Wayne Week — July 21, 2024 by Wayne Week

WEEK Wayne

PA RKING BA D

The Goldsboro City Council made another change to the downtown parking policy as calls for an end to the restrictions intensify.

BY KEN FINE / p.16

JULY 21, 202 4 Volume

4 Court wants answer on settlement

Goldsboro and one of the city's former department heads are being forced, by a federal judge, to meet with former City Councilman Antonio Williams to determine if there is any possibility of settling the current Wayne County Commissioner's lawsuit ahead of a potential jury trial.

EDITORIAL

EDITOR Ken Fine

EDITOR Renee Carey

DESIGN DIRECTOR Shan Stumpf

PHOTOGRAPHY DIRECTOR Casey Mozingo

ADVERTISING

ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE Hallie Hulse Evans

ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE Stephanie Lack

ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE Lara Landers

PUBLISHER

New Old North Media LLC

CONTACTS

EDITORS kfine@ newoldnorth .com rcarey@newoldnorth.com

ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE hevans@newoldnorth.com

ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE llanders@newoldnorth.com

ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE slack@newoldnorth.com

DISPLAY ADVERTISING SALES advertising @newoldnorth.com

OFFICE

219 N. John Street

Goldsboro, N.C. 27530 919 - 648-9905 ©

10 Worth's judge expecting plea

A July 16 court filing reminds attorneys that former Wayne County Sheriff's Office Maj. Christopher Worth is set to appear in court next week — and details of "anticipated plea" have not been given to the judge.

11 City, at last, is current on audits

After being late on its financial reporting duties since 2019 — something that has cost the city its bond rating and damaged its reputation across the state — as of June 30, Goldsboro is, at last, caught up on its audits.

16 Cover story

The Goldsboro City Council has spent countless hours going back and forth on downtown parking restrictions since the mostly-new board took office. Monday, more than seven months into their term, council members changed the game again, seemingly taking aim at what many consider the source of the problem: people who live in the city's core and, in the voting majority's view, abuse on-street parking.

20 Spectator

With temperatures shooting into the triple-digits, many of the local residents who dared to venture outdoors did so in pursuit off a cool-off at county swimming pools — from Lane Tree and Walnut Creek country clubs to Peacock Park. Tuesday, Wayne Week Photography Director Casey Mozingo joined them.

COVER ILLUSTRATION BY SHAN STUMPF

NEWS + VIEWS

Court will require lawsuit parties to discuss possibility of pre-trial settlement

Former

Goldsboro City Councilman Antonio Williams sued the city — and one of its former department heads — in September 2022.

BY KEN FINE

Acourt-ordered “settlement conference” will likely determine whether the City of Goldsboro and a former member of the City Council ultimately square off in a courtroom.

The order, signed by United States Magistrate Judge Brian Meyers, reflects an attempt by the court to “ensure that any potential for settlement of this case is explored to the fullest extent possible.”

It does not mean that the city — or co-defendant Shycole Simpson-Carter — has expressed a willingness to settle the lawsuit filed against them by former City Council member and current Wayne County Commissioner Antonio Williams Sept. 20, 2022.

In fact, earlier this year, Goldsboro and one of its former department heads asked the judge to forgo a jury trial and instead dismiss the grievance — alleging there were “no genuine issues of material fact” presented by Williams and his claims were “time-barred.”

Here is the background of the case:

In Williams’ original filing, he made a staggering number of claims against the city and Simpson-Carter — and asked for a minimum of $125,000 in damages.

The following are among the nearly 100 “Factual Allegations” that detail what the commissioner said happened after he was elected to the council.

(Note: This is the actual text from the filing. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.)

• (Williams) was subjected to repeated harassment, mistreatment, deprivation of due process, and abuse as City employees continuously relegated his voice from councilman to nothing more than a nuisance.

• Almost immediately, (Williams) began to be harassed and discriminated against by city employees including then-Mayor Chuck Allen, several council members, the city manager, and the city attorney. All of whom are white males.

• Over the course of the next several years, (Williams) continued to endure defamatory attacks from city employees, and discriminatory treatment as he advocated for the constituents of his district.

The order ... reflects an attempt by the court to 'ensure that any potential for settlement of this case is explored to the fullest extent possible.'

• In 2017, (Williams) received a permit to upgrade the storefront of a business he owns and operates within the city. Several other business located on the same street were also upgrading their storefronts and making improvements. Upon information and belief, in or around the summer of 2018, the mayor and a councilman were put on notice that (Williams’) store being upgraded.

