Charlotte City Council escapes sanctions after flurry of ethics complaints ends quietly

Charlotte NAACP President Corine Mack on Wednesday castigated the city’s handling of her ethics complaint against Mayor Pro Tem Julie Eiselt, saying an external review perpetuated systemic racism.

City leaders last week sent elected officials a final seven-page report from an outside panel that was hired to look into at least a half-dozen complaints filed last summer against council members. Complaints filed by Mack and others have all been dismissed, according to the document. Not all complaints filed with the city clerk met the criteria for outside review.

Last August, Mack accused Eiselt of making racially offensive comments during a meeting where Mack and Cade Lee — a student who founded UNC Charlotte’s March for Our Lives chapter — lobbied for anti-violence measures. In an ethics complaint later, Mack and Lee wrote that Eiselt “told a story about how her son shared her fear about going into a predominantly Black neighborhood for fear he’ll be attacked,” the Observer has previously reported.

Eiselt did not respond to Observer requests for comment on Wednesday. In August, Eiselt, who is white, called the complaints against her frivolous and said the accusations were prompted by her refusal to promise public money for specific anti-violence programs.

An outside legal counsel informed Mack on Monday that her complaint did not warrant additional investigation, declaring a “further airing of the disputed recollections would serve no constructive purpose.” The report — which addresses a slew of ethics complaints against multiple council members — acknowledged they couldn’t “definitively” determine what happened at the tense meeting.

Eiselt “has the authority to make decisions that hurt Black people every day,” Mack told the Observer Wednesday, adding the decision to dismiss her complaint with no reprimand is “unacceptable.”

”In no way has (Eiselt) been held accountable — in no way,” Mack said.

The mayor pro tem’s alleged behavior drew some of the sharpest public scrutiny last summer, even as Mayor Vi Lyles and all City Council members contended with a barrage of ethics complaints. Republican and Democratic officials alike were both targeted by and behind many of the complaints.

The volume of complaints and controversy surrounding multiple council members at once also led officials to make some changes to the city’s code of ethics, which had not previously been in the limelight.

For now, none of the complaints that arose last summer will be investigated further.

‘Ugly system’

The final report, dated December 2020 but just sent to council members last week, says some of the accusations — such as improper campaign donations from developers and potential quid pro quos — lacked evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

In one instance, the outside review dug more deeply into the prospects of mishandling taxpayer money, driven by an ethics complaint filed against council member Tariq Bokhari.

Bokhari, executive director of the Carolina Fintech Hub, had proposed a city jobs training program at the nonprofit, with the goal of aiding struggling businesses and workers amid the pandemic.

The city attorney and manager assured council members the program was legal and ethical, with Bokhari not poised to earn income or commission. Yet the the City Council ultimately rejected the arrangement to award the hub $1.5 million, intended as stipends for participants.

Bokhari should have provided “full disclosure to the public much sooner,” the outside counsel ruled. He and city administrators also needed to show greater sensitivity to conflicts of interests — “real or perceived” — the report states.

“Mr. Bokhari has stated publicly that he understands his council service and non-profit work require ‘totally separate hats to avoid even the perception of an issue,’” the report states.

In written responses to the Observer in July, Bokhari said he’d done nothing wrong: “No, I did not lobby or try to influence city administrators in any way.”

Like the other complaints, accusations against Bokhari were unsubstantiated, according to the report that a city spokesman shared with the Observer.

“We did not believe that either member’s conduct warrants additional investigation, beyond what we have conducted as part of our review,” the outside counsel team said of Eiselt and Bokhari.

Former council member James “Smuggie” Mitchell was also absolved of wrongdoing, after an ethics complaint alleged he used taxpayer money for a trip to Detroit that benefited his private sector work. But the counsel did underscore Mitchell must stay mindful of demarcating dual responsibilities.

“When questioned by the media or constituents regarding any potential conflict-of interest, Mr. Mitchell, and all council members, should err on the side of quickly and publicly disclosing the facts of the situation.”

In January, Mitchell resigned suddenly from the City Council, after his new role as co-owner and president of a construction company stirred controversy.

‘Weaponized’

In whole, the report appears to validate the City Council’s assertion since mid-summer: The frenzy of complaints — spurred on by an ethics policy that became “weaponized,” as council member Ed Driggs phrased it, by the public — were politically-fueled and frivolous.

In a wording tweak from September to the city’s ethics policy, the city attorney now refers complaints to an “outside counsel,” not an “independent investigator,” if information requirements are met. If complaints are deemed frivolous or not considered policy violations, there’s no subsequent formal investigation, according the policy change.

When investigations are triggered, and wrongdoing is discovered, City Council could sanction elected leaders, including adopting a “Resolution of Censure” or removing a council member from a committee assignment.

It is unclear how much the city spent on this outside report, prepared by James Coleman Jr., a professor at the Duke University School of Law; Kim Westbrook Strach, the former executive director of the state Board of Elections; and Hampton Dellinger, a former state deputy attorney general. They write the city attorney’s office did not “seek to influence or constrain our review, conclusions, or recommendations in any way.”

The city attorney’s office did not respond to Observer questions about how the outside counsel team was selected. The team jointly interviewed council members, but city administrators did not provide transcriptions or recordings.

Mack is skeptical the process was independent. She blasted the counsel for regurgitating her own plea to Eiselt in the report: That the mayor pro tem should have apologized for what was said nearly a year ago.

“This is a circle of friendship that’s going on,” Mack said of the counsel’s political ties. “It’s an ugly system all the way around. They were always in control of the process. Period.”

Charlotte ethics policy

Since the ethics debacle, the Budget and Effectiveness Committee has revised some loopholes and shortcomings in the policy. Most recently, it defined what qualifies as a “prima facie” allegation: connections posing potential conflicts of interests, misappropriation of city resources, criminal or fraudulent activity, or harassment.

More comprehensive ethics reforms are still needed to bolster public trust in the City Council, the outside counsel said. These are the recommendations:

• Council members’ Statements of Economic Interest — filled out completely and accurately — should be publicly available online. The form should disclose non-governmental employers and any entity contributing to at least $5,000 in annual income, a critical adjustment that reflects the part-time role of council members. An outside body, like the UNC School of Government, could evaluate the forms annually.

• Consider limiting donations from developers who are actively petitioning the City Council for rezoning decisions.

• Be upfront with the public about large campaign donors.

This story was originally published March 3, 2021 at 4:52 PM.