My Letter to Forsyth County Commissioners Formally Requesting a Written Response

Two weeks and counting, no response

Yesterday I published a Substack outlining the facts, ethical principles and the law pertaining to an apparent unlawful February appointment by the Board of Commissioners to the Forsyth County Registrations and Election Board (BRE). As I indicated in that piece, in weeks past I have conveyed all of the information contained to each of the five county commissioners. I have spoken with each commissioner concerning this information. I have formally addressed the commission during public participation. Receiving no answer, on August 3rd I wrote each an email formally requesting a written response. In the interim, I thankfully received communication from two commissioners, Cindy Jones Mills and Todd Levent, that they have asked the remaining three to direct county attorney Ken Jarrad to issue a written response. Evidently, it would take at least one of the remaining three to form a majority to direct Mr. Jarrard in that respect. I do not necessarily believe the members of the Forsyth County Commission constantly stand over the work of their attorney, voting on each next work he undertakes, but that is what I am hearing from them. I continue to receive nothing back.

So this morning I publish my letter to the members of the commission requesting a formal written response to my concerns. As you will read, in this letter I preemptively answer the arguments I have already heard from various commissioners, suspecting that these arguments actually originated with the county attorney. It remains to be determined whether the Board of Commissioners will answer this voting citizen of Forsyth County who has voiced legitimate concerns about what he sees as a grievous error the manner in which it has conducted the appointment of the next member of the Forsyth County BRE.

August 3, 2023, 10:10 PM

Dear Board of Commissioners,

This is a request to receive a written response to my email from earlier today, citing the provisions of Forsyth County Code of Ordinances, Article III, Sections 2 and 4. Section 4 clearly states that the Board of Commissioners must CERTIFY to the clerk of superior court that a member to the county board of elections has been appointed as provided in the act. Section 4 does not say the board of commissioners has to certify only certain provisions of the act under its direct control. It says the board must certify regarding ALL of the provisions of the act, necessarily implying that before the board of commissioners can vote on such a nominee, and certainly before certifying the appointment to the clerk of superior court, that board must perform adequate due diligence. The provisions of the act in question are clearly written into Article III, Section 2.

Forsyth County Ordinance concerning the appointment of BRE members

From what I have heard from several commissioners, common practice in the past has been for political parties nominating a member to the BRE, and for the board of commissioners themselves, to ignore those provisions altogether, thus customarily ‘rubber-stamping’ these appointments whenever they have been nominated. I did not say that. That is what you told me. Thus, somehow customarily ignoring the law in the past has opened the door for the commissioners to ignore it now. Hearing from several of you, I understand that county attorney Ken Jarrard is advising board members that what these provisions literally say is not necessarily what they mean, one commissioner last week telling me in answer to a simple question, that the board is relying on “guidance” from the county attorney, and the county attorney has told them the meaning of these provisions “is not clear.” Obviously, I disagree. A 3rd grader can understand what these provisions mean.

And I presume it will be Attorney Ken Jarrard answering my request, if directed by the board. I would just point out to each of you that, if what I am hearing is true about rubber-stamping appointments in the past, the board therefore consistently ignoring the law as written, Attorney Ken Jarrard has been playing his own part in ignoring the law all this time. And I will add, Attorney Ken Jarrard is the one leading this board into potential hot water with the people they represent in Forsyth County, apparently portraying to the board that ignoring the law, as written, is OK because that’s how these appointments have always been done. If I were you, I would not want to be counting on that as a defense.

Another thing I heard from commissioners today is the notion that a political party is somehow a, “private organization,” and as such, the government in the person of the county commission should not thrust itself on its internal activities. Because I have now heard that mantra from three of five commissioners, independent of each other, and because it is so bizarre, I reason it could only have come to them from the same questionable source, who I suspect would again be Attorney Ken Jarrard. So before Mr. Jarrard goes there in his response, everyone should know that political parties vary from private organizations, and for that matter, professional organizations, in numerous overriding, defining ways. For example, a political party is open to anyone who walks in the door. That’s all anyone has to do to join, just walk in. They cannot be turned away. A private organization does not have to accept anyone who does not meet its stated requirements. Furthermore, political parties are regulated by a body of law independent of any private organization to which you might imagine. That body of law is written solely to govern political parties. And whereas private organizations are free to abide by their own rules, independent of any other private organization, all political parties must abide by the same body of rules their rivals abide by. And those rules are laws of the state and laws of the nation, not mere by-laws.

But finally, private organizations have no direct role in governing the people under a republican form of government, guaranteed to us all in Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution. And that roll in governing the republic, in all of its multiplicitous jurisdictions, is the only reason for political parties to exist. So this idea that political parties are merely “private organizations” so the county commission should leave them to their own methods, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE WRITTEN LAW SAYS, is utter nonsense. And because the board seat we are discussing happens to be for the board of elections, the only purpose of which is to fulfill the requirements of Article IV, Section 4, abiding by the laws pertaining to those particular appointments is of paramount importance. Without abiding by those very laws, we have no republic! Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. Either words mean things or they do not. And regrettably, what I here you telling me about Attorney Ken Jarrard is that he appears not to believe either, which indicates the likelihood that he is operating under purposes that do not necessarily coincide with the purposes and will of the people of Forsyth County.

So, right now, regrettably, we have at least three county commissioners who have demonstrated apprehension in conducting a meaningful conversation with me on the subject of this appointment. Two have spoken openly and directly, which I greatly respect, even if we do not agree. The apprehension of the first three appears to be rooted in the prospect that they may say something other than what Attorney Ken Jarrard wants publicly pronounced. When the people have commissioners who fear speaking their minds, and defer so heavily to a county attorney, that indicates to me we need both new county commissioners, AND a new county attorney. From where this 39 year taxpayer of Forsyth County stands, it appears very much as if our county attorney is running our county. That is not a good thing.

So I will be awaiting a written response to my earlier email, taking into account the thoughts I have sent along here.

Thank You very much,

Hank Sullivan