Subsequently the City of Goldsboro’s Historical Board, revoked (Williams’) building permit. (Williams) was forced to reapply for the permit and was told he could not submit supporting information in his application. Ultimately, (Williams’) application was denied, and he was directed by the city to tear down the newly improved storefront.

• Upon information and belief, a Historical Board member and employee of the City stated to (Williams) that his “…business was not the look [we] wanted for downtown.”

• (Williams) reported his concerns to the mayor, city council, and city manager, but his concerns were ignored.

• Despite his concerns falling on deaf ears, (Williams) still appealed the decision to the oversight board several weeks later. In response, (the city) hired an outside attorney to support their decision to deny his permit.

• Upon information and belief, a

councilmember was directed via email by his wife, both of whom are or were Historical Board members and employees of (the city), on how to vote to deny (Williams’) permit.

• Upon information and belief, the email stated she gets “very happy” every time (Williams) suffers at the hands of the City. Such overt behavior is malicious and intentional.

• In or around April of 2018, (Williams) continued to suffer when the city received an “anonymous letter” (emphasis added) complaining of (Williams) that he did not live within the district which he represented.

• Prior to inquiring of (Williams) regarding the false allegation, then mayor Chuck Allen disregarded (Williams’) assertion that he did live within his district, and directed the city attorney to conduct an investigation of Plaintiff Williams.

• The mayor stated he did not believe (Williams), and required (Williams) to submit proof of residency within his district, or lose his seat on the city council.

• (Williams) was forced to hire an attorney to represent his interests.

• Upon information and belief, the mayor and councilmen stated to (Williams) “this is all your fault, why are you making us do this to you” before being informed the process to challenge (Williams) residency was improper.

• (Williams’) residency was challenged shortly following this exchange, by a local citizen who brought the matter to the election board.

• The election board held a preliminary hearing on July 10, 2018, whereby the board determined there was insufficient evidence proving (Williams) lived outside of his district and the residency issues was ultimately settled when the board declined pursuit of a full hearing.

• Despite the repeated attempts to tarnish (Williams’) name and reputation, (Williams) continued to advocate for his constituents by introducing several community-oriented events and/or programs.

• The program entitled “24 Hours of Peace and Wellness” was dismissed by the mayor and council due to their belief the event would make the “minority community violent.”

• (Williams) also introduced a summer youth development program to help impoverished youth develop and learn soft skills. The program directly impacted the citizens Plaintiff represented.

• Again (the city), by and through the authority wielded by its mayor and manager, dismissed (Williams’) program saying “these types of kids have no desire to work.”

• Quite to the contrary, (Williams) was able to gain the support of the community and approximately four hundred (400) youth inquired about the summer employment program.

• When (Williams) voted in favor of the program, City officials including the mayor and city manager, decried his vote was a conflict of interest.

• (Williams) was accused by the city council that he just wanted financial benefits from the program and he was using these summer youth to complete previously denied construction on his personal, residential property.

• The accusation was entirely and utterly false, and city officials were again attempting to disparage and discourage (Williams) from serving his community.

• By way of his role as a councilman, (Williams) located money that was not previously earmarked and inquired about it.

• Upon information and belief, the very next day he was contacted by a community Continued on page 6

PROVIDING QUALITY, AFFORDABLE INSURANCE SINCE 1927

John D. Lewis Gaston Lewis

organizer and/or leader. The leader espoused she had partners and if (Williams) inquired about the money again, her partners would make him look like a monkey. The partners were the mayor and city council.

• This behavior continued to plague Plaintiff Williams for his entire duration as a city council member.

• (Williams) had a well documented and contentious professional relationship with (the city’s) community relations director, Shycole Simpson-Carter.

• (Williams) filed a written complaint with the mayor regarding Mrs. SimpsonCarter and her behavior towards (Williams) following a meeting with the Goldsboro Wayne Transportation Authority (GWTA).

• Shortly after filing his complaint, (Williams) happened upon a meeting whereby the mayor, Goldsboro-Wayne Transit Authority board members (“GWTA”), and Simpson-Carter were discussing what they had planned to do to (Williams).

• Carter retaliated by filing a complaint seeking a temporary restraining order against (Williams) in Wayne County District Court, case number 18 CVD-2006.

• Upon information and belief, the city mayor and other city councilmembers desired to have Plaintiff Williams removed from his seat, and exploited the relationship between Simpson-Carter and (Williams) to do so.

• Ultimately, the complaint was resolved in his favor, and dismissed on November 13, 2018.

• Upon information and belief, Defendant Simpson-Carter stated her action seeking relief against Plaintiff Williams, was caused by the mayor and she had received help on her complaint against (Williams) from several city employees.

