Commissioners likely followed law, but questions remain after release of vague documentation

During its last meeting, the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to go in to a closed session to discuss several matters, including an amendment to change the county’s personnel ordinance to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The amendment, proposed by commissioner Holly Jones and supported only by Board Chair David Gantt, was defeated by a 3–2 vote later that evening.

However, at the meeting and in the days since, several prominent observers have raised questions over the legality of discussing the amendment in a closed session before the vote.

Before moving to go in to closed session at the Aug. 7 meeting, Karen Oelschlaeger, president of the League of Women Voters of Asheville-Buncombe County, warned the commissioners during the public hearing that N.C. Statute states: “General personnel policy issues may not be considered in a closed session.”

Oelschlaeger, as well as former publisher of the Black Mountain News, Jim Aycock, subsequently wrote commentaries published by the Asheville Citizen-Times that cited the statute, making the case that the commissioners may have broken the law. WWNC News Radio talk show host Pete Kaliner also cited the statute during several subsequent broadcasts, slamming the commissioners for potentially breaking the law.

In addition, observers questioned the legality of going into closed session to discuss an issue that doesn’t involve pending litigation.

Law on their side
However, in an interview with Xpress, Assistant County Attorney Curt Euler — who had been filling in for County Attorney Michael Frue during the meeting — defends his legal advice to the board. And a review by North Carolina Press Association attorney Amanda Martin, as well as the Aug. 15 release of the closed session’s minutes, reveal that the commissioners are likely on solid legal ground — although questions remain.

Under the advisement of Euler, the board moved to go in to closed session that night based on a North Carolina statute that allows for “attorney-client privilege.” And the law permits commissioners to seek legal advice behind closed doors about amending its personnel ordinance, according to Martin. “If they were getting legal advice, about potential liability if they did or didn’t include that provision, then the lawyer could give that advice,” she notes. But she cautions that under attorney-client privilege rules, any closed session deliberations must be limited strictly to legal advice.

“Let’s say that they say, ‘We need to know, do we have legal exposure, if we don’t make make this amendment, are we going to get sued?’ They can get that answer in a closed session,” she explains.

Euler echoes that argument. “They couldn’t go back there and talk about whether homosexuality is good or bad,” he says. “That has nothing to do with the legal ramifications. That would be inappropriate. Or talking about the financial repercussions. The cost. If they said, ‘[County Manager] Wanda [Greene], how much is this going to cost us?’ That would be inappropriate to talk about in a closed session,” he explains.

Martin also notes, “There doesn’t have to be any pending litigation” to justify going in to a closed session. Although “if there is pending litigation, then they have to identify it,” she adds. When moving to go into closed session to discuss the amendment to the personnel ordinance, Euler and Gantt have both said there was no pending litigation.

Burden of proof
Other than taking the commissioners’ words for it, the only documentation of what was discussed behind closed doors on Aug. 7 are the minutes recorded by Kathy Hughes, clerk to the board and public relations director. There are no audio or video recordings of the session, she says.

A draft of those minutes was posted on the Buncombe County website on Aug. 15. However, Hughes’ record is short on details, stating only: “The Board heard from the County Attorney regarding the legal implications of including sexual orientation in the County’s Personnel Ordinance. No action was taken.”

The commissioners will need to vote on the draft of the minutes before they become part of the official record; that vote’s scheduled to take place at the commissioners’ next meeting on Aug. 21. It’s listed on the consent agenda, which usually passes unanimously with little or no discussion.

However, the scant documentation of what happened behind closed doors is already frustrating those looking for more clarity on the matter.

“If, during closed session, the commissioners moved beyond legal technicalities, then the commissioners violated the law,” said Oelschlaeger in a Aug. 16 written statement from the local League, which advocates for government transparency. “Though the minutes do not indicate any such illegal discussions, I am not confident that the minutes meet the legal standard of ‘full and accurate.’” 

She adds that the League has been in touch with an attorney from the N.C. Open Government Coalition to help advise the best course of action.

“The Multimedia Publishing v. Henderson County ruling clearly states that “the burden is on the Board to show that the attorney-client privilege applied,” she maintains. “I am not yet confident that the county has met its burden of proof.”

Meanwhile, Euler says that, “Ultimately the minutes preserve what’s back there.

“Ultimately, everything we talk about is hypothetical until a judge looks at it,” he adds.

About Jake Frankel
Jake Frankel is an award-winning journalist who enjoys covering a wide range of topics, from politics and government to business, education and entertainment.

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

7 thoughts on “Commissioners likely followed law, but questions remain after release of vague documentation

  1. “..Euler and Gantt have both said there was no pending litigation.”

    That’s not what I’m hearing.

  2. Ascend (of Asheville)

    Don’t believe everything you see on twitter, but the actions of the commission are not heartening. That vote should have been a no-brainer.

    • Jake

      Don’t confuse the issue with the vote. Passing legislation to outlaw discrimination IS a no-brainer. The vote would have been a no-brainer had the issue been brought before the Commission in a reasonable manner. It wasn’t.

  3. Don’t believe everything county board members tell you.

    This will be an excellent input into the November election.

  4. Roger Hartley

    To my commenter colleagues,

    It appears that the law needs reform…and it’s no wonder given that recent reports have given NC govt horrible grades on transparency.

    I belleve strongly that discussion of personnel matters and legal issues specific to persons must be discussed in private to protect a persons rights. When going into such a session good leaders should take care to cite what the reason is. Justify. Disclose what can be disclosed rather than only releasing what you are legally required to do. The former builds trust…the latter build suspicion.

    Let’s consider not just the law as it reads, but it’s purpose. By considering purpose we can consider reform. Is the purpose of the law to be so open as to shield public officials from tough decisions? I could ask for legal advice on most anything. The key then is, as the expert says, was anything else discussed? And isn’t it relevant to policy formulation…and the public…to know the rationsle behind any fear to do the right thing out of fear of a costly suit? If that were the motivating factor then I imagine a very different conclusion to most battles for civil rights. Those who bravely passed the civil roghts act and voting rights acts probably knew that they were creating rights that justify claims from our justice system. But they did it anyway, didn’t they?

  5. Roger Hartley

    The other thing I would offer is that the issue is not dead. The commission can still pass a law ending discrimination. I urge them to reconsider it. If it requires more time and analysis…say so and then take the steps to make it happen. Delay is unpopular…but careful policy making is important. And politically…such a justification is more politically persuasive than this example.

  6. glolady

    As with all the meetings before, this board of County Commissioners have continued to show they do not have the people’s best interest when voting. They Silence The People’s Voice!

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.