Stop the silliness: Dysfunctional Charlotte leaders are embarrassing the city | Opinion

Nearly two months have passed, and Charlotte leaders are still at odds over how to move on from the controversy surrounding the city’s “separation” from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Johnny Jennings.

Interim City Attorney Anthony Fox has said he plans to launch an investigation into comments made by Charlotte City Council member Victoria Watlington shortly after news of the settlement broke in May. In an email to supporters, Watlington made accusations of “unethical, immoral, and frankly, illegal activities” in city government. She later said that her reference to corruption was “figurative” and clarified she had no concerns about “financial or widespread corruption.”

At this point, an investigation seems like the only way to get the transparency we’ve long been asking for from our leaders. The exact focus of the investigation is unclear, though, and not everyone agrees on who should be leading it. Fox wants to lead it himself, while Watlington has called for an independent investigation, given Fox’s own role in the very matter he would be investigating. Watlington said she is concerned about the “integrity of an investigation conducted by the subjects of the investigation,” according to WFAE.

That seems reasonable enough. Fox played a big role in the Jennings settlement and is hardly immune to the questions and transparency concerns it raised. As the city attorney, he was the one to recommend and negotiate the settlement with Jennings, and the exact legal basis for the settlement remains unclear. He was also the one who erroneously suggested during a press conference that state law prohibits elected officials from publicly discussing anything that happens in closed session.

Fox also dismissed an ethics complaint filed by Charlotte NAACP President Corine Mack earlier this year, in which Mack raised concerns about former council member Tariq Bokhari’s behavior toward Jennings. Some have questioned why Mack’s complaint was dismissed due to “insufficient evidence” when city leaders later seemed to determine there was enough evidence for a settlement. Watlington’s issue is primarily that Fox didn’t tell council members he dismissed that ethics complaint prior to the settlement, WFAE reported.

It’s reached a point where things are becoming dysfunctional. It’s silly. It’s embarrassing. It’s counterproductive. Not only are city leaders divided over the settlement, they’re also divided on how to move forward. Fox has refused to make the investigation an outside review, and Watlington is reluctant to participate in the investigation unless it is conducted by someone else. According to emails first reported by WFAE, Fox has refused to even accept Watlington’s offer to answer his questions in writing.

Some council members agree with Watlington’s push for an outside review. Others, however, believe it’s not necessary and would require too much time and expense. Those concerns about cost didn’t seem to stop them from approving a $305,000 settlement in the first place, though, and city leaders have already sacrificed transparency for “efficiency” too many times.

Watlington’s initial comments alleging corruption and illegal activity were certainly irresponsible, but that doesn’t mean her concerns aren’t valid. The city’s handling of the settlement may not have been “corrupt” or “illegal,” but it wasn’t right, either. Nearly two months later, there are still more questions than answers, and the lack of transparency only fuels concerns that the situation was mishandled from the start.

If an investigation is intended to alleviate those concerns, it’s not Fox who should be handling it. An investigation can hardly be objective if the person doing the investigating is also the one being investigated. And if the investigation isn’t objective, how is anyone supposed to trust the outcome?

That is, after all, what it all comes down to. Trust. Among city leaders and staff, between the council and the public. It’s damaged on all sides, and despite vague promises of “improvement,” little has been done to repair it. City leaders can’t lead effectively if the public doesn’t trust them or take them seriously. So far, they don’t seem to be making much progress toward changing that.

Correction: A previous version of this editorial incorrectly identified Interim City Attorney Anthony Fox as former City Attorney Patrick Baker.

This story was originally published June 25, 2025 at 10:36 AM.