• Following the dismissal, the mayor and councilmembers made a public statement explaining the dismissal “meant nothing” and (Williams) had “not been cleared” of anything pertaining to Simpson-Carter.

• In continuance of (the city’s) deprivation of his rights, on or about October 10, 2018 an investigation was opened and conducted in hopes of removing (Williams) from the city council. The investigation was conducted by Valerie Bateman, who at the time worked for the Forrest Firm.

• Bateman’s investigation took several months during which she conducted interviews, including of (Williams), and reviewed documents from various sources.

• At the conclusion of her investigation, on or about May 28, 2019, Bateman brought the information before the city council.

• Prior to the council meeting at which she was to present the results of the investigation, she espoused if there was inaccurate information, it could be corrected. When

(Williams) voiced concerns over errors, including those specifically regarding himself, but the errors were not corrected.

• Upon information and belief, the mayor and white city councilmen were able to review the report and make changes to it, but (Williams) was taunted with being told he could view it, and ultimately having those statements rescinded for no proper cause.

• The investigative report was nothing more than a fishing attempt to extract information that would aid in (Williams’) political demise.

• Following the release of the report, (the city) pushed forward with a decision to censure (Williams), restrict his access to city hall, and recall his duly earned 2015 election.

• (Williams) was never provided with the ethics violation leading to the censure hearing despite asking the mayor and councilmembers for the same.

• (Williams’) censure hearing was held before the council, where councilmembers were the judges, jury, and executioners regarding his censure. The council provided information to Bateman, held the hearing regarding that same information, and ultimately were the final authority who decided on that information. (Williams) was forced to hire an attorney for his voice to be heard.

• Simpson-Carter ultimately filed an EEOC charge against (Williams) and (the city) for retaliation and discriminatory treatment. She alleged (Williams) harassed her and created a hostile working environment.

• Amid all of the turmoil within the city, (Williams) began to seek documentation as proof of his assertions.

• (Williams) made an initial request for public records in accordance with NCGS Chapter 32, from current city manager Tim Salmon as early as October 23, 2019. (He) followed up with (the city) several times for information regarding the numerous complaints and/or personal allegations against him that he had been subjected to through in his dealings with the City.

• On or about February 4, 2020, (Williams) emailed a second request for public records to Mr. Salmon, this time seeking information to dispute allegations he, along with (the city), participated in wrongdoings alleged by Defendant Simpson-Carter.

• The documents requested were not produced to (Williams) in a timely manner as required by NCGS 132-6 which governs public records requests. In fact, the documents were not produced at all. Instead (the city) engaged in further attempts to deny (Williams) his rightful access to the public information by enacting a new policy to prevent (Williams) from obtaining records.

• On or about April 6, 2020, after

Continued on page 9

approximately six (6) months the city council voted to charge Plaintiff upwards of $100,000 to complete his records request in accordance with the newly adopted policy. At the time of (Williams’) records request, there existed no policy governing the cost of records requests with the City of Goldsboro.

• Defendant Carter accused (Williams) of harassment and retaliation against her. The claims were exaggerated, as (Williams) never had any dealing with Defendant SimpsonCarter outside of their professional settings within the City.

• (Williams) was repeatedly forced to shut down his business to defend himself and attend special meetings that he would not be provided notice of in a timely manner.

• As alleged in the state court complaint against Defendant Simpson-Carter, (the city) was a central and instrumental piece in orchestrating the removal of (Williams) from his position as a member of the city council.

The following are among the arguments the city asked the court to consider as it pondered whether to throw out the lawsuit:

• (Williams’) claims against the City should be dismissed because they are timebarred and cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) due process claims against the City should be dismissed because (Williams) has not established he has a protected liberty or property interest and, as a result, (Williams’) claims fail as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) due process claims against the City should be dismissed because (Williams) has not established he was deprived of a liberty or property interest or that the process afforded him was inadequate and, as a result, (Williams’) claims fail as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) equal protection claims against the City should be dismissed because (Williams) has not established he was treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated, or that the treatment he received was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination and, as a result, (Williams’) claims fail as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims against the City should be dismissed because (Williams) failed to raise some or all of these claims through his Complaint thereby barring him from adding them through discovery and, as a result, cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims against the City should be dismissed because (Williams) cannot establish any violations to his constitutional rights and, as a result, cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claim against the City should be dismissed because Plaintiff has expressly withdrawn the claim, which is binding on (Williams).

