Charlotte Leaders Vote No To Raises For Police, Yes To Bonuses (Jones, McCarley & Walton)

Folks I've just read an article published by the Charlotte Observer (nickname: "Charlotte Disturber") which states Charlotte City Council members voted NOT to give City Employees a raise including Police & Firefighters, but will instead give millions of dollars to the County.

How is it that last fall Charlotte City Council members voted to give City Manager Curt Walton & City Attorney Mac McCarley FAT raises (totaling $31,000) but yet can't come to terms about granting City employees well-deserved raises when they haven't had a Cost of Living increase in several years?

And why are City officials giving the County money when they have wasted so much in the past?

Remember last year's Charlotte DSS "Fraudgate"?

Remember Mecklenburg County Manager Harry Jones' FAT $38,000 Bonus?

City employees can hardly pay for their Health benefits yet council members are throwing money away to the County??

Is this a Political move to save their seats or what?

We'd like for them to explain why because inquiring minds want to know.

This stinks to high heaven!

I'll remind you going forward to please vote intelligently and responsibly.

Check out the articles below.




Raises For Charlotte City Workers Could Be Cut But Not Bonuses


Raises for City of Charlotte employees could be cut for the upcoming fiscal year, with the money possibly placed in contingency or given to Charlotte-Mecklenburg County to stave off steep cuts to libraries and schools.

Six City Council members - of 10 who attended a workshop Wednesday - voted to consider not giving the raises, which would cost the city $6.1million.

Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx, a Democrat, said that he's uncomfortable giving even modest 2 percent raises when hundreds of teachers could be laid off and libraries closed.

The city isn't responsible for funding libraries or Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

"I think we need to think about those net reductions," Foxx said. "Will they have a permanent impact?"

In his concern about raises, Foxx was joined by the council's Republican minority.

Republican council member Warren Cooksey proposed not giving the raises and then giving Charlotte residents a small decrease in property taxes - equal to $5 annual savings on a house with a $200,000 tax value. Cooksey said it was important to give some money back to residents, who will probably face increases in their fixed rates for water and sewer usage.

Cooksey's proposal didn't receive enough votes to move forward.

But Republican Edwin Peacock's proposal to cut the raises and place the money in contingency did get six votes - Republicans Cooksey, Peacock and Andy Dulin, and Democrats Patrick Cannon, Michael Barnes and Nancy Carter. Foxx's proposal to give the county one-time financial help will be discussed under that plan.

Carter is a staunch proponent of giving city employees a pay increase. She's worried that their cost of living is going up, due to having to pay higher health insurance premiums. But she voted with the five for a "discussion."

The city's budget is in much better shape than Mecklenburg County's. That's due, in part, to the city being more conservative as to how much debt it assumed. At the start of the budget process earlier this year, the city had a shortfall of roughly $10 million in a $500 million operating budget.

City Manager Curt Walton proposed a number of small cuts, such as reducing the staffing hours at the 311 call center and suspending installation of new streetlights.

The city also proposed giving employees a raise, in part because the private sector is beginning to rebound and some companies are giving raises again.

Dulin said he didn't think the city would be at a competitive disadvantage if it didn't give raises for fiscal 2011 after not giving them in fiscal 2010.

"I don't agree we will lose employees," he said. "I can't support pay raises for them now."

Help for libraries

Facing a possible $17 million cut, the cash-strapped library system has proposed that local municipalities chip in to close to deficit.

Foxx proposed that the city could put up a certain amount of money and ask that the county's other towns match its efforts. He said it would be like a "challenge grant."

He said the money wouldn't necessarily have to come from the same pot of money saved by not giving raises. He said the city could shift money from capital funds.

It's unclear if there is political support for such a plan.

Council members Carter, Patsy Kinsey, David Howard and Susan Burgess were strong advocates Wednesday of giving raises.

Said Burgess: "Libraries are a county function, not a city function. It's not fair to the people of Charlotte."

Peacock countered that residents have trouble differentiating between city and county government.

"People view us as one," Peacock said. "They don't know that this is a county library. They just know that they are picking up a book. I support the mayor's idea on this."

The council will discuss Foxx's and Peacock's proposals May 26 when it takes straw votes on items for the budget, which will be approved in June.




Charlotte City Manager Curt Walton Receives $16,000 Bonus


Charlotte City Manager Curt Walton this summer cut pay raises and merit-based bonuses for city employees due to the recession.

On Monday night, the Charlotte City Council awarded Walton a $16,000 bonus, and the city manager accepted.

Council members said they were pleased with how Walton has navigated the city through the economic downturn. But Democrat Michael Barnes and Republican Mayor Pat McCrory voted against the pay package because of the bonus.

"I thought he did a very good job - I told him that," said Barnes. "But I didn't think it was right to pay out bonuses. My concern is that there are a lot of people struggling. It would be beneficial for us to show restraint."

McCrory, who is allowed to vote in personnel matters, said Walton did a good job.

"But I was opposed to the bonus because of the economic circumstances in the public and private sector," McCrory said.

Walton, whose evaluation was approved Monday for work in the previous 12 months, will see his total pay remain the same as a year ago. He will receive a salary of $200,312 and the $16,000 bonus, based on his 2008-09 performance.

But a number of city employees whose evaluations also came after July are seeing their pay decrease. The city awarded 314 bonuses, or merit payments, between July 2008 and May 2009 for a total of nearly $400,000. As the financial crisis deepened last year, the city froze positions and cut back on travel and other expenses. The city decided against stopping merit bonus payments in the middle of the fiscal year to avoid punishing employees who had later review dates.

Typically, most city employees can receive up to 8 percent of their salary as a merit-based raise, a bonus, or a combination of the two. When the new fiscal year began in July, Walton said he would recommend stopping the bonuses due to the downturn.

Human Resources Director Tim Mayes, for instance, was paid a salary of $149,555 for 2008-09 as well as a merit bonus of $14,955. For this fiscal year, Mayes will receive only his base salary.

He said Walton was given a bonus by council members because of an "understanding" that's been in place for five years.

