Bad Links?
Other glitches?
Notify Webmaster

Harris: ‘County not my client’

By JOHN MUNFORD
jmunford@thecitizennews.com

Fayette County State Court Solicitor Steve Harris is not backing down from his position not to prosecute local residents charged with violating the county’s sign ordinance by displaying multiple political signs.

Last week, Harris said four of six such cases will be dropped, and the other two are under review to determine whether or not they constitute a conflict of interest.

Harris, whose office prosecutes misdemeanor cases and county code violations, is running for superior court judge in next Tuesday’s election. The two cases still in question involve persons who displayed a sign supporting him, Harris said.

In one of the cases, the Harris sign was removed after a warning was issued but before a citation was written for other signs that were present, Harris said.

In the other case, a sign supporting Harris was at issue. Harris noted that he asked that supporter to take down the sign after the warning was issued, but the person declined.

The four cases were dismissed after the evidence was reviewed with the deputy marshal who wrote them and Chief Marshal C.L. “Butch” Hall, Harris said.

The county’s sign ordinance limits homeowners to no more than one “non-commercial” sign per parcel, with a size limit of six square feet. Harris has said that unfairly restricts political speech by limiting persons to stumping for just one candidate.

To avoid running afoul of the ordinance, some county residents have taken to placing signs for two different candidates together so they appear as if they were one sign.

In a letter to Harris last week, County Commission Chairman Greg Dunn asked Harris to reconsider his position on enforcing the county’s sign ordinance for political signs. Dunn said if Harris doesn’t prosecute the cases, the board “will be forced to seek legal redress.”

The letter continues: “Your position presents a clear and present danger to the administration of justice and the danger is aggravated by the apparent conflict existing between your personal aspirations and your professional duties to your client.”

In a response to Dunn Friday, Harris said he has kept his personal thoughts about the ordinance separate from his professional opinion, saying he was willing to accept any “political fallout” for his decision.

“I knew that this position may not be popular, and may subject me to criticism. That comes with the office. I will not shrink from my obligation to my oath and the citizens of this county for personal or political gain. My oath is to do my job without fear or favor.”

Harris also disputed Dunn’s assertion that the board of commissioners is his “client.” The prosecutor noted that his duty derives from statute, the state constitution and his oath of office.

Harris also quoted an ethical resource, noting, “The responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict. This special duty exists because 1. the prosecutor represents the sovereign and therefore should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of governmental powers, such as the selection of cases to prosecute; 2. during trial the prosecutor is not only an advocate but he also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all; and 3. in our system of criminal justice the accused is to be given the benefit of all reasonable doubts. ...”

Harris also noted that he did not intend to imply that the entire sign ordinance was unenforceable or unconstitutional.

Harris said he would remain available to discuss the matter with Dunn or anyone else who thinks his position is incorrect.

“To date I have had no such formal request,” Harris wrote.