Courthouse Plans on Trial: Panel Members Challenged by Citizens

An open meeting regarding progress on the Charlotte County courthouse convened on last Thursday evening, October 29, 2014, in the Randolph-Henry High School Auditorium. While this meeting was not required by the courts, it was deemed necessary by the County Board of Supervisors to offer an informational meeting to the public in order to make them aware of the general progress of the proposal proceedings. Circuit Court Judge Cunningham initiated the original proceedings by filing a show cause against the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors according to the provisions of Virginia code section 15.2-1643. This code section governs the safety and general ability of the court facilities of a particular county or city to meet the needs of the judicial system and the public. It reads as follows:

*****

Virginia Code Section 15.2-1643

§ 15.2-1643. Circuit courts to order court facilities to be repaired. 

A. When it appears to the circuit court for any county or city, from the report of persons appointed to examine the court facilities, or otherwise, that the court facilities of such county or city are insecure, out of repair, or otherwise pose a danger to the health, welfare and safety of court employees or the public, the court shall enter an order, in the name and on behalf of the Commonwealth against the supervisors of the county, or the members of the council of the city, as the case may be, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to cause the court facilities of such county or city to be made secure, or put in good repair, or rendered otherwise safe as the case may be, and to proceed as in other cases of mandamus, to cause the necessary work to be done. The court shall cause a copy of such order to be served upon each supervisor or member of the council, as the case may be. 

B. Upon the entry of such order, as provided in subsection A hereof, the chief judge of the circuit shall forthwith notify the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the entry thereof. Upon receipt of the notice, the Chief Justice shall assign a judge of a circuit remote from the circuit wherein the repairs are alleged to be necessary to hear and determine whether, after consideration of such matters as set forth in subdivisions 1 through 4, the court facilities are in fact insecure or out of repair or otherwise pose a danger to the health, welfare and safety of court employees or the public and the extent to which repairs, if any, are necessary. 

Before a mandamus is issued, if the concerned governing body elects, or if the pleadings allege that the court facilities are in fact insecure or out of repair, or otherwise pose a danger to the health, welfare and safety of court employees or the public, the local governing body shall appoint a five-member panel, three of whom shall be qualified by training and experience as either an architect or a professional engineer, not representing the same firms, to review the court facilities in question and make recommendations to the local governing body and circuit court judge assigned by the Chief Justice concerning the construction or repairs deemed necessary. 

In making their recommendations, the panel shall consider matters such as, but not limited to, the following: 

The existing facilities shall be considered in relationship to their location and the extent of their use, and their failure to meet any of these general considerations shall not necessarily be deemed a cause for determining them inadequate. 

In making their recommendations, the panel may consult recognized national standard works in the field. 

D. Appeals shall be allowed to the Supreme Court of Virginia as appeals from courts of equity are allowed. 

E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize a circuit court to require that an additional or replacement courthouse be constructed.

Reference: For the entire code section, go to: The Official Code of Virginia at:

                     http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+15.2-1643

*****

There has been speculation and even complaint over the County Board of Supervisor’s role in the creation of the five- member panel that would be responsible for the final plans and upgrade proposals that Circuit Court Judge Doherty would review and eventually approve. According to the Code of Virginia, it is the sole responsibility of the Board to appoint the panel. Additionally, the requirements of the code of Virginia are that at least three of the members of the panel be qualified, certified, architects or engineers. There are no stipulations or requirements written for the remaining two members.

Presiding, appointed Circuit Court Judge Robert Doherty, had already made it clear that he feels that the tax base for large scale renovations or upgrades in Charlotte County does not exist. The hearing on September 16th was the first since Judge Doherty, (retired from the 23rdJudicial Circuit) had accepted the appointment to preside over the case against Charlotte County. It was during this first hearing on September 16th that Judge Doherty would set the basic guidelines for the case to move forward. One of the most significant of the rulings was the appointment of the panel that would develop and present designs to the Judge for approval. It is important to note that the qualifications for two members of the panel are the discretion of the assembling body; the County Board of Supervisors. The panel has been created and appointed in accordance with the stipulations of code section 15.2-1643 of the code of Virginia.

Nevertheless, according to court documents, the Board of the Museum of Charlotte County filed a “Motion to Intervene” that would if passed, prevent the panel from moving forward to a goal that will satisfy the needs of the county and the requirements as first initiated by the filings of Circuit Court Judge Joel C. Cunningham. This “Motion to Intervene” also questions the selection of some of the panel members.

The meeting at Randolph-Henry High School did serve to inform the public of the three plans that were presented, and had already been turned down by the Commonwealth. It is true that there was no time for questions from the public. However, it is only fair to all involved to say that of the fifty-nine people that were in attendance, seventeen were directly part of the proceedings in some official capacity. Two were from the press.  That leaves a grand total of forty citizens that actually attended the meeting.  However, a Public Hearing with time allotted for citizen’s comments has been scheduled for December 2, at the regular Board Meeting time.