"(Council members and the city manager) liken the one-time payment as the first cousin to base pay," Mayes said. "It's not contractually based, but there is a good faith understanding between them."

Mayes said in an e-mail that cutting the bonus would reduce the manager's pay, which would be "inappropriate."

Walton was out of town Tuesday and couldn't be reached for comment. A city spokesperson, Kim McMillan, said Walton declined to talk about his evaluation because state law allows those discussions to take place in private.

In a June Observer story, Walton said he wanted to cut all the city's bonuses temporarily except for a program that allows employees to share in savings when their department or division is a low bidder on a contract. The story didn't address whether Walton planned to not accept any bonus council members might approve.

City attorney Mac McCarley is also paid by the council and is eligible for a bonus.

Mayor-elect Anthony Foxx, a Democrat, voted for Walton's pay package.

"There was a lot of discussion about that issue," Foxx said. "The decision was that as part of the package that the city manager has, if certain targets are met, that's part of the compensation. It wasn't done without debate."

Mecklenburg County Manager Harry Jones accepted a $38,400 bonus earlier this month. His total compensation of $254,055 remains the same as last year.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent Peter Gorman turned down his bonus this summer, and eliminated bonuses for principals and teachers. CMS said the reductions saved $1million.

Council member Patsy Kinsey, a Democrat who voted for Walton's bonus, said she believes Walton received it because it was based on his performance for fiscal year 2008-09 - making it unrelated, she believed, to one-time payments that have been "frozen" for the fiscal year 2009-2010.

That isn't correct, according to the timeline outlined by Mayes. All city employees whose evaluations fell after July 1 of this year are ineligible for pay increases except Walton and McCarley.





Charlotte City Council Approves Bonus To Attorney Mac McCarley


The Charlotte City Council voted Monday night to give City Attorney Mac McCarley a $15,000 bonus - a controversial decision that comes in a year when city employees aren't receiving bonuses.

Council members a week ago gave City Manager Curt Walton a $16,000 bonus, the same amount he received a year ago. Walton had earlier this year stopped all raises and merit-based bonuses for city employees due to the recession. The council voted 7-5 to give McCarley his bonus. Democrat Michael Barnes and Republican Mayor Pat McCrory were the only "no" votes against Walton's bonus, and they voted against McCarley's as well.

They were joined Monday by Democrats Warren Turner, James Mitchell and Mayor-elect Anthony Foxx. Turner had missed last week's vote on Walton's bonus.

Republican Warren Cooksey voted for both bonuses, and said Monday night he supported them because they were for work done in fiscal year 2008-09, which ended June 30. Walton has cut raises for employees receiving evaluations after July of this year.

When asked if he will accept his bonus, McCarley said "of course." When asked if he won't accept a bonus next year, he said he wouldn't speculate. Walton also said last week in an e-mail that he would not speculate on whether he will accept a bonus for 2009-10.

McCrory, in his last meeting as mayor, said McCarley did "outstanding" work for the city in the last year. But he said he couldn't support the bonus due to the economy.

McCarley's base salary will remain at $175,781. Walton's base salary of $200,312 is the same as he received a year ago. The city manager and the city attorney are the two city salaries set by council.

In other action, council members voted 7-4 to approve spending $630,000 on a smart traffic-control system for Pineville-Matthews Road that's designed to ensure traffic flows on the busy highway.

The item didn't appear to be controversial, but it touched off a heated debate over District 7 member Cooksey's opposition.

Cooksey, a Republican, said he was voting against the item because it's being paid for with federal stimulus dollars. He said he believes it's wrong to pay for these and other projects with money that will place the nation deeper into debt.

Cooksey's statement prompted Mayor Pro Tem Susan Burgess, a Democrat, to question why the rest of the council should support the item, because N.C. 51 is almost entirely in Cooksey's south Charlotte district.

Democrat Michael Barnes continued that line of thought: "If a district rep doesn't believe it's in his best interest to support it, why should the rest of the city?"

Republican John Lassiter, at his last meeting, accused Burgess and Barnes of potentially acting "vindictively" to punish residents near the highway, which Lassiter said he drives frequently. He described it as a "personal assault."

Cooksey said he believes that council districts are to ensure geographic diversity, and that his vote isn't only for his 100,000 residents.

Cooksey wasn't put in the position of voting for the project or losing it. Barnes and Democrats Warren Turner and James Mitchell also voted against it, but it passed with seven votes.

Council members approved its federal lobbying agenda, which included a stance against collective bargaining for police and firefighters.

A bill being considered in Congress would allow for collective bargaining for public safety officials in all states, including those that forbid it, such as North Carolina.

McCrory pushed his colleagues to come out against collective bargaining, saying it would increase costs to taxpayers.

Council members also voted 10-1 to authorize Walton to begin making long-term investments in the stock market with up to $150 million - up to 10 percent of the city's investments.

The N.C. General Assembly in 2007 gave Charlotte and other large N.C. cities and counties the right to invest in the market, with the hope of getting higher returns than safer investments such as bonds.

The city has said it would invest $35 million initially and then $8 million a month.

Barnes voted against the investments.

"This is our entry into the stock market," Barnes said. "I don't believe we need to do that."






"King Harry Jones" Slams Charlotte-Mecklenburg Library Board


In another indication that the rancor and dust have not settled between county budget cutters and their cuttees, County Manager Harry “Bonus Baby” Jones used the venue of a Ballantyne Breakfast Club community meeting Saturday to slam the library board.

Jones told the Ballantyne group that the library board should never have proposed closing half its branches after it was confronted with the need for large cuts in the library system’s budget.

Jones also said the board should not have responded to the public outcry about closing libraries by telling citizens to direct their complaints to the county commission.

Jones’ comments came about 10 days after Schools Superintendent Peter Gorman, while announcing that he and his top aides were forgoing bonuses, reminded everyone that his actions were “unlike other government bodies’” practices — a none-too-subtle slap at Jones, who took a $38,000 bonus after cutting county jobs and denying raises to other county employees.

Jones’ comments may be meant to remind the library board who’s king of the county, but there are a couple of little problems King Harry should consider.

