Interim Charlotte City Attorney Anthony Fox plans to open an investigation into comments City Council member Victoria Watlington made about “illegal and immoral” acts in city government — but Watlington says she won’t participate unless a third-party investigator is involved.
She wrote in an email that she doesn’t want Fox leading the investigation because she’s concerned at his role in the city’s decision to pay CMPD Chief Johnny Jennings a $305,000 severance package.
“My concern is, for this particular case, the integrity of an investigation conducted by the subjects of this investigation,” Watlington wrote to Fox and council members in a May 29 email chain. “Again, I request an external auditor to participate.”
The question of whether to hire an outside investigator is the latest twist in the months-old Jennings saga, that has divided City Council and raised questions about the city’s transparency.
The City Council voted 5-2 in a late April closed session to pay Jennings. Council member LaWana Mayfield was counted as a yes vote after leaving the meeting early without an excused absence. The city did not initially disclose the vote or any of the payments, which only emerged in leaks to the media. WSOC was the first to report on the settlement.
Jennings later released the settlement after Republican State Auditor David Boliek announced he would investigate the agreement.
Jennings had been upset over threatening text messages he received from former City Council member Tariq Bokhari, who was feuding with Jennings over whether officers should be allowed to wear new protective vests. Bokhari texted Jennings that he would work to get him fired and try to cripple his legacy.
The closed-session decision — and the mechanics of how the vote was handled — upset some council members, including Watlington. In an email to constituents in early May, she wrote, “Over the last five and a half years, I have witnessed the brazen disregard for dissenting opinions and the rule of law."
She added, "Never, however, have I seen such an egregious example as what has occurred in the last week."
She also said the city’s actions were "unethical, immoral and, frankly, illegal."
That prompted a news conference by Mayor Vi Lyles and several council members. Some criticized Watlington for her comments.
Watlington later dialed back her rhetoric, saying in a second email to constituents that her “fundamental desire is to operate with truth, transparency, respect and authenticity."
Watlington did not return phone calls from WFAE on Friday. She has not spoken in detail about her concerns with the settlement.
But Bokhari’s wife, Krista Bokhari, has. In a lengthy social media post after the news conference, she listed reasons why she believes the city acted inappropriately in reaching the settlement.
She noted that Fox dismissed an ethics complaint brought against Tariq Bokhari over the text messages in January but didn’t share that information with council members before they reached the settlement agreement with the chief.
What's next?
It’s unclear how the investigation will play out.
In an email to Watlington and council members, Fox wrote that the internal investigation “is your opportunity to clarify both statements made by you. If this process moves forward, should you choose not to meet with my office, my findings will necessarily reflect your refusal to meet and your nonparticipation.”
He added that “your refusal to meet will likely lead me to request that this matter be referred to an independent investigator at increased cost and expense to the city.”
He said the probe is needed as part of a prospectus to airport bondholders, as part of a due diligence process about potential problems within the city.
While an outside investigator is what Watlington wants, it’s possible a majority of City Council members could decide to keep the investigation in-house.
Mayor Pro Tem Dante Anderson wrote that she wants to keep the investigation in-house.
“This process was shared with full council without majority opposition,” she wrote. “We must provide an expeditious opportunity for the investigation to take place.”
Malcolm Graham agreed.
“I believe it is important for all of us to promptly reply to the CAO (City Attorney’s Office) request,” he wrote. “We will demonstrate that these activities are not taking place. I will not support an independent investigation. It is not needed.”
Council members Renee Johnson and Tiawana Brown said in the e-mail chain that they support Watlington's request for an outside review.
Separately, Council member LaWana Mayfield has also said she’s interested in an outside investigation into which council members have been providing information to the media about closed-session votes and discussions.
Conducting business online?
The email chain included the mayor and all 11 City Council members.
Previous city attorneys have generally advised elected officials from conducting business that way, as it could be seen as conducting business in a nonpublic setting. That could potentially violate the state’s open meetings law, which generally requires meetings with a quorum and decisions about policies to be conducted in public.
The N.C. Court of Appeals, however, ruled last year that an email chain between public officials might not violate the law.
The decision stemmed from a case brought against officials in the Village of Pinehurst over an email chain in which they discussed public business. The court ruled that the emails were not “simultaneous,” and therefore did not violate state law.
The N.C. School of Government discussed the decision here.
“The court’s careful attention to the timing of each email indicates that Village of Pinehurst does not exempt all email exchanges from the open meetings law. Instead, the case leaves open the possibility that the open meetings law might apply to certain email communications, but the timing of responses is dispositive,” the School of Government wrote.
It added: “Email communications can still potentially be subject to the open meetings law if they involve a majority of a public body and if they are simultaneous.”
