Leland/Brunswick Week in Review

For the Week of 15 April

Apr 20, 2024

Note: I will be posting a separately on the recent 18 April meeting this week.

I decided not bombard you every other day or so, and make a weekly post on the Leland Council, which should be renamed the Leland Committee of Public Safety. This digest form should be more generous of your time, and keep everything in one place. Drop me a line if you find this more helpful, or not.

PCD finally posted their report of the rally last Saturday. It is far and away the best and engages in a bit of real reporting. Here is an excellent nugget:

There were many calls against town manager David Hollis; the highest paid staff member makes $241,000 annually. That’s more than the 2022 salary for Wilmington City Manager Tony Caudle — $236,250 — reported by StarNews. Wilmington has four times Leland’s population.

15 April 2024: The town council and the unelected “experts” of the staff immediately went into a closed session, forcing concerned citizens to wait an 1.5 hours. They then came back into session and did nothing remarkable.

Note what WWAY reported.

The few people in attendance were not happy about being frozen out. One lady noted that the council was trying to wear down the voters. This is correct.

WWAY also reported that the unelected staff said about going into closed session at the beginning that it is common practice to do that. So, what, unelected person, ya’ll can’t move things around? You can just hear the response: “why would we do that?” “That’s not how we do things around here!”

Now, it is possible for any motion to be made by the council to amend the agenda from the floor to accommodate the citizens. They did not do that. Why did they not do that? Because they did not want to do that. In other words: we couldn’t care less about you, voter.

Now I have also noted in this substack that any unelected staffer does not care not two shits about you, the voters. Why? 1) Because they are not elected by you, but more so, they are 2) beholden to the council who are their employers. All they care about is keeping their overpriced job. Therefore, the comment from the unelected Leland staff is not surprising to me. They have a callous view of you because 3) they really do believe they are smarter than you. The voters do not know anything; the government “expert” overvalues his worth.

Because they do not care about the very people who are the source of their paycheck, they should all be fired.

Now, we must get into the weeds, and detail, of closed meetings. I fear the Leland Council is (no shock) breaking the law. This may be boring and tedious to read, but I must ask you to just hang in there. I have to build a case here, and that requires knowledge and analysis of the law.

The laws governing closed sessions come from the state. Specifically NCGS 143.318.11 +. The preamble:

§ 143‐318.11. Closed sessions.
(a) Permitted Purposes. – It is the policy of this State that closed sessions shall be held only when required to permit a public body to act in the public interest as permitted in this section. A public body may hold a closed session and exclude the public only when a closed session is required:

Now the first thing I want you to notice is my emphasis. The law is confusing in a way. On the one hand, it states any public body SHALL go into closed session if it meets certain criteria (noted far below). On the other hand, local governments do not HAVE TO go into closed session. They only MAY go into session. No matter what any shyster tells you, this is a fact, and whatever extenuatin’g reasons said shyster gives is bullshit because the state law does not require it.

My last statement could be a misperception. Is it? Let’s find out.

Coates has all the 411 on closed sessions that put some meat on the mere statute. First lets tackle the misperceptions. Coates:

It is illegal for anyone to disclose information from any closed session. Correction: There is no statutory prohibition on disclosing information, but some information is confidential under other laws.

Take notice! There is NO obligation for participants in a closed session to tell us what actually happened in closed session. Why? First Amendment—you know the one Bob Campbell hates citizens to exercise.

To wit:

Elected officials and others are usually surprised to learn that there is no general law that prohibits board members from disclosing information obtained in a closed session. Disclosure of specific types of information is prohibited by separate statutes that make such information confidential (whether from a closed session or in any other context). So long as confidential information is not involved, board members are free to exercise their First Amendment rights to communicate about matters that are discussed in closed session.