First, local citizens have much more respect for the folks who run one of the nation’s finest library systems (or at least it was until the current budget fiasco) than they’ve ever had for him.

Second, if the library board acted peevishly by referring complainers to the county commission, you frankly can’t blame them.

We’ve noted this before, but it bears repeating until it sinks in with Jones’ bosses on the commission: Much of the current community angst over library and school cuts is due to the way Jones (and the financial wizards he hired to keep up with the county’s money) waited until the last possible minute to tell the library and CMS to gut their budgets.

The reason for the delay? Oh, well, Jones & Co. didn’t realize that revenue was going to be so much lower than expected — who’d-a thought that was possible in a deep recession, huh? — and they kept thinking the numbers would get better, so they waited and waited and waited.

The upshot was that the schools and libraries were blindsided by Jones’ demand for massive cuts, which had to be decided on within a matter of days.

In most places, Jones & Co.’s actions would be considered incompetent. Here, he gets to go around talking crap about those he blindsided. But who are we to comment? It’s King Harry’s county; we just live in it.


View Larger Map


Sources: Charmeck.org, Creative Loafing, McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, Google Maps

Fire Mac McCarley! Vote In New Charlotte City Council!

Looks like Charlotte City Attorney Mac McCarley set up Mayor Anthony Foxx by ill-advising him on how to correctly handle a recent Sexual Harassment incident involving an elected official (Warren Turner).

Sexual Harassment Complaints & Investigations are protected by the Federal Gov't (EEOC) period! No ifs, ands or buts.

Mayors have NO authority to usurp Federal laws and should NOT attempt to cover up Sexual Harassment Complaints just because the defendant is an elected official.

Mayors should also NOT hinder an Investigation by attempting to destroy the reputation of a Sexual Harassment victim.

If a City employee reports an incident of Sexual Harassment, it doesn't matter if the perpetrator is an elected Official or not, it still needs to be handled by the Human Resources dept in accordance with EEOC laws & guidelines.

In addition the victims are also protected by Federal Law from Retaliation.


If Charlotte City Attorney Mac McCarley did ill-advise Mayor Anthony Foxx on the proper handling of such a sensitive matter, one that's highly protected by Federal Law, I'd say its time for a new City Attorney to be hired don't you?

Perhaps if the Charlotte City Council doesn't think so than it may be time to get rid of them too during the next election in 2011, because this entire attempted Cover Up reeks of Blatant Disrespect for the Victim, Disregard for Federal Law, Legal Incompetence and Professional Stupidity!

And....since its assumed the victim is a Black Female, there could be grounds for a Racial Discrimination lawsuit as well.

In case Mac McCarley wasn't aware Racial Discrimination complaints are also protected by Federal law (EEOC).

Check out the videos, e-mails and articles below to learn more about this embarrassing debacle created by Charlotte's elected "dummies".





How Not To Handle A Sexual Harassment Claim


The City of Charlotte's clumsy handling of a sexual harassment complaint by one of its employees leaves the public not only suspicious of its elected leaders but also unsettled about how seriously top city officials take such complaints.

How would this scenario be handled at your workplace? A female employee complains to human resources or to a top boss that she has been sexually harassed. At many companies, that's a loud, clanging alarm bell which sparks an all-out internal investigation. The accused employee is interviewed and leaders try to determine what happened, whether the allegation has merit, whether this is the first time this person has been accused of such an act, whether a culture exists that allows such action and so on.

That, apparently, is not what happened when a female city employee complained that she had been the victim of inappropriate behavior by a male City Council member. Instead, City Manager Curt Walton, City Attorney Mac McCarley and Mayor Anthony Foxx agreed that Foxx would simply reaffirm with the City Council that such behavior would not be tolerated. Foxx sent the council an e-mail to that effect but gave no other information publicly. That left the eight male council members looking at each other quizzically, their reputations all clouded in the minds of an uninformed public.

McCarley has said that the issue was closed because there hadn't been a formal complaint. Formal or informal, official or unofficial: When an employee alleges that she has been sexually harassed, an internal investigation is warranted. The lack of any indication from Walton or Foxx that the city fully investigated the woman's claims leaves the public wanting more assurance that her accusation was taken seriously. How else is the public to feel confident that the scope of the problem, if any, has been determined? If the city did do a thorough investigation, it has done a lousy job of conveying to the public the depth of its concern. Walton and Foxx should have told the council, city employees and the public early on what it was doing to get to the bottom of the case.

Three city officials have told The Observer that it was City Council member Warren Turner's behavior that prompted the complaint and Foxx's March 14 e-mail. Turner said last week that no one from the city had told him the e-mail was about him. If true, that's beyond puzzling. Talking with Turner, if he is the accused, should have been among the first things city officials did.

Foxx said he was "taken aback" at the reaction to his e-mail. He shouldn't have been. It was a mysterious shot out of nowhere and aimed suspicion at all eight male council members.

A significant part of the problem here is that the City Council has no policy governing sexual harassment. It's unclear whether city policy against harassment applies to council members. You'd think such prohibitions are common sense, but the lack of a council policy leaves Foxx and council members with no road map for handling such accusations. Instead of a reasoned response, we get a vaguely accusatory e-mail, a confused public and a potential victim who has almost been forgotten in the political aftershocks.





Charlotte City Leaders Bungle Sexual Harassment Complaint Of Black Victim


Charlotte's City Leaders have completely unprofessionally bungled a recent Sexual Harassment Complaint, which will no doubt make the city liable and open the doors for future Lawsuits.

Who's going to win?

The victim because they tried to circumvent Federal Law by attempting to cover it up.

Is the victim Black or White?

A Blue Collar or low level Black, Female Charlotte City employee.

How do I know or why does this matter you ask?

Charlotte is an extremely Racist & Small-Minded city.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg's Leaders, including so-called Arrogant Black "Leaders" treat their Black Constituents like dirt, with the exception of individuals who are Fraternity/Sorority friends of those Black "Leaders".

