THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, February 11, 1997 TAG: 9702110012
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 53 lines
In most cases, the way to dispense with the services of an elected official is obvious. Don't re-elect him. But some behavior in office is so egregious that waiting until the next election to make a change is not tolerable. In Virginia, the emergency escape hatch is the recall.
It's time for Portsmouth Circuit Court clerk Walter Edmonds to step down. But if he doesn't, it's time for Portsmouth voters to begin thinking about a recall. Edmonds, who is paid $87,402 a year, has indulged in a pattern of behavior that is unacceptable in a public employee. A Virginia Supreme Court report has detailed the dismal record of his office. Yet Edmonds appears to be unrepentent or in denial.
And because he was elected in 1995 to an eight-year term, Portsmouth could be forced to endure a badly underperforming clerk of courts office until 2003, if nothing is done.
In a 62-page report, the state Supreme Court described these serious shortcomings in Edmonds' office:
A defendant who should have been released instead was incarcerated for months.
A man on probation was wrongfully arrested when a clerk erroneously issued an arrest order.
Some court fines could not be collected because they were improperly recorded.
Three thousand criminal and civil cases were incorrectly listed as pending.
Edmonds was frequently absent, missing 40 work days - almost half - between March 18 and July 31 last year.
Lack of staff training led to violations of state codes, clerical errors, misplaced files and misinterpretation of court instructions.
Cases languished on the docket for several years because they were not scheduled for hearings and trial.
Edmonds, 63, has served the city for 27 years, but clearly he is no longer on top of the job. Sloppy record-keeping, disorganization, absenteeism and errors resulting in undeserved arrest and incarceration add up to grounds for dismissal. No one objects to stern justice, but careless injustice brings the whole system into disrepute.
To recall Edmonds, petitioners would have to gather the names of registered voters equal to 10 percent of the vote in the last clerk's race. There were about 19,500 votes cast, so a petition would require about 2,000 signatures.
At that point, the justification for removal would be presented to the court. The report of the Supreme Court's investigation would form the core of such a case. A judge of the Circuit Court would try the case.
It is not pleasant to suggest that a long-serving public servant step down or be subjected to recall, but the record described in the Supreme Court's report suggests the people of Portsmouth will be ill-served if the office of clerk of courts is entrusted to Edmonds for another six years.