• (Williams’) claims against all Defendants of conspiracy for malicious prosecution should be dismissed because they are time-barred and cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims against all Defendants of conspiracy for malicious prosecution are barred by the doctrines of governmental immunity, public official immunity, and/or legislative immunity and, as a result, cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims of conspiracy for malicious prosecution against all Defendants should be dismissed because (Williams) failed to raise some or all of these claims through his Complaint thereby barring him from adding them through discovery and, as a result, cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims of conspiracy for malicious prosecution against all Defendants should be dismissed because (Williams) has not established malice, the lack of probable cause, or special damages among other elements and, as a result, cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims against all Defendants of conspiracy for abuse of process should be dismissed because they are time-barred and cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims against all Defendants of conspiracy for abuse of process are barred by the doctrines of governmental immunity, public official immunity, and/or legislative immunity and, as a result, cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims of conspiracy for abuse of process against all Defendants should be dismissed because (Williams) failed to raise some or all of these claims through his Complaint thereby barring him from adding them through discovery and, as a result, cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims of conspiracy for abuse of process against all Defendants should be dismissed because (Williams) has not established an ulterior motive by Defendants, or that process was abused and, as a result, cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) claims of defamation against Ms. Carter should be dismissed because they are time-barred and cannot proceed as a matter of law.

• (Williams’) defamation claims against Ms. Carter should be dismissed because (Williams) has failed to prove Ms. Carter made the statements about which he complains or, even if she had made the statements, that he suffered any injury. n

It is unclear when the settlement conference will take place, but Meyers gave the parties until Aug. 9 to provide the court with a list of dates that would work with their respective schedules.

Judge expecting plea in Worth case

Without a deal with the government, Former Wayne County Sheriff’s Office Maj. Christopher Worth faces a lengthy prison term should he be convicted of the financial crimes his co-defendant, former WCSO Drug Unit Chief Michael Cox, already pleaded guilty to.

BY KEN FINE

According to a July 16 filing obtained by Wayne Week, Chief United States District Court Judge Richard Myers II is anticipating that former Wayne County Sheriff’s Office Maj. Christopher Worth will make a deal with the government ahead of his upcoming arraignment — an agreement that, if signed off on by both parties and approved by the judge, would see him avoid a jury trial.

Worth, who was indicted in August 2023 on charges related to an alleged bid-rigging scheme he and former WCSO Drug Unit Chief Michael Cox orchestrated while they served under Sheriff Larry Pierce, is expected to appear in court next week — less than a month before his co-defendant, who has already pleaded guilty and admitted his role in what the government characterized as a “conspiracy,” is set to be sentenced.

The filing, a “Notice to Counsel,” reminded attorneys that the arraignment is less than a week away — and that the court “has received no information concerning the defendant’s anticipated plea.”

And while a series of continuances asked for and received by Worth’s attorneys so the former deputy could “work in good faith with prosecutors for a non-trial resolution” were indicative of his desire to cut a deal and avoid trial, the court, until now, has stayed mum.

Should a plea indeed be disclosed by prosecutors and accepted by Myers at the arraignment next week, it would mark the end of this chapter of a saga that began with an FBI investigation and culminated in August 2023 when a grand jury handed down a sprawling 50-plus-page indictment that resulted in Worth and Cox being taken into custody.

And while Worth’s alleged crimes do not include the drug trafficking charges Cox pleaded guilty to March 27, should he be convicted of the dozen financial crimesrelated counts he is up against, he could spend decades behind bars.

According to the indictment, when Worth was promoted to captain in charge of the WCSO’s Support Services division in 2016, he became

responsible for “coordinating and vetting” bids from vendors on “various” contracts.

But while he was required to comply with certain procurement requirements “to ensure that county business was conducted with fairness and dignity,” the government alleges he used his position to ensure Cox’s company, Eastern Emergency Equipment, received contract after contract from the WCSO — acts prosecutors claim enriched both Worth and Cox.

For purchases between $1,000 and $2,500, Worth was required to obtain three independent quotes and award contracts to the lowest bidder.

For anything more expensive than $2,500, he was prohibited from hiring anyone to complete the work until a purchase order was approved and signed by Wayne County finance officers.

He was supposed to prepare a one-page “Memorandum of Award” that provided the identities of the three vendors and a list of the three quotes.

He was expected to “never discuss one

vendor’s pricing and delivery terms with another vendor” to avoid “unfair competition.” He was supposed to exercise “honesty and integrity.”

But Worth stands accused of failing all of the above.

And Cox, in response to a question from Myers inside a Wilmington courtroom just before Easter, admitted that the narrative outlined in the indictment was true — that he did, in fact, work with Worth to ensure EEE was hired for jobs associated with the “upfit” of WCSO vehicles, including Pierce’s 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe.

