WHQR's Sunday Edition is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition here.
The trial of David Perry
On Monday, the board held a special meeting to discuss allegations against Republican board member David Perry. As my colleague Rachel Keith detailed in her report this week, there was bipartisan agreement that Perry had run afoul of board policy several times — but the allegations that he’d violated confidentiality seemed ill-defined and poorly supported. And while the board largely agreed to pull Perry off his current committee assignment — which is really one of the only punitive measures available to them — there was some healthy debate over whether a censure was warranted, especially given the decision by the board’s Republican members to censure Democrat Tim Merrick earlier this year.
And, look, this was a serious issue — and I give the board, particularly its Republican majority, credit for trying to address the dysfunctional tenor and ethical messiness of the school board, an issue that’s plagued the institution under both Republican and Democratic leadership. It was good to see Republican member Pat Bradford arguing that Perry ought to be held to the same standard as other board members, regardless of party. I also appreciated Republican Chairwoman Melissa Mason for noting that all of the board members have fallen short, herself included — a moment of humility and self-awareness that local government bodies everywhere could emulate. And, whatever I personally think of the policies that the board has enacted over the last seven months under Mason’s leadership, I certainly imagine that trying to keep the board operating with some semblance of order and civility has been difficult.
But I would be lying to you if I said there wasn’t something of a dark bureaucratic comedy going on at Monday’s meeting: Robert’s Rules of Order reimagined as a slapstick number, with libretto by Gilbert and Sullivan. Take the debate over whether to pursue a censure or a “resolution of strong disapproval,” while the board attorney, playing the straight man, told them they were functionally the same thing (while masterfully concealing any potential exasperation). Or the litany of “points of order” and nesting dolls of motions, amendments, and discussions. Or the failed motion to adjourn as a seemingly exhausted Mason tried to tap out, leaving the meeting to grind on for another ten minutes or so.
In the end, Perry was pulled off his committee for four months (initially, a longer suspension was proposed), but not censured (the “c-word” as Bradford called it). It was, after all the debate, more or less what we expected. The board largely agreed Perry needs to clean up his act – something Perry himself has acknowledged. At the same time, Perry condemned the meeting as a “kangaroo court,” and suggested he might seek out legal options (Perry has sued the school board before, filing suit in 2021 over mask requirements; the case was dismissed the following year).
It’s worth noting that Perry, whatever his failings, made his own serious allegations, including the board’s use of text communication that skirts public records law, and the broader suggestion that the board is using closed session too casually, having discussions that aren’t protected by the relatively limited scope of the law – things like attorney-client confidentiality, conversations about pending litigation, or reviewing personnel issues. The board would certainly not be alone in abusing closed session – I’ve known board members to retreat behind closed doors for all manner of unprotected reasons, including just shooting the breeze — but it’s a good time for a reminder that elected officials have to do the public’s business in public.
Hate speech
I will say, Monday’s meeting — warts and all — seemed to have been somehow cathartic for the board because, during Tuesday’s regular meeting, the mood was much lighter.
That said, there was one particularly tense moment.
During the Call to the Audience portion of the meeting, a man who identified himself as Renegade Cherokee (he also goes by Marshall Stewart) unloaded two minutes of vitriol on the LGBTQ community, calling queer people “vile,” “unnatural,” and “filth,” and saying he despised them for trying to influence the curriculum.
Merrick and his fellow Democratic board member Judy Justice were clearly upset and interrupted Stewart at least twice, calling his comments “hate speech.” Merrick argued that it was inciting violence and stated it was “not permissible under the law of the United States.” The board attorney disagreed, and Mason allowed Stewart to finish.
Perhaps surprisingly to some, Perry — who said he supported the Stewart’s right to speak — followed up with a motion to “affirm the dignity and the rights of the entire LGBT community in New Hanover County, and especially within our schools.” Perry has clashed with advocates for the queer community in the past, and his approach to teaching (and recognizing) gender in school has not endeared him to the left.
At the end of the meeting, the Mason presented what, to me, seemed like a more anodyne version of Perry’s statement that didn’t specifically name the LGBT community.
“New Hanover County Schools Board of Education would like to reaffirm our commitment to creating a safe and welcoming environment for all students and staff. The commentary made by one speaker during the call to the audience this evening does not reflect the opinions or beliefs of the board and the district. We believe every child and every teacher has value and dignity,” was the more generic language Mason used.
The board, which was running out of time at nearly the four-hour mark, unanimously approved the motion.
I’ve received a lot of messages about this, and I know advocates have reached out to the ACLU about it — but I feel like they will likely be disappointed by the response. After all, the ACLU notes on their website page dedicated to “defending speech we hate” that “since our inception in 1920, we have defended the speech rights of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, religious fundamentalists, anti-LGBTQ individuals, and more.” Hate speech is protected speech, as First Amendment lawyers are quick to remind people.
There’s a lot to say about all this, including the slippery academic interchangeability of speech and violence, the illiberal tendencies on both the right and the left, and the differences between what the government can (or should) curtail and what private companies like Meta, X, and Google can (or should) do on their platforms. At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about what a speech like Stewart’s means for the district’s queer students and staff — and worthwhile conversations to be had about other ways to protect them from hurtful bigotry.
For me, as a journalist, there’s also the issue of writing about a private citizen like Stewart, someone I wouldn’t ordinarily platform or critique, who has put himself in the public sphere, and on the official government record, by speaking at the Call to the Audience.
