Feature Story I

The Revealer Connection

September 26, 2006

Honorable Johnny Ford, Mayor

Honorable Mae Doris Williams, Council-At-Large

Honorable Lutalo Aryee, Councilman, District 1

Honorable Willie Louise Fields, Councilwoman, District 2

Honorable Georgette White Moon, Councilwoman, District 3

CITY OF TUSKEGEE, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX

101 Fonville Street

Tuskegee, Alabama 36083

RE: An Open Letter to Tuskegee City Officials on

THE STATE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF TUSKEGEE.

RATIONALE

This report is a result of the alleged misconduct of the Municipal Court Judge Albert C. Bulls III, and the Magistrate (Clerk) Angela Hamilton, neither of whom seem fit to serve in the positions in which they are assigned. The fact that they are serving in the positions they hold has proven to be a problem for Leon E. “Chief” Frazier as a citizen, based on the way that has been treated by both Judge Bulls and Magistrate (Clerk) Hamilton, combined with the evidence gathered during the past five weeks that he monitored courtroom activities.

In our personal and professional opinion, they are a detriment for every other person who has to do business with the Municipal Court of Tuskegee. That is, unless such persons are connected in a way that identifies them among the chosen few in this city who do as they please.

Before getting into the nuts and bolts of my concerns about the lack of courtroom decorum, professionalism, common sense and courtesy, we will define a few terms that all of you are already familiar with, but perhaps, take for granted as we sometimes do our fingers, toes, or other parts when they are functioning properly.

Citizen: A person owing loyalty, and is entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state, nation “or city.”

Government: The act or process of governing; the administration of public policy.

Magistrate (Clerk): A civil officer with power to administer the law.

Prosecutor: An officer of the court who initiates court actions against criminals on behalf of the people; and, who is authorized to pursue actions until completion.

Judge: An officer of the court, who gives opinions, hears and decides on matters in a court of law, after evidence is heard.

The above terms give excellent definitions of the roles of government and criminal justice officials. When the positions are filled, and the officials are credible and qualified, quality service and protection can be provided for the people, which amount to:

a people whose rights are protected, including the least of these;
a government that develops and administers public policy based upon principles and basic needs and common-sense factors;
a magistrate (clerk), who is credible, qualified and capable of providing quality service delivery and fairness to the public-at-large during his/her efforts to assist in maintaining an orderly community;
a prosecutor, who is credible, qualified and capable of ensuring justice and fairness for every person, whether friend or foe, whether a complainant or defendant in criminal matters; and,
a judge, who is credible, impartial qualified and capable of rendering fair and just decisions in all cases that are presented to him or her by a prosecutor. A judge must be “a notch above the norm” and above any suspicion of corruption, or special favors based on friendships or special interests.

The key terms above are credible, impartial, qualified, capable, fairness and justice. The state of the City of Tuskegee for the last thirty years necessitates—and ought to dictate— zero tolerance for anything less than the best by public policy makers: elected city officials.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this letter is to point out some serious concerns that The Revealer Connection has about the state of the Municipal Court of Tuskegee. The decision to write this letter is grounded in several factors.

First, the City auditors, Carr, Riggs & Ingram, who conducted the 2000-2004 audits for the City of Tuskegee, got our attention when they alerted city officials of what we will label “revenue short-falls” during the below periods, even though revenue and forfeitures increased, according to the auditors during their presentation to the City Council:

2000: Revenue— $204,076

2001: Revenue— $242,144

2002: Revenue— $152,539

2003: Revenue— $ 94,336

2004: Revenue— $ 93,100

The above factors prompt definitions of two other terms:

Corruption: Actions marked by immorality; depraved, opened to bribery; dishonest. Tainted, putrid.

Accountable: Actions that show one to be responsible; answerable.

During their report, the auditors cautioned city officials that attention should be given to the dwindling revenue for the aforementioned periods, especially the years: 2002 through 2004. Please be reminded, the report of the auditors was given almost a year ago, while, to date, nothing has apparently been done in response to it.

In our opinion, Judge Bulls and Magistrate (Clerk) Angela Hamilton must be required to explain how and why the revenue short-falls occurred. Furthermore, a thorough investigation and a comprehensive audit must be conducted to determine the integrity of the court system, as well as the soundness of its revenues and records.

Why, one may ask, should any citizen be concerned about these matters? The answer is simple: there are major discrepancies in the amounts of cash that were collected in 2001, and over the following three years, and nothing apparently has been done about it. Moreover, all revenue collected in this city belongs to the people, plus the fact that all caretakers of such revenues and records are accountable to the people. The following figures show the difference between revenues reported in 2001 and 2004.

The total revenue collected by the Court in 2001: $242,144

$ 89,605 less were reported in 2002;

$147,808 less were reported in 2003;

$149,044 less were reported in 2004.

What happened? Where did this money go? These questions are relevant because the auditors reported that “more tickets were written and more forfeiture occurred” during the latter three years. Furthermore, a comprehensive audit will no doubt show that fines were increased during the four-year period.

To even imagine that the appearance of such gross improprieties could be ignored, or forgiven by a 21st Century government is scary and unacceptable. While it is true that the suspected improprieties occurred on another government’s watch, it is still the responsibility for the present government to make things right for the people. Failure to do so, even if it is in the name of “trying to get along,” or “desiring to not embarrass the city,” makes the present governmental officials a part of the problem, rather than apart from it. As a matter of fact, for this present government to take no action in actuality states that it condones the actions and practices of the Magistrate (Clerk) and Municipal Judge during the questionable periods. The truth must be pursued, regardless of where the chips may fall, or on whom they fall.

The following is an example of past practices and methods of operation that contributed to the devastating physical and financial state of this city. This example is presented in a hypothetical manner and not intended as solid evidence to prove a case, even though we have access to the actual theft report:

A city employee was assigned to the Utilities Board finance department in the year 2000. He was assigned the night deposit collection duty. He reportedly stole approximately $3,000.00. The theft was discovered and reported to the Tuskegee Police Department. A detective contacted the suspected employee and questioned him. As the detective questioned the employee’s practices, the employee was questioning if he could contact the Mayor. The detective reportedly concluded that the employee stole the money. The detective left and the employee went to the Mayor. Shortly thereafter, the Mayor contacted the detective. The detective was told to drop the investigation, and that the employee would be allowed to pay the money back. The detective reluctantly concluded his investigation with a supplemental statement indicating that the Mayor ordered the investigation closed. When asked about restitution, the former Mayor referred Frazier to the City records.

~ Continued on next page ~