Per Newsweek magazine North Carolina has a long history of intentionally mishandling Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault & Murder cases when the victims are Black Women.

If the victim in this case had been White Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx would have the accused person's (Warren Turner) head on a platter by now.

Isn't Anthony Foxx Black too you ask?

That doesn't matter, he's just a scared Token and a puppet with "no real teeth" or power.

Foxx relies too heavily on Charlotte's "Good Ole Boy" system by allowing himself to be pushed and pulled by Charlotte's White Leaders (like Susan Burgess, Hugh McColl & Mac McCauley).

Because Anthony Foxx was raised in the South (Charlotte) he believes that only White Leadership has all the brains.

I'd say this incident of trying to hide or cover up a Sexual Harassment issue, further proves Anthony Foxx is Charlotte's wrong choice of Leader for Charlotte.

In fact we actually need a whole new City Council.

Why?

Continue reading to learn more.


Warren Turner and Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx seem to both think they are above Federal Law when it comes to Sexual Harassment Complaints.

Turner has only been accused of Sexual Harassment by a Female City of Charlotte employee but apparently his buddy Mayor Anthony Foxx is attempting to cover up for him by trying to block the Investigation.

I don't know about you but doesn't this appear as if both Warren Turner and Anthony Foxx are trying to cover up this possible incident, destroy the woman's character, frighten her into being quiet or all three?

Destroying a victim's Character seems to be Anthony Foxx's regular defense style.

In fact the entire City Council recently voted to hire a Private Investigator.
no doubt to destroy the victim's reputation and Character. (Foxx's M.O.)

Who was included in the voting process?

Accused Member Warren Turner!

Can you believe it??

Shouldn't Turner have recused himself from the voting process on this issue?


There are different examples of Sexual Harassment with the most common being Quid Pro Quo, a Latin phrase which means "This for That".

The other most common form of Sexual Harassment involves Sexually Offensive Behavior.

So which was it?

Probably Quid Pro Quo as in you scratch my ball head (Turner) and I'll rub your back (the victim).

She must be a Black Woman.

How do I know?

Because if she were a White Woman Anthony Foxx (Charlotte's 2nd Token Black Mayor) would NOT have taken this issue of Sexual Harassment so lightly and as I mentioned above, would have Warren Turner's head on a platter by now.


Wait a minute!

Last time I checked aren't Sexual Harassment complaints protected by the Federal Gov't?

(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)


If a victim's Employer refuses to comply with Federal Law, the victim can bypass their Employer and file a Sexual Harassment Complaint with the U.S. EEOC's Office directly.

These elected "dummies" (Foxx & Turner) somehow foolishly believe they don't have to comply with Federal Law (EEOC) as it relates to properly handling an incident involving Sexual Harassment.

It doesn't matter if you are an Elected Official or not!

Anyone who commits acts of Sexual Harassment must submit to Federal Law.

And....

The victim is protected by Federal Law from Retaliation.


Isn't Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx an Attorney by trade?

Well doesn't he know that interfering with a Sexual Harassment complaint for the purpose of covering it up constitutes as a Violation of Federal Law?

I suggest these elected "dummies" (Foxx & Turner) attend Workshops on up-to-date Sexual Harassment Laws.

After all how can you manage an entire City if you aren't knowledgeable about Sexual Harassment and Federal Laws related to Sexual Harassment??

Former Charlotte Pat McCrory would NEVER have done something so Incompetent as attempting to cover up a Sexual Harassment complaint or block an Investigation.

Instead Pat McCrory would have allowed the City of Charlotte's Human Resource Dept and the City's EEOC Dept. handle such a sensitive matter.

Perhaps Mac McCauley (City of Charlotte's lying Attorney) needs to STOP incorrectly interpreting Laws just to please Charlotte City Council Members (Job Preservation) and really apply the Law as it stands per U.S. Supreme Court Cases.

This is why we need to get rid of our current City Council members and vote in new people who won't be afraid to hire a New City Attorney & New City Manager.


However I'm not surprised about Warren Turner.

He's an Arrogant, Absentee City Council Member who treats his Southwest Charlotte Constituents who reside in the Nations Ford, Arrow wood and Old Pineville road communities like dirt!

I wrote about Warren Turner in a previous post.

Hopefully this dirty expose' on Warren Turner finally means the end of his Political Career, than Southwest Charlotte constituents can vote into Public Office a real district Representative.

One who won't intentionally ignore residents who reside in the Nations Ford, Arrow wood and Old Pineville road communities.

Maybe this Sexual Harassment Investigation against Turner is payback.

As they say in the South "God doesn't like ugly".

Hmmm. Seems Charlotte has become the new "Dirty South" with all these Corruption Cover Ups.

Just like Tiffany Wright's Murder Case Cover Up,

Marcus Jackson's Cover Up and the Charlotte DSS Fraud Cover Up.

In case you weren't aware Charlotte's so-called Black "Leaders" are notorious for Cover Ups when it comes to their Family & Fraternity/Sorority associates.

I smell another Lawsuit being filed against the City of Charlotte don't you?

I also predict Mayor Anthony Foxx will ONLY be a one-term Mayor after this stupid legal screw up.

It doesn't pay to be Arrogant and Slick.

Stay tuned.






Mayor Anthony Foxx's New E-mail On The Recent Sexual Harassment Issue.


Dear City Council Members:

Last night, we reached unanimous agreement to place on our April 12, 2010 agenda a discussion and vote on whether to initiate a third party investigation. In order to expedite this process, I will exercise my discretion to place this matter at the end of tomorrow's budget workshop agenda.

If the City Council votes in favor of moving forward, this investigation will begin immediately instead of three weeks from now. In addition to the investigation, the action will suggest a review and update of our ethics policies and procedures to ensure that we have clear steps to manage any alleged incidents of misconduct in the future.

I want to thank all of you for cooperating with the process outlined on Thursday and led by Mayor Pro Tem Susan Burgess. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Anthony.




Anthony Foxx's Sexual Harassment Cover Up E-mail:

Dear City Council Members:

We owe the citizens of Charlotte our very best effort every day, and I appreciate all of you for your investment of time and energy in making our city a better place. The responsibility, of course, extends to our personal treatment of staff as well, including not engaging in any form of sexual harassment towards them. Any such behavior cannot and will not be tolerated by me, our City Council or the public we serve, and I ask you to keep that in mind.

For those of you traveling to Washington D.C. this week, I wish you safe travels and a productive series of meetings with our congressional leaders and others.

Best always,

Anthony.



Charlotte City Council Members Suggest Formal Policy On Harassment


Several Charlotte City Council members want to see a policy crafted regarding sexual harassment and the city's elected officials in the wake of an allegation of harassment against a council member.

That allegation was made informally, according to City Manager Curt Walton, and became public after Mayor Anthony Foxx e-mailed the city council members with a reminder not to engage "in any form of sexual harassment towards them."

Walton said no formal complaint was filed. City Attorney DeWitt "Mac" McCarley has said the matter was therefore considered closed.

The city of Charlotte does have a formal policy against harassment for employees of City Manager Curt Walton, but elected officials are not considered city staff.

In an e-mail to other council members obtained by NewsChannel 36 under the NC Open Records Act, councilman Patrick Cannon wrote, "We have discovered that indeed there is no such ordinance that governs elected officials. It's my thought that we as officials are not above the law and should be subjected to the same regulations regarding harassment as the next individual."

Cannon goes on to suggest that council adopt the city's policies against sexual harassment.

Mayor Foxx responded, "The city manager adopted procedures would place staff and council members in an odd spot. If we were to apply those procedures to the city council and if a formal complaint against either is ever filed, staff would be required to investigate and potentially discipline an elected official."

"We're being very intentional to create a process that will be useful in the future," Councilmember Nancy Carter said Tuesday.

"I'm just going to say, for the record, it ain't me. I'm not engaged in this," Cannon said at the city council meeting Monday night, echoing the comments of other city leaders to reporters in recent days. He said, "There is a gray cloud over all the heads" of male council members.

Susan Burgess suggested that city council hire an outside investigator to look into the allegation.

Because the outside investigation was not previously on the agenda for Monday's council meeting, Burgess needed a unanimous vote to have a formal discussion.

Council member Warren Turner blocked immediate action, calling the inquiry "a waste of the taxpayer's money."

In a later interview, Turner said he was not trying to hide anything, but felt the investigation could result in a lawsuit if the employee who made the claim is inadvertently identified.

"I think we very well could be violating people's privacy," Turner told NewsChannel 36. "If they had a private conversation with an individual that did not file a complaint, then it should remain in that context."

Turner later voted with the rest of council to discuss the outside investigation at a meeting on April 12.

City staff and council members have repeatedly emphasized that no formal complaint was ever filed on the matter.

Jenny Sharpe, a Charlotte attorney with a specialty in sexual harassment law, said that should not matter in this case. "There is no distinction between a verbal complaint and a written complaint."

However, Sharpe said she believes the mayor's e-mail was effective, legally speaking. She said a formal investigation would close the door on any liability for the city of Charlotte.

"Liability ceases once the harassment stops, so if the employer can show that it has taken prompt and effective remedial action under the circumstances and that there is a cessation of the conduct, then liability ceases for the employer," Sharpe said.


View Larger Map


Sources: WBTV, WCNC, McClatchy Newspapers, Newsweek, Google Maps

Charlotte's City Attorney Slams Charlotte Observer For Biased Reporting...He's Right!

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

Anthony Foxx Questions Bonuses He Voted For... Smoke Screen For His Tricky Agenda

The effects of Public Corruption








Anthony Foxx: Bonuses need discussion



Charlotte Mayor-elect Anthony Foxx says the new City Council should discuss whether it should award bonuses next year to the city manager and city attorney, though Foxx declined to say his position on the issue.

In the last month, council members have voted to give Charlotte City Manager Curt Walton and Charlotte City Attorney Mac McCarley bonuses for work done in the past year, decisions made after Walton cut merit-based bonuses and raises for city employees due to the recession.Walton's decision affected bonus payments and raises for the current fiscal year, which started July 1.

Some council members have said Walton and McCarley are exempt from that decision because the bonuses they received were for work done in fiscal year 2008-09, which ended June 30. Their formal evaluations - which took place in the last month - were done several months late.

But a number of council members are undecided on whether Walton and McCarley should receive bonuses next year, or share the financial pain felt by other employees.

"I don't know yet," said Republican council member Warren Cooksey, who voted to give bonuses to Walton and McCarley. He said the council should decide quickly whether it will award bonuses next year.

Both Walton and McCarley did good work for the city, council members said.

Walton will receive a base salary of $200,312 in the current year, plus the $16,000 bonus for last fiscal year. McCarley will receive a salary of $175,781 for the current year and a $15,000 bonus for last fiscal year. Their total pay - salary and bonus - for 2008-09 was the same as it was for the previous fiscal year..

Foxx, a Democrat and currently a council member, will be sworn in as mayor Dec. 7. Democrat Patrick Cannon will also become a council member that day, replacing Republican John Lassiter.

Walton and McCarley have said it's too early to speculate on whether they would accept a bonus for 2009-2010.

The city's Human Resources director, Tim Mayes, for the fiscal year ending June 30 received a $14,955 bonus in addition to his salary of $149,555. He won't be receiving a raise or a bonus this year .

He said in an e-mail last week to the Observer that council members and the city manager and city attorney have had an informal agreement that the bonus payments are a "standard part" of their compensation package. Cutting the payments would be "inappropriate," he said.

Republican Mayor Pat McCrory and Democrat Michael Barnes voted against both packages. Democrats Foxx, James Mitchell and Warren Turner voted against McCarley's package Monday.

Turner was absent for the vote on Walton's compensation.

Foxx said he voted against McCarley's compensation package not because he objected in principle to awarding the bonus. He said instead he didn't feel McCarley had done as good of a job as Walton.

"It's my expectation that we will have some early dialogue with our management about bonuses," Foxx said. "I understand the perception issues and realities of the revenue issues."

