The "Hearing" took place at The Grove.
The hearing itself was extra-legal. Even if such a hearing was legal, it's conduct does not past muster.
We did not have a reporter on scene Tuesday night. We've patched together this account from a variety of sources. If we're in error, it's certainly not, unlike the hearing, purposeful error.
Chairman Spain was prosecutor-in-chief. Joshua Sabo handled the defense. Chairman Spain made an opening statement, as did Sabo.
The charges were read. A vote was then called. Smith wanted to read a statement. One of the more judicious committee members moved that Smith be allowed to do so.
The vote was taken. The vote was 9-1, with 6 abstentions, for conviction.
Initially, Chairman Spain was provided an out when someone moved to adjourn the meeting. That was voted down 9-7.
What's wrong with this picture?
1) No record of the meeting was made (no stenographer);
2) No evidence was presented. As everyone who's watched Law & Order knows, opening statements are not evidence;
3) If you don't present evidence, you can't establish the charges. If you can't establish the charges, no one should have voted to expunge Ashley and Smith.
Why have a hearing if it's not a hearing? If you want to get rid of Ashley and Smith so badly we know a guy that knows a guy, metaphorically speaking, of course.
If Spain has a legal advisor (which we doubt) he should dump him or her. There's no way a lawyer would have advised Spain to proceed with Tuesday's meeting. If he doesn't have a legal advisor he should get one. We always said that it would be best if Ashley and Smith faded away. They don't want to and they don't have to. If you want to get rid of Ashley and Smith, you're going to have to go through the proper procedures which means abiding by the County Committee By-Laws.
Or, like was said, we know a guy who knows a guy.
Have a safe and happy weekend.