“Did you do it?” Myers asked.

“Yes sir,” Cox replied.

It is unclear if the former Drug Unit chief would be called to testify against Worth should he fail to reach the deal Myers said the court was anticipating.

For complete coverage of Worth’s arraignment — unless it, again, is delayed — see the July 28 edition of Wayne Week. n

Goldsboro is caught up on audits for first time since 2019

Four years after Goldsboro’s failure to meet its financial reporting obligations to the state resulted in everything from the loss of the city’s bond rating and a public tongue-lashing from State Treasurer Dale Folwell to the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency freezing funds that would have typically found their way into Goldsboro coffers, the City Council was informed July 15 that audits that have been past due every year since 2019 are, at last, up to date.

But the several-months-late 2022-23 audit that was completed at the end of June was not entirely clean.

In fact, FORVIS auditor Chad Cook told the board that there were three “financial performance indicators of concern” he was required to disclose — among them, an $89,000 “violation” in the General Fund that he characterized as “ticky tack.”

But Interim City Manager Matthew Livingston suggested the violation would not have happened had the city gone through a pre-audit process.

“We were so busy doing those other things, we weren’t really quite as able to do the preaudits,” he said.

Neither Cook nor Mayor Charles Gaylor seemed overly concerned about the indicators, which also included the fact that the audit,

which was due Dec. 1, 2023, was nearly seven months late.

Instead, the mayor praised the FORVIS team — and Finance Director Catherine Gwynn — for, in his view, ensuring the city was postured to avoid future late audit submissions.

“We are positioned to remain caught up and we have the staff in place to remain caught up,” he said. “I’m grateful.”

And because of that, Gaylor and Livingston have said repeatedly that they believe Goldsboro will soon be removed from the LGC’s Unit Assistance List.

But just why it has taken the city so long to catch up remains a mystery.

Back in November 2020, Gwynn said staffing changes and natural disasters — including Hurricane Matthew, which hit Goldsboro in 2016, and Hurricane Floyd, which hit the city in 2018 — contributed to the missed audit deadline for fiscal year 2019.

She said she “couldn’t find” records, and that when former Finance Department staff, including her predecessor, Kaye Scott, left the city, it crippled the department.

“I think the transition was very big because you had two high-level individuals who had been here a very long time … and when that knowledge left … all of that is lost,” Gwynn said.

City leaders believe that after four years of scrutiny from the state, business will return to normal now that financial reporting obligations have, at last, been met.

BY RENEE CAREY

And without that “lost” knowledge, she and her team were unable to assist the audit firm when it called the city with questions.

“A lot of those answers, (we) did not know,” she said. “And we just could not find the records.”

But two years later, the state remained unsatisfied with the city’s inability to complete its audits — and Folwell instructed then-State Auditor Beth Wood to complete a “thorough audit” of Goldsboro’s books and the LGC threatened to take over control of the government.

“It is troubling that the state’s 30th largest city, the county seat and home to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, no less, has been unable to get its act together to conduct a basic but critical oversight function. Audits are necessary to assess financial well-being, to ensure bills are being paid and money is not missing,” Folwell said, adding that Goldsboro had not only failed to submit audits for 2020 and 2021, but its 2019 audit contained multiple bookkeeping adjustments to capital assets and notes receivable — a potential sign of “major weaknesses” in day-to-day operations. “The longer audits are missing, the higher the odds are that there are internal financial control issues. If there are internal control issues, the potential for waste, fraud and abuse increases.

Hardworking Goldsboro taxpayers deserve to know their elected and appointed officials uphold the highest standards as stewards of public funds.”

And while Wood would end up resigning her post in November 2023, the Office of the State Auditor continued its examination — ultimately sending a preliminary report to then-City Manager Tim Salmon in January.

That report contained a series of damning claims — from former City Council members using tax dollars to fund expensive trips to Los Angeles, California and San Antonio, Texas, and Water Department employees wiping away thousands of dollars in debt accrued by family members and city leaders to Salmon breaking city protocol and ignoring his department heads when they questioned what they believed to be “potentially fraudulent” use of federal COVID-19 funds and loose swiping of city credit cards.

Nearly every “finding” highlighted what auditors characterized as a lack of oversight, shoddy leadership, and numerous actions they said threatened to undermine the public’s confidence in its local government.

Now that the 2022-23 audit has been submitted, the city has 60 days to respond, in writing, to the “financial performance indicators of concern.” n

DON'T JUST SAY IT

We don’t usually weigh in on national issues. It is not that they are not on our minds. They worry us, too.

It’s just that we have too much to do here at home. And that role takes priority for us.