I don’t want to rush this conversation, and I’d also like to talk to some of the folks involved — including Perry and Merrick, but also Stewart. I actually have a few Facebook friends in common with him, including prominent Black leaders and advocates. I’ve also seen him perform spoken word poetry that condemns bigotry and racism, and he’s shared posts on social media that are highly critical of the Trump administration. But I haven’t, until this week, seen this type of thing from him. I reached out to get his perspective and we plan to talk early this coming week.
I hope to be able to distill all of this down for next week’s column.
Also, as a quick note, two items got bumped off the agenda: a resolution in support of Solly’s Law, a bill that would increase tobacco sales restrictions that Rachel Keith reported on recently, and another in support of the Leandro plan. The latter, which reflects the work of advocate Rebecca Trammel, also includes ensuring “public school funding is not undermined by expanding private school voucher programs,” which is bound to be a sticky issue for Republican board members who generally support the program but are also struggling with funding issues. The postponement was probably frustrating as hell for Trammel and Charlene Zorn, whose late stepson is the namesake of Solly’s Law; both sat through the four-hour meeting. Both resolutions are slated for the next agenda meeting at the end of the month, so stay tuned for that.
The Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness: Year Seventeen
At Tuesday night’s meeting, Wilmington Councilman Luke Waddell brought back an ordinance that would consolidate and expand the city’s ordinances related to homelessness. Waddell first brought the issue up last year, but it was tabled pending a Supreme Court decision. The court has since ruled, allowing local governments to ban homeless people from camping on public property. The discussion about the ordinance’s return got heated, as my colleagues Aaleah McConnell and Kelly Kenoyer discussed this week, but was ultimately tabled again — though not indefinitely this time, it’s slated for next month.
As with the hate speech issue, there’s a lot to unpack here. I aim to have a column out about this before the ordinance comes back in September, but I do want to take a bit of time to talk to as many people as I can: council members, advocates, downtown business owners, the county, law enforcement, prosecutors, and unhoused people themselves.
I don’t want to go off half-cocked here, but I can say a few things.
First, I know a few people who are homeless in downtown Wilmington who have been on and off the streets since I got here in the early 2000s. That’s anecdote, not data, but it gives you a sense of the intractability of this problem.
The ‘Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness,” a collaboration between the United Way and dozens of nonprofits, was launched in 2008. A decade later, the plan had reduced homelessness by half, though it struggled to help the most chronically homeless, those folks dealing with the severest mental health and substance use issues. Hurricane Florence was a major setback — but also an eye-opener for officials on just how many people have just a tenuous grasp on housing. After the storm, fewer people talked about ‘ending’ homelessness, because that would require massive changes to the socio-economic and housing landscape of the country; there are too many people who are one or two paychecks away from being on the street to ever declare total victory, even if you housed every person who is homeless right this minute.
At the same time, even if homelessness writ large can’t be solved, there are proven ways to help many of our unhoused neighbors and a lot of resources in our region — chiefly the tens of millions in annual grants available from The Endowment. We might debate the best way to get someone off the street but, at least from the point of view of homeless advocates, money shouldn’t be the stumbling block.
Second, a large part of this is being driven by concerns from downtown businesses, who feel like customers are being scared away, directly or indirectly, by negative interactions with homeless people. Sometimes, that’s just a “vibe,” but other times it’s been direct assaults committed by homeless people, aggressive panhandling, and incidents of public masturbation, drug use, and defecation. The most serious incidents are rare, and police are already arresting the worst offenders under existing laws, but word travels fast on social media. (The same, I should say, goes for gun violence. It only takes one or two shootings to make some people reconsider their weekend plans.)
While I’ve seen plenty of politicians introduce solutions in search of problems, I know many of the downtown business owners and employees who have been asking the city to take action, and I think their concerns are legitimate. Waddell, who sits on the executive committee of Wilmington Downtown Inc., has probably heard some of the same candid assessments I have: small businesses are struggling and can’t afford bad publicity.
In a perfect world, customers would be both empathetic towards and unafraid of the homeless people living in downtown Wilmington. In a less perfect world, like New York City, you might at least get habituated indifference (I once watched a man step over a homeless person on the way into Daniel, a Michelin-starred restaurant in Midtown Manhattan).
But you can’t will a perfect world, or ideal clientele, into existence.
I also know that there’s not necessarily a consensus among downtown business owners on what they want the city to do. Some would like to see more police presence and enforcement, others would like to see more social workers and shelter space, and some would like to see both. All of them would like to see more being done than has been in the past.
There’s also clearly no silver bullet. As interim Police Chief Ralph Evangelous said during Tuesday’s meeting, “I'm not saying that the ordinance is the fix of all this, because nothing's the fix of all this.”
Waddell’s ordinance will not, for example, address the deep-seated underlying issues of mental health, substance abuse, and the lack of affordable housing. And while I understand some people’s desire to see law enforcement step in here, I’m not sure we’ve thought through what that would mean for cops, the detention center, prosecutors, and the courts.
Lastly, there’s been some heated rhetoric around this issue which, it so happens, is resurfacing in the middle of campaign season for city council. Some people will, for good reasons and bad, see this through the lens of politics and partisanship. I don’t think there’s anything I can do to prevent that — and, after all, it’s an issue that candidates should engage on, in my opinion. But I’m not sure political bickering is helping anyone — in fact, I’m confident it won’t.
There’s also been some brutally dehumanizing language used in the comment sections on social media. I know Facebook is not where one goes for the best and highest forms of discourse, but I fear it is indicative of some folk’s disinterest with this issue as a story about human beings. I don’t know if that can be changed, but I hope it can.
All of this to say, I have a lot of conversations ahead of me in the next week or so, and a lot of different perspectives to unpack. I welcome your input — on both the homeless and hate speech issues — and, of course, whatever else is on your mind.
