City Council approves vape shop restrictions
Several months after members of the board said the city has too many businesses they believe endanger public health, a new policy will make it more difficult to open a new one.
BY KEN FINE
Members of the Goldsboro City Council have been eyeing restrictions on “vape shops” since this summer when, during the board’s June 17 meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Brandi Matthews said she planned on denying “all of these” because, in her view, there was “almost one on every block,” and she did not feel “we need another vape shop in Goldsboro.”
But because the council had not defined what a vape shop was — or officially passed rules or regulations related to the businesses — District 2 Councilman Chris Boyette, the elected official with by far the most extensive planning and zoning experience, said he was concerned that rejecting proposed development based on emotion and personal beliefs could have negative consequences, including exposing the city to potential litigation.
“In all my years of planning, we’re not up here supposed to be dictating what we would like to see go in a particular place as long as it’s properly zoned and approved. That would be like us saying, ‘We don’t want any more of this type of business or that type of business.’ That’s not our position up here,” he said then. “Our position is, we’re supposed to make a decision based on, ‘Is this allowed within the confines of the rules as they are?’”
Monday, those concerns were nullified, as a unanimous vote officially defined a vape shop and set restrictions that could, in theory, result in no additional businesses of that kind being approved inside the city limits.
Thanks to the vote, the following is Goldsboro’s new definition of a vape shop, as presented by Planning Director Mark Helmer:
“A specialized retail establishment whereby 25% or more of its space is used for the sale, storage, or consumption of tobacco products, electronic smoking/vaping devices, Kratom, CBD hemp derived Delta-8, and related accessories. These products may include, but are not limited to, cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, vaping devices, e-liquids, and vaping accessories. An area may also be included whereby patrons share the tobacco or non-tobacco products, or products from a communal hookah, water pipe, or similar device.”
Currently, 24 are in business in the city.
But should another find its way onto the council’s agenda, the following restrictions would be in place:
•They cannot be located within 250 feet, measured property line to property line, from any residential zoning districts.
•They cannot be located within 1,000 feet, measured property line to property line, from a school (public or private), church, daycare facility, youth facility, community center, city recreational facility, city park, or hospital.
•They cannot be located within 1,000 feet, measured property line to property line, from a “similar establishment.”
And should they meet those criteria and gain the council’s approval, they must also follow “all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations,” including “regulations pertaining to advertisements, age restrictions, and the legality of products sold.”
• • •
Goldsboro is not the only government entity that has taken on vaping in recent months.
When Wayne County Public Schools was awarded $410,000 of the county’s opioid set-
tlement funds, that money was earmarked, in part, to fund hundreds of “vape sensors” that will soon be installed in bathrooms and locker rooms across the community.
WCPS spokesman Ken Derksen said the district plans to purchase 250 devices from Verkada in hopes that their presence in local schools will deter vaping among students.
“We do not have a specific timeframe for installation of vape sensors, but our plans are as soon as possible,” he said.
And at the state level, Gov. Roy Cooper recently signed a bipartisan bill that could lead to many vaping products being removed from North Carolina shelves.
The law would restrict sales to products that have been authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — a measure the Vapor Technology Associated opposed, in part, because the group felt it would have a negative impact on sales.
But for Cooper and others who ensured the law will, indeed, take effect, that was the point, as the state’s most recent Youth Tobacco Survey found that one in eight high school students reported currently using a tobacco product, with E-cigarettes being identified as the clear product of choice among the state’s young people.
Rep. Erin Pare, a Wake County Republican, said the law would take a bite out of what she characterized as an “epidemic.”
“The vaping epidemic is quite the Wild West, particularly in high school,” she said. “That’s why this bill passed with broad bipartisan support. It brings order, enforcement, accountability, and transparency to a growing problem.”
And now that the City Council has officially amended its Unified Development Ordinance — and state-of-the-art vape sensors will soon adorn the walls inside WCPS bathrooms and locker rooms — local officials, too, have drawn a line in the sand.” n
PROVIDING QUALITY, AFFORDABLE INSURANCE SINCE
A BAD PLAY
If you’re a sports fan, you have likely yelled at a television a time or two if your team’s kicker missed a chip-shot field goal — or a UNC, Duke, or N.C. State five-star blew a game because he couldn’t make a free throw.
And if you are anything like us, you were not upset in those moments because your team lost.
It was how it happened — that they blew an “easy one.”
Well, members of the Goldsboro City Council — and, more to the point, their attorney, Ron Lawrence — missed a chip-shot Monday evening.
And to make matters worse, had it not happened, this editorial would have not only been far different, it would have been a space to celebrate another courageous accomplish by a group of men and women who have, almost
without fail, impressed their constituents since they were sworn in late last year.