But every once in a while, a major event occurs that prompts some thought and commentary — and has implications beyond our own “four walls” here in Wayne County.

And that is exactly what happened on July 13 when a wouldbe assassin’s bullet whizzed by a presidential candidate’s ear.

That moment affected us. So, we know it affected you.

It made the whole nation pause, really, thinking about what could have happened — and almost did.

It was a seminal moment.

There is a lot to unpack about what transpired at the Trump

rally in Butler County, Pa.

There are questions about how a sniper got within 200 yards of a former president and how such a potentially catastrophic security failure occurred. We have to know the “Why?”

We need facts.

We just do.

And every member of every party should not stop demanding until those who are charged with representing us give us answers.

But there is something else to consider about the moment when a bullet narrowly missed former President Donald J. Trump’s head.

It is something a lot of people are talking about now.

How did we get here?

How did we get to the point where the rhetoric was so vile,

the temperature so volatile, and the hate level so toxic that social media has become full of exchanges and insults that are not just shocking, but are nauseating?

When did it become OK to casually call for the execution of a political rival — or to lament the fact that an assassination attempt was unsuccessful?

The truth is, we are here, and it is scary.

So, it is time for a reset.

And you are already starting to hear the obligatory statements of shock and outrage and the calls for toning down the rhetoric — ironically from many of the same people, on both sides of the aisle, who have been engaging in just that sort of inappropriate commentary for months now, and who likely will return to that mode in a few weeks when the political storm has blown over.

For some, the self-examination is real.

For others, it is political theater.

It is the statement that is in the politician’s playbook as an appropriate response when a major event occurs.

It is not sincere. It is politics.

The comments started dinging your phones immediately after the news broke about former President Trump.

Predictable and meaningless.

Here’s the truth: Real change will come only from those who are willing to put those words into action.

We will see, in the coming weeks, how many of them really meant what they said.

But what we are sure of is that, in the longterm, all the blather you hear now is not likely to change anything.

The shift is already starting — only a few days after the assassination attempt.

Just keep your ears to the ground and you will hear the conspiracy theorists and the partisan haters — again, on both sides — starting up again.

There is a difference between holding a politician and officeholder accountable for actions, votes, and comments and partisan and dangerous rhetoric that is not only unpalatable, but also not journalism.

We must continue to ask questions — and to have members of the media who ask them.

We have too many partisans running organizations that are supposed to be objective — who are supposed to challenge power brokers and to ask the questions that need to be asked.

When you don't turn a blind eye or cover for obvious incompetence or question how an organization or public entity is being run you are not a 'hater.'

And they will keep it up, and will use the events of July 13 as cover, unless we demand otherwise.

But here’s another important note: Responsible political discourse is not just sitting back and throwing around rainbows and daisies. It never was.

Those of us who are old enough to remember know that there have always been political debates.

The difference is that back then, we knew how to interact respectfully. Today, confrontations are not made in person, but behind the safety of a keyboard and the level of vitriol reflects that “hit-and-run” approach.

We don’t listen, and the fringes have taken over both sides.

There are no gentleman’s arguments anymore and most exchanges end in insults and anger.

That is not how you return to civilized debate.

And hiding behind a call for “kinder and gentler” discussions is not how you hold politicians and others accountable.

So here it is. Brass tacks about how political discourse should be handled in a responsible way and how we should manage debate and coverage moving forward.

But first, a warning.

Real journalists who are not, by the way, pretending not to notice something that is obvious to everyone else on the planet because it does not further their personal political preferences.

The holding hands and skipping down the lane just because you support one party over another — or because you have a strong dislike for a candidate or officeholder — is not enough. Not now.

When you don’t turn a blind eye or cover for obvious incompetence or question how an organization or public entity is being run, you are not a “hater.”

And questioning the decisions made by politicians and officeholders is not “hate speak.”

Positive spins on major concerns, not fully investigating failures, or cheerleading miniscule victories is not being part of the solution.

The only way real change occurs is if the tough stuff is talked about. And that doesn’t happen if the real questions aren’t being asked and officeholders are not held accountable.

No substantive change for the better is ever made when softballs come across the plate or when news is reported in the form of regurgitated press releases.

So, like you, we want to see the hate and the violence stop.

We want people to remember that the opponents they “hate” are still their neighbors, acquaintances, and relatives.

And we want to see both sides of the aisle issue statements about eliminating divisive rhetoric from their playbooks — and then actually do it.

But we don’t want the questions to stop and the commentary to be emasculated just because a few politicians want to grandstand about a kindler and gentler way they have no

intention of following in their own discourse.

