 |
| McComb Selectman Danny Esch pauses before sitting down at his hearing on Tuesday night. Esch kept his post on a 3-2 vote. (Aaron Rhoads | Enterprise-Journal) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Esch holds on to post: Selectman keeps seat on board with 3-2 vote
By Timothy Woerner | Enterprise-Journal
Posted: 06/04/08 - 12:50:13 pm CDT
Embattled selectman Danny Esch remained in office Tuesday after his peers on the McComb city board voted 3-2 to affirm his residency in the city’s first ward.
“I feel very good,” Esch said afterward. “We prevailed. Mr. Norman Gillis, (Esch’s attorney), showed where my domicile was ... where my heart is at and where it has always been. ... I want to thank all the citizens of McComb for their prayers.”
Selectmen Wade Lamb, Bob Maddox and E.C. Nobles voted to affirm. Selectmen Melvin Joe Johnson and Robert Earl Smith dissented.
The vote, on a motion by Maddox, closed one chapter of a six-week saga that began in April, when Mayor Zach Patterson announced at a news conference that he had been presented with evidence that called Esch’s compliance with requirements to hold office into question.
Requests from Patterson for Esch to produce information clarifying those concerns were instead met with a terse letter that argued election commissioners and voters had confirmed Esch’s right to serve on the board. Esch then started asking questions about the mayor’s own residency.
The date of an upcoming hearing concerning Patterson — authorized by a board vote last week — has not yet been announced.
Had the city board concluded Tuesday that Esch removed his residence from McComb, his seat could have been vacated under Section 25-1-59 of the Mississippi Code.
Evidence introduced by the city during the more than three-hour hearing included utility bills for Esch’s McComb and Kentwood, La., properties, the result of an independent testing of a since-replaced water meter at Esch’s McComb property, a homeowner’s insurance policy that failed to list the Kentwood property as a secondary or seasonal home, and driver’s licenses, hunting licenses and tax returns for Esch and his wife.
The utility bills were two to three times higher at the Kentwood property for most months in the past year. Esch cited a larger property, insulation and a gas-powered heat and cooling system that he said cut electricity costs at the McComb home.
And the test of Esch’s water meter showed it as reading 23 percent of water passing through it, meaning it was malfunctioning but could possibly still provide data to estimate abnormally low usage.
Gillis argued that there is nothing preventing a person from owning multiple residences and maintaining one as his legal domicile for voting, filing taxes or other purposes. He said none of the city’s data addressed the question of whether Esch had abandoned his home in McComb with the intent to remain at the Kentwood property indefinitely.
Selectman E.C. Nobles took an even more direct route, asking Esch, “Where did you get dressed at today? Where did you wake up this morning?”
Both answers were Esch’s McComb address.
Proceedings were generally civil, but provoked reactions from the board room audience at times and included occasionally curt dialogue between combinations of Esch, Gillis, Nobles, Patterson and acting city attorney Ronnie Whittington regarding proper conduct of the meeting. City Attorney John H. “Bubber” White recused himself, citing conflict of interest.
Gillis sparked the first of several back-and-forth exchanges after his opening statement described Patterson’s conduct during the May 1 news conference and special called meeting as “contrary to the rules of decency and fair play.”“Both were calculated to place — and did place — Danny Esch at a disadvantage in the minds of the public that has not been overcome,” Gillis said.
“First, Mayor Patterson is totally incorrect in his recitation of the law of domicile. He has repeatedly told this board and numerous public audiences that domicile is where you sleep,” Gillis said. “Every freshman law student knows that this statement is totally bogus. ... Second, evidence will show that the charges against Danny Esch follow a particular pattern and method which have become very familiar to the people of the City of McComb for the past 17 months.”
“There is no charge against Mr. Danny Esch,” Whittington responded. “There is no presumption of guilt. There is no presumption of innocence. There is a question whether Mr. Esch has removed himself from Ward 1, and that’s all. There is a question of fact.”
“Our point is that there are two factors involved,” Gillis replied, referring to both his legal arguments and Patterson’s actions.
“This board, I respectfully submit, voted to conduct a hearing, subject to judicial review,” Whittington responded.
“That (judicial review) would be the appropriate time” for concerns about methods, Patterson said.
“Well, that’s your opinion, and that’s not the opinion that’s going to govern this opening statement,” Gillis replied.
Patterson shot back, “My opinion in these hearings matter. I’m the presiding officer in these hearings. ... My conduct is not relevant here at this particular time.
“Let me tell you this,” Gillis responded. “Our contention is that in addition to the law and the facts, one of the relevant questions is whether this is part of a pattern of people who have opposed you politically.”
“I will tell you what’s relevant,” Patterson replied.
“You’re telling me, but it’s not going to make any difference,” Gillis retorted.
Later, Esch angrily rebutted questions about the difference in his utility bills.
“We see the same pattern of billed usage,” Whittington said, asking, “Is that not consistent with being located primarily in Louisiana?”
“Well, that’s in your eyes,” Esch returned.
“I’m asking,” Whittington replied.
“To me, no.” Esch bristled.
Still later, when Patterson offered his questions for Esch, Gillis turned to Whittington.
“Will you control your client, please?” Gillis asked.
“I’m not his client, and I will control you,” Patterson replied.
“Y’all are listening to a new lawyer now,” Gillis responded. “We object to the mayor taking charge here.”
“And your objection is noted,” Patterson said, turning back to Esch.
Among Patterson’s questions:
“Did you spend the Monday before (delivery of an April 25 letter) in McComb?”
“I don’t know. Was that the night you looked through my windows?” Esch replied.
Later, after Nobles asked Whittington who could properly bring allegations that would lead to the type of hearing being conducted, he cut off Patterson’s attempt to reply.
“Hold on, sir,” Nobles admonished Patterson. “I’m talking to the attorney. Are you a lawyer?”
In another exchange between Gillis and Patterson, Patterson rejected Gillis’ continued complaints about Patterson’s involvement in proceedings.
“You are highly inappropriate in this role,” Gillis said.
“Maybe you shouldn’t support me next time when I run for mayor,” Patterson replied.
Audience members chimed in at a few points, too.
After Lamb asked why Esch would mow a lawn and pay even a low water bill in McComb if he were living in Kentwood, a man’s said: “So he can try to keep being a selectman.”
Some audience members applauded after one line of questioning from Nobles.
“Is there any real estate agent in McComb that can say this man tried to sell his house?” Nobles asked. “Then what are we here for? ... You can clarify this right now: Do you intend to move to Kentwood? Do you still live in your home? ... That’s all I got to know.”
|
Let us know what you think about this story or topic.
|
Your comment may not
immediately appear on this Web site. We appreciate your patience.
|
|
|
|
|
RSS
amazed wrote on Jun 7, 2008 10:31 PM: