After months in the dark, Charlotte leaders finally take a step toward transparency | Opinion
The saga over Charlotte’s decision to quietly part ways with its police chief with a $305,000 separation agreement has been marked by a series of questionable moves that deepened concerns about trust and transparency with the public. And for a while, it felt like every step the city took to address the matter only made it worse.
But city leaders have finally taken a step to handle the situation the right way. The city has reportedly hired outside counsel to investigate claims made by City Council member Victoria Watlington, who expressed concern about unethical, immoral, and frankly, illegal activities” in city government after news of the settlement broke in May.
Originally, when Interim City Attorney Anthony Fox said he planned to investigate Watlington’s comments, it was an investigation he intended to lead himself. That was problematic for a number of reasons, particularly because Fox played a big role in the process that led to the settlement, as well as the city’s poor handling of it.
The investigation, Fox said, was necessary as part of the city’s due diligence to airport bond investors, who must be reassured that there is no corruption happening within city government. But it’s hard to imagine how they could have been reassured by an investigation conducted by one of the people being investigated. When Watlington pushed for the investigation to be conducted by a third party, Fox refused. It introduced further pettiness, obstinance and dysfunction to a situation that was already embarrassing the city, and continued the pattern of opaqueness the city has exhibited for far too long.
So it’s good news, then, that the city has ultimately decided that a third-party investigation is the best path forward. Hiring outside counsel might come at a higher cost to the city — $300 per hour, plus any out-of-pocket expenses — but it’s worth it if it finally gives the public the answers they’ve been looking for.
It’s the first true step toward transparency that the city has taken since the settlement controversy began months ago. City leaders have seemed eager to move on from the matter, but without answering any of the outstanding questions that have been present from the start. Why was an ethics complaint about a council member’s behavior toward the police chief dismissed just months before the city paid $305,000 to settle that very same issue? Was the settlement made using proper procedure? What were the legal grounds for doing so? Was it proper to allow a council member’s unexcused absence to count as a yes vote, if that member intended to vote no?
The investigation provides an opportunity to finally get answers to those questions and more. Without those answers, it will be hard for the council to repair trust among themselves and with the public. But even if the investigation uncovers nothing, the public can have more trust in the outcome knowing that it was truly objective, rather than handled by city officials who have no real incentive to give answers that might make them look bad.
The exact scope of the investigation is unclear, as is the timeline for its completion. But it’s an election year, and the investigation should be a top priority so that voters can factor its outcome into the decision they make at the ballot box. If the investigation uncovers something that voters don’t find out about until after they’ve cast their ballots, trust between the public and its leaders would be fractured even further. That’s not the way the council should hope to start its new term.
After months of being left in the dark, it’s refreshing to see city leaders take a first step on the path to transparency. Hopefully it won’t be the last.