So, buckle up.

Right here in Wayne County, there will be some who try to use what happened July 13 as a way to silence their critics.

They will label legitimate criticism and sharp-tongued commentary as hate speech and perpetuating exactly the type of activity that nearly resulted in an event that would have changed America forever.

In our view, they are just as dangerous as those who saw nothing wrong with calling for a second attempt on the life of the presumptive Republican nominee or those, in both political parties, who toss around labels like fascist and communist like they are nothing.

So, we have to look hard at what we have become as a society.

We have to pay attention to the signs that we are going down the wrong path.

But we cannot acquiesce to those who will use the calls for a “nicer” approach as a way to hide from accountability.

Without tough questions, we would not be as far along as we are in getting Wayne County and Goldsboro back on the straight and narrow.

We would still have people in office who

don’t believe the rules apply to them.

We would not have heard the words that came out of Pikeville Mayor Garrett Johnston’s mouth.

We would not know about a $25,000 contract awarded by Wayne County Public Schools to a senior School Board member’s son.

We would not have been able to publish the contents of a racist rant at the polls by a woman who was later elected as this county’s Register of Deeds.

And, if we had just accepted questionable explanations and public pablum, we would still be facing fiscal mismanagement and poor performance from several of our public officials across numerous Wayne municipalities.

So, yes, it’s time to pause and reflect on how we got here.

And yes, it is, perhaps, time to tone down the rhetoric.

But holding people accountable and calling it like it is when you are armed with indisputable facts?

We need that now more than ever.

There is just too much at stake to do otherwise — here in Wayne County and around the country. n

PA RKING BA D

The Goldsboro City Council made another change to the downtown parking policy as calls for an end to the restrictions intensify.

BY KEN FINE

Handicapped residents have found parking tickets on their windshields — a violation, they claim, of North Carolina General Statute.

Others have been fined for parking “over the line” that separates spaces — despite their claim that the way the cars in front and behind their spot have parked makes it impossible to come to a stop within the boundaries.

Business owners on Mulberry Street allege that city employees — and members of the City Council — are utilizing on-street parking in front of their businesses after championing restrictions they said were meant to preserve “valuable” spots for paying customers.

And an “unfair” moratorium was put into place for a block of Center Street — a move one business owner said was reflective of “blatant favoritism.”

More than seven months after the swearing-in of a council that has a majority of first-time members, hours and hours of the board’s time has been spent discussing and altering a downtown Goldsboro parking policy that many local residents and stakeholders have repeatedly opposed.

And while the moratorium on writing actual tickets for a block of Center Street will expire Aug. 1, the council, again, changed the policy at its July 15 meeting — a move that a Downtown Goldsboro Development Corp. official implied was a death knell for the program.

After an affirmative vote, each of the 108 businesses located within the “restricted area” will now have the right to obtain five placards that extend two-hour parking to four hours.

“So, if you give every business one placard, that’s going to take up 60 percent of the parking available to our downtown,” said Greg Mills, the DGDC’s business and property development specialist. “Once you open that can of worms and give every business (placards), it’s over.”

Some members of the council, Brandi Matthews, Roderick White, and Beverly Weeks, seemed to be OK with that potential eventuality — arguing that were it up to them, they would have no problem “scrapping” the parking restrictions altogether.

But the majority rejected that idea.

For me, I have been an advocate against it. I think we created a problem.

“We’re just in a situation here, but I can’t see us just scrapping everything,” Councilwoman Hiawatha Jones said. “We’ve worked too hard. Too much money has gone into this.”

Mayor Charles Gaylor agreed.

“I don’t really want us to completely just abandon this thing,” he said.

Councilman Chris Boyette said the community is benefitting from the restrictions.

“The feedback I’m getting is that it’s appreciated and working,” he said.

Weeks responded.

“And you walked down Center Street?” she asked.

Because she has, she told the board.

“The vendors that we spoke with, the brick and mortar shops, they are saying, ‘We’re losing business. This is truly affecting our business. Our numbers have dropped dramatically since we’ve had the parking (restrictions) in place,’” Weeks said. “I personally think we’ve put the cart before the wheel.”

White, after what he characterized as a “boots on the ground” assessment, said he heard the same thing.

“The people that I talked to, they said that Saturdays were great because there were no parking issues,” he said. “But for me as a whole, I think we’ve been around this mulberry bush enough times. For me, I have been an advocate against it. I think we created a problem.”

Not including Saturdays in the restrictions was a “compromise” voted through by the board earlier this year — one that required the signs to be changed and confused the many business owners who were against the plan because they were told the whole purpose of putting a time limit on downtown parking was to ensure “valuable” spaces were available to shoppers.

