Part of an Alamance News investigative report: Graham city council public records
Three veteran Graham city council members appear to be having conversations, via both email and texts, between city council meetings, discussing the public’s business and agenda items (past and future) in a manner that the state’s press attorney believes could be violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law.
The Alamance News filed public records requests on February 19 with Graham mayor pro tem Ricky Hall and council members Bobby Chin and Bonnie Whitaker, initially hoping to ferret out whether they had, in fact, heard an outpouring of support for relocating the park, as Chin and Whitaker have repeatedly claimed (see related story this edition).
The newspaper sought copies of all correspondence (including emails and texts) to, from, and among the three council members about Sesquicentennial Park since December 1, 2025. The request also covered copies of all correspondence, including emails and text messages, to and from other members of the city council, as well as then-mayor, now former mayor, Jennifer Talley, for the same time period.
The attorney who represents the North Carolina Press Association and this newspaper, Mike Tadych of Raleigh, citing the state’s Open Meetings Law said, “The public’s business is to be conducted in public, not in emails and text messages outside of public view.
The documents furnished in response to the newspaper’s public records request included: 47 emails and two text messages from Chin; 63 emails and 16 text messages from Whitaker; and 42 emails from Hall, whose documents included no text messages.
Graham city manager Megan Garner also furnished copies of 79 emails and 78 text messages in response to an earlier, related public records request that the newspaper sent to city hall.
When the initial, February 19 request to the three council members yielded neither an acknowledgement nor a response, Alamance News publisher Tom Boney, Jr. delivered a follow-up letter to the three council members at their latest monthly meeting, on March 10, noting that the state’s Public Records Law stipulates a prompt timeframe for a response. North Carolina case law and legal experts have determined a reasonable timeframe to be a week or two for simple requests.
Hall and Whitaker furnished their correspondence late last week; Chin furnished his Wednesday afternoon, shortly before the newspaper’s press deadline.
Text discussions touch on Mebane lawsuit, surveillance cameras
One of the discussions-by-text took place in December and dealt with a lawsuit that Mebane has filed against the city, for allegedly obligating Mebane – without its consent or involvement – to pay more than $18 million (21.4 percent) toward the $84.6 million cost to upgrade and expand Graham’s wastewater treatment plant. [Such topics are customarily reserved for closed sessions, with the city’s attorneys, at official meetings.]
In one text that appeared to have been sent at 9:57 p.m. on December 9, before the lawsuit had been entered into the court system’s database, Hall suggested suing Mebane for breach of contract and requesting a $50 million judgment. He quickly followed with another text, stating, “Just kidding.”
Another discussion-by-text dealt with removing a discussion about the Flock camera system, which law enforcement agencies use to scan license plates for major crime investigations. On Saturday, December 6, Chin texted Hall and Talley about moving that item from the consent agenda to the “new business agenda” for the meeting on December 9, due to “misuse of the data collected.”
Hall texted back, “We (The City) already collect tons of camera data at our parks, City Hall and other City Owned property.”
Talley, whose successor was scheduled to be sworn in at the December 9 meeting, bucked that suggestion to move the item to the new business portion of the agenda. “The criticism is from groups like [American Civil Liberties Union],” she texted. “I find it amazing that literally everyone with a cell phone feels entitled to film everyone and everything and [the U.S. Supreme Court] has made it abundantly clear that they have the right to film and that no one in public has a right or expectation to privacy, yet when someone is caught doing something illegal, they are all up in arms screaming about privacy.”
Hall texted in response, “That’s true…Don’t these people know that every cell phone in the world is being tracked 24 seven[;] they know where you’re at and where you’ve been…But we need to watch, debating in writing, as this topic could come back to bite us.”
“Agreed,” Chin texted. “I am dropping this topic.”
Chin and Hall also chimed in on a proposal by the administration to update the city logo to include an image depicting the four-sided pedestal clock at Sesquicentennial Park; both councilmen told the manager via email that “we should move forward” with the new logo, in response to a January 7 email in which she sent renderings of the new design to all five council members.
No park at all?
Even after the council voted in January to relocate the park – and to approve two initial design concepts for the new park – Whitaker continued to reiterate, via email, as she had during the council meetings, that the potential for structural collapse warrants immediate removal of the park.
“During yesterday’s meeting discussing budget and taxation for Graham, the Mayor stated that safety of the citizens was something that she ran on and was one of her main concerns and goals,” Whitaker wrote in an email to the council and city’s administration on February 24, following a special meeting at which a consultant discussed the city’s ability to fund construction of a new fire substation and several other big-ticket projects.
“Well, it is no longer a question of IF that structure collapses, but rather WHEN that structure collapses,” Whitaker wrote. “It is simply inevitable due to gravity. I am imploring my fellow council members to make the decision to remove the Sesquicentennial Park ASAP. I do not wish to see anyone injured or killed, or any property damage cause by its looming collapse…I am suggesting using some of the grant money to hire a qualified contractor to remove the park, safely, efficiently and quickly. If people wish to have their bricks returned to them, we should certainly oblige them.
“This park is a liability for this city the way it stands,” Whitaker wrote. “This is about SAFETY and the park must be dismantled regardless of IF we put a park anywhere downtown. In fact, maybe the most fiscally responsible thing to do is not build a park at all since we are already spending so much on capital improvements including our other parks.”
