By Richard Sullins | richard@rantnc.com

In a stunning and unprecedented action, the Sanford City Council voted 6-1 on Monday afternoon at the end of a specially called closed meeting to officially censure one of its own members for allegedly disclosing closed session information to a member of the public.

A very brief summary written after the meeting provided no details on the nature of the information or the person to whom it may have been disclosed, but it is believed to have been in connection with the city’s controversial purchase of the historic Singer building in downtown Sanford last month. Last week developer Nick Jordan filed a lawsuit against the city alleging breach of contract by the city and asking for an injunction to prevent it from completing the purchase.

Monday’s action by the city’s governing body could well be the first time in the its 149-year history when a sitting council member has received a formal reprimand from their colleagues.

Democratic council member Linda Rhodes, who was elected in the July 2022 election and now serving her first term on the council, said in a prepared statement that she had been invited to a closed-door meeting of the council at 11 a.m. on December 4.

“At the invitation of (Mayor Rebecca Wyhof Salmon), I had agreed to attend a special called meeting of the council to, in the mayor’s words, ‘discuss and answer some questions regarding the sale of the Singer property,'” Rhodes said. “Had I known that conversations among council members, without including me, had taken place regarding the issue of a reprimand, I might have chosen to bring along legal counsel with me.”

Rhodes said Salmon’s invitation was a ruse to get her to attend the meeting, and that it became immediately clear to her once it started that there had been previous discussions among some members of the council to confront her and plan the formal action taken against her Monday afternoon.

Salmon wasn’t available for comment Wednesday, and has declined comment on behalf of the city in two previous stories on the Singer building purchase.

Was there a connection?

Rhodes believes there is a connection between her questions about the city’s acquisition of the Singer property and city hall’s need to save face after an angry response from the public over the way it has treated Jordan, a Durham-based software company founder who expressed interest in the property almost three years ago, and who signed a memorandum of understanding with the city in May of 2021.

The terms of that MOU provided the city would give up its option on the site if Jordan was able to complete his purchase and enter into a development agreement. But Jordan maintains in his lawsuit that the city failed to act in good faith since that time by creating a steady stream of roadblocks that seemed designed to frustrate him into giving up.

Jordan contends that while the city was continuing its dialogue with him about the project and giving no indication of having any other plans, it was simultaneously preparing to apply for a $33 million grant that would have paid for the city’s own vision for the property, called Sanford Central Green, that would stretch along Little Buffalo Creek from Weatherspoon Street to Charlotte Avenue. Jordan had proposed a private investment of about $25 million.

The city quietly exercised its option to purchase the property on November 3. That date is significant because the city didn’t notify Jordan of its intent to do that for another three days and, more importantly, the city council did not approve an action to make the purchase for another 18 days – on November 21.

Why city hall staff would move ahead with exercising its purchase option two and a half weeks before the city council would vote to authorize the purchase hasn’t been explained.

A second action

The council also took a second action after emerging from closed session Monday afternoon by setting up what it called a “litigation committee,” a creation that even City Attorney Susan Patterson found difficult to explain.

This committee was described to The Rant as a subset of the city council established on an ad hoc basis to consult on matters of potential or pending litigation in which the city potentially would be a party to. It could consist of as few as two or three members, or as many as all seven.

But in this case, six members were appointed to the Litigation Committee. The only member of the council who was not made a member was Rhodes.

It’s there that information on the reason the group was empaneled ends, despite further clarification sought by The Rant, although it could be a pre-emptive measure taken in the event that Rhodes seeks legal action against the council. It’s hard to imagine any other instance when all but one of the seven members of the council would have a keen interest in a potential litigation involving the city, its elected officials, or its employees.

No legal consequences

Patterson declined to comment when asked whether there was a single event for which Rhodes was being cited, or if there were multiple instances.

The act of being censured carries with it no legal consequences for Rhodes. She retains her seat on the council and loses no privileges. The UNC School of Government in Chapel Hill says there is no case law that exists on disclosure of privileged information by a member of a governing body and there are no provisions in state law that govern how they are to be handled.

A vote of censure is simply an expression of disapproval of a member’s conduct by their peers that is usually carried out by a vote in open session that members of the public are allowed to see. It differs from a reprimand, which is often carried out in private and delivered to the member in the form of a letter or electronic communication.

Indeed, when the city council met for its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday evening after Monday’s closed-door meeting, not a word was spoken by anyone about the affair. It was as if nothing had happened, as the air was filled with festivities and celebrations following the administration of the oath of office to the four council members elected in November, including new city councilman Walter Ferguson II.

What isn’t clear, though, is why the mayor and the six members of the council who voted to censure Rhodes didn’t want to take the action in public. In Congress in Washington or the General Assembly in Raleigh, a member that is to be censured is traditionally required to stand before their peers while the charges against them are read and the vote is taken.

While this vote was technically taken in public following the end of Monday’s closed session, members of the public would likely not have been able to figure out the what real purpose of that meeting was if they had read the vaguely worded public notice that was posted and sent out around 2:30 p.m. the Friday before.

The notice said that after concluding their work in closed session, the council would “return to regular session and consider decisions on closed session items.” The agenda didn’t contain even a general description of what those items might have included, so there was no way for the public to know what would be voted on, or to be present in the council’s chambers to hear the nature of the actions that the majority would vote to impose.

The next steps in this saga are unclear. The city may decide to roll the dice and take its chances with Jordan in court, or it could choose instead work with him in some form of a public-private partnership.

For her part, Rhodes has moved on. She participated in Tuesday night’s meeting at the same level and with the same energy that she typically does and though she had a prepared statement in her hand to read in her defense, she chose not to do so, leaving only the that she had written in advance of the meeting to speak to those who would receive them.

“I do regret that my fellow Council members felt the need to reprimand me, but on the other hand, they say there is a silver lining behind every cloud,” she said. “I have been overwhelmed and lifted by the many residents, some that I do not even know, that have reached out in support of me. I am very grateful for their support, and that has certainly been a silver lining for which I am very grateful.”