Imagine if everyone you’ve ever upset during the performance of your job could simply go down to the courthouse and file a petition to have a judge look into suspending you or having you fired.

That’s exactly the situation District Attorney Frank Parrish finds himself in right now.

No fewer than six citizens of the 1st Judicial District — an enclave that includes Pasquotank, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Chowan, Gates and Perquimans counties — have filed petitions in Pasquotank County Superior Court asking a judge to either suspend or remove Parrish from office.

Unlike official complaints against other law enforcement officials — judges and sheriffs are two examples — none of the six petitions against Parrish had to be vetted by anyone before they were filed at the courthouse. Under state law, any citizen has the right to walk into a courthouse and file a petition against a district attorney, accusing him of “willful misconduct,” “willful and persistent failure to perform his duties,” or “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” — regardless of whether the charges are true or not.

And that is how things should be. State law gives district attorneys a lot of power — in some respects, more power than it awards to judges. Prosecutors are given the discretion to decide to proceed with criminal charges against defendants or not proceed with criminal charges. They also have the right to drop a criminal proceeding after starting it, and they can reach a plea bargain with a criminal defendant, dismissing most of the charges against him in exchange for a guilty plea, instead of proceeding with a full-blown trial.

Obviously when someone wields that much power the law needs to take pains, for accountability’s sake, to ensure citizens have some avenue of redressing their grievances when they feel they’ve been wronged by a prosecutor. Elections are the typical method for replacing public officials with whom you disagree. But that’s not always possible with district attorneys or judges, since many of them — in our area at least — typically run unopposed. Therefore, it seems fair that the law should allow an average citizen who feels he’s been wronged by the prosecutorial process to file a complaint with the courts.

What’s not fair is the implication, based solely on the volume of complaints being filed at the courthouse, that Parrish has done something illegal or unethical. In fact, the citizen complaints against him don’t allege that he has. What they allege instead is that Parrish failed to investigate matters complainants felt needed investigating or that he failed to prosecute cases they felt needed prosecuting.

One of the complainants, for example, alleges Parrish failed to take action to remove the police chief of Kill Devil Hills when the evidence was clear — at least to the complainant, a KDH police officer — that the top police official had altered his personnel file.

Another petitioner, a former school administrator, claims Parrish failed to investigate Chowan school officials she believes falsified her medical records and conspired to ruin her career after she had filed an employment-related complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A third takes issue with Parrish for failing to prosecute the man the petitioner claims assaulted him. A fourth accuses Parrish of not investigating his claims that the mayor of Winfall embezzled funds from the town. A fifth claims Parrish failed to investigate his claim that a Currituck woman, who would later go on to be arrested for her husband’s murder, broke into his house and stole antique toys from him. A sixth claims he failed to prosecute the man she accuses of domestic violence and of making threats against her.

Some of these allegations seem more serious than others. And Parrish’s level of involvement in each case, if the petitioners’ claims are to be believed, differed according to the circumstances. In each case, however, it seems Parrish either made a judgment that an actual crime hadn’t been committed or that there wasn’t sufficient evidence of a crime that could be presented in court.

Obviously, none of the petitioners agreed with Parrish’s decision in their particular case. And that’s their prerogative; no one says they have to agree with what Parrish decided. But disagreement with a prosecutor’s decisions doesn’t mean he has violated his oath of office or is guilty of a dereliction of duty — as the petitioners’ court filings claim. Another prosecutor might have seen things differently and decided to prosecute these six cases. There’s no guarantee, however, that he or she would have.

That issue — what another prosecutor, given the same facts and evidence Parrish had, would have done — likely will be something Superior Court Judge Alma Hinton will be considering as she decides whether any or all of the petitions against Parrish have merit and warrant a court hearing, or whether they’re without merit and should be dismissed. Hinton, of Roanoke Rapids, was referred the petitions against Parrish by Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Jerry Tillett, of Manteo, shortly after the first two were filed on Jan. 20. Given that state law sets a 30-day window for a judge’s ruling following the filing of a petition against a district attorney, Hinton should be making a decision soon, possibly this week. For both the petitioners’ and Parrish’s sake, we hope she will consolidate all six petitions and make one ruling.

When she does issue a ruling, we believe dismissing the complaints is the appropriate action. Based on what we’ve seen thus far, we don’t see a need to waste the court’s time pursuing what appear to be personal grievances against the district attorney. If those who’ve filed the complaints still aren’t satisfied, they can always express their discontent by encouraging someone to challenge Parrish the next time he stands for re-election.

One matter Hinton may or may not choose to address is one most of the petitioners raise in their complaints: that Parrish is not accessible, that he doesn’t return phone calls, that his office doesn’t provide the necessary follow-up with crime victims seeking justice.

These grievances aren’t new. They’re also not unique to this district attorney. Being a district attorney is a difficult job. Communicating with every crime victim each time they call or come by, particularly those who are persistent, sometimes just isn’t humanly possible.

That’s not to say the criticism has no validity, however. District attorneys should always strive to ensure that all crime victims are fully aware of the status of their case and completely understand prosecutors’ rationale when decisions are made. That doesn’t mean all crime victims should go away satisfied or happy, because they won’t. Nor should they. Justice just doesn’t work that way. But the complaints do show that Parrish has some work to do when it comes to communicating with victims and the public. We hope he’ll see the petitions as a signal that this part of his job needs improvement.