Chocowinity board continues to circumvent the law. Approves jail. | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    Those of us who had good social studies teachers know that our system of government is a democratic republic. It is not a democracy. In a republic the people do not vote on most of their business directly but elect representatives to take care of their business for them. One of the tenents of representative government is that the people have a right to know what their representatives are doing. And they have a right to tell their representatives what they think. For that reason we have laws that guarantee the public's access to the transaction of their business. Except in Chocowinity. And some other places, but that's another story.

    This is a story about how elected officials in Chocowinity are cheating the people out of knowing how their business is being conducted.

    There were two examples in one meeting Monday night (8-5-14). The first was a change in the zoning rules that will allow solar farms in residential areas. The second was the approval of a "special use permit" to allow a jail to be built in the Chocowinity "Industrial" Park.

    Both actions came as recommendation from the town's Planning Board by way of its Town Planner, Bryant Buck. It turns out that one of the town board members had been personally negotiating with the solar farm developers to get the change made and he announced that as a result of these behind the scenes "discussions" he was "pleased to make the motion to approve the change in the zoning ordinance."

    But here's the crux of the issue. The Planning Board met recently to consider both issues and as best we can determine the only people who knew what they were doing were the ones railroading the solar farm and jail.

    We could not find a single resident attending the meeting Monday night who knew what the solar farm ordinance says. So much for the public's access to what their representatives are doing to them. As you've probably already guessed, it passed without opposition and almost no discussion, except the commissioner who reported that he had done the deal behind the scenes. So yes, the public watched a kabuki dance that was offered as decision-making but it was clear to most present that the real decisions had been made long before the meeting ever started. That's common with this group.

    Then came the matter of the special use permit to allow a jail to be built. Town Attorney Keith Mason clearly set the constraints of the public's participation in that matter. He announced that all the public could do was offer evidence on the technical aspects of the conditions that were being considered. The trouble with that was that nobody, except the "insiders," knew what those conditions were. The public was not provided advance information of the technical issues to be considered. Yet when the few who did find out about the meeting showed up they were enjoined against speaking except on the matters they had no way of knowing about.

    Pretty slick way of keeping the public from knowing what was being done to them.

    The Beaufort Observer objected to the charade they were running. We pointed out that the law requires that the media, and anyone who files a written request, be notified of any meetings and the purpose of those meetings of any public body. The Chocowinity Planning Board is a public body. The Beaufort Observer has previously filed a request, as provided by law, that we receive notice of meetings and the documents that are being addressed at such meetings.

    No such notice was provided of the Planning Board's meeting in which it considered the "special use permit" for the proposed jail. The statutes and case law are very clear on this. If proper notice is not given of a public meeting then all action taken in that meeting is null and void. This was pointed out to the Chocowinity Town Board.

    The Town Attorney's retort was that the notice of the regular meeting schedule was posted. The problem with that is that while the law does indeed require "...notice of the meeting stating its purpose..." to be posted it also, in addition, requires written notice to anyone who has filed a request to "...be mailed, emailed, or delivered in person..." to the media and anyone who has requested such notice.

    The reason the second requirement was added to the statute was to allow the media to know what business is going to be considered and to publish what was being planned for such meetings, if it is deemed to be something the public would wants or need to know about. That's why we requested to be furnished the supporting documents that are going to be used in any meeting. That was so the public can have access to such things as the wording of proposed ordinances and the technical specifications for such things as "conditional uses" etc. It is a sham to expect the public to attend a meeting that they don't have advance access to the information being considered. And Mr. Mason know full well that a basic principle of statutory interpretation is that where the Legislature has stipulated multiple requirements that meeting one but not all is not sufficient.

    The point here can be summarized simply: The public has a right to know how their representatives are doing the public's business. Therefore, the public has the right of access to any public meeting. But it also has the right to know what's going on. To know what's going on the public must have adequate relevant information. Citizens don't get that in Chocowinity. There has been a pattern of violations of the open government regulations with this board for some time now. We'll have more on this later. The video of the meeting will be posted when it has been uploaded to You Tube. And we will have more to say about the pattern of violations of the Open Meetings Law in Chocowinity in forthcoming reports.

    Now, if you've never noticed it, we would commend the crawler that runs across the top of our website. Check it out.

poll#49

poll#52