It is worth noting that this edition of Wayne Week is likely the only place you will hear what really went down during the board’s Oct. 21 meeting.
So, we will, as always, give it to you straight and allow you to decide whether or not it merits ripping off your team’s jersey and hurling it at the TV.
Here’s what we know:
At just after noon Tuesday, we received a press release from a city spokesperson.
“The Goldsboro City Council has decided to initiate a search for the next city manager,” it read.
And while, as we told you in the Oct. 13 edition of Wayne Week, we felt the decision was the right play — that even if Interim City Manager Matthew Livingston ends up being
public vote happened?
The press release was literally titled, “Goldsboro City Council announces search for next city manager.”
So, we challenged the city.
We sent them an email laying out our position and asked for a transcript of the discussion and the vote that unfolded in closed session.
Well, the response was more shocking than the misstep.
It seems Lawrence believes that because “personnel” discussions are protected from the press and public, so, too, was the vote.
Wrong.
If specific information about Livingston — and his job performance and how it related to a decision to launch a search for a permanent city manager — was discussed, Goldsboro leaders are well within its rights to hold those discussions in the dark.
But when it came time for an official vote about a VACANT position, the law says it should have been public.
That is our interpretation.
That is the interpretation of every single attorney we have spoken to since we got the press release.
So, we sent a follow-up.
We let it be known that, in the interest of clarity, we were going to put Lawrence’s name on the assertion that an official vote of the City Council to conduct a search for a new city manager was not for public consumption.
He ignored us.
Oh well. Surely, Mayor Charles Gaylor — an attorney — would agree. Right?
Well, it’s hard to say.
Gaylor would not even acknowledge that a vote happened.
News flash: It absolutely happened. In fact, two official votes did.
“the right guy” when the dust settles, a search sends a message to city staff and the public that every effort was made to find the most qualified candidate — something about that sentence didn’t feel right.
You see, we had watched the council’s Monday meeting. There was absolutely no public vote to move forward with a search.
So, how — and when — did the board come to this agreement?
Several local lawyers — and Open Meetings Law experts — were confused, too.
Because in their view, and ours, North Carolina General Statute requires that official action occur in public.
In other words, you have the right to know who made the motion, who seconded it, and who voted which way.
How then could the city officially report that the council had made this decision if no
But after sitting down with the mayor for a few minutes Wednesday, it became abundantly clear that there was not a chance he was going to admit it — or throw Lawrence under the bus.
Ready to be surprised?
We actually admire Gaylor for both.
The fact that the mayor refused to betray the confidences of a closed session was the right thing to do. He’s been doing it since his first day on the board as a councilman, and as the board’s leader, it is imperative that he drives inside the lines.
And standing behind a member of his team when the chips are down? We can respect that.
In other words, Gaylor’s hands really are tied in this situation.
But in our view, Lawrence should know better — and if he doesn’t, it’s time for the council to seek new counsel.
There is a reason why Sunshine Law exists.
Continued from page 10
And any government attorney worth his or her salt should be well-versed in it.
That’s why so many of his colleagues — they asked to remain anonymous so they could speak freely about a “friend” whom they “respect” — were stunned that he did not advise the board that the search vote needed to happen in public.
So, why does this matter to you?
Well, when it comes to your government — any government — transparency matters.
And so does following the rules.
That’s why we are such sticklers about open meetings laws and the Freedom of Information Act — and why we are so vigilant when we see them being trampled on or completely ignored.
We know what happens when the light isn’t shining.
We know what a “slippery slope” is and how letting this slide — when it involves, of all things, something as significant as hiring the city’s next chief executive — could lead to more foul play.
And so do you.
Over the last few years, we have caught several of our local public bodies bending the closed session rules.
They have included items that should be being discussed in public — in front of tax-
payers and on the live-streams they are so proud of.
We even had one board hold a “public” meeting a several-hour drive — and a ferry ride — away, where they discussed controversial items like moving school populations that ended up becoming policy.
So, yes, knowing what your county commission, school board, town board, or city council is up to prevents the kind of surprises that make most taxpayers angry — like passing policies that are in direct contrast to those election-time promises and spending like a drunken sailor.
Remember this, too.
It is always kind of telling when someone gets worked up when stuff that a representative would prefer stayed behind the curtain gets leaked from one of these sessions.
And no, it is almost always not because of some high-moral stance and a deep-seated belief that what is said in closed session should remain there.
It is because they have said something they don’t want anyone to know they said.
Those who are not outraged and leading witch hunts to find out who “the leaks” are, on the other hand, well, they often are the most trustworthy and steady of your representatives.
They know how things are supposed to be
done, and they want to make sure information that should get to the public gets there.
