This week, District Attorney Wilson Blaylock decided not to prosecute Darlene Coker, the woman who was accused of stealing thousands of dollars from taxpayers when she was court administrator in Hanceville.
While we understand his logic, we think he made the wrong choice.
The City of Hanceville, Blaylock said, made an agreement with Coker to keep the matter confidential, so it never should have been brought forward for public criminal proceedings. Coker paid the missing money back, and Hanceville’s new administration asked that the charges against her be dropped. Blaylock wants to be consistent, dropping the case against Coker just like he has done in past cases where the victim says, “I’ve been paid back. I’m satisfied, and I don’t want to see this case prosecuted.”
The difference, though, is that this case involves our tax money, which ought to be held sacred. Unlike simple agreements between private parties, where only a few people might be affected, this one involves the public’s money — everyone’s money — and shouldn’t be treated like an ordinary theft accusation. It needs to be prosecuted so that we, the public, can have an answer about whether or not Coker really took our cash.
If Blaylock had said there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute the case, we’d agree with his decision. But that’s not what he said. After a grand jury decided there was enough evidence to move forward, Blaylock based his decision on the old, once-secret confidentiality agreement Hanceville made with Coker back in 2006, an agreement that never should have been made in the first place.
We understand Blaylock’s rationale and respect his decision as district attorney, but we definitely don’t agree with it.
+++
In another story that made the headlines this week, the Cullman County revenue commissioner stepped down from her longtime post for health reasons. Now she’ll be paid disability benefits of nearly $50,000 per year for the rest of her life.
While we appreciate Kay D. Williams-Smith’s decades of service to the people of Cullman County, we can’t help but wonder about the circumstances surrounding her disability. We find it interesting that she was in good enough health to perform her job for 31 years — healthy enough that she ran for re-election for another six-year term — but was unable to perform her job because of a disability just five months after losing the election. We’d like to ask her some questions about that, but she won’t return our phone calls.
We would hope that someone who spent her career receiving a paycheck from the public, and will continue getting paychecks from the public for the rest of her life, would be more responsive to the public’s inquiries.