Lots of thoughts about February 10 meeting
The documents furnished in response to the newspaper’s public records request also touched on other issues, such as a request by the city’s new mayor, Chelsea Dickey, to attend a conference sponsored by the N.C. Main Street program.
On February 11, the day after the council’s monthly meeting, Chin emailed the whole council, as well as the city manager, assistant city manager, and city clerk, outlining why he’d removed a $1,500 allocation from the budget, which had been designated for Dickey to attend the Main Street conference in New Bern from March 10-12.
“Last year Ricky and I attended a conference where a representative from the NC Main Street program spoke,” Chin wrote. “As he spoke about each point, I noted that Graham met each one – economic vitality – yes; design – downtown architecture – yes; promotion – downtown activities (concerts, festivals, etc.) – yes; until he spoke about organization, specifically, having a downtown coordinator. We don’t.”
Call for unity
Jim Young, who joined the council in December, also felt compelled to share his thoughts about the February 10 meeting in an email he sent to the whole council and city’s administration the next day, on February 11.
Several emails that Young sent last month zeroed in on Dickey.
In his February 11 email to the mayor and three other council members, Young took issue with how Dickey had framed the omission of $1,500 for her to attend Main Street conference “to further our downtown.”
In particular, Young said Dickey had made it seem as though the council was “purposely holding back something to help the community,” as opposed to simply “making a decision about how to budget our money.”
“When disagreements are framed as if someone does not care,” Young wrote, “it causes division and hurts trust. We can disagree without questioning each other’s intentions. We owe each other honest, fact-based discussion without comments that place blame or try to gain sympathy. Again, I’m not looking to debate anyone – I just wanted to share my feelings about what happened…Let’s keep focusing on making good decisions and leading with respect.”
Yet on February 18, Young emailed Dickey (and copied the remaining council members as well as the city’s administration), asking her to make a call for public unity.
“As your council colleague, I’ve observed the rising tensions following the park vote,” Young wrote in the email to Dickey. “We’re seeing harmful division in public discussions…I urge you to make a public call for unity and respectful discourse. Disagreement is part of democracy, but divisive rhetoric doesn’t help our town…I believe a unifying message from you would be a step toward healing these divides.”
Dickey responded in an email on February 19, thanking Young for his “thoughtful message.”
“While disagreement is a natural part of the democratic process, I remain committed to promoting civility, transparency, and mutual respect in Graham,” Dickey wrote. “I have strived to lead meetings with this in mind asking speakers not to address specific council people, quieting vocal jeering and leaving space for all of us to share our various views…Many residents are clearly engaged, and I believe some are feeling upset and hurt by a lack of representation in recent council actions…
“I am working to the very best of my ability to represent our entire community thoughtfully and fairly, while encouraging constructive and respective discourse. I would welcome the opportunity to meet in person to continue this conversation and discuss how we can move forward together.”
In a subsequent, February 20 email to Chin, Hall, and Whitaker, Young outlined his reasoning for having voted alongside Dickey at a special-called meeting (on February 17) against approving a second iteration of the new park design. “I’d be damned if I didn’t ask,” Young wrote in his February 20 email.
Young wrote, “Let’s give ourselves a shot at looking like one hell of a united team – no matter what the crap the mayor or anyone else says. I’m not suggesting we use grant money. I think we should give the public…say, six months…to raise their own funding, since they’re so sure they can. I totally get it if you refuse, but I’d feel I failed by not asking.”
Administrative housekeeping
By comparison, most of the text messages and emails that Garner sent to the five council members fall under the category of administrative “housekeeping,” notifying them of such things as: dates of scheduled meetings and polling them about their availability for several special meetings that had been discussed but not yet scheduled; changes to the city’s operating schedule following inclement weather in late January; upcoming events of interest; and logistics for several, subsequent special-called meetings.
Last month, Dickey also emailed Garner, asking to attend upcoming meetings with department heads as they begin finalizing their budget priorities for the 2026-27 fiscal year.
Garner sent an email to Dickey, explaining that the city council would need to authorize the mayor to attend since state law defines those meetings as a “staff function” and delegates oversight to the city manager.
Another issue that has emerged in recent months followed a January 13 email from a community member named Bob Crayton, requesting clarity about the process for appointing new members to the city’s advisory boards; whether their meetings are subject to the Open Meetings Law; and how public input is gathered for any decisions that are made.
In response to a request by Chin, Garner elaborated that the council appoints these committees, as authorized by the city’s charter and state law; that meetings are public and subject to the state’s Open Meetings Law; and that some recommendations by advisory boards and commissions (e.g., rezoning) have to be approved by the city council.
Press attorney: State law requires public business to be conducted in public
Asked whether it is appropriate for council members to be sharing their thoughts and opinions about previous council actions or future ones with one another through emails/texts, rather than at a public meeting, the North Carolina Press attorney said it is not.
“The North Carolina Open Meetings Law clearly states the public policy of our Legislature that ‘the public bodies that administer the legislative, policy-making, quasi-judicial, administrative, and advisory functions of North Carolina and its political subdivisions exist solely to conduct the people’s business, it is the public policy of North Carolina that the hearings, deliberations, and actions of these bodies be conducted openly,’” Tadych confirmed Wednesday for The Alamance News.
Tadych emphasized, “The public’s business is to be conducted in public, not in emails and text messages outside of public view. The Open Meetings Law does not contain any aspirations for efficiency or unity among public bodies.”
Read the newspaper’s editorial page views on the council’s back channel communications: https://alamancenews.com/smoking-keyboards/