So, when there is a need to stand up and say, “This should be discussed in public,” they ensure it happens.
And that brings us back to what unfolded inside City Hall Oct. 21.
It would have been nice for you, the taxpayers, to hear the leaders you elected provide their reasoning for not simply coronating Livingston.
Luckily, we know that deep down, Gaylor gets it.
And as you will read in this week’s cover story, he has now committed — on the record — to ensuring the search process is transparent and thorough.
But make no mistake. No board or public body of any kind should feel that it can break the rules, pick and choose what information its members will share with the public, or not be forced into the accountability of saying the true stuff, the hard stuff, in front of the community they pledged to serve and the taxpayers they said they were going to respect and protect.
So, we hope that Gaylor is right — that the city is in the process of cleaning up its act and will have a full, open discussion about the city’s next leader in front of the people who are really paying the salary.
Goldsboro residents deserve that respect.
So, to those who are in power who have operated like little Napoleons behind the scenes — making deals and scratching each other’s backs even when budgets were screaming red — we know why you are really upset.
You don’t like the fact that you can’t get away with the status quo anymore.
That’s why you are attacking us and leading witch hunts “for the leaks.”
But here’s the thing.
If you would just stop, do your jobs the right way, and follow the rules — and actually do what you told voters you were going to do instead of looking for ways to “get ahead” or make a deal — you would have absolutely nothing to worry about.
If you did those things, there would not be anything to leak.
So, we commend those who are determined to clean up this city and county and their governing bodies.
You really are helping us make a difference.
And in the coming weeks, we will take every avenue in our arsenal to ensure that the sun ultimately shines on what happened during what we believe was, at the very least, an illegal discussion and vote during Monday’s closed session.
You deserve nothing less. n
Members of the Goldsboro City Council voted Monday evening to begin a search for a new city manager. But the public will never know who raised their hand because what should have been a public vote was conducted during a closed session.
BY KEN FINE AND RENEE CAREY
Less than two weeks after several members of the Goldsboro City Council told Wayne Week they would support a search for a permanent city manager, an official press release confirmed that the board would, in fact, begin looking for Tim Salmon’s replacement.
But the release, which was published less than 24 hours after the Oct. 21 council meeting, raised questions about how and when the formal decision was made, as no public discussion about — or a vote on — the topic unfolded Monday evening.
And when it was discovered that two votes — a failed measure to execute a formal contract with Interim City Manager Matthew Livingston and a successful one to launch a search — were held in closed session, legal experts labeled the process “illegal.”
“It’s not a hard call. It’s not, ‘Well, there’s a nuance here,’” said Mike Tadych, a veteran media and First Amendment law attorney with Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych, a firm that has been characterized as having “knowledge of the North Carolina First Amendment landscape” that is “without equal,” and has been praised for its history of fighting for access to public records. “They went into closed session under the personnel statute and the statute says, ‘Any final decision taking action has to be done (in open session).’ How is that not a final decision?
If Mayor Charles Gaylor had gotten his way, the council would have launched a search for a new city manager more than eight months ago — shortly after when, on Feb. 13, he informed the public, via a Facebook post, that Salmon had stepped down and Livingston had agreed to take on the position in an interim capacity.
In fact, the mayor told the public, at the end of that post, that details about the “process” were coming.
“We will share updates about the search process and next steps in the coming weeks,” he wrote.
But the council balked.
“When we first made the swap off of Tim,
I was very strong that it was time to go and do a search,” Gaylor told Wayne Week earlier this month. “We had search firms — I had two of them, actually — that had given us some pricing information on what that would look like. I took it to council.”
Several of those council members who, at the time, shot down Gaylor’s plan, said they were reluctant, back then, to agree to an immediate search because they did not want to limit the pool by asking candidates to come to Goldsboro to clean up “a mess” that included a Finance Department that was still not caught up on its audits.
“Personally, I didn’t want to interview
“You’re right. They’re wrong. They could have fixed at least part of it by coming into open session and taking that vote about not giving the interim city manager a contract ...”
Mike Tadych, an attorney with Stevens Martin Vaughn & Tadych
people saying, ‘Your first job is going to be cleaning up our mess,’” Councilwoman Jamie Taylor said. “I mean, who would want to do that.”
But with the “rough waters” in the city’s rear view, several council members — including Taylor and Hiawatha Jones — said they would be open now to conducting a formal search, if for no other reason than to ensure Goldsboro employees and residents knew they ended up with the “most qualified individual.”
“While I acknowledge that our interim manager may indeed be a suitable candidate for the position, a comprehensive search will allow us to evaluate all potential
candidates,” Jones said in a statement provided to Wayne Week Oct. 12. “This process not only ensures that we find the most qualified individual to lead our city, but also demonstrates our commitment to transparency and due process. Engaging in this search will ultimately benefit our community and help us make an informed decision that aligns with the best interests of the citizens.”
