By Stephen Smoot
In 1955 to lay intellectual groundwork for his later run for the presidency, United States Senator and recipient of the Navy and Marine Corps Medal and Purple Heart John Fitzgerald Kennedy (or more likely historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.) penned a classic historical interpretation called “Profiles In Courage.”
With clear diction and strength of purpose, the book lays down examples of political courage seen in the US Senate. One minor actor in the play was a US Senator and Republican from West Virginia, Peter Van Winkle.
Between his accession to the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination and 1868, President Andrew Johnson grew increasingly obnoxious to most Americans. Even his supporters once defended an indefensible speech by suggesting that the President had over imbibed his favorite intoxicant, Tennessee whiskey.
Fed up Republicans conjured a law to “trap” Johnson. They passed the Tenure of Office Act, based on the highly questionable idea that if the Senate had to approve Cabinet and other appointments, that they had to approve removals as well.
They knew that the irascible Johnson sought to remove Edwin Stanton as Secretary of War. Passage of the act, and Stanton’s opposition to Johnson within the Administration, caused the president to remove his official, violate the new law, and trigger the impeachment and removal process.
At the end of the Senate trial, Van Winkle and several other Republicans questioned the Tenure of Office Act enough to vote against Johnson’s removal, ending their own political careers.
Kennedy (or Schlesinger) wrote of him that The Republicans had counted on Van Winkle
“West Virginia’s first United States Senator, and a critic of Stanton’s removal; and for his courage, he was labeled “West Virginia’s betrayer’’ by the Wheeling Intelligencer, who declared to the world that there was not a loyal citizen in the state who had not been misrepresented by his vote. He, too, had insured his permanent withdrawal from politics as soon as his Senate term expired.”
Right or wrong, Van Winkle placed the courage of his convictions over political expediency.
Former Jefferson County commissioners Jennifer Krouse and Tricia Jackson embarked on a much more radical path than Van Winkle, bringing the work of their body to a halt by refusing to attend meetings, preventing establishment of a quorum.
According to West Virginia Public Radio, they objected to the conduct of commission vacancy proceedings “because they were dissatisfied with the candidates eligible.”
WVPR quoted Krouse as writing in Facebook that many in the West Virginia GOP were “incompetent, self-interested, closeted liberals, or some combination thereof.”
West Virginia State Police arrested the two on March 12. They were given a $42,000 fine.
Then on May 1, a three judge panel removed Krouse and Jackson from office. Jefferson County Prosecutor Matt Harvey had filed 42 charges against each former commissioner, using West Virginia State Code 6-6-7 as the applicable law. The statute reads that they “may be removed from such office in the manner provided in this section for official misconduct, neglect of duty, incompetence or for any of the causes or on any of the grounds provided by any other statute.”
Harvey in the filings stated that the two “willfully failed or refused to perform their official duties as County Commissioners” and were “willfully refusing their duty to attend Commission meetings; willfully refusing to uphold their legal duty to appoint a replacement Commissioner; willfully failing and refusing their duty to attend to county business; and, continuing to accept pay, in bad faith, while willfully refusing to attend to.”
Former radio and current podcast host Tom Roten shared that “the real reason revolves around green energy.” Solar farm construction in Jefferson County has sparked heated controversy over their merits and dangers.
Last week, the case against the two got a 90 day extension.
Neither former commissioner can comment on their behalf, due to a condition of their bond forbidding them from speaking about the case to each other or anyone else.
The weight and force of law was brought to bear on these commissioners for taking a stand. Most around the state may not know that Jefferson County has a strong segment of voters with strong conservative beliefs. These voters put Jackson and Krouse into office. Their staunch views were never a secret.
Set aside any arguments about the merits of their stand or lack thereof. Voters chose them and voters should be the only ones to decide to remove them in a case such as this.
Harvey is not the villain because he followed the law as written. Krouse and Jackson are also not villains because they can make the case that they are following the wishes of those who voted for them – in essence, attending to their duty as they see it.
It is the law here at fault.
Practically, a county commission must meet to conduct business and administer the county. Their refusal to join did impede the county government. In such a situation when elected officials’ refusal to participate completely hamstrings the government for a period of time, it should trigger a simple election held at the courthouse to give voters the opportunity to either support the officials’ stand or to remove them from office.
If the voters hired Krouse and Jackson, then it should be the voters who decide whether they support their stand or fire them from office.
The law, however, calls for arbitrary removal from office and criminal prosecution. Regardless of the merits of their stand, facing down the full weight of the state political system and criminal prosecution to uphold a principle does make these women individuals with considerable courage.