Opinion Piece

This was our response, based on statements made by commissioners in more than 160 records.

First, the board had not spoken to Beaumont about the allegations against him when the secret meeting was held on the 15th and 16th. Instead, the board acted without having had the county attorney investigate (which is one of her job requirements). Six commissioners deliberated and discussed actions for two days, including removal from office absent any facts. In the chronology of events, Bob White emailed six commissioners and the county attorney, laying out the allegations against Beaumont and soliciting possible outcomes. Kevin McCord was the fourth commissioner to respond in kind, and a quorum was met on the 15th. On the morning of the 16th, the county attorney jumped in with an offer to draft a letter of censor to be voted on that evening for allegations that would only be investigated seven days later. To be clear, the six commissioners who took part in the secret meeting were prepared to take action (in their own words) against Beaumont seven days before seeking out the facts.

What went wrong? First and foremost, Bob White, as Chair, convened an unadvertised, closed meeting of the BOC by email. Bob White, Selina Jarvis, Mary Etheridge, and Kevin McCord constituted a quorum by 1:58 pm on the 15th. Second, when the county attorney joined the conversation on the morning of the 16th, instead of offering to draft a censorship letter, her position description indicates she should have warned the six commissioners that they were violating the Open Meetings Law.

Let me also say this: we turned to the University of North Carolina School of Government (SOG) for clarification. This is what the SOG says,

“The definition of official meeting makes clear that an official meeting occurs by the simultaneous communication, in person or electronically, by a majority of the Board. Because the definition includes electronic communication, a telephone call or email communication that involves a simultaneous conversation among a majority of a public body would violate the open meetings law if notice and access are not provided.”

At the end of the day, once the county was alerted to the errant posting of the county manager job to be filled, the county attorney, by position description, should have initiated a fact-finding investigation. Only at the conclusion of fact-finding should a recommendation be made by the county attorney to the board of commissioners. This is important because had this been done, none of this would be public knowledge, and the issue would have been resolved either in an advertised special closed meeting or open session. Instead, the county is faced with a violation of law that will likely be resolved in North Carolina Superior Court. In 2008, then-county attorney Ike McRee settled a similar complaint out of court, promising this would not happen again. Here we are…