Some, like Councilman Chris Boyette, were not convinced.
“I would be against a search because I think we would end up finding out that we have the best candidate running things right
Vote Billy Strickland for Superior Court Judge
Continued from page 17 now,” he said. “He’s been proving that since the day he accepted the interim position and honestly, that money (for a search) could be better spent on behalf of our citizens.”
So, how did the council end up voting Monday?
And what was the justification of those who voted for or against the search?
Wayne Week, after learning that two votes had unfolded in closed session in violation of North Carolina Open Meetings Law, attempted to get those answers.
The following is the request the paper sent to City Hall Tuesday:
Earlier today, we received a press release regarding a soon-to-be had search for a city manager.
The following is how that release began:
“The Goldsboro City Council has decided to initiate a search for the next city manager.”
For starters, we would like to know when that decision was made and how. Was there a formal vote — meaning a motion was made and seconded, etc. — taken? If so, when did that happen?
If it happened in closed session or another venue, we would like the city attorney to justify, citing NC General Statute, why that decision was not made publicly.
Having watched the City Council meeting — and having rewatched it after the press release was sent — that decision was not made in open session, which, as a blatant violation of Open Meetings Law, is a concern.
In fact, the law requires that any discussion about a potential search for a city manager be
held in public — minus specific statements about the current interim city manager and his job performance.
So, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, here is what we are going to need:
- A complete transcript of any conversation that unfolded regarding a search for a permanent city manager. Comments about Matthew Livingston’s job performance — which are protected by statute — can be redacted or excluded.
- That transcript should include the details of any vote that was taken. (Who made the motion(s) and seconded it (them) and who voted yes or no.)
- It should also include every single statement that did not specifically involve comments about Matthew Livingston that are protected by statute.
Again, we would also like the city attorney to justify why this decision — assuming it was, in fact, made outside of the public meeting we viewed — was deemed worthy of the protections of a closed session.
City Clerk Laura Getz responded the following day.
“Pursuant to the advice of the city attorney, the city is not able to fulfill your request and assertion, as the matter involved personnel (which is confidential - see NCGS 160A-168) and therefore was properly conducted in Closed Session (see NCGS 143-318.11),” she wrote.
Tadych characterized the city’s position as “nonsensical.”
“You’re right. They’re wrong,” he said. “They could have fixed at least part of it by
Continued on page 19
Interim City Manager
Matthew Livingston
Mayor Charles Gaylor
Continued from page 17 coming into open session and taking that vote about not giving the interim city manager a contract. That would have been consistent with going into the personnel discussion, having the discussion that he’s not met the mark, reaching a consensus, and then going out (into open session) and someone says, ‘I make a motion.’ But they didn’t. The second is a general personnel matter. Open Meetings Law is crystal clear that it has to be done in open session. So, I think your request … is perfectly fine.”
In the interest of giving Gaylor, an attorney, an opportunity to correct the record, Wayne Week sat down with the mayor in City Hall Wednesday.
We asked him how, as stated in the city’s press release, the council “decided” to launch a search for a new city manager.
“They discussed it,” he said. “They discussed the performance of personnel.”
We asked, repeatedly, if an official vote was taken.
“I can’t discuss personnel matters from closed session,” Gaylor said. “I cannot discuss closed session matters. I have been advised by our city attorney not to. We’ve explained why.”
And when confronted with the opinion of legal experts on Open Meetings Law, he, again, doubled down.
Tadych disagrees.
“Both the city attorney and mayor/ attorney are incorrect on that,” he said. “Again, you’re right and they’re wrong. And because they did not come out of closed session and hold a vote, all discussion
“I’ve been told that a personnel matter that was discussed in closed session remains in closed session,” Gaylor said. “Would I do it differently today? Absolutely. But do I think what we did was illegal and non-compliant? No, I don’t.”
not specifically related to (Livingston’s) job performance is fair game, too. You’re entitled to know how the sausage was made in that closed session. Said another way, I believe you are entitled to all the discussion that doesn’t have to do with the interim city manager’s performance. That would not fit the purpose of the stated closed session. Period.”
In a last-ditch attempt to allow Lawrence to clarify his position, Wayne Week sent
the following email Wednesday after our discussion with Gaylor.
“So, just so we’re clear — and we feel, in the interest of transparency, that it should be understood by Mr. Lawrence that his name will go on this answer — the position of the City Attorney is that a formal vote to engage in a search for a new city manager is a ‘personnel’ issue that does not require said vote to unfold in a public setting?” Neither Lawrence, nor anyone from City Hall, has responded. n
