Charlotte leaders are moving on from the Jennings settlement. Not so fast. | Opinion

After weeks of secrecy, city leaders have finally provided some answers about the settlement made in closed session with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Johnny Jennings.

As it turns out, the settlement was more than just a settlement. The city is referring to it as a “separation agreement” with a total payment of $305,000 — which included a $175,000 severance payment, a retroactive pay increase, a bonus, additional vacation days and reimbursement of legal fees. Upon disclosing the terms of the agreement, Jennings announced he would retire as police chief at the end of the year. The agreement will also increase his pension by thousands of dollars per year.

The city seems to think that providing the details of the settlement itself is enough. But those answers have only sparked more questions, and much about the situation remains unknown.

How did the city decide on the agreement, and why? What laws does Jennings allege were violated? If he threatened legal action against the city, what did that look like? Would he have had legitimate grounds to sue in the first place, and if not, why was a settlement recommended?

Some transparency is better than none, but the city still has an obligation to provide a more complete explanation of what transpired. Back when news of the settlement first broke, Mayor Vi Lyles declared her support for the chief, who she called one of the best police chiefs in the country. But if that’s the case, then why is the city paying him to resign?

While the agreement may indeed have just been a straightforward separation, the public can’t be expected to know that if it doesn’t understand why it happened, or if it feels like something is still being hidden. The suspicion and mistrust could have been avoided if city leaders had been transparent from the start. The city should have been forthcoming about the settlement immediately after it occurred, fully disclosing what was in the settlement and why taxpayer dollars should be used to pay it. Instead, city leaders refused to answer questions and waited weeks to disclose the actual terms of the deal, releasing them only after the state auditor announced he would investigate the matter. Would we have gotten that information if not for the public pressure from the auditor, or would it have remained a secret?

Instead of finally being transparent, the city appears ready to just move on. But the answers that the city owes now are more than just a courtesy. They’re also an obligation. None of the public records requests filed by The Charlotte Observer for emails and other documents relating to the settlement — some of which were made weeks ago when news of the settlement first broke — have been fulfilled. That’s not exactly a surprise, given that the city has a sizable backlog of records requests that means it often takes years before they’re fulfilled.

Jennings told The Charlotte Optimist, which first reported the details of the agreement and his retirement, that he hoped releasing the agreement himself would build public trust. That’s the right attitude to have, even if it should have happened weeks ago. Other city leaders should take the same approach. It remains concerning that city officials seem to think the most objectionable aspect of this situation is the fact that it was leaked to the public.

The city should instead take this saga as a lesson in why secrets are a bad idea — and an invitation to start telling the truth. City leaders, including Jennings, should hold a news conference to publicly answer any and all outstanding questions related to the decision. The public deserves answers to those questions — not statements that only raise more of them.