After a shortened news cycle two weeks ago for a visual statement about the deterioration of the state’s news landscape, followed by last week’s dedication of all available space to sharing the story of an honored WWII Veteran, I came into this week almost feeling like I took a vacation. When I returned to my desk, like anyone returning from an absence, the grindstone had not decreased in size, so let’s get back to work and recap after this brief mid-season break.
Topping this week’s headlines, with no real shock to readers, The Fisher County Commissioners Court — the news-gifter that keeps on giving.
I think most who watched this case unfold over the past year have been wondering when, more so than if, a legal reimbursement claim would be coming from the Martin camp. What I am surprised by is that the court chose not to cover those expenses, especially given the requested amount.
This whole thing could have been over less than forty grand, and now, thanks largely to political obstinance, the taxpayers are staring down the barrel of a $250K lawsuit.
I have two words for Fisher County Officials: Damage Control. This case needs to be settled sooner rather than later because there are no victors when a county sues itself, and every hour we spend do-si-doing around the dance floor is billable.
From growing up in the world’s cotton capital on the Texas caprock to the textile mills of South Carolina, I have spent enough time around fabrics to recognize high quality when I see it, and they used more than of few bolts of it to make Russell Lorfing’s suits. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had more than $37,000 hanging in his closet, and every second he spends arguing is one more accessory paid for by Fisher County taxpayers.
Regardless of their motivations, officials looked into the perceived nefarious dealings of an elected representative — an effort I find easy to support. When it appeared there was something there, higher authorities were contacted, and an investigation was conducted.
Evidence was gathered, presented, and action was taken against the elected representative. Per the framework of our justice system, proceedings took place over months and new information was presented that exposed a one-sided investigation, while a more thorough investigation uncovered exculpatory evidence.
As the case seemed to reveal innocence and not guilt, and the elected representative had neither committed a crime nor acted beyond his official capacity, there should be little reason not to cover his legal expenses. Especially since in reverse, what is being asked is that a local resident personally covers the expense of defending an elected official for doing their duty.
It seems as though the Fisher Courthouse can only cooperate in the deconstruction of its own opportunities, as my theory is that at the root of most of the county’s problems, you will find a willful avoidance to communicate and help each other… especially if one doesn’t like the other.
What strange logic to embrace. This is like two neighbors in the middle of the desert. One has a well with no bucket. The other has a bucket but no well.
Clearly, if they share their resources and work together, both will have water to drink. Unless they live at the Fisher County Courthouse, then the neighbors will take turns throwing rocks at each other until consumed by dehydration. It makes me wonder, how thirsty we need to be to change it.