What prevents any one of our council lords to speak about what is going on in a closed session? NOTHING. Now there are specific things a council cannot reveal—contract negations, and other matters like competitive bids, and other terms of any contracts entered into. This is, in part, to keep the bidding process open and free and also abide by certain agreements. But there are other matters that ought not be revealed. Those are FEW. Here are some of those:

Public bodies have limited authority to meet in closed session. In several cases, closed sessions are authorized in order to prevent unlawful disclosure of confidential information. In other cases, the authorization to meet in closed session is optional, and reflects more practical concerns, such as allowing private consultation with an attorney and avoiding disclosure of a negotiating position. Trade secrets and many types of personnel informationare examples of information that is confidential under state law. So when matters involving these types of information are discussed in closed session, it’s the underlying statutes that prohibit disclosure, not the fact that it was discussed in closed session.

So there is ALOT that can be revealed from closed session. Full stop. Is Leland abusing the closed session law? They just may be.

While certain undisclosed information may be kept private (or if revealed the individual member may receive lawsuit) no real action can be taken that is not public. Of course, as Coates notes, this may have a chilling effect on public deliberation. Leland council is doing exactly that—freezing out the public’s right to know, and then, in Campbell like fashion, trying to shut down public opinion.

Now we must address the reasons for closed session. To the GS!

To prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to the law of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes.
To prevent the premature disclosure of an honorary degree, scholarship, prize, or similar award.
To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney‐client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged. General policy matters may not be discussed in a closed session and nothing herein shall be construed to permit a public body to close a meeting that otherwise would be open merely because an attorney employed or retained by the public body is a participant. The public body may consider and give instructions to an attorney concerning the handling or settlement of a claim, judicial action, mediation, arbitration, or administrative procedure. If the public body has approved or considered a settlement, other than a malpractice settlement by or on behalf of a hospital, in closed session, the terms of that settlement shall be reported to the public body and entered into its minutes as soon as possible within a reasonable time after the settlement is concluded.
To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations, or to discuss matters relating to military installation closure or realignment. Any action approving the signing of an economic development contract or commitment, or the action authorizing the payment of economic development expenditures, shall be taken in an open session.
To establish, or to instruct the public body's staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in negotiating (i) the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease; or (ii) the amount of compensation and other material terms of an employment contract or proposed employment contract.
To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; or to hear or investigate a complaint, charge, or grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee. General personnel policy issues may not be considered in a closed session. A public body may not consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, appointment, or removal of a member of the public body or another body and may not consider or fill a vacancy among its own membership except in an open meeting. Final action making an appointment or discharge or removal by a public body having final authority for the appointment or discharge or removal shall be taken in an open meeting.
To plan, conduct, or hear reports concerning investigations of alleged criminal misconduct.
To formulate plans by a local board of education relating to emergency response to incidents of school violence or to formulate and adopt the school safety components of school improvement plans by a local board of education or a school improvement team.
To discuss and take action regarding plans to protect public safety as it relates to existing or potential terrorist activity and to receive briefings by staff members, legal counsel, or law enforcement or emergency service officials concerning actions taken or to be taken to respond to such activity.
To view a recording released pursuant to G.S. 132‐1.4A.

Admittedly, some of this is reasonable. The problem comes at #4-5, and these have been the most abused sections of the closed meeting law by the Leland overlords. Go back through the minutes of the council. It comes up a lot. Too much.

Why does this matter? Because this is where the council secretly plans all their bribes to developers, and how they will make a public argument to sell to the public their land grabs. In other words, the council is really speaking about public matters of general policy that concern the public, and using closed sessions to negotiate how they are going to defraud the public, and slide quid pro quo payments to the developers.

This, the GS, even as written, forbids.

If there have been complaints against our little Lords by staff or any other director from fire, police, etc., this is where, in #6, they cover up their malfeasance. Remember when Leland’s Bankrupt Bozemand and others fired fire dept chiefs? I do.1 That is also a problem, but not at issue in this particular post.

15 April 2024—Brunswick County Edition

Well brunswick county is feeling the heat. They have placed a moratorium on clear cutting trees. The Red Star approves. Their goddess Gaia is pleased no doubt. While this sure seems like a win of sorts, do not let that delude you. The commissioners are only biding their time.

The resolution asks that the board be able to enforce preservation requirements for new developments on land over 25 acres, “when not part of forestry, timber, and agricultural activities.”