Republican Edwin Peacock said he doesn't like that the council has made it appear as though the city manager and city attorney will almost automatically receive a bonus. Any bonus should be more discretionary, he said.

Peacock said he voted for the bonuses because "you can't give a guy high marks and take it away. What signal does that send?" When asked about other employees who likely received high marks but won't receive a bonus, Peacock said that was a difficult situation.

Cannon said the new council should talk soon about its pay plans for the city manager and city attorney for 2009-2010. He said the city "should be conscious that people are treated equally across the board."

Last year, about 2 percent of the city's 6,700 employees received one-time payments in addition to their salaries.

After debate, Mecklenburg County Manager Harry Jones received a $38,400 bonus from county commissioners Nov. 4. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Supt. Peter Gorman turned down a pay raise this year due to the economy.








Charlotte City manager gets $16,000 bonus



Charlotte City Manager Curt Walton this summer cut pay raises and merit-based bonuses for city employees due to the recession.

On Monday night, the Charlotte City Council awarded Walton a $16,000 bonus, and the city manager accepted.

Council members said they were pleased with how Walton has navigated the city through the economic downturn. But Democrat Michael Barnes and Republican Mayor Pat McCrory voted against the pay package because of the bonus.

"I thought he did a very good job - I told him that," said Barnes. "But I didn't think it was right to pay out bonuses. My concern is that there are a lot of people struggling. It would be beneficial for us to show restraint."

McCrory, who is allowed to vote in personnel matters, said Walton did a good job.

"But I was opposed to the bonus because of the economic circumstances in the public and private sector," McCrory said.

Walton, whose evaluation was approved Monday for work in the previous 12 months, will see his total pay remain the same as a year ago. He will receive a salary of $200,312 and the $16,000 bonus, based on his 2008-09 performance.

But a number of city employees whose evaluations also came after July are seeing their pay decrease. The city awarded 314 bonuses, or merit payments, between July 2008 and May 2009 for a total of nearly $400,000. As the financial crisis deepened last year, the city froze positions and cut back on travel and other expenses. The city decided against stopping merit bonus payments in the middle of the fiscal year to avoid punishing employees who had later review dates.

Typically, most city employees can receive up to 8 percent of their salary as a merit-based raise, a bonus, or a combination of the two. When the new fiscal year began in July, Walton said he would recommend stopping the bonuses due to the downturn.

Human Resources Director Tim Mayes, for instance, was paid a salary of $149,555 for 2008-09 as well as a merit bonus of $14,955. For this fiscal year, Mayes will receive only his base salary.

He said Walton was given a bonus by council members because of an "understanding" that's been in place for five years.

"(Council members and the city manager) liken the one-time payment as the first cousin to base pay," Mayes said. "It's not contractually based, but there is a good faith understanding between them."

Mayes said in an e-mail that cutting the bonus would reduce the manager's pay, which would be "inappropriate."

Walton was out of town Tuesday and couldn't be reached for comment. A city spokesperson, Kim McMillan, said Walton declined to talk about his evaluation because state law allows those discussions to take place in private.

In a June Observer story, Walton said he wanted to cut all the city's bonuses temporarily except for a program that allows employees to share in savings when their department or division is a low bidder on a contract. The story didn't address whether Walton planned to not accept any bonus council members might approve.

City attorney Mac McCarley is also paid by the council and is eligible for a bonus.

Mayor-elect Anthony Foxx, a Democrat, voted for Walton's pay package.

"There was a lot of discussion about that issue," Foxx said. "The decision was that as part of the package that the city manager has, if certain targets are met, that's part of the compensation. It wasn't done without debate."

Mecklenburg County Manager Harry Jones accepted a $38,400 bonus earlier this month. His total compensation of $254,055 remains the same as last year.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent Peter Gorman turned down his bonus this summer, and eliminated bonuses for principals and teachers. CMS said the reductions saved $1million.

Council member Patsy Kinsey, a Democrat who voted for Walton's bonus, said she believes Walton received it because it was based on his performance for fiscal year 2008-09 - making it unrelated, she believed, to one-time payments that have been "frozen" for the fiscal year 2009-2010.

That isn't correct, according to the timeline outlined by Mayes. All city employees whose evaluations fell after July 1 of this year are ineligible for pay increases except Walton and McCarley.






Harry Jones gets Bonus but total pay is same



Mecklenburg County Manager Harry Jones will receive a $38,400 performance bonus, but his total compensation remains the same as last year, under a deal unanimously approved Wednesday by county commissioners.

Commissioners praised Jones for, among other things, leading the county during a difficult economic time.

The "pay-at-risk" money - which commissioners have in previous years called a performance bonus - is part of an overall $302,854 compensation package. It also includes $215,655 in base salary.

The pay plan keeps Jones' compensation the same as in 2008-09, though a board committee determined he actually would have been due more money this year, said commissioner Dumont Clarke.

Jones, however, asked that his pay be kept level. "That was his request," said commissioners' Chairman Jennifer Roberts. He "wants to be treated like all the other county employees." The county didn't award any merit raises this year.

Jones' evaluation has been in the works for weeks, with talks largely being kept private initially as allowed by state law.

But some commissioners acknowledged last month that paying the money could raise questions in light of steep budget cuts across the county. Two other local public officials - Charlotte City Manager Curt Walton and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent Peter Gorman - declined merit raises or bonuses for themselves and staff to help save money.

Jones is eligible for a higher bonus than Gorman or Walton, up to 30 percent of his base salary.

Commissioners Chair Jennifer Roberts said the board had a "difficult conversation" about the pay plan because of the economic conditions.

Still, commissioners also have said they wanted to reward Jones for meeting goals previously outlined by the board.

Clarke said Jones told commissioners earlier Tuesday evening that 2008-09 was both his most challenging and best year as manager.

Roberts said Jones "has done a very, very good job, an excellent job as manager in a very difficult year." She cited Jones' work addressing budget cuts because of falling tax revenues and his work on the Critical Needs Task Force to help address social services needs in the community.

But the county also faced questions about inadequate accounting at the Department of Social Services, including an investigation into possible misused money in a charity program for foster children. The county announced steps to help shore up practices within DSS, including putting its finances under control of the main county finance department.

Mecklenburg has offered bonuses to the manager for years, but decided five years ago to restructure the pay system to reflect a CEO-style package of a base salary with another piece of pay tied to performance.

Under the plan, Jones is eligible for a bonus of up to 30 percent of his annual salary based on a series of criteria, including how well the county performs on annual goals and a management plan approved by commissioners. Based on his current salary, he could have received a bonus up to about $65,000 this year.

Jones has not received the full bonus since commissioners approved the new pay structure in 2004.

Clarke said Jones' performance in the past year earned him more money. He said he's being paid about 10 percent less than what his performance score called for.

Cuts in Mental Health

Also on Tuesday, commissioners approved about $2.76million worth of service cuts to the county's Area Mental Health department because of reduced money from the state. The state cuts were actually larger, but county staff has promised $3.7 million to help make up the gap.

Jones said he hasn't yet identified where the money would come from.






Fire Harry Jones, Tomorrow


Over the years I’ve defended County Manager Harry Jones in public and private as a competent manager who seems to have the right goals and standards in place for Mecklenburg County. But his handling of the DSS mess is a firing offense, specifically his move to quiet a critic of DSS by calling the man’s employer to silence him.

Jones has not said why he contacted Bank of America after a local BAC employee complained that he felt “duped” by giving money to DSS’ charitable efforts for kids. That is no doubt because the tone of the email exchange is unmistakable — and chilling.

“There seems to be a need for a wholesale cleanup of many county agencies, and I think that starts from the top down,” BofA employee Harry Lomax wrote to county officials. A week later, Jones sent the email on to a BofA VP with an ominous “Do you know Harry Lomax” addition.

The response was immediate from BofA government liaison Betty Turner. Lomax’s email was deemed “embarassing” and Jones was assured that BofA execs were on to Lomax: “I am tracking it down. I don’t know him – I have alerted charles. Will be back to you.” Question: Who the hell is “charles?” The Uptown paper of record account leaves this out.

Anyone with even a glancing understanding of Charlotte’s history is probably flashing back to the time when uppity mill hands who questioned local leaders were met with, “What’s your name again? I know your pastor.” The threat was clear — shut up and know your place.

Harry Jones clearly has no problem pulling the same power levers as boss men of years past. And no doubt Jones has done this sort of thing before to be so comfortable as to put such a smoking gun in email form, and on such a high profile matter as DSS’s continued money and management woes. For that reason, the “isolated incident” defense we are sure to get this week does not wash.

Harry Jones has proven he does not have the temperament required of highly compensated public employees, particularly at a time when revenues are tight and citizens are concerned about spending. Criticism from engaged citizens — Harry Lomax was concerned that a county Christmas charity was misusing funds — must be welcomed and encouraged, not kick off corporate retaliation efforts among the lock-step Uptown crowd.

A unanimous vote by the Mecklenburg County commission to remove Jones from his position is the only thing which can restore confidence in the notion that local government works for local citizens rather than actively conspires against them.

Update: Betty Turner is a registered lobbyist for BAC in both North Carolina and Virginia.





Harry Jones: No Thought of Resigning


Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Manager Harry Jones has faced intense criticism from some residents on a variety of issues this year, including reported accounting problems in the Department of Social Services and a $38,400 performance bonus given to him earlier this month. Some have even called for his job.

Jones addressed the issues in an interview Thursday on "Charlotte's Morning News with Al Gardner & Stacey Simms" on WBT-AM.

Here are some snippets from the interview:

Q. Have you thought about resigning?

Jones: "No, I have not given any thought to that Al. This has been a good year. You know along the way you are going to make some mistakes. I did make a mistake in forwarding an email. Harry Lomax and I have subsequently talked and I'm taking his position that it was blown way out of proportion. He and I have had lunch together with each other. No, I have not given any thought to it. But I will say, Al, it's been a tough year. It's been a really tough year. But I think it's also been my best year and I told the board of county commissioners that and I'm going to continue to stay where I am unless they decide they don't want me any longer."

Q. As Al was mentioning, though, other county employees didn't get bonuses at all. And it seems to me that with the email as you said you’ve apologized, you've had lunch with the gentleman, but (it was) big blow to public trust there, and with the DSS situation being what it is, why not say, well, I'll accept the bonus if such and so bears out, an ethics investigation, something like that? Because I think a lot of people would question whether this was the best year for county government.

Jones: "I’m going to say this: I earned that bonus. I think the other issues "My board of Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Commissioners" factored all of those things in when they considered my compensation. And the position that I will take is that, yes, the email does raise some questions about people's confidence in government. But Al and Stacey, I will say to you that there was no malicious intent, as I have indicated publicly, on my forwarding that particular email. And in that there was no malicious intent, for those people who want to call for my scalp on that one particular action, (they) don’t know Harry Jones and don't know what Harry Jones has done through his career to try to open up government, to encourage more participation. If you want to judge me on this one action, then I would say you're judging me contrary to the real Harry Jones."





The Charlotte-Mecklenburg DSS Fraud mystery: Where did money go?


Internal e-mails reveal new allegations of misspending at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, raising more unanswered questions about what happened to money intended to help needy children.

Some of the more than 1,000 e-mails the Charlotte Observer obtained through a Public Records Request provide the most detailed account to date about the agency's accounting fiasco.

E-mails show:

Officials suspected an employee wrote $80,000 in checks to herself from donations.

An administrator questioned why other donations were used to buy $340 diamond earrings, leather coats and a $300 DVD player.

A top executive complained that a senior fiscal administrator frustrated co-workers with her "inability to explain the simplest concepts of revenue and expenses."

After nearly a year, officials have never said who was at fault for $162,000 that disappeared or whether anyone was disciplined.

No one has been charged in an ongoing police investigation and a county report says officials cannot be certain where the money went.

Meanwhile, donors are left to wonder whether their generosity ever helped buy Christmas gifts for those in need.

