CHARLES TOWN — The Jefferson County Commission discussed a draft ordinance requiring people speaking to the commission and its boards on behalf of another to disclose who they are representing during its regular meeting on Thursday.
During public comment, many citizens spoke against the ordinance, explaining that it could have unforeseen consequences that could hurt Jefferson County residents. Jakob Light, representing the Jefferson County Foundation, explained that the draft is too broad and could impact journalism or nonprofits by forcing them to disclose boards or donors.
“The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that forcing advocacy groups to disclose their major factors would be an against federal law and is a violation of the Fourth Amendment,” Light said. “This would cause a chilling effect on political association. This ordinance directly violates basic first and fourth Amendment protections regarding anonymous speech, compelled disclosure and the right to petition government.”
Jefferson County Clerk Jacqueline Shadle also spoke, sharing her concerns about the legal and administrative aspect of the draft ordinance. She acknowledged that the commission's intent is to create transparency, but the draft attempts to legislate and expand the duties of the elected county clerk.
“Under the West Virginia Constitution and state code, the county commission lacks the statutory authority to command, supervise or dictate the operational duties of the clerk’s office in this manner,” Shadle said. “If the commission moves forward with this framework, the administrative and regulatory responsibilities outlined in Sections 5, 7 and 8 must be assigned to an executive employee directly under the commission's purview, such as the county administrator, rather than the county clerk.”
During the discussion, Commission President Pasha Majdi explained that the draft ordinance was meant to simply start a discussion. It was meant for discussion and review, not adoption. He explained that for many years, there were criticisms that draft documents were not made available to the public, so he wanted to open the conversation and work toward a potential solution.
After hearing public input, Majdi summarized the comments into four main categories. First, was spoken applicability, which means they need to make it crystal clear that the ordinance does not require protected donor or membership information. Instead, it’s designed to have those people with business interests disclose that information, especially when the organization is involved in a pending lawsuit. Majdi also said he heard a lot of comments on who gets disclosed and suggested narrowing the focus, as well as reviewing the language when dealing with noncompliance and county authority.
Majdi also further explained that the county received a letter from West Virginia for National Security threatening to sue the county commission unless it changed its votes for planning commission appointments. However, Majdi said this organization is linked to Sidewinder Enterprise, which has a pending lawsuit against the planning commission.
After attempting to submit a public document from the West Virginia Ethics Commission into the meeting minutes, Commissioner Mike Mood suggested having the commission's legal team review it first. After a 3-2 vote, with Mood and Commissioner Steve Stolipher against the motion, the document was submitted. It showed West Virginia Employer Representation and Authorization for West Virginians for National Security, listing Brian Finch, who also works as the federal lobbyist for Sidewinder Enterprise under employer certification for the organization.
“Moving forward, we could have repeated conflicts of interest that constitute corruption if we don’t put strong ethic rules in place,” Majdi said. “So, I would like to see ethic rules that mirror the state ethic rules that help us catch this corruption in real time.”
However, Mood still had concerns.
“I think we are going down a very deep rabbit hole with this ordinance,” Mood said. “While some places may have that... there is a lot more weight to things that will infringe on people’s rights if we’re to move forward with an ordinance like this.”
Stolipher questioned what statute gave the commission power to enforce citizens, businesses and organizations to share this information. He concluded that it was not constitutional and that it was all over local attorney, Dan Casto. Stolipher continued with questions for Commissioner Cara Keys concerning circuit court case CC-19-2023-C-152 and 153. Tensions continued to rise until a motion was made not to move forward with the ordinance. The motion passed 3-2, with Commissioner Jack Hefestay and Majdi voting no.