WWAY also reports that the BCC is now going to require traffic impacts with any development. Read that here. Meh. This is not the issue—what is the issue is that they are usually not determinative in any development, but they should be, and they should be in place before any development takes place.

Leland, again, WTF?! March-April 18

A past issue crossed my desk this week. It seems that Leland is going to do what every Northeast blue city does that’s falling apart—pick and choose contractors to reward. See the memo below:

Listen to Sluggo and a Leland Town Project Manager have a convo about it:

OK, Lear, what are the “prequalification (sic) criteria?” Would be nice to know, but we the voters are left in the dark. SHOCKER!

physiognomy: I am Planning to Pick Winners and Losers!

On the surface it simply means that contractors who are “reliable” will get town contracts in (supposed) bidding process. However, this method of conducting city business is….brace yourself…full of opportunities for corruption. How so? Oh, have a seat.

Here is Baltimore’s. I am sure nothing could go wrong because the qualifications guarantee good work yes. Baltimore: great bridges out there—glad they had approved contractors for that!

Side note: at least Texas publishes their contractors.

OK, you might say, that does not apply. Oh but it does, because when a city only cares about paying off buddies, they skimp on the things that matter like codes. Look at a bridge any place else—they are embedded in concrete pillars, which, could withstand boats running into them.

There is a worse problem though. Leland joining their Democrat crooks to the North, will in fact provide a way for contractors to collude on bids. This is illegal by the way in the same way business monopolies collude on prices to screw the “consumer.”

Before I dig into this further, Leland is creating a closed circle of town contractors, while also cutting their very own town building inspections division:

Come on now, be honest—don’t you see what is happening here? Baltimore here we come!

With approved builders, why worry about inspections! The chart above notes that one of the few things being cut in Leland are—-INSPECTORS!

So while approved contractors are rolled in, there are going to be many left off the approved list. Conceivably, this will hurt local contractors. And, the collusion on bids, will further squeeze out the honest contractors who are not “approved” by the town. Now, we do not know the criteria for qualification, but as this council has worked, do you really have confidence they will not find some way to screw this up? Only their friends will get approved, and anyone who has said one scant word about the cocktail party jet set will get frozen out.

For those who do not understand this yet: The prices for town work are going to go up (collusion), the big companies will squeeze out the smaller talented contractors (less local jobs), and built by a small cadre of contractors (small pool = less completion = less experienced bidders= lazy employed), and then what is built is going to be inspected by a division of the town spread thin (less safety). More! Approved contractors means little perks and donations will arrive and then finance corruption follows (more money = more fun parties for politicians!) What could go wrong?

This all sounds fine. Pass Bankrupt Bozeman the Martini please.

Oh, now I bet you want “evidence” of what I have stated out of principle? OK.

Hawaii—let the good times roll baby. More Hawaii!

NYC…but of course, you knew this crap hole had to be here on the list.

California—contractors and bribes. Who knew?!

Atlanta—the most famous southern crap hole.

I could go on. The upshot? Once ANY town that “professionalizes” contracting, then unprofessional boundaries open up, and the money flows. Oh, have you noticed yet these all happen in Democrat states and cities? Leland is headed the same way. Sluggo and McHugh approve! NICE. So you see we are going to pay more taxes and get more shit in return. Sounds like a winner. Thanks Leland!

On a positive note: a town that has representatives of good character will have a list of, say, contractors who know the permitting system, and are reliable. This is not necessarily approved government contractors though. This is a list of informal contractors the town has worked with. This is beneficial for people who, say, want to build a house on their property. It is beneficial to have contractors who know how to get the job done, and navigate red tape. BUT, when the council is corrupt, as Leland’s is, it results in a corrupt system. When the fine line between official and informal contractors (recommended v professional and state approved) is crossed, corruption is a given.

Before you object to the negatives of chosen contractors, this is common all over, and in other countries when you get preferred builders on the public dole.

So Leland has provided more opportunities for corruption, which suits them just fine.

American Savage

Discussion about this post