On his first day on the job, new Cullman county attorney Rusty Turner found himself earning his money.

After the new Cullman County Commission lineup agreed Wednesday to retain Turner’s services, supplanting former county attorney Dan Willingham, Turner wasted no time in being about the county’s business, launching an internal investigation at commission chairman James Graves’ direction Wednesday into the recent financial and administrative activities of the county water department’s management.

Turner, who has been associated with Graves ever since Graves was made a defendant in a lawsuit he originally had filed as a plaintiff against the South Cumberland Cooperative District (SCCD) and the Governmental Utility Services Corporation of Cullman County (GUSC), filed an incident report on the county’s behalf from the basement of the water department’s offices late Wednesday night.

The report stemmed from suspicion over the shutdown of water department computer server access earlier in the day, only a short time after the commission took a series of steps to distance itself from any support of the SCCD and its department head, longtime manager David Bussman.

Cullman police chief Kenny Culpepper acknowledged his department was investigating the incident Thursday, but declined to provide additional report information until the investigation had progressed further. An attempt to reach Turner by phone late Thursday was unsuccessful.

The internal investigation began at almost exactly the same time as the server lockout was reported to Graves shortly after he — along with associate commissioners Darrell Hicks and Stanley Yarbrough — had elected to suspend Bussman without pay at the commission’s Wednesday afternoon session. Graves said late Wednesday he had received word that computer servers at the water department’s offices had been configured to lock out access attempts by county Information Technology employees.

That the county can continue to have such access to the water department headquarters on Beech Avenue is a matter of interpretation — and for members of the SCCD utility board, which is striving to maintain its right to exist in a lawsuit appeal before the Supreme Court of Alabama, the county’s interpretation is dead wrong.

“There was nothing to hide, but the fact is that it was South Cumberland District property that was being accessed,” said SCCD board member Dennis Haynes Thursday. “There was a contracted employee of the South Cumberland District who was there last [Wednesday] night; he’s the one who was being pressured to open up the computer system. And he declined to do so. They were asking for passcodes and access codes that would give them access to the system — a system that is the property of the SCCD.”

Haynes, along with the rest of the SCCD board, was adamant that the SCCD has fulfilled every legal obligation that would preserve its right to continue to exclusively operate the water department. With that right comes access: access to employees, access to the building and access to the department’s computers and stored data.

“Certainly, what was taking place yesterday and last night was a direct assault on our right to exist,” said Haynes. “As soon as they [the county commission] took their action in executive session, the decision was made to shut down the computer system. The reason is quite simple: that system, and the information that is on it, is the property of the South Cumberland District. Anyone who tries to gain access to the system, or who enters the building without invitation is essentially in danger of trespassing or committing theft.”

In order for the SCCD to claim a legal right to the water department and its related assets — including stored data — the utility was to have posted a $500,000 supersedeas bond mandated by the state’s high court as a provision of moving forward with the board’s appeal of an earlier circuit court injunction temporarily revoking its custody of the department.

Haynes said that step was taken.

“[SCCD representatives] gave the [bond filing] document to the appropriate person who was to receive that document in the circuit clerk’s office, and there’s nothing else that we can do to fulfill that obligation on our end,” he said. “We don’t work in the circuit clerk’s office, and have no control of what happens to that document once they have received it from us. But the bond was made.”

Circuit clerk Robert Bates said Thursday his office had received the bond application, but he had not yet given his signature — a required step — to the bond documents.

“It was filed, but it hasn’t been signed yet,” said Bates. “I’m getting the advice of attorneys on how to look at it, because this thing is so complicated. A supersedeas bond is the most unusual of any bond. And the way I understand it, if it’s not a good bond, I’d be [personally] responsible for it. You really have to use caution with a supersedeas bond like this. There’s no time frame that I know of [to sign off on the bond] — I want to take the time to make sure I do it right.”

Bates said the courts, and not the circuit clerk’s office, are responsible for interpreting the point at which the SCCD has fulfilled the Supreme Court’s requirement for having posted a bond. The county commission maintains that the bond cannot take effect until it is acknowledged by the court.

The bond, which Haynes said required a note of credit and a loan of approximately $50,000 from a Birmingham bank, whose name he did not know when asked, entitles the SCCD to treat the water department as its own if it is approved by the court. And, he added, the SCCD fully intends to retain Bussman’s services if it can.

“Actually, in our publicly posted meeting this past Tuesday night, we affirmed Mr. Bussman’s employment contract with the county commission,” Haynes said. “We stated in a resolution Tuesday night that, if his employment did end with the county, that we would honor that contract. But, unfortunately, the county commission chose to place Mr. Bussman in employment limbo. He was suspended indefinitely without pay, and that’s about as cruel and onerous a position as any that an employer could put an employee in. For an employer to choose to place an employee under indefinite suspension, without pay, is beyond my believing.”

Bussman declined to comment on his status late Thursday, but offered to discuss the matter further early next week.

* Benjamin Bullard can be reached by e-mail at bbullard@cullmantimes.com or by telephone at 734-2131 ext. 270.