Archives

Who represents the citizens of Charlotte County?

   Written by on January 8, 2015 at 11:18 am

For the past four years the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors has been negotiating with Judge Joel C. Cunningham regarding “upgrading the Charlotte Court Facilities. “  Although I don’t always agree with the board it is a fact that they were elected by the citizens to represent us. Each of us has a representative and each of us has the opportunity of addressing the board to share our opinions and experience.

government grumblingsWith regard to the courthouse proposals, our elected officials, our citizens and our taxpayers are being ignored. Apparently in the eyes of the court, our job is to “just shut up and pay for it.”  This seems to be in direct conflict with the constitutional mandate of “no taxation without representation.”

If the county is forced to spend money regardless of the position of the elected officials we are being taxed without representation.

 The Charlotte County Museum Board has also involved itself in the process. Although I absolutely support the right of each member of the Museum Board to address the Board of Supervisors and to be involved in the process individually and collectively, I have to wonder “what took ‘em so long?”

This issue has been in process for almost four years. This newspaper has repeatedly urged citizens to get involved in the issue for over two years. One member of the Museum Board has called repeatedly urging me to “get involved.” Each time I explained that it is my job to report the situation, NOT lead the battle. This person explained that since he is “an officer of the court he cannot afford to antagonize the judge.” Oddly, the Museum Board’s position happens to be exactly what Judge Cunningham proposed.

Other people involved are part-time or former residents of the county who only get involved after decisions have been made.

Finally, Judge Doherty ruled the five-member panel recommended by the Board of Supervisors was improper because of possible conflicts of interest in that one member is the brother-in-law of a Supervisor and another is on the board.

It is interesting that Judge Doherty does not consider Ford Stephens, who represents the State of Virginia and who has been involved courthouse litigation in other localities, to be biased, or the fact that Stephens retained the architectural firm who offered the county a courthouse plan that was rejected to be unbiased.

It appears that the deck has been stacked in favor of Judge Cunningham but any attempt to level the field is improper.

Who is looking out for the rights of the taxpayer?

Leave a Reply