Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Heidi Carter's refusal to recuse is an example of white privilege

Support my brand of local, independent, Black journalism by making a contribution at: Cash App, $CMizzou or Venmo, @Carl-Kenney-1


White supremacy is on full display at meetings of the Durham Board of County Commissioners. Like in most cases, the three non-Black members on the board have no clue their privilege is showing.

 In a move hoped to balance whatever is happening in those closed-door meetings, Brenda Howerton, chair of the board, made a motion for Heid Carter to recuse herself from conversations related to the contract of Durham County Manager Wendell Davis. The motion failed 3-2, with Nimasheena Burns offering the other yea vote. 

 

Howerton’s motion provides a behind the scenes glimpse of the closed-door meetings that have occurred during recent board meetings. Viewers of the meetings held on the Durham County Government website were forced to speculate which Durham County employee is being discussed after Howerton read a statement regarding policy involving closed session.  

 

The motion to recuse solved that riddle. Even more, it forced a public conversation related to the nature of discussions involving the renewal of Davis’ contract. The documented tension between Carter and Davis supports Howerton’s motion. 

 

On August 10, 2020, Carter emailed a letter to members of the board to document why she wasn’t attending a closed session. 

 

“I am unable to sustain further risks to my reputation, my safety, and my health due to the possibility that additional negative and baseless allegations may be contrived,” Carter states.” The manager’s actions have irreparably damaged my ability to have a working relationship with him and have unfortunately impacted my ability to fully uphold the responsibility the people of Durham have vested in me.” 

 

Carter’s letter followed the August 2, 2020 release of the findings of James E. Coleman, Jr., the attorney retained by the board to conduct a review of allegations made by Davis. Coleman was asked to investigate the allegation that Carter had demonstrated a consistent pattern of disparate treatment towards Davis and other employees of color. Based on his perception, Davis stated his concern that the alleged treatment is due to an inherent bias that Carter harbors toward him and people of color in general. 

 

Coleman’s report helps in framing Howerton’s motion.  

 

“Commissioner Carter’s offense at being unfairly called a racist, and the offense taken by her colleagues and supporters, divert attention from assessing how others are impacted by her sometimes abrasive style,” Colemans states. “For that reason, the County Manager’s decision to center his complaint around such an incendiary charge of “inherent bias” made it foreseeable that the Board and others would recoil defensively and largely ignore the two important issues that he identified; as he admits, the tone of his letter reflected his own growing frustration with Commissioner Carter and other commissioners during the last four years.” 

 

Although Coleman’s report is mentioned throughout the March 8, 2020 board meeting, it is not clear if members of the board are using the conclusions as a template in moving forward. Remarks made by Jacobs reflect a pattern of actions that minimize the influence of her own privilege and a clear will to maintain control. 

 

Coleman’s report highlights comments made by Jacob’s during an April 27, 2020 public meeting after the board announced it had decided to retain counsel to investigate Davis’ complaint. 

 

“I just wish that we had been able to address this in a different way, I acknowledge that our manager has had his feelings hurt. And I feel sorry. I feel very bad about that,” Jacobs said before adding. “I don’t believe that Commissioner Carter meant to make any racist statements. I don’t think that was her intent...I think there are a lot of victims in this situation.” 

 

Jacobs’ comments reflect a clear bias prior to allowing the process to offer a conclusion. Coleman details a pattern of dysfunction felt by members of the staff. 

 

“The Manager and staff were frustrated because they interpreted Commissioner Carter’s persistent questioning as repetitive and evidence that she lacked confidence in their advice or judgement,” Coleman states. “Some of the staff attribute this perceived lack of confidence to racial bias; evidence that she was reluctant to accept the expert advice of County employees unless it was confirmed by outside experts.” 

 

The manager and some staff perceived micromanaging by Jacobs and other commissioners as evidence of racial bias. Coleman notes that some commissioners bypass the manager and communicate directly with members of the staff regarding details of work. 

 

Using Coleman’s report as a checklist of things not to do gives the board an F after the March 8 meeting. Members of the board disrespected County Attorney Lowell Siler’s (a Black man) recommendation to offer a contract to The Robert Bobb Group. Jacobs chided Bobb’s record in proposing privatizing the Detroit Public School System to prevent bankruptcy. It was a highly controversial move in the most union friendly city in the nation.  

 

It is appropriate for Jacobs, Carter and Allam to question offering RGB the contract based on the perception of an ant-education agenda. That matters. The public dismissal of Siler’s recommendation also matters. It matters due to the ongoing lack of trust, micromanagement and perception of racial bias hindering the management of county government. 

 

Coleman’s report called it. “The Durham County Government is in a state of periodic dysfunction,” he states. “In the circumstances, it is critically important as a matter of first order for the Board and the County Manager to find a constructive way to move forward and put these issues behind the County.”  

 

Durham County is spiritually wounded. It is wounded by the perpetual determination of Carter, Jacobs and others to control and manipulate the actions of Black men and women. Their failure to effectively respond to the findings of Coleman’s report may reflect a bias noted hesitation to accept their role in nurturing a divisive environment. Their pride forces them to control the process involving training to correct what they helped create. 

 

Carter’s refusal to recuse is an example of white privilege. Being white, in her mind, gives her the right to offer input after explicitly stating her bias. Worse is the disinclination of Jacobs and Allam to force recusal. 

 

Maybe they didn’t read the report. If they have, it’s an example of white power and privilege. 


Board of County Commissioner Regular Session Meeting




No comments:

Post a Comment