Speech to Warren County Board of Supervisors 12-20-2011

Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, good evening,

The most effective way to defeat the good old boy regime is for citizens to reject its lies and “live in truth.” This means, first of all, telling the truth in answer to official propaganda, but also behaving as if ethical conduct — which most good old boys claim to respect — can not be taken for granted.

The State BAR Association observes, "A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation."

Doug Napier became full time County Attorney in July, 1998. The Board of Supervisors voted and signed a written employment agreement. Section 2-C of this agreement states: "[...] THE EMPLOYEE AGREES TO REMAIN IN THE EXCLUSIVE EMPLOY OF THE EMPLOYER [...] AND NEITHER TO ACCEPT OTHER EMPLOYMENT OR TO BECOME EMPLOYED BY ANY OTHER EMPLOYER [...]."

For the next 8 years County Attorney Doug Napier violated Section 2-C at least 269 times by accepting employment from private clients. I have provided you with a chronological list of courthouse records proving these 269 violations. My spreadsheet has red flags identifying Napier's private clients who had official business before the governing authorities of Warren County. My spreadsheet does not show the numerous times Napier's client Ron Llewellyn presented his business interests before Warren County agencies and boards.

Some authorities suggest Napier had permission to violate his employment agreement. This can not be true. The 1998 agreement was renewed in 2003 and contained the same Section 2-C prohibition. Where is this record of permission kept? Who authorized it? Why is it not in the public record?

Who nominated Mr. Napier to become Town Attorney? Was it Mr. Holloway? Was the Town Council aware of Napier's decades long history of attorney client privilege with Warren County, with developer Ron Llewellyn, and with Napier's most recent employer with offices at 35 N. Royal Ave?

It was Mr. Holloway who nominated Ron Llewellyn to a seat on the real estate-buying and selling EDA Board of Directors. Llewellyn is a risk to the public's best interests because he is himself a real estate buyer and seller. Joining Llewellyn on the EDA Board are a banker with millions of dollars to lend and a second land speculator also busily engaged in the buying and selling of real estate. Connecting these 3 EDA board member dots is a lawyer, Mr. Napier, who has a decades long history of providing these parties with private legal services. And, perhaps, private legal advice?

Why do governmental authorities create such high risk situations by appointing people as custodians of taxpayers money who are:
(A) people owed tremendous amounts of money
(B) who are people who owe tremendous amounts of money
(C) who are people with financial interests in those very activities they are supposed to be monitoring
(D) who ALL have shared a lawyer who now works at the very heart of government who has privately represented each of them.

What should we make of these 269 violations by Mr. Napier? The State BAR Association observes, "[...] It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law. [...] It is professional misconduct to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law."

I will reccommend to the Town Council they rescind its appointment of Mr. Napier, taking the first of many steps needed to restore good governance tied not to private interests, but to public interests. In such a heated convergence of private interests, all the recusals in the world are not adequate to protect the taxpayer from the good old boys.

Bill Pierceall