From DeWitt "Mac" McCarley, Charlotte's City Attorney:
The Office of the City Attorney
The Office of the City Attorney provides legal advice and representation to the Mayor, City Council, City Manager, and other City officials and employees on a broad range of issues. The City Attorney is appointed by and reports to the City Council. The Office of the City Attorney only represents the City of Charlotte, and its agencies, officials and employees, on matters of public business. The Office cannot provide legal advice or representation to citizens on any matter.
Charlotte Observer lost its objectivity in story about Eastland Mall
The Charlotte Observer recently ran a story that carried the headline: "Did closed sessions break law? 2 experts say Charlotte City Council's votes on Eastland Mall violated open meetings statute." I feel compelled to respond to what I consider the Observer's total lack of objectivity.
The issue is whether North Carolina law permits the City Council to approve options to purchase real property in closed session. Although the courts have not ruled on the question, it is my opinion that the law does authorize such actions. The policy reasons behind this are, to me, quite clear: (1) the taxpayers would suffer should the city be required to reveal its negotiating strategy or what it might be willing to pay; and (2) the ability to assemble multiple parcels of land like the Eastland Mall site would be compromised if options have to be disclosed before the assemblage is complete.
In an e-mail exchange with the Observer's reporter, I wrote that "we rely on [University of North Carolina School of Government Professor David Lawrence's] opinions heavily in interpretive matters such as this." I then cited Lawrence's opinion that a city council may authorize the purchase of real estate in closed session. Lawrence has long been regarded as the pre-eminent expert on local government law in general, and open meetings in particular. He has written numerous publications, taught untold numbers of government officials and regularly provides opinions to government officials, the news media and citizens. He has been cited favorably by the North Carolina appellate courts on numerous occasions. And local government attorneys throughout the state regularly rely on his writings.
In the face of this, the Observer found two "experts" who declared, in the Observer's headline, that the "City Council's votes on Eastland Mall violated open meetings statute." One of those "experts" is on the payroll of the N.C. Press Association - an advocacy organization. The other is not even an attorney. He is an assistant director with the Sunshine Center of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition, an organization largely controlled by media interests. I submit that these "experts" are hardly objective, and certainly not as credentialed as Professor Lawrence.
It saddens me that a well-regarded publication such as the Charlotte Observer would appear so willing, if not eager, to toss all semblance of objectivity out the window in order to manufacture a headline.
READERS' COMMENTS:
bec wrote on 12/01/2009 08:21:55 PM:
Replying to JT_Lancer (12/01/2009 12:44:04 PM):
"RE: "The policy reasons behind this are, to me, quite clear: (1) the taxpayers would suffer should the city be required to reveal its negotiating strategy or what it might be willing to pay..."
So, Mac was simply "looking out for taxpayers' best interests" while clandestinely planning to use...":
Again, a bonehead missing the point. You assert Mac was "clandestinely planning to use your money..." Later you call him a "cockroach." The attorney provides legal guidance and makes no spending decisions. He is doing his job by providing legal advice. You and other mental midgets may not like the fact
bec wrote on 12/01/2009 08:15:32 PM:
Replying to meckcommish (12/01/2009 12:29:04 PM):
"State law also allows individual city council members (or Commissioners or School Board members) to disclose the activity of what goes on in closed session real estate deals if the elected official believes that the actions of the collective board are not in the public interest. A number of years...":
Nice embellishment of what actually happened.
JT_Lancer wrote on 12/01/2009 12:44:04 PM:
RE: "The policy reasons behind this are, to me, quite clear: (1) the taxpayers would suffer should the city be required to reveal its negotiating strategy or what it might be willing to pay..."
So, Mac was simply "looking out for taxpayers' best interests" while clandestinely planning to use our money to 'invest' in yet another of a growing list of ill-fated city-purchased boondoggles - during the worst economic downturn in a generation?
Wow. Mac's logic is irrefutable. I feel so much better. Thank you, oh kind city bureaucrat, for looking out for our best interests while you pick our pockets!
