Paradox 2

 

The Alderman Paradox refers to an apparent contradiction in the legal and professional record of Norman Lee Alderman, a long-term public employee in West Virginia. The paradox stems from the dichotomy between a widely remembered "Supreme Court victory" regarding his employment and a "financial settlement" involving monetary damages.

According to the sources, the paradox is resolved by chronologically disentangling three distinct legal events that occurred during his tenure with the Pocahontas County Board of Education.

1. The 2005 Financial Settlement (The First Victory)

The "settlement" refers to a 2005 adjudication following a whistleblower complaint. Alderman, acting as a "citizen-auditor," alleged that $2,500 designated for a high school golf team had been misappropriated.

• Outcome: To resolve the grievance, the Board paid Alderman monetary damages (the exact figure is redacted in some summaries, though one claim sought approximately $1,000,000).
• Concessions: In addition to the payout, the Board was forced to undergo mandatory training on First Amendment rights and Open Meetings laws. This was considered a total victory for Alderman.

2. The 2007 Circuit Court Reinstatement (The Recalled "Victory")

The memory of a "Supreme Court victory" is actually rooted in a 2007 Circuit Court order. After being terminated in 2006 for insubordination during a transfer hearing, Alderman appealed to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.

• The Ruling: Judge Irene Berger reversed the termination and ordered Alderman’s reinstatement with full back pay and benefits.
• Public Narrative: This order stood for nearly two years (2007–2009), cementing a narrative in the local community and media that Alderman had "beaten the Board".

3. The 2009 Supreme Court Reversal (The Final Loss)

The paradox is finalized by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decision in Alderman v. Pocahontas County Board of Education (2009).

• The Decision: The Supreme Court reversed Judge Berger’s reinstatement order and upheld Alderman’s termination.
• The Logic: Applying the Pickering balancing test, the court conceded that while Alderman spoke on matters of public concern, his "belligerent" and "personally insulting" tone—which included unsubstantiated accusations of adultery against board members—undermined the school system's efficient operation.

Summary of the Paradox Resolution

The sources conclude that the "Alderman Paradox" is a composite memory where the 2005 financial payout and the 2007 reinstatement victory were blended into a single narrative of success, while the 2009 final reversal was often viewed as a separate technicality.

Year	Event	Legal Outcome	Financial/Status Result
2005	Golf Fund Grievance	Settled	Paid Monetary Damages (Victory)
2007	Termination Appeal	Reversed	Reinstatement Ordered (Victory)
2009	Supreme Court Appeal	Reversed	Termination Upheld (Final Loss)

Post-Retirement Status

Alderman officially retired in 2014. Research confirms he remained active in the region, appearing in Pocahontas County Historical Society minutes in late 2014. As recently as October 2024, he (or his estate) was listed in a tax redemption notice in the Mountain Messenger, indicating his continued presence in the Greenbrier Valley region.

 

Norman Lee Alderman’s whistleblower claims regarding the Pocahontas County High School golf team transformed a relatively small fiscal dispute into a major administrative and legal defeat for the Board of Education, acting as a primary catalyst for the "Alderman Paradox.",.

The impact of his claims can be categorized into three areas:

1. The 2005 "Total Victory" and Financial Payout

In the fall of 2005, Alderman alleged that $2,500 designated for the golf team had been misappropriated, suggesting the funds were diverted or stolen rather than used for student-athletes,. When the Board attempted to suppress his discussion of the matter, Alderman filed a grievance citing the West Virginia Whistleblower Law and the First Amendment,. To avoid a final verdict, the Board agreed to a settlement that included:

• Monetary Damages: The Board paid Alderman a cash sum for damages; although one claim sought approximately $1,000,000, the specific payout in 2005 is redacted in some summaries,,.
• Mandatory Training: In what the sources describe as a "humiliating concession," the Board members were required to undergo mandatory training on First Amendment rights and Open Meetings laws,,.

2. Escalation of Oversight and Investigations

Alderman’s claims were not limited to local grievances; he escalated the dispute to the state level to ensure a broader audit of the Board's finances.

• State Auditor Involvement: Alderman personally met with Stuart Stickel at the West Virginia State Auditor’s Office in Charleston, providing "complete documentation" of the alleged misappropriation.
• Targeting Officials: He publicly leveled accusations of theft and corruption against Superintendent Dr. J. Patrick Law and Treasurer Alice Irvine, labeling them "common thieves of public money" on his public website, "E-Tater Forum",,.

3. Long-term Impact on Alderman's Conduct and Termination

The success of the 2005 settlement reinforced Alderman’s belief that his aggressive, confrontational style was legally protected, which eventually set the stage for his professional downfall,.

• Investigation Findings: Despite the initial settlement, a subsequent statewide investigation into the golf fund found no impropriety,. The funds had actually been used for the golf team's travel expenses (gas, food, and mileage) rather than being "stolen," a fact the sources state Alderman was aware of before his final confrontation with the Board,.
• Basis for Insubordination: When Alderman continued to verbally attack Treasurer Irvine over the golf funds during a 2006 transfer hearing—shouting that she was a "thief" and "liar" while shaking his finger in her face—the Board cited this conduct as insubordination,. The West Virginia Supreme Court eventually used this behavior to justify his termination, ruling that his "personally insulting" tone outweighed his rights as a whistleblower,,.

In summary, while the whistleblower claims initially resulted in a significant financial and symbolic win for Alderman, the persistence of those same claims after they were investigated and resolved provided the evidentiary basis for his permanent removal from public service,,.