From the Fayetteville Observer (11/16/08): Some Fayetteville City Council members are perturbed their closed-door talks about boosting the city manager’s salary have become public.
Mayor Pro Tem Wesley Meredith had stern words in a Nov. 10 e-mail to fellow council members. He implored City Attorney Karen McDonald to try to plug the leak of information to The Fayetteville Observer.
“I hope Karen can help us legally do something to stop the source of the council member that is treacherously revealing our discussion items,” Meredith wrote.
Other council members, in e-mails among themselves last week, vented frustration after the Observer reported Nov. 9 some details of a closed meeting about a personnel item. The newspaper reported the council was deadlocked on whether to raise City Manager Dale Iman’s annual salary, which is currently a base amount of $166,566.
Under the North Carolina public records statutes, the Observer obtained copies of the council’s e-mails from last week. In one e-mail, McDonald tells the council there was little, if anything, the city could do to stop leaks to the media.
“While the open meetings law allows the council to exclude the public, there is nothing in the statute that prohibits the members from disclosing what occurred,” the city attorney wrote.
“Additionally, there is case law that suggests that enforcement of such a prohibition might violate a member’s constitutional rights of free speech.”
That advice surprised Councilman D.J. Haire. He fired off an e-mail to the rest of the council questioning the purpose of closed sessions after he read the Nov. 9 story. On Friday, Haire said his question was rhetorical.
“I know what closed sessions are for,” Haire said in an interview. “I’ve been in them for 11 years. I was sending a message to whomever on the council: When we go into a closed session, and we are supposed to have dialogue … it stays there.”
Another veteran councilman, Robert Massey, said the leak about the city manager discussion neither surprised nor bothered him.
“All of the business we do, whether it’s behind closed doors or in an open meeting, is still the public’s business,” he said. “It amazes (me) that there are some people who profess to be public servants who insist on wanting to conduct business out of public view.”
One councilman, Ted Mohn, questioned the validity of the Nov. 3 closed session. According to the published agenda, Councilman Bill Crisp called for the closed meeting to discuss a personnel matter.
In an e-mail to the rest of the council Tuesday, Mohn said he backs the concept of closed meetings under certain conditions. But, he said, he believes there should be more attorney consultation before a council member asks for a closed session.
“Last week’s closed session,” he wrote, “is a ‘poster child’ of items that most likely should not have qualified for a closed session, and I’ll tell you why I’m thinking this way.”
The rest of Mohn’s e-mail was redacted by McDonald in the copy obtained by the Observer. The redaction was based on personnel rules.
McDonald responded to Mohn’s e-mail with one of her own, according to records. But the content of that e-mail was redacted, too.
McDonald cited the state’s attorney-client privilege law for shielding the contents of that e-mail from the public.
Mohn told the Observer after consulting with McDonald, he now believes the Nov. 3 closed session was valid.
Councilwoman Val Applewhite, who also lamented in an e-mail to the council about the leaks, declined to comment.