Tension dominates Swain County commissioners’ meeting

Latest

Tension dominates Swain County commissioners’ meeting

Courtney Dills addressed commissioners during May 19 public comment. File photo

Swain County Commission meetings have become increasingly heated over the past couple of months.

One side consists of several vocal constituents and Commissioner David Loftis, sick of what they categorize as unlawful decisions and a general lack of transparency on behalf of the board.

The board’s remaining four commissioners make up the other, frustrated by what they see as disrespectful conduct and some public commenters’ refusal to hear them out.

At the beginning of the May 19 meeting, Chair Jay Kirkland read a statement about conduct that seemed to provoke some in the audience.

“All audience members are asked to remain respectful and avoid interruptions, outburst defending, and other disruptive behavior will not be permitted. The chair is responsible for maintaining order and may call anyone out of order if necessary. Failure to comply will result in being removed from this meeting,” he said.

This rule is not Swain County-specific; many bodies have implemented something similar. North Carolina General Statute allows the chair to remove an attendee who “willfully interrupts, disturbs, or disrupts an official meeting.” Willful refusal to leave on behalf of said attendee is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Related Items

“The state open meetings law provides additional authority for the presiding officer of a public body to remove any person from a meeting if the person is interrupting or disrupting the meeting,”noted the UNC School of Government.

There is, nonetheless, some disagreement about the constitutionality of prohibiting disrespectful behavior such as crude language or personal insults.

Some counties have enacted bans on such attacks, which critics have decried as anti-free-speech and “draconian.” And these critics seem to have been vindicated by the recent State vs. Barthel court of appeals decision categorizing such remarks as “impermissible viewpoint-discrimination,” for which a ban would be unconstitutional.

Though on May 19 in Swain County, the problem wasn’t disrespect but disruption.

As Kirkland continued reading the statement, resident Courtney Dills interrupted with a quip about “county business.”

Ed Mercer, approaching the board to confront members directly, recounted speaking to an attorney who told him because county business constituted an “open meeting,” he had a constitutional right to talk. Sheriff Brian Kirkland patted Mercer’s back and directed him back to his seat, with a comment from Mercer that he “respects the uniform.”

A board meeting is not a public forum in that an attendee has no immediate legal right to speak except during a designated public hearing or public comment session.

Loftis, reviving Dills’ concerns about county business, brought up the empty chair typically occupied by outgoing County Manager Lottie Barker. (Commissioners at the end of the meeting unanimously appointed Swain County Schools Facilities and Maintenance Chief of Operations Tommy Dills to the position starting July 1.)

“Well, is [Barker] not supposed to be here at every meeting?” Loftis asked, noting that “states have bylaws.”

Indeed, attendance is one of the key responsibilities of this position, as outlined by state law, which says that the county manager “shall attend all meetings of the board of commissioners and recommend any measures that he [or she] considers expedient.”

But Dills expressed further concerns during public comment, like what she claimed was the board’s decision to temporarily suspend attendees’ primary method of engagement.

“I do appreciate the restoration of public comment tonight after months without it,” she told Swain commissioners.

According to state law, public comment must be held at least once per month during regular session. But the board has not recently violated that law. May 19 was a regular session; the prior regular session, in which public comment was also held, was April 21. The same was the case for February and March.

“Every regular session we have, there will always be public comment,” a frustrated-looking Kirkland later explained to the audience.

Dills also brought up unaddressed questions about the May 5 meeting YouTube recording.

“It appears to be incomplete,” she said. “Sections that have either been edited or they were not included in the original video.”

In fact, the video begins mid-sentence during what looks to be a formal presentation to the board. In it, Loftis later references “them [sic] statues [Dills] was mentioning to us,” adding, “I think we want to look into them,” even though Dills is absent from the footage.

“Well, I can tell you this, David, until you can do it respectfully, I’m not paying attention to anything … There’s, a right way and a wrong way to do something, and the way it was presented tonight is not the right [way],” said Kirkland.

It was another statement uncontextualized by the uploaded recording.

At the May 19 meeting, Loftis urged an information technology staff member to reveal the cause of this discrepancy, and the man eventually disclosed part of the video had been deleted at the request of Barker.

While such a query might feel questionable or suspicious, it isn’t necessarily a violation of statute depending on two distinct factors. Both remain unknown; The Smoky Mountain News submitted a public records request on May 20 but has yet to receive the unaltered video.

The first caveat has to do with the nature of the deletion. Documented interactions between government officials and constituents are public record with some exceptions. Public records must be retained in one location and in accordance with a strict schedule dictated by the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources. Unlawfully destroying or removing these materials is a Class 3 misdemeanor.

County administration would likely be in the clear given a properly stored, full-length version of the video.

Dills submitted a public records request in early May for the unedited recording, which has also not been fulfilled.

The state requires an agency respond to a public records request “as promptly as possible,” though a timeframe for “prompt” is not provided and often becomes a matter of individual discretion. However, any email sent to the public records address Barker announced during the May 5 meeting bounces back as undeliverable.

The second thing to consider about Barker’s request is the nature of the missing content. The May 5 video qualifies as one type of meeting minutes, which can be written or recorded. Minutes are required for official meetings on a “full and accurate” basis, according to state law.

According to the UNC School of Government, the “full and accurate” requirement does not include what was “said,” only what was “done,” so the erasure could be permissible if commissioners did not take any distinct actions during the missing section, especially since the board also approves written minutes, albeit on a delayed timeline.

Celia Baker criticized this chronic tardiness during public comment.

“Without rewatching hours of recordings, it is almost impossible to know if an issue, example, Everett Street, is actually a dead issue,” she told commissioners, adding that accountability concerns arise when the public can’t easily access important information.

And as this year’s meetings have shown, doubts that start out as questions, if unanswered, can intensify into allegations of collusion, conspiracy and corruption.

Baker gave commissioners a word of advice about solving this problem.

“I think if you can improve the communication and the information and the transparency of what’s going on, you’re going to cut out a lot of this other mess that’s been escalating with shout-outs and accusations and formal requests and things like that,” she said.

Tags: