The final report of the investigator retained by the Durham Board of County Commissioners has ruled that although none of Heidi Carter’s behavior which Durham County Manager Wendell Davis complained about in a February 14, 2020 letter, was motivated by racial bias, it was reasonable for Carter’s criticism of Davis to be perceived as racially biased.
“In addition, the manner in which some Commissioners question the Manager and some members of the staff (or the tone of such questioning) could be perceived as micromanaging, disrespectful of their expertise, or biased,” Colemans concludes.
The report exposes a troubling culture within county government rooted in the management of a dysfunctional board.
“These matters reflect a troubling lack of trust and communications between the Board, as the governing body, and the County Manager, and, to a lesser degree, a lack of collegiality among some members of the Board,” Coleman states. “As a result, the Durham County Government is in a state of periodic dysfunction, at a time when the residents of Durham County need it to be effective in dealing with several daunting issues, any one of which alone would be challenging.”
Davis alleged that Carter had “demonstrated a consistent pattern of disparate treatment towards [him] and employees of color. Based on his experience and perception, Davis was concerned that a pattern of alleged disparate treatment “is due to an inherent bias that harbor not merely toward [him], but other people in color in general.”
On February 23, 2020, an anonymous Durham resident emailed Board Chair Wendy Jacobs and Vice-Chair James Hill regarding the submission of a formal complaint of ICMA Code of Ethics violations by Davis. The anonymous resident sent a second letter to Jacobs and Hill to indicate emails were sent to County Commissioners, the Clerk of the Durham District Attorney, and the Chair of the Durham Board of Elections requesting an investigation of Davis for alleged violations of state law. Based on the two emails from an anonymous resident, the board voted to launch an investigation.
Coleman questioned the credibility of the anonymous resident’s statement to the board.
“Although the ICMA’s handling of an ethics complaint is strictly confidential, the anonymous individual claimed that when he or she ‘reached the ICMA they were already aware of this significant ethical concern with Durham County’s Manager. Under the ICMA’s policy, the representation was likely false.”
The anonymous resident submitted “there are rumors circulating in the community that Mr. Davis recruited former Commissioners to run for County Commission.”
The ICMA closed its investigation on July 1, 2020. Coleman agreed with their assessment that Davis did not violate tenant 7 of the code of ethics requiring a manager “to refrain from all political activities which undermine public confidence in professional administrators. Refrain from participation in the election of the employing legislative body.” in addition, he found no violation of tenant 12 which states “Public office is a public trust. A member shall not leverage his or her position for personal pain or benefit.”
“Other than speculation, there is no evidence to support the claim that the February 11, 2020, letter was intended to influence the primary election that was about to begin, in which Commissioner Carter was a candidate,” Coleman states. “I independently reached the same conclusion as the ICMA that Mr. Davis’s letter was primarily to ‘encourage Ms. Carter to reflect how her [alleged] pattern of statements had impacted [him] with...the hope there would be a positive change by sharing [his] candid observations.”
Coleman criticized the board for failing to act after Carter criticized Davis at the boards February 3 meeting. Carter blamed Davis for delays in the county’s approval of the Durham Public School’s Capital Improvement Plan.
“Every member of the Board was struck by Commissioner Carter’s public rebuke of Mr. Davis at the work session. The reaction ranged from one Commissioner who characterized is as “racist” to another who said, “I just kind of winced when I heard...because the truth is, and I told her to her face later, I said ‘Heidi, it wasn’t us that held it up. It was the school district; the district didn’t have their act together.”
Davis asked Jacobs to “do something to get Commissioner Carter under control”. Jacobs says Davis yelled across the room to request she “tell her colleague that she can’t talk to me that way.” Jacobs responded, “I don’t tell my colleagues how to act, or I don’t control my colleagues.”
Most county staff interviewed by Coleman was “shocked and embarrassed” by Carter’s rebuke of Davis. Some staff thought the rebuke was racially biased. One staff member called the tone demeaning. Others called it disrespectful or unfair while failing to say it was intentionally motivated by race.
“A majority of the senior staff rejects racial bias as the source of this behavior. Most agree, however, that employees who experience it might reasonably perceive the conduct as biased, whether conscious or implicit,” Coleman concludes. “But there is wide agreement on the corrosive impact of the behavior of staff, often, it puts the staff in the middle of disputes between the Board and the Manager.”
Given Carter’s resistance to criticism during her public remarks, combined with Jacobs avoiding responsibility to take action, Coleman says Davis had a right to complain directly to Commissioner Carter and set out in writing what he perceived to be her bias against him and other people of color. In addition, Davis had every right to discuss his complaint with the press.
Coleman noted After Durham’s County Manager Accused a Commissioner of Racism, Several Officials Question His Motives (https://indyweek.com/news/durham/-davis-hewendellidi-carter-durham/), an article in the February 19 INDY Week. The article quoted Carter, School Board Chair Mike Lee and Mayor Pro-Tem Jillian Johnson who dismissed Davis’s complaint based on the assumption it is motivated by politics.
“In light of what appeared to be a coordinated public campaign against him, dismissing his complaint and ascribing bad motives to him, it was neither inappropriate nor unethical for him publicly to defend his conduct,” Coleman concludes.
Like the recommendation from ICMA, Coleman advises the board to prioritize constructive ways to move forward. Doing so may be complicated by the perception of racial bias and micromanaging by commissioners.
“Despite efforts by supervisors to protect the staff, the intrusions are exhausting and deflating,” Colemans says. “The staff and Manager identify the Chair as someone who interferes in this way.”
Moving forward demands a critical gaze at how members of the Board of County Commissioners responded to Davis’s letter. To begin, they followed the lead of an anonymous resident who gave false information regarding ICMA’s beginning an investigation of Davis. Jacobs’s is complicit for failing to respond to Davis’s request to control Carter during the public meeting.
Durham County is left with $29,393.00 less in the bank after two reports prove what many already knew. (1) The perception of racial bias hurts just as much as intended racism. (2) Every person has a right to defend their character, even during an election.
No comments:
Post a Comment