I don't say it often, but bravo to the Observer for these stories that expose the cockroaches to the light.
meckcommish wrote on 12/01/2009 12:29:04 PM:
State law also allows individual city council members (or Commissioners or School Board members) to disclose the activity of what goes on in closed session real estate deals if the elected official believes that the actions of the collective board are not in the public interest. A number of years ago the County wanted to spend $50 million or more to put the new County courthouse on a block full of fiber optic cable hubs. The businesses objected to the location but the commission at the time stubbornly refused to move the courthouse and was preparing to take the property by seizure. Realizing that the only way to stop this bone-headed move was to alert the press; I and others did so and the plan to build the court house on that more expensive site died. In the end, the new courthouse location on property already owned by the County meant that the County did not spend an extra $50 plus million plus legal fees. Individual City Councilmembers could have stopped it. Bill James.
Aggravated wrote on 12/01/2009 10:13:56 AM:
When the city is proposing to spend money that is taken from the citizens through taxes, we have the right to know what is cooking on the stove! We have had enough secrecy!
bobbybob18 wrote on 12/01/2009 08:38:49 AM:
"Thank you, Mac, for pointing out the concerted effort led by Rick Thames and Taylor Batten to change the Observer from a reporter of the news to a MAKER of the news."
You can get your "unbiased, accurate and timely news" from our local government's press release center if you choose. However, you will find that they were NOT forthcoming with news about the extraordinary DSS financial chaos, nor nepotism in DSS and the police department, nor the Easley slime, nor the Jim Black slime, nor cost overruns with the NASCAR museum or light rail, nor scores of other debacles for which government seeks its usual teflon protections.
DanaD wrote on 12/01/2009 08:37:09 AM:
Charlotte Observer-I for one appreciate your reporting on the activities of our local government-it's not surprising they are attacking you for shedding light on their clandestine practices. I believe that most taxpayers appreciate knowing what frivolous wasteful purchase Charlotte govco is eyeing next.
DanaD wrote on 12/01/2009 08:33:47 AM:
Replying to krock65 (12/01/2009 06:04:23 AM):
"You cannot lose something you didn't have to lose. The Big "O" hasn't had objectivity in decades.":
Krock...do you know why your page is currently being reviewed by the editors?" Anyone else know if this is standard practice?
napalminthemorning wrote on 12/01/2009 07:52:19 AM:
The response to your point "Mac" is so what? We need all the business conducted in the open. Enough closed door deals with lawyers scratching each other's backs in the process.
ncdirtdigger2 wrote on 12/01/2009 07:47:44 AM:
How dare you want to see what your money is paying for you nosey taxpayers you! We must work in secret for your best interest because you are so stupid. To prove how stupid you are, just look at who you have elected.
bec wrote on 12/01/2009 07:38:14 AM:
Replying to bobbybob18 (12/01/2009 07:27:40 AM):
"City Attorney McCarley, rather than dealing with the logic presented by the Observer's experts, executes an ad hominem attack on them. The basis of those personal attacks are that one of the Observer's experts is part of an "advocacy group", and the other is beholden to "media interests". McCarley...":
Thank you, Mac, for pointing out the concerted effort led by Rick Thames and Taylor Batten to change the Observer from a reporter of the news to a MAKER of the news. Since a private company has the option of ignoring them, they focus on the public as an easy target. Most people are smart eno
bobbybob18 wrote on 12/01/2009 07:27:40 AM:
City Attorney McCarley, rather than dealing with the logic presented by the Observer's experts, executes an ad hominem attack on them. The basis of those personal attacks are that one of the Observer's experts is part of an "advocacy group", and the other is beholden to "media interests". McCarley does not provide any details as to why their reasoning is flawed, only that they are to be ignored because they are in someone's pocket.
We might note that government is the largest "advocacy group" going, constantly seeking to enlarge its powers while reducing its accountability with secrecy. And are we to believe that Professor Lawrence is not beholden to "government interests" who sign his paycheck?
Again, McCarley wants us to learn that the people's business is none of the people's business. In the midst of a near depression, it is our lot to be kept in the dark until its time to pay for government's dreams.
krock65 wrote on 12/01/2009 06:04:23 AM:
You cannot lose something you didn't have to lose. The Big "O" hasn't had objectivity in decades.
View Larger Map
Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, Charmeck.org, Google Maps
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment