District 5 lost its Vote… and it has lost its Voice!
District 5 lost its vote… and it has lost its voice!
In a meeting on Tuesday night, I promised the group that I would not leave quietly from any issue that involved District 5. With that promise in mind, I want to discuss former council member Lois Kirby’s article in Up & Coming. https://www.upandcomingweekly.com/views/9947-district-5-special-use-permit-is-an-insult-to-all-fayetteville-residentsttps://www.upandcomingweekly.com/views/9947-district-5-special-use-permit-is-an-insult-to-all-fayetteville-residents
The short version is that Ms. Kirby lives in a neighborhood where a special use permit (SUP) had been applied for to build a multi-family duplex in what is currently a single-family residential neighborhood. https://cityoffayetteville.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6265833&GUID=C330D519-BD1E-48FF-940D-BAFD65843512&Options=&Search=
Ms. Kirby and many of her neighbors who attended the May 26 council meeting believe the SUP would “dramatically change the character” of their neighborhood. The vote to deny the request resulted in a 5-5 tie. The vote to approve the request was the same tie. A vote to table the decision for 30 days passed 7-3.
Ms. Kirby’s article articulates her reasons for being opposed to the SUP, but my real concern is why would the District 5 representative recuse himself from a vote affecting our (and supposedly, his) district!
Let’s start with the basics… according to the National League of Cities, “as local legislators, councilmembers are responsible for and responsive to the citizens who elected them.” Sounds basic enough, right? But was Council Member Dawkins being responsive to the citizens who elected him when he recused himself from this vote? According to Ms. Kirby, he would not even call the neighbors back to discuss the issue with them.
Now let’s look at understanding why Council Member Dawkins would recuse himself. The definition of recuse states “to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest or lack of impartiality”. So what is his conflict? According to the UNC-School of Government, “For quasi-judicial land use decisions, the constitutional demand for impartiality extends beyond financial conflicts to include bias, close family or associational relationships, and undisclosed ex parte communications.” For clarity here, please note it states UNDISCLOSED communications. At the June 26 meeting, Council Member Dawkins indicated his conflict was ex parte communications. What sort of communications is our council member having that he cannot disclose? Why would he prefer to recuse himself from a vote affecting his district, rather than simply disclose his communications regarding that vote? What is so secret?
(An extra note… the City uploads videos of City Council meetings. They are normally very efficient and timely. Interestingly, the videos for both meetings are still not uploaded.)
Does District 5 have a voice when our council member is recusing himself? Do we have a right to the disclosure of ex parte communications if it keeps our council member from voting on issues affecting our district? Two other council members mentioned that they had spoken with neighbors, but there seemed to be no issue with those communications since they were disclosed.
We need a new voice in District 5. Strike that! It appears we need A VOICE since we seem to have none at all now.
#fayettevillenc #lynnegreeneforcitycouncil #district5deservesavoice #iliveinfayetteville #Greenelightfayetteville #timeforchange
