It is time for the County Commission to "take the bull by the horns" and do its job related to the Sheriff | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    An incident last week in the Beaufort County Jail has profound significance, in our opinion. Sheriff Alan Jordan severely abused his authority by having a Beaufort County commissioner forcibly removed from the jail simply because the commissioner disagreed with a decision that was proposed.

    You can read the news report of the incident by clicking here.

    Here's the perspective from which we think that incident should be viewed:

    First, Jordan had no authority to order Richardson out of the jail. The jail was empty of prisoners. Richardson was in the jail in an official capacity as a member of the Board of Commissioners inspecting the facility to see if the necessary repairs had been made to comply with a judge's order. He had been "invited" by the County Manager, who had also invited all of the other commissioners and some staffers to inspect the jail. Given that, Jordan had no authority to expel anyone of those individuals.

    Secondly, Jordan ordered legally excessive force to remove Richardson. According to a legal expert with whom we conferred, the use of force is legal only to remove or respond to an imminent threat or only when necessary for the officer to carry out his duty. Neither of those elements was present in the incident. We were also told that "best practices" training of law enforcement officers indicates that the subject should be warned and given an opportunity to comply before any force is used (defined as physical contact, restraint or preventing a person from freedom of movement). The use of force is never to be used unless the situation dictates that an imminent threat exists that would preclude a warning. We were told that Jordan's actions are consistent with the legal elements of assault and perhaps assault and battery. It does not matter, we were told, if Jordan himself did not use force, but only that he ordered it or did not stop the illegal use of such force. Richardson has told us that he does not, at this time, intend to file charges against Jordan.

    Thirdly the use of authority "under color of law" to intimidate, restrain or compel involuntary action was not proper, we were told, if the reason was a verbal disagreement. In this instance, the disagreement was within a discussion among several appropriate officials about how many prisoners should be returned to the jail when it re-opened. Jordan took the position that he and he alone would decide how many to bring back. Richardson disagreed with bringing more prisoners back than the state permit allows for the jail. Aside from the wisdom of such a decision, the relevant issue is why Jordan felt he had the authority to use armed, uniformed law enforcement officers to retaliate against Richardson's disagreement.

    Clearly, Jordan abused his lawful authority.

    But beyond the legalese, common sense would indicate that Jordan made a very poor judgment. It was totally uncalled for. Richardson is a pain in the neck to some officials because he does not hesitate to criticize them or say what he thinks. But using armed force is not a real smart way to respond to such antagonisms.

    In this particular situation Richardson has every reason to be concerned about "overpopulating the jail." The judge order that the jail comply with state standards. The number of inmates is dictate by state standards. Jordan was essentially proposing to violate the court order and jeopardize the county's compliance with the state. Beyond that, given the safety problems of recent months, violating those standards raises serious liability issues.

    But applying common sense, we would also reiterate what a reader commented on in the article linked above. Jordan obviously planned a confrontation. Why else would he have had three armed deputies in a meeting to discuss management issues? As Bubba would say, he came loaded for bear.

    But what makes this so egregious, in our opinion, is that it is not the first time Jordan has "lost it" and used bad judgment in the use of law enforcement authority. Even a cursory review of our archives here will reveal more than a dozen stories of the inappropriate abuse of authority by Jordan or those under his direct supervision. Those abuses not only include unlawful force, but violations of various laws. We have documented dozens of examples of his violation of the public records law, on matters as simple as refusal to provide access to police reports, even if redacted and after an investigation was closed. We note that Jordan did not attend the recent seminar conducted by School of Government experts on public records and open meetings.

    Seldom does a month go by that we are not contacted by someone with a complaint against Jordan or members of his department under his supervision. He even refused to disclose public records such as inventory and financial accounting of evidence confiscated and funds used to purchase illegal substances. This is clearly a violation of the law.

    We have reported on several instances of Jordan being observed in apparent violation of traffic laws. We know he has been stopped at least twice by Washington Police officers but their superiors, all the way to the City Council, have covered up for him. We have reports of his having been seen speeding excessively on a motorcycle fitting a description of the one he was said to own at the time. One of our reporters has personally observed him violating the speed limit in his county-issued vehicle while simply returning to the office.

    None of these incidents in and of themselves is alarming but taken together they are indicative of a pattern that exhibits a dangerous "I can do as I please" attitude.

    There are other things we have been told that we are not at liberty to disclose but we will suggest that if they are true to any significant degree they raise serious questions about his fitness to serve as a sworn law enforcement officer, or even possess a weapon as a civilian.