“The average parking space in front of your store is worth $20,000 to businesses. That’s the research,” Mills said at a council meeting several months ago. “That is what is most important, is that customers have the best access they can to

come in and shop in the business.”

So, why, business owners asked, would the council lift those restrictions on their busiest day of the week?

It started nearly a decade ago, when, in 2016, the city commissioned a parking study to anticipate future parking demand as a result of the realization of the Downtown Master Plan.

And Mills said earlier this year that the history was important to consider.

“This is not a recent event,” he said. “Data has been gathered for many, many years.”

Then, a consultant was hired — a man who, in early 2023, unwrapped that data during a public forum.

His conclusion?

Downtown Goldsboro had exceeded assumptions made about just how much demand there would be for parking on Center and surrounding streets.

So, he presented, to the 50-plus people in attendance, several options he believed could help the city mitigate potential woes for those wanting to eat, drink, and shop downtown.

The overwhelming majority said they would favor regulations akin to what the city rolled out this year.

But when the signs went up and warning tickets started appearing on windshields, it started a firestorm.

Young women showed up to City Council meetings to share stories about being accosted and propositioned by “aggressive” panhandlers — both in broad daylight and when they get off from work long after sunset.

Business owners repeatedly stepped up to the podium — painting pictures of decreasing revenue and clients who have told them they plan to patronize other establishments.

Accusations of “selective enforcement” flew — claims that

the person handing out tickets is ignoring vehicles that belong to city employees, including City Council- and city-owned vehicles with Goldsboro’s logo affixed to them, despite the fact that, according to time-stamped photographs shared with Wayne Week, they are camped on Mulberry and other streets for far longer than two hours at a time.

And a petition signed by nearly 100 people — a document containing the names of everyone from real estate agents, tattoo artists, and hair stylists to restaurateurs, landlords, and boutique managers — has been submitted to the council.

Among those outraged was Weeks, who has repeatedly doubled down on her belief that, “I really don’t believe we have a parking problem downtown.”

“Before this started, I don’t remember hearing anything about parking problems downtown,” said Weeks, who operates two Cry Freedom Missions storefronts on Center Street. “But we’ve sure got a problem now.”

And White brought up something else that consultant said during the public meeting in 2023 — something he said justified putting an end to the divisive, controversial measures.

I

I'm hoping (by November) we can say it works or it doesn't.

truly the case — is to have regulations in place.

Because the parking policy, he told the council in the past, creates an environment that fosters responsible parking and a downtown that is not clogged with long-term cars that sit in spaces for days, limiting where potential shoppers can park their vehicles if they want to patronize a merchant.

“What’s really going on is that it is about downtown economic development,” Mills said. “And it is critical to have a managed parking plan to have successful downtown development, whether it is Goldsboro or Mount Airy — pick a city.”

As of Wednesday, businesses that have called to request placards told Wayne Week they have been asked to call back after the moratorium is lifted Aug. 1.

But Councilwoman Jamie Taylor said giving placards to every business — even if it meant a potential scenario in which nearly all downtown parkers would get four hours — might prove what she has believed since Day One.

It is not shoppers, business owners, or employees that have created parking woes in the city’s core.

It is, in her view, the people who live in downtown apartment buildings who leave vehicles in public spaces for days on end.

“He said we didn’t have a parking issue, we had a usage issue,” White said. “That’s what he said. So, I think we created a parking problem with implementing this.”

“The whole point here … is that it’s the residents in certain areas that are taking up the spots. Since we can’t regulate them, we have to do what we have to do for our businesses,” she said. “So, if that means we give our businesses placards so they can make money, I think that’s what we need to do. Just give them all placards.”

But Mills, who warned against giving placards to every business before the board voted to do so anyway, said the only way to truly prevent city employees and downtown residents from creating issues — if that is

And Taylor made it clear that by November, she believes she will have the “data” necessary to make an informed decision — even if that means voting with White, Matthews, and Weeks to end downtown parking regulations for good.

“I was willing to give this a six-month trial basis,” she said Monday. “I’m hoping (by November) we can say it works or it doesn’t.”

According to the city's Information Technology Department, a total of 79 tickets have been issued in downtown's restricted area since the parking policy went into effect June 3. n

If you have been with Wayne Week since the beginning — or signed up within our first few weeks — you are nearing the end of your 1-year subscription period.

the SPECTATOR

Cooling off

As highs shot into the triple-digits, many of the local reisdents who ventured outside did so to cool off in area pools — from Lane Tree Country Club to Peacock Pool.