We often give the caveat that this newspaper’s publisher is not an attorney.
But in most cases, one doesn’t have to have a law degree to be able to read, or comprehend, the English language. And after 35 years of following municipal, county, and school system government agencies and public bodies, we’ve come to know a bit about the law in general and statutes regarding open meetings and public records, in particular.
But apparently some city of Graham staff members, at least one of their attorneys, and five members of the city’s Historic Resources Commission don’t seem to understand, or want to comply with, certain North Carolina statutes regarding the conduct of public hearings.
We were both perplexed, a bit flummoxed, and utterly astonished that Graham’s bureaucrats and commission members were so absolutely unwilling to even hear this newspaper’s publisher during their meeting Tuesday night.
We’ll put aside for the moment the highly technical issue of whether the publisher, who owns the building at 114 West Elm Street that houses The Alamance News, across from a proposed new city park, has “legal standing,” in the parlance of the statutes, to speak about the impact the new park will have on parking – both for Alamance News staff and customers. The reduction of 20-some parking spaces is a real issue, but apparently, in the definition used this week by city officials, only if one can “prove” to be directly and disproportionately impacted by the issue, is one allowed to speak during a “quasi-judicial hearing,” such as the one held this week.
We’ll grant that the “quasi-judicial hearing” is a bit complicated.
Most city business – rezonings, budgets, new or revised ordinances, etc. – are legislative matters. In many cases, state law requires public hearings in connection with changes being considered in any of these categories.
In the case of certain issues, however – such as special use permits (in zoning cases) and certificates of appropriateness (as was the case this week) for a city’s historic district – the hearings are much more formal.
Sworn testimony is required, for instance, by all participants.
But here’s the part that not too difficult to understand, but which the publisher was utterly unable to convey adequately to the Historic Resources Commission members:
Before conducting a “quasi-judicial hearing,” state law (N.C.G.S. 160D-406) requires: “The notice [to adjacent and nearby property owners, like the newspaper’s publisher] must be deposited in the mail at least 10 days, but not more than 25 days, prior to the date of the hearing.”
We tried to point out that the notices were postmarked March 17, seven days prior to their March 24 meeting, not 10, as state law requires.
The lame excuse used by one bureaucrat was that the city’s ordinance only requires seven days; that’s hardly any evidence of anything other than that Graham isn’t even attempting to comply with state law.
But also absent altogether from Graham’s efforts to comply with the law is the next sentence in state law’s requirements for such “quasi-judicial” proceedings: “Within that same time period, the local government shall also prominently post a notice of the hearing on the site that is the subject of the hearing or on an adjacent street or highway right-of-way.”
The parking lot across the street from our building has not had such a notice – not even one of less than a week. Rather, none at all. Ever.
As such, our view is that Tuesday’s proceedings were entirely premature – or more precisely, quite frankly, illegal. The city’s abject and apparently deliberate failure, even refusal, to comply with the fundamental prerequisites of the law to provide plenty of adequate notice to the public about a contemplated change in allowing a park was a serious violation of law.
No discussion of obvious questions
Our publisher’s original intention in going to the meeting was to ask the following fundamental questions, which it seems to us to be quite relevant and significant – both to Graham residents and many other county citizens. But the commission’s more dictatorial members would hear none of it.
- Much of the discussion at previous city council meetings has been the repeated assurance that the memorial bricks (about 400) that were purchased by local residents for the floor of the Sesquicentennial Park at the northwest corner of Court Square would be transferred to the new location. However, there is nothing in the drawing shown to the commission nor in the narrative to suggest this is actually to be done. They are not shown; they are not mentioned. Will they, in fact, be a part of the new park?
- Other city council discussion has included an intention to relocate the existing gazebo that is at the center of the current Sesquicentennial Park; it was supposed to be moved to the new location. However, the design shown, and the description given, make clear that the gazebo is not actually a part of the proposal, as submitted. Instead, the narrative describes that the “central pavilion blends a long-lasting painted steel structure and no maintenance metal roof with a warm wood ceiling and integrated lighting.” It was shown in earlier renditions, but not the latest one. So, what’s to become of the existing gazebo?
- Another glaring omission from the park design is the city clock, currently at the northwest corner of the current park, which has subsequently even become a prominent part of the city’s new logo – on stationery, etc. It is nowhere included in the park design, as submitted or considered by the Historic Resources Commission. What’s to become of it? Why was it not included in the park’s design?
- But surely the gravest omission, or downright change, has been to revise the identity of the park altogether. It is nowhere in the submitted materials referred to as the Sesquicentennial Park anymore, but rather simply as Elm Street Park. While an earlier proposal by the design company was listed as Sesquicentennial Park on West Elm, it is now simply shown, and described, as “Elm Street Park.”
If this is truly to be a “relocation” of the Sesquicentennial Park, it would seem logical to retain the name, not jettison it altogether.
Yet not one member of the commission had the common sense to ask about these rather obvious omissions on Tuesday night.
To use a rather colloquial term, what a hot mess that meeting turned out to be.
Another important procedural oversight is the failure to address the status of the current park, which bureaucrats told the commission and audience was off-limits for discussion. But, in actuality, all of the city council’s actions on this “new park” have actually been votes to “relocate” the current Sesquicentennial Park, moving it to a new location.
There have been three separate proposals – on January 13, February 17, and March 10. The March 10 variation is what appeared to be before the commission Tuesday night.
There should have been an application for demolition of the existing park; after all, state law requires certificates of appropriateness for demolitions in the historic district, as well. But it was not listed as an agenda item at Tuesday night’s meeting – nor included in any of the background materials.
We come to the unenviable conclusion that we apparently continue to overestimate the intelligence and abilities of Graham’s bureaucrats and advisory board members.
Maybe they could take some remedial reading courses – as well as to work on following up on logical oversights in the materials that are thrust before them.
If they have difficulty with that task, there was an audience full of people – and many not in attendance – who could have provided that assistance for them.