In one e-mail, a woman describes calling the county in 2007 to give $900 for single mothers at Christmas. The person who answered the phone told her to make a check payable to the worker's sister.

The donor said she grew suspicious and made the check out to the county, but the idea that it may still have been misused is "like a kick in the stomach."

In another e-mail, a founder of Second String Santa said he was concerned whether kids received the more than 50,000 toys his group had donated since 1989.

Will Miller said he believes some of the toys reached children, but he's not sure about the rest.

"Will we ever know? Probably not," he said.

Two Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Commissioners said they have asked County Administrators for a full accounting of what went wrong at DSS but have yet to receive answers. County officials have never explained who was responsible, they said.

"To fix it, you have to admit all the stuff that is messed up," Commissioner Bill James said. "They don't want to do too much digging."

County administrators declined interview requests. Instead, a county spokesman released a prepared statement saying appropriate fiscal controls have been installed in response to an outside audit and an internal investigation.

"Our review of the e-mails we provided and your follow up questions did not reveal any new information that would suggest any change in the audit findings or in management's response to those findings," the statement said.

Some commissioners said they have been told that the employees involved have either left county government or been placed in new positions.

Unusual spending patterns

DSS spends $176 million annually and employs 1,200 workers to assist Mecklenburg's poor and neglected. The agency administers everything from food stamps to foster care and child protection services.

Last spring, DSS Director Mary Wilson ordered financial audits following reports of suspicious spending.

Auditors looked at multiple spending programs and financial practices in the agency. They found a $10,000 check made out to an employee, missing and altered receipts and money for kids spent on office supplies.

County leaders responded by suspending the programs, putting DSS finance under direct county control, training workers on accounting procedures and ordering a review of financial procedures in each county agency.

The Observer reviewed e-mails dating from December 2008 to July 2009 for seven current and former county administrators, including Wilson, County Manager Harry Jones, County Finance Director Dena Diorio and Internal Auditor Cornita Spears.

E-mails show county officials noticed unusual spending patterns as early as last December but did not disclose problems to the public until March.

On New Year's Eve, Wilson told staff she had suspended a voucher program the agency used to purchase clothes and other items for clients at local stores. She wrote that officials were worried about a lack of oversight and a spike in spending.

One monthly retail bill leapt from between $5,000 and $6,000 to more than $20,000 in October 2008, the e-mail says. Employees turned in receipts only 30 to 35 percent of the time, she wrote.

At one time or another, workers possessed or had access to numerous credit cards and gift cards, including some to Bath & Body Works, Bass Pro Shops, Macy's, the Cheesecake Factory and Outback Steakhouse.

Outside auditors verified for county administrators that DSS workers possessed county-issued credit cards, including 10 credit cards for Sam's Club, three for Harris Teeter and an online charge account with Amazon.com

In February, county officials asked internal auditors to look into questionable spending, including purchases of diamond earrings, leather coats and a DVD player.

An e-mail to one of the auditors from a human resources consultant said the purchases raise "many questions and concerns."

According to the county's statement, most gifts were typical children's items such as toys, clothes and books. More expensive items such as diamond earrings and leather coats were approved purchases for foster children who reached special milestones like high school graduation, the statement says.

"Receiving a gift of some significant value was viewed as an incentive for other children who were in foster care to set goals and accomplish them," the statement said.

Commissioner Harold Cogdell said he spent part of his early childhood in foster care and believes the gifts are a good idea.

"It makes sense to me to show the kids some love," Cogdell said.

A new Accountant

DSS has endured multiple management shakeups in recent years. The latest came when Wilson reorganized the agency after she was hired in July 2008.

She laid out the reasons to hire a new finance director in a February e-mail.

Wilson wrote that the senior fiscal administrator who managed DSS finances failed to provide reports about oversight, alienated staff and lacked the ability to conduct productive discussions with senior county executives. The e-mail does not name the senior fiscal administrator.

DSS later hired accountant Angela Hurlburt to oversee its finances.

James, the commissioner, said he has asked for the names and background information on Hurlburt's predecessors. He wants them to answer questions from the Board of Commissioners' Audit Review Committee, which investigated accounting lapses at DSS.

He said administrators have failed to respond to his requests and complained that officials "keep us in the dark."

Other Charlotte-Mecklenburg Commissioners disagreed.

Chairman Jennifer Roberts and Commissioner Dumont Clarke said county leaders have already put in place reforms that will protect taxpayer and donor money.

"The highest priority" is implementing new financial controls, Clarke said.

Shifting the Finances

Auditors from Cherry, Bekaert & Holland reviewed DSS and found that Mecklenburg officials responded appropriately. The county's Audit Review Committee came to the same conclusion.

But DSS Director Wilson bristled at one of the major reforms.

Leaders put DSS finance under the direct control of the county's main finance department after allegations of misspending surfaced.

In April, Wilson sent an e-mail to County General Manager Michelle Lancaster to complain. Calling the decision "premature" and "shortsighted," Wilson said there are emergencies when DSS workers must write checks immediately, including occasions when the agency takes children in custody who need clothes, toiletries and school supplies.

"I understand the urgency at the time, but there was a reason DSS had check writing capability and I think we threw the baby out with the bathwater instead of fixing the underlying issue, which is documentation and accountability," Wilson wrote.

Donors left with questions

Past supporters of the DSS Christmas charity include Young Lawyers, employees of Wachovia and Bank of America, and Project Joy, the holiday fund drive initiated by Observer columnist Tommy Tomlinson. The Christmas charity, known as the Giving Tree, is now run by the Salvation Army.

The donor who gave $900 e-mailed the county in July after learning about accounting failures from news accounts. She attached a picture of the check copy she made around Christmas in 2007.

She wrote that she did not remember the name of the woman she spoke with on the phone.

The donor said she and her family all pitched in to raise the money so she could assist women like her who had struggled as single mothers.

When she heard there were allegations of misspending in a DSS charity program, "It's like your stomach just drops."



View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, WBT, The Meck Deck Blog, John Locke Foundation, Charmeck.org, Youtube, Amazon.com, Google Maps