The Richmond County Daily Journal is not in the business of reporting on Daily Journal business, but a lingering predicament is not only negatively impacting our reporting, but the tax-paying citizens of Richmond County.
Local reporting on city council, school board and the county commissioner meetings is the backbone of any small town newspaper. For years, we have been stymied in our ability to cover the meetings of the Richmond County Board of Commissioners due to a policy overseen by Superior Court Judge Stephan Futrell.
A local administrative order, which bars the use of phones, cameras and recording devices in the Richmond County Judicial Center, and has been selectively enforced by Futrell, has had a devastating, quelling effect on our small newspapers efforts to effectively and expediently inform its readership of their county commissioners’ policy decisions.
This administrative order has a history with the Daily Journal, but it is the muddied language and arbitrary enforcement of the policy which has created problems.
In June of 2021, Judge Futrell jailed former editor, Gavin Stone, and fined then-reporter Matthew Sasser for the use of a recording device during a murder trial. The imprisonment made national headlines. In conjunction with that error, devices had been permitted at random with no clear guidance long before and after this incident, contributing to the confusion that led to the infraction.
In the lead-up to that incident, Futrell allowed electronic documentation at the swearing-in of an attorney, as pictured by Sasser. The swearing-in of Sheriff Mark Gulledge at the courthouse was documented with no proper permit. A visit to the Scotland County Courthouse by NC Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby was captured by the Laurinburg Exchange without any sort of proper clearance. The common thread of all of these incidents, in direct violation of the administrative order? Futrell is pictured in all of these photos. For any sort of good publicity for the court system, Futrell will happily permit illegal activity according to his very own policy, but will condemn a misunderstanding spurred by his own careless enforcement.
In order to get some clarity on where and when devices are permitted, Daily Journal Editor Matthew Sasser submitted two electronic device permits to the bailiffs on the first floor of the Judicial Center on the afternoon of Jan. 19. The bailiffs were at first confused by this request, then directed the reporter upstairs to an ongoing court session presided by Judge Futrell.
The paperwork was handed by Sasser over to the bailiff in the courtroom, who handed it to Futrell. Judge Futrell denied a permit for a reporter to use a phone and camera to cover the Jan. 24 appearance of two individuals accused of murder in Superior Court.
Futrell, as Superior Court Judge, can conduct his courtroom as he likes and deny any devices as he sees fit. While a reporter can still report on the trial, they would not be permitted to use those devices, which is entirely consistent with our understanding of the law.
Curiously, Futrell also denied a second permit for a reporter to cover the Feb. 7 meeting of the Board of Commissioners in the Judicial Center. Both documents were handed back to Sasser by a bailiff unsigned.
For well over a year now, Daily Journal reporters have dutifully followed their understanding of the administrative order, attending commissioner meetings aided only with a notepad and a pen, later double checking quotes and facts using the posted video of the meeting to the Richmond County government website, sometimes months later.
Meetings of the Board of Commissioners are open to the public. NC General Statute 143-318-14 explicitly states that any person may photograph, film, tape-record, or otherwise reproduce any part of a meeting required to be open. Futrell’s administrative order, and his capricious enforcement around the order, we fully believe, is in a violation of this statute and demonstrates conduct unbecoming of a judge. No clear answers have been provided by the Courthouse for this volatile policy which has created an unnecessary burden on the paper’s reporting.
It is in keeping with the American spirit of the First Amendment that open discussion regarding policy decisions is not only public, but open to media and the tools at a journalist’s disposal to provide the most accurate portrayal of the decision-making process. Futrell, while we may disagree with his reluctance to allow us to most-accurately cover events concerning Richmond County such as an ongoing trial, can conduct his courtroom as he sees fit. He does not, however, have the legal authority to prevent journalists from covering commissioners’ meetings that just happen to be held at the Judicial Center.
In Scotland County, our reporter Matt Lamb inquired about submitting a permit to cover an eviction trial. Court officials told him that any attempt to record a trial is illegal (then why is there the available paperwork that we can submit)? To complete the trifecta of counties under Futrell’s jurisdiction, Sasser inquired in Anson County about obtaining a permit to cover any upcoming, compelling trials. Court staff had no knowledge of the necessary paperwork or how it could be submitted. It is certainly in the best interests of Richmond County citizens that journalists not only have the legal right and tools to report, but for there to even be a procedure in place for it to happen.
And there’s many other examples that underscore how little this policy is understood. An Assistant District Attorney invited Sasser to “cover” a group of high school students coming to the courthouse last year. While the ADA didn’t mention any safeguards to protect Sasser from the order, he had knowledge of its arbitrary enforcement from before and was able to get the permit signed that morning. At Lamb’s first commissioner meeting, a high-ranking county employee, unprompted, pointed to a ‘No Cellphones Sign’ and said that the rule wasn’t enforced during Commissioner meetings. Well, it clearly is.
In preparation for the October commissioner meeting, Lamb filled out another permit-device form. Again, there wasn’t clear guidance on how to get proper documentation, but he eventually received a signed permit by District Court Judge Amanda Wilson, and it was made very clear that only Lamb had permission for this one specific time and occasion. When Lamb was unable to attend the meeting, Sasser was left to attend the commissioner meeting without a recording device, camera or phone, a freedom that is available for every citizen under a NC General Statute. Again, this is a public meeting that the newspaper is effectively barred from accurately reporting on.
Commissioners’ meetings are wrought with Constitutional invocations. Elected and appointed officials are sworn in, decisions are made and information is shared that affects all Richmond County citizens. And yet, Judge Futrell has run roughshod over the ability of the paper to record and accurately report on Commissioners’ meetings, leaving us to try to prepare hastily written quotes and statistics for news stories and circling back to doublecheck their accuracy at a later time — Not the most efficient way for journalism to operate.
Judges hear evidence, interpret law, ascertain facts, and apply the law to the facts presented. Judges steer an adversarial system and ensure due process under the law on behalf of the community. Judges do not autocratically prevent journalists from doing their effectively of informing citizens of the discussions and decisions of local elected officials.
Richmond County and its citizens deserve better.