news-record.com

OPINION

Editorial: Hagan takes necessary action

Friday, November 6, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

 

Sen. Kay Hagan was right to withdraw her recommendation of Superior Court Judge Calvin E. Murphy for an appointment to the federal bench.

It was necessary to "avoid any appearance of favoritism from my office," she said in a statement.

Hagan "was not aware that Judge Murphy was hearing a case in which my husband had an interest," she added.

It's reasonable to believe she wasn't. But this story, reported Thursday by News & Record staff writer Taft Wireback, highlights the need for elected officials to examine their personal and family connections very carefully to make sure they steer away from potential conflicts of interest.

Hagan's husband, Charles T. "Chip" Hagan III, is listed as a managing member of Hydrodyne Industries, which is involved in a legal action against the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority. The dispute has to do with the use of water from the Deep River, which the authority impounded to form Randleman Lake. Hydrodyne and other companies that generate hydroelectric power using Deep River water downstream claimed damages from decreased flow. They could receive millions of dollars in compensation.

On Oct. 23, Murphy, a special Superior Court judge from Mecklenburg County, issued a ruling that favored Hydrodyne and other plaintiffs. Nine days earlier, Sen. Hagan had named Murphy as one of three recommended candidates for an open seat on the U.S. District Court for Western North Carolina. President Barack Obama will nominate one for the position.

It won't be Murphy.

"I do not believe he did anything wrong," Hagan said of the judge.

John Kime, the water authority's executive director, doesn't agree.

"It was clear to me that we weren't getting an unbiased opinion, based on politics," he said, asserting that Murphy and other judges involved in the case seemed to be thinking about the opening on the federal bench.

That's exactly the kind of insinuation Sen. Hagan had to refute by removing Murphy from consideration.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

tom phillips

November 6, 2009 - 6:46 am EST

She didn't refute it. She got caught.

dcolin

November 7, 2009 - 4:21 pm EST

Hagan "was not aware that Judge Murphy was hearing a case in which my husband had an interest," she added.

She did refute it.

Either you just don't believe her or dislike her.
Thats your business.

However don't say she did not refute it.

I have been pissed off at her too. But fair is fair.

Don't you agree?

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search