his authority when he demanded that Secretary of State James Madison turn over documents.

“The court’s decision helped define the concept of checks and balances and the separation of powers. Just how much can the judicial branch interfere with the legislative branch?

“Judge Craig’s imminent action would have resulted in an incredible constitutional powers case. The situation was on the radar screen of many groups across North Carolina.

“James Drennan, professor of public law and government for the UNC School of Government, was watching closely. Executive Director David Thompson and Legislative Counsel James Blackburn of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners had pledged to assist with appeals to any action the judge may have taken against Yadkin County.

“These two groups were highly concerned with the precedent that would be set had the judge followed through with the potential action and with its ultimate impact on the sovereignty of legislative bodies across North Carolina.

“On another level, the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law had also taken a keen interest in the impending hearing. Former Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr, former Superior Court Judge Narley Cashwell and their staff were studying the implications thoroughly. Undoubtedly, they were preparing briefs and opinions detailing the constitutionality of not only what was about to happen, but also of what had already happened.

“Further complicating the issue was the apparent complacency of three members of the Yadkin County Board of Commissioners who seemed all too comfortable with the concept of Judge Craig coming in to imprison, fine and or remove from office at least a portion of their board. Experts across the state felt that any board worth its salt would fight vigorously for its rights, much as Alamance County fought in 1997 when a judge tried to force them to build a new courthouse to his specifications, a fight won by Alamance County.

“The consensus of experts is that the judicial branch does not have the authority to interfere with legislative responsibilities of elected officials. Unfortunately, the three complacent commissioners were granting Judge Craig that power by proxy – by vacating their own rights.

“So what would have happened had Judge Craig followed through with sanctions? It would have opened up a Pandora’s Box of litigation and consequences that Yadkin County would not be able to escape.

“There would have undoubtedly been a tremendous number of lawsuits filed by a great number of interested parties across the state, filed not only against Yadkin County, but also against the three individual commissioners who were willing to surrender their responsibilities to the judge. Though this case contains elements of Marbury vs. Madison, it is different enough that the ACLU might have dragged Yadkin County all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“And what might have been the cost of infamy to Yadkin County? Half a million dollars? One million? Five million? The $27,000 some odd dollars that the county did spend to halt the action was merely a drop in the bucket compared to the mess we were almost placed in. But it did not happen.

“The saga came to an abrupt end, when Judge Craig was informed of all the circumstances, and chose to walk away. The attorneys hired by Brady Wooten and myself and paid for by Yadkin County brought a tremendous amount of information to the judge’s attention.

“Was his exit due to the dangerous territory we were all about to venture into, the revelations regarding the questionable action of others, the selective information he was given, or the possible repercussions?

“Those questions may never be answered, but Yadkin County can rest easy that at least two of its commissioners are willing for fight for what is right for Yadkin County and its people.”