An e-cigarette ban, delayed public hearings, repairing the Vance Monument and background checks for school board members in an unusually short Asheville City Council meeting
Above: Council member Jan Davis, file photo by Max Cooper.
“Short” is a relative term when it comes to Asheville City Council meetings. A lot’s happening in our city, and plenty of it — one way or another — ends up in the chambers of local government. While the marathon-length sessions of the mid-2000s aren’t the norm anymore, it’s not unusual for Council meetings to last four or five hours. The meetings start at 5 p.m. and if citizens, staff and the press get out by 7 p.m., it’s usually considered on the short side.
But on March 10, Council broke the trend a little bit, wrapping its business in about a half hour, the shortest meeting in some time (just after things concluded Mayor Esther Manheimer jokingly asked the public “did we break the record?”). The agenda already had no major reports or proclamations on it, but Council was originally scheduled to tackle public hearings on two developments: an apartment complex on Sardis Road and a subdivision in West Asheville. Both, at their developers’ requests, were delayed until the May 12 and March 24 meetings, respectively.
Setting the agenda
Once again, there was significant discussion about issues on the consent agenda, a list of ostensibly routine items usually passed in the opening minutes of a Council meeting.
So it’s worth taking a look at how items get on that particular slice of the agenda, and how they can end up a topic of scrutiny or debate.
State law leaves the setting of agendas — even their very existence — in the hands of local government, though it does specify rules for making meetings open to the public, holding special meetings, requiring a public comment period, notifying the public and what Council and can’t discuss behind closed doors.
So the agenda is, in the end, up to the rules of procedure established by Council, and how local elected officials interpret those. The city’s rules reserve the consent agenda for “routine, non-controversial items that need little or no deliberation.” It also notes that “at the request of any individual member of the city council, a citizen, and/or a member of the city staff, an item shall be removed from the consent agenda and placed upon the regular agenda for discussion.”
Naturally, if something is “routine” and “non-controversial” is often in the eye of the beholder. While consent agendas usually pass without much debate, sometimes the view of local government and the public end up at odds. The biggest local example in recent years was a property sale for the Parkside development that ended up on the consent agenda for the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners, before it ended up the center of a years-long political and legal battle.
Most don’t quite rise to that level of conflict, but divides between what the public and Council members consider controversial still arise. More recently, a purchase of surveillance equipment slated for the consent agenda ended up a topic of public discussion after Carolina Public Press highlighted it and members of the public raised further concerns. In a time of debate about policing, surveillance and the state of local law enforcement an item that might have, in another time, ended up going through relatively unnoticed ended up a source of controversy.
Despite that debate, Council kept the item on the consent agenda and after some brief discussion, passed it along with the other “routine” matters. According to the city’s rules, generally the consent agenda itself isn’t supposed to be debated; specific items should be pulled for discussion and a vote separately if there’s any questions or comments about them.
On March 10, Council decided that two items deserved separate consideration.
The matter of Vance
In this case, the first item Council reserved for its own discussion — at Council member Jan Davis’ request — concerned one of the city’s major landmarks: the 1896 obelisk dedicated to Zebulon Vance. Specifically, the matter was committing the city to assist with an effort by the 26th North Carolina to repair the aging monument. The local reenactment and historical preservation organization dedicated to the history of the Confederate regiment of the same name has spearheaded fundraising efforts for the repair, raising $115,000. Now the city was considering offering $11,000 worth of services to complete the effort, beginning in April.
Davis pulled the item, he said, to highlight the 26th’s accomplishment.
“Several years ago we recognized there were issues with the Vance Monument and the obelisk itself was deteriorating,” he said. “There was concern here on Council about how to repair it. A great group of people got together and worked really hard” to do so, and they deserved the city’s thanks.
Debbie Ivester, assistant director of the city’s Parks and Recreation department, noted that the monument’s repair has been a major priority for several years and that the organization had stepped in to meet the need.
“It’s the first time in the life of the monument that it’s had this extensive restoration,” she said.
Chris Roberts, chairman for the 26th’s efforts, added that he’d spent 12 years working as a guide at Vance’s birthplace museum in Weaverville and that “the Vance monument has become the heart of the city of Asheville in many ways. For many years I’ve watched it degrade to some degree and wanted to have an opportunity to do something about that.”
Council applauded the 26th’s efforts and approved the services to complete the restoration unanimously.
Vance is a major political figure in the history of Western North Carolina and the state as a whole: the Confederate governor and U.S. Senator played a key role in North Carolina’s development. He was also a slave owner and racist who made considerable efforts to end Reconstruction and opposed African-Americans’ right to vote. The obelisk, most of it funded by timber magnate George Pack, was erected shortly after Vance’s death and sits near a site where slaves were once sold. Nearby are four other monuments or markers to Confederate history.
The monument’s repair also comes at the same time as a push to build a monument on Pack Square to the contributions of WNC’s African-Americans, including a petition seeking the involvement of the city’s Public Arts and Cultural Commission to move such a monument forward.
“Because such an iconic structure memorializes a major figure in both our local and our state’s history, we support the present efforts to refurbish and maintain it, lest it fall into further disrepair,” the petition notes of the obelisk’s repair. “At the same time, we are concerned that we, as a community, not continue to perpetuate the long-standing pattern of commemorating only parts of our shared history while ignoring the experiences and contributions of others in our community.”
A case of the vapors
The second item Council pulled out for discussion — at Council member Gordon Smith’s request — concerned a move to regulate e-cigarettes like the city does traditional lighted cigarettes; banning them from city buildings, buses and public parks.
“The concern expressed by staff was that in our public facilities we don’t allow smoking,” Council member Chris Pelly, who sits on Council’s Public Safety Committee, said. “The health effects of e-cigarettes are unknown at this point, so to err on the side of caution we’re thinking about prohibiting it.”
Davis emphasized that the ban only affected the same areas the city already doesn’t allow smoking in.
“The FDA is still waiting to make a determination and their concern is there’s something like 250 e-cigarette devices available and there’s no consistency as to what’s in them,” Council member Cecil Bothwell added. “It seems that some of them, at least, don’t cause the second-hand effects cigarettes are known to cause but some of them may cause that and until that’s resolved, the same rules ought to apply until we know something better.”
Deputy City Attorney Martha McGlohon noted that the resolution uses the same definition of an “e-cigarette” as state agencies do. Council passed the ban unanimously.
Boards and background checks
Council also narrowed the field for applicants for two seats on one of its most most important boards, the Asheville City School Board, overseeing the system of ten schools and over 4,000 students. Chair Jacquelyn Hallum and board member Precious Grant are nearing the end of their terms, leaving Council looking for their replacements. While the schools are an independent system, Council appoints their governing board.
Due to the importance of the board and questions about its selection, Vice Mayor Marc Hunt noted that he felt it important to publicly make the decision to narrow the field of 13 candidates down to six, which Council will then interview before its next meeting.
He cited some public “confusion” about the process and wanted to clear the process up by having Council decide which six to interview. Council decided on James Lee, A-B Tech’s worker outreach coordinator and a local activist; Joanna Best, a music teacher at Buncombe County Schools; Steve Dykes, former Asheville City Schools foundation president; Shaunda Sandford, who works for Family Preservation Services; Greg Walker Wilson, former CEO of Mountain Bizworks, and Martha Geitner, a retired city schools teacher.
Hunt noted that “there was the question of background checks” for potential school board members, and that Council had agreed “that would be a responsible thing to do.” After dealing with legal questions, he said they had decided to do confidential checks through the city’s Human Resources department, something the rest of Council also supported.
“Yes, there will be background checks,” he said. “If there are any red flags that emerge from those background checks, Council will be informed confidentially.”
Some Council members also specified what they’re looking for in potential school board members.
“I know a lot of us have taken time to think about what our school system’s needs are,” Smith said, and he wanted “candidates who can be collaborative, can be effective leaders.” He also wants more attention on healthier food, justice for the students of the William Randolph school, who faced issues with mold and building conditions, and a proactive board.
“I was really impressed by the number of the candidates and the passion I saw in the applications,” Council member Gwen Wisler said, a sentiment Hunt seconded.
In the meeting’s public comment period, some speakers said they also had concerns about healthier food at local schools. Brian Good, who sits on the school system’s nutrition committee, wanted Council members to make it a focus of interview questions. Liam Luttrell, chef at the Edington Center’s kitchen, asked Council to consider working with Green Opportunities and other local groups to provide healthier local food for the schools.
“We have the backing of many parents citywide,” he said. “I really want to focus on folks that feel like they can get something done and can say ‘yes.’ I feel like our school system has struggled with that in the past.”
—
The Asheville Blade is entirely funded by its readers. If you like our work, donate directly to us on Patreon. Questions? Comments? Email us.