As questions loom, Charlotte City Council extends interim city attorney contract
Charlotte will retain interim city attorney Anthony Fox despite concerns from multiple council members as the search continues for a permanent hire.
City Council members voted 7-3 Monday to extend Fox’s deal, set to expire June 30, by six months. Council members Dimple Ajmera, Tiawana Brown and Renee Johnson voted against the agreement. At-large Council member Victoria Watlington was absent.
Fox was initially hired on a six-month contract in December to replace outgoing city attorney Patrick Baker. Baker’s departure followed reports by WFAE of city leaders voting in closed session to “end” his employment, in part due to Baker’s decision to fulfill a public records request from the NPR affiliate. Baker later told The Charlotte Observer he had officially retired.
Fox made his own headlines in recent weeks for his comments on the controversy surrounding the departure of outgoing Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Johnny Jennings.
Charlotte human resources staff told council members Monday they now hope to have a new, permanent city attorney in office by October. They attributed the delay in hiring to “pauses” in the process.
Despite the majority of council members signing off on Fox’s extension and praising his performance, many questioned how the hiring process has gone so far and called for more communication from city staff and the search firm hired to oversee the process.
“What continues to frustrate me and really curse our council, from my perspective, is how we process our work,” Council member Malcolm Graham said.
How much will extension earn Anthony Fox?
Fox’s initial six-month deal earned him about $168,450, according to a copy of his employment agreement obtained by the Observer through a public records request.
His new agreement runs through the end of the year, though he could leave sooner if a permanent hire is made.
The deal, as presented by city human resources staff at Monday’s meeting, includes a monthly pay rate of $28,075.02 and a $75,000 “retention bonus” to be paid at the end of the year.
It also includes a provision that if Fox stays in office through Oct. 31, he will be paid through the end of the year even if stops working in November or December. If his tenure ends before Oct. 31, the city will stop paying him when he stops working.
Staff told council members the terms were cheaper than the cost of retaining outside counsel with Fox’s “level of legal expertise and experience” at the market hourly rate for attorneys.
City Council members question process
Some on council questioned the validity of that argument.
“We’re talking about salaried people, and what people get on an hourly basis is really not a valid comparison,” said Council member Ed Driggs, who also called the provision paying Fox after he leaves office under certain conditions “odd.”
Ajmera attributed her “no” vote to the inclusion of the retention bonus and asked to see comparisons to what other city attorneys are paid.
“Many of our employees work in this space when they could be making a lot more in the private sector,” she said.
Johnson, another vote against the extension, questioned why the city’s deputy city attorney can’t take over until a permanent hire is made. She also alluded to recent controversies raising concerns about the behavior of city leaders.
City leaders have faced questions about transparency amid reports of a closed session settlement with Jennings to avoid a potential lawsuit. The city remained silent about any deal before Jennings ultimately released his “separation agreement” to reporters after announcing his retirement.
Fox had to walk back comments he made to reporters during the saga that someone leaking closed session information could face misdemeanor charges under state open meetings law. He clarified days later in a statement via a spokesperson that he meant to say a person “could be subject to criminal sanctions” if they share information from a personnel file under state privacy law.
“This council needs to take a definite action to regain the public’s trust, and I don’t think that extending the contract for the city attorney is action,” Johnson said.
Others lauded Fox for his performance but questioned why city staff and the outside search firm working on the hire haven’t been more communicative with council members, including about the pauses in the hiring process.
Staff said they paused the process twice, in January to get more guidance from council members and again in April when they pivoted to an extension for Fox. Some council members expressed confusion about those delays.
“I was under the impression that we’re keeping (Fox) because it’s taking a little longer than we thought to find the right person, not that someone took it upon himself to make a decision that we’re going to slow this process down,” Council member LaWana Mayfield said.
Timeline for hiring new Charlotte city attorney
City human resources staff told council members Monday they’ll continue to accept applications for a new city attorney through June 16.
Their updated timeline calls for council members to see candidate profiles in early August and narrow down a pool of applicants for video interviews. Those interviews would happen in mid-August, followed by in-person interviews with a smaller pool of finalists later in the month.
Council members would then vote on top candidates in late August with the goal of the new city attorney taking office in October.
Some council members said Monday they want to hear from the search firm before they recess for the month of July, whether to get more details on the process or hear about some of the candidates who’ve already applied.
“This is where we want more information, not less. We want to be ahead of the process. We want to be proactive, not reactive,” Council member Edwin Peacock III said.
This story was originally published June 10, 2025 at 6:00 AM.
