•Public may be shut out of deliberation

By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer

The Columbus County Board of Elections decided on Aug. 6 that records would not be subpoenaed for a residency challenge to be heard Aug. 14.

“We’re not going to subpoena records. It’s not necessary and it would be a big expense,” Board of Elections member Margaret Roland said after the meeting.

The Aug. 14 hearing is to determine if incumbent Fair Bluff municipal candidate James “Jack” Meares Jr. is eligible to hold a commissioner’s seat on the town board and run in the November election.

Two candidates filed affidavits on July 25 challenging the residency of Meares. Chris Scott and John Wayne Phillips allege Meares does not reside in Fair Bluff.

Meares says although he owns a home in Whiteville, he considers a home he owns in Fair Bluff to be his official residence.

Under state law, the burden of proof lies with Meares to show that he is qualified to be a candidate for the office.

N.C. General Statutes 163-57 address residency for registration and voting. In order to run for an office a candidate must be eligible to vote in that district.

“We are both the judge and jury on this case, we are not here to help either one,” Chairman Jesse Graham said, according to minutes taken at the meeting. “We need to keep an open mind. Make sure your minds are not already made up.”

The Town of Fair Bluff will bear the expense and a letter was sent to Mayor Randy Britt acknowledging such, although there is no mention in the minutes of the cost.
It appears that the board asked County Attorney Steve Fowler if a decision had to be reached the night of the meeting and he said he would have to look into quasi-judicial law.

Fowler told the board the findings of fact must be reached as a panel, not individually.
The law defines residency in various ways but clearly states that the residence of a person is where the “person’s habitation is fixed, and to which, whenever that person is absent, that person has the intention of returning.”

A key issue the board will have to decide is if Meares did in fact lose his Fair Bluff residency when he purchased a home in Whiteville that his challengers allege is his permanent residence.

The law notes three points must be concluded:

(1) An actual abandonment of the first domicile, coupled with an intent not to return to the first domicile.

(2) The acquisition of a new domicile by actual residence at another place.

(3) The intent of making the newer domicile a permanent domicile.

Details of the 2 p.m. meeting are unclear. The News Reporter was not given access to the meeting initially, although notified of the meeting.

Director Carla Strickland was on vacation on the day the meeting was called.
Although the newspaper was notified, upon arriving at the meeting a reporter was told that, by law, she could not attend.

It appeared that the staff member went into the meeting and told the board, with County Attorney Steve Fowler and his paralegal present, that the reporter was there.
Access was denied.

Upon returning to the elections office, the reporter and an editor with the newspaper again requested entry into the meeting.

Several minutes passed and the staff member returned, this time allowing them to enter the meeting at roughly 2:55 p.m.

By that time, the meeting was nearly finished. There was discussion as to whether the meeting was a closed meeting.

The reporters were told it was not a closed meeting and the denial of access was a miscommunication.

Copies of draft minutes were provided the following day.

Included in those draft minutes is Fowler’s suggestion that the board go into a closed session on Tuesday Aug. 14 following the hearing to discuss “legal matters.”

Fowler’s office was contacted to explain specifically which provision of law he believes would provide for a closed session in the upcoming case but he has not returned the call.

Mike Tadyche, an attorney with Everette, Hancock and Stevens who serves as the N.C. Press Association Sunshine Line press attorney, said the Tuesday meeting was “likely an illegal meeting.”

In regard to the suggestion of a future closed session, he said: “I think the deliberation should be held out in the open until someone points me otherwise.”

He pointed out under the law the board must have prescribed rules and there is no language in the statutes to suggest this particular type of hearing would involve a closed session.

The board hearing will begin at 6:30 p.m. at the elections office on Aug. 14. The board then has until Aug. 22 to offer a written decision in the case.