Red Springs Police Chief Ronnie Patterson and Town Manager David Ashburn are now expected in court in June to defend themselves against a combined 30 misdemeanors concerning the alleged removal of Patterson’s personnel files from Town Hall, an act, if true, that was viewed as an effort to protect Patterson’s bid for sheriff from being torpedoed by an ugly truth.
Although the charges number 30, they represent a single alleged act — and there is the question of whether or not these charges are worth pursuing in a county where justice churns slowly because of strapped resources. It’s a fair question, made fairer by those who say the investigation was political, designed to undermine Patterson’s campaign, and lift up that of Burnis Wilkins, the other most viable option for sheriff at that time.
If that were the intent, then it hit the mark and decisively. We think it’s a strong case that Patterson would be sheriff today except for the revelations that were brought forth not by the discovery of his personnel file, but by what they contained. There is a difference.
We well remember the run-up to the May primary, and the rumors that were circulating — that Patterson had sexually harassed a subordinate while captain of the Red Springs Police Department a decade prior, that he had perjured himself during the investigation, that he had obstructed justice, that he had falsified a worker’s compensation claim, and that the proof of all of this was contained in those files.
We remember too a conversation with a key member of his campaign team, and that person — not us — actually bringing up the accusations, and advising us not to chase this cat’s tail as they were all lies. The lie being told, in fact, turned out to be from this person. There was information concerning all of this in the personnel file, although we want to be clear that there was no finding of sexual harassment.
Patterson’s campaign, in trying to get in front of the story, might have guaranteed that the truth eventually would be known. The campaign, well-organized and quick out of the gate, then began a slide, and when it manufactured a lie about Wilkins using a racial slur, it was indicative that desperation was setting in. That probably gave way to panic when Patterson’s personnel files walked into our office and a story soon appeared.
It is this county’s good fortune all that happened.
The prosecution of these charges is complicated by the fact that the district attorney who pursued them is no longer district attorney and the person who is, Matt Scott, at one time was coupled strongly to Patterson, with both campaigns supported by the same heavy hitters and deep pockets. We always found it an uneasy alliance, but the most important thing for a politician is first getting elected.
Soon the uncoupling began, and the chasm was apparent by the result on May 8. Scott won fairly easily, and Patterson didn’t.
So the question begs: Will Scott’s office vigorously pursue these misdemeanors against Patterson and Ashburn, who have paid little penance in terms of their jobs with that town, or should they be dismissed and bigger fish fried?
We know there are those who don’t believe Scott will push for prosecution. We place ourselves in another camp, not that he will or won’t, but that he will follow his own compass.
The allegations themselves are only misdemeanors, and the penalty, should either or both be found guilty, more inconvenient than debilitating.
But we believe the intent that was behind the alleged act is what deserves punishment, especially since we have a law enforcement officer whose personnel file showed a clear disrespect for the law, and that past transgressions were compounded by a willingness — again, alleged — to remove the damning documents from the town hall.
Do we believe it’s worthy of the court’s time? We do — and even more so in a county where truth routinely is cast aside by those questing for power and public coin.