    While we cannot confirm his unfitness, we do think the symptoms of his behavior, including this most recent incident, which a reasonable person might conclude was driven by anger-management problems, gives cause for an objective investigation into his fitness to serve as a law enforcement officer. A Sheriff who uses armed officers to intimidate or bully a public official doing his duty, simply because the official disagrees with him, is totally unacceptable and gives sufficient rise to serious questions of fitness to serve in a position of authority. This is certainly clearly enough that the appropriate officials should investigate and either take appropriate restrictive action or exonerate the Sheriff. We think that to be the duty of the County Commission.

    In recent years similar situations have arisen in other counties. In Henderson County in 2012 the County Commission stepped up and ultimately forced the Sheriff Rick Davis to resign. You can read about that story by clicking here.

    You will note, if you read to the second page, you find an explanation of how a sheriff can be removed from office in North Carolina. It says:

    According to state law, a sheriff can only be removed from office by a Superior Court judge if the sheriff neglects or refuses to perform his duties, is guilty of misconduct or mal-administration in office, corruption, extortion, conviction of a felony or is convicted of being intoxicated, according to Jeffrey Welty, assistant professor of public law and government at UNC Chapel Hill.

    Before a judge can act, five qualified citizens in the county must file a petition with the county's clerk of Superior Court. A judge may suspend the accused sheriff from office, based on that petition.

    As you read the rest of the story in Henderson County you find that Sheriff Davis eventually "retired" on medical disability. Clicking here to read more about that story.

    We think what is most significant about the Henderson County situation is the leadership role the County Commission took. Beaufort is an entirely different story. The Beaufort County Commission has been excessively negligent in providing oversight of the Sheriff's Department. In fact, there is almost no oversight. Even with the main lever of power, the budget, the Commission appropriates funds to the Sheriff but provides almost no oversight of how those funds are actually used, except in rare instances. The Commission recently voted 5-2 to refuse to appoint an oversight committee for the Sheriff's Department.

    But just this past week the Board of Commissioners directed the County Manager to have a video made of the condition of the jail before prisoners returned. Jordan refused to all the videographer to do so. It remains to be seen what the Commission will do about that insubordination.

    It has been reported that Jordan has stated on previous occasions that he and he alone is responsible for the jail. That, according to the expert with whom we talked is not true. "Yes it is his duty to manage the jail. But it is also the county's (Manager and Commissioners) duty to oversee the management of all county departments" we were told. "It is similar to the duty of a school principal to administer his school. But he certainly can't legitimately tell the superintendent and board members that they can't enter his school," he said.

    We were also told: "The Sheriff is a constitutional officer. That means that his office cannot be abolished by the County Commission. But he has no authority except that which is delineated in the statutes to him. He has considerable authority but it is not plenary. It is enumerated. He can do only what he is authorized to do. And he has no more authority to enforce the law any differently than any other sworn law enforcement official has." He went on to say that the Sheriff has no fiscal authority except as prescribed by law. "The County Manager, County Finance Officer, and Board of Commissioners have fiscal authority over the Sheriff's budget."

    Other county functions that take a comparable chunk of the budget have oversight. The schools have an elected board of education. The Health Department and the Department of Social Services have appointed oversight boards. Smaller (budget and personnel) departments are directly accountable to the Board of Commissioners through the County Manager. But no such policy or fiscal oversight exists of the Sheriff's Department in Beaufort County.

    Readers may recall, for example, Sheriff Jordan spending over $5000 of county money in a law suit to collect a $350 gym fee from a former deputy, only to lose in his efforts to bully the deputy. At the time the County Commission had no policy on county department heads incurring legal expenses against the county. And then there are the law suits against the county because of actions by the Sheriff's Department - most of which have been kept quiet by the Commission, which has dealt with them in "closed sessions."

    The County Commission has a duty to provide proper oversight of all departments of county government. It should go without saying that this includes fiscal matters. But it also includes policy matters. Without an elected or appointed policy making board overseeing the Sheriff's Department, the Commission should establish basic policies for the Sheriff's Office, particularly where that department imposes liability risks on county taxpayers.

    It really comes down to whether Alan Jordan is competent to control his anger and legally exercise his legal authority. He did not do so in the jail on September 6, 2013. The County Commission should now do its job of guaranteeing the People of Beaufort County that the man is fit to continue to serve in that office. If it cannot do so, it should ask a Superior Court Judge to remove him.