Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 13, 1994 TAG: 9401140041
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BRENDA C. BABB
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Anderson charges that the press convicted Bedford County Sheriff Carl Wells for misuse of public funds without an indictment by the grand jury. Commingling of the public's money is against the law. And after the news media took Wells to court in order to examine his books (a constitutional right they had), the evidence indicated that he did commingle funds. (Wells refused to make this information available in October when it was requested.)
So, if this is a misdemeanor, should the press remain silent, supposing, as some think it should, that Wells didn't know it was a crime? Does that make it OK? Ignorance of the law doesn't excuse other citizens of breaking the law. They're still held responsible. Should the facts not be acknowledged as they stand, even if there's been no indictment and may not be one?
This brings up another problem. Any time we reach a point in any situation where there are no ``checks and balances'' for a position of authority, we're in very real danger if the person in that position sees himself as not being subject to the same laws and rules that apply to other citizens.
Although it's common practice in our country, making law enforcement a political job is not without risks, and we see evidence of this very often. Granted, an elected official has the people to answer to, and they can choose not to re-elect the official again. But many irregularities can occur for a long time without the general public's awareness. Perhaps the system works best if an elected law officer is in charge of serving papers, keeping the jail and providing security in the courtrooms, and the rest of law enforcement is left to hired professionals who do have someone to answer to and whose hired officers have some protection under the law they're hired to enforce. Examples of this are the State Police and city or county police departments.
However one views this situation, I'd rather have a free press. There are many instances in our history where the press brought to light activities that otherwise would have been covered up or whitewashed by the ``good ol' boy'' system.
Gary Babb, who's my husband, Doug Mayhew and Steve Rush, all Bedford County deputies, were suspended for two months without pay and demoted recently. The letters from Wells notifying Mayhew and my husband of this said this was being done because of allegations (from Funk & Wagnalls dictionary, meaning the act of asserting something to be true without proof) of drinking alcohol while in an undercover role three years ago.
Rush was the only officer in the department accused of being drunk (by Beatty Coe, in a bid for a new trial), and this was because he was called from an undercover operation of which he was in charge to investigate the crime for which Coe was later convicted. At Coe's hearing, Judge Sam Johnston ruled that Rush was not under the influence of alcohol at the time. The Bedford County Board of Supervisors advised Wells to investigate his department and discipline some people. In my opinion, this was done in the hope it would quiet things down and make the situation not look as bad for Bedford County.
These officers were then tried, convicted and punished on allegations. Serving at the pleasure of the sheriff, they have no recourse. Therefore, I can't see why this newspaper's Dec. 27 editorial (``Bedford's sheriff in the cookie jar'') on the sheriff's banking practices with the taxpayers' money was such a problem for Anderson when it only addressed facts, not allegations.
Brenda C. Babb of Bedford is the wife of Gary Babb, one of the deputies who was suspended.
by CNB