Mooresville will not seek All-America City designation this year, after all

Mooresville is postponing its efforts to become an All-America City.

But that decision is not because of the recent public exposure of Mayor Chris Montgomery’s use of town e-mail to communicate with a woman who is not his wife, said Karen Shore, president and CEO of the Mooresville-South Iredell Chamber of Commerce and member of Mooresville’s All-America City steering committee.

“We started this year with the resignation of the town manager, and now we’re facing the resignation and departure of our director of economic development,” Shore said.

Town Manager Steve Husemann’s resignation became effective at midnight on Jan. 9, at which time Erskine Smith, Mooresville’s longtime assistant town manager, became interim town manager.

Only three days later, the Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation announced that Executive Director Russ Rogerson had accepted a position as senior vice president of economic development services at the Charlotte Regional Partnership. Rogerson’s resignation from the MSIEDC is effective Jan. 31.

The All-America City bid was Montgomery’s brainchild and his most touted project in 2010.

“Transitions in municipal government and economic development, plus recent strains between myself and the board have unfortunately overshadowed the initial intent,” Montgomery said in a Jan. 25 e-mail to the Report/Mooresville Weekly.

The All-America City designation is the country’s oldest and most prestigious community recognition award, according to the website of the National Civic League, which grants the annual award to “communities of all sizes that collaboratively tackle challenges and achieve results.”

• Read more on this story here and in the print edition of Mooresville Weekly on Friday, Jan. 28.

Closed Doors and Conflicts

Though very little has been discussed publicly about Langtree at the Lake’s request for the Town of Mooresville to issue millions in bonds to pay for the massive mixed-use development’s first phase of infrastructure, much has been said behind closed doors.

E-mail exchanges over the past month between Langtree Attorney David Parker and town administrators provide a more thorough glimpse into the discussions – sometimes quite heated – between the development group and the town.

Langtree: ‘The vultures are circling’

When Langtree asked Iredell County late last year to issue $46 million in bonds, Parker said that Langtree would continue building even if Iredell didn’t approve the deal, but that the developers would likely wait at least a year, until the recession is over. But in a Jan. 29 e-mail from Parker to Mooresville Town Attorney Steve Gambill, Parker said: “We cannot go forward without the infrastructure financing.”

In a Jan. 30 e-mail Parker appears to beseech Town Manager Steve Husemann: “Although I cannot tell you how much time is of the essence in this for us because of the tone that my voice would take, I do understand that our need does not control your requirement of vigilance. That being said, the number of developers that go under daily is astounding and the vultures are continually circling in the sky over all of us.

“We would very much like to survive to build this project,” Parker said.

He went on to state that Langtree “suffered a 120 day delay” trying to negotiate the bond deal with Iredell, only to discover that the county “has no interest in getting into the infrastructure business in any fashion and would have had to take the infrastructure as part of its deal according to their bond counsel.

“Had we known that the County would back off,” Parker continued, “we would have pursued the annexation (with credit against the Utilities payments) months ago and not been in such a state.

“Please help us,” Parker pleaded.

But in previous e-mails – and those written the week leading up to the Feb. 2 town board meeting – Parker’s disposition wasn’t as conciliatory, as exchanges between him and town administrators turned heated.

Biting the hand that could feed you

On Jan. 29 – just days before the February town board meeting, when Langtree was scheduled to request that the Town of Mooresville annex 143 acres of the Mt. Mourne development – Parker e-mailed Gambill and Husemann, discussing the addition of a preliminary-assessment resolution to the Feb. 2 town-board agenda.

The resolution, which was given to commissioners just before they were expected to vote on it, set a public-hearing date for March 2. The resolution passed 5-1 (Commissioner Miles Atkins opposing), but the public hearing was postponed until tomorrow, March 9, because of last week’s inclement weather.

A final-assessment resolution – a document that requests the Local Government Commission to look at the proposed special-assessment financing between Langtree and the town – would be brought up for consideration at a later date, Parker explained in the Jan 29 e-mail. “Bear in mind that the notice only goes out to the Benefitted Property owners and a version is published in the newspaper,” Parker wrote. “NO one other than the Benefitted property owners have legal standing to protest the Notice and we will waive protest if you would like.”

Also, Parker wrote to town administrators, “I do not think that you realize that we cannot keep on having delays and avoid splitting up this property.

“We ask for no special consideration, but after over a year of delays due to slow down by (town) Staff, it would appear that further delays only damage the Town’s reputation for encouraging a higher quality of life.

“We are asking for annexation solely because we have to be annexed in order to ask the Town to ask the LGC (Local Government Commission) to allow the Town to issue the bonds which the Town does not back but are rather secured solely and completely by our property as improved,” Parker said to Gambill, adding, however: “You are now saying that you do not think that we are an ‘Economic Development’ project where a tax check swap will work. Steve Husemann is apparently saying that he cannot think of a way to offset our taxes, hold them in abeyance, or do a swap.

“Being lulled into asking for annexation on a bait-and-switch is not a very appealing situation for us,” Parker said.

Husemann responded on Jan. 30 (the Friday before the Monday, Feb. 2 town board meeting): “Just to be very clear! There is absolutely no agreement at this time that we will defer, waive, credit or in any way credit Langtree for taxes that they will pay after annexation.

“I recall about a 30 second discussion on this topic in which I said that I did not believe that what you were asking for was legal,” Husemann said. “That is certainly not a bait and switch.

“If you were going to pursue this further, you should have done so before the last minute,” Husemann said. “Any discussion on this matter needs to be presented to the entire Board in public session. I have never even suggested to the Board that such a move was pending.

“If you proceed with the annexation with the expectation that some future swap will be approved, you do so at your own risk,” Husemann added. “There is absolutely no commitment or promise from me or any other staff member at this time.”

Parker responded to Husemann that same day, copying Gambill and Mayor Bill Thunberg: “I do not ask for things, considerations, or agreements that cannot stand the twin tests of both public and judicial scrutiny.” Parker said he is “happy to conduct business in the bright light of day, as people that know me will attest.”

It was about four hours later that Parker sent an e-mail to Husemann individually, pleading for help on behalf of the developers.

Closed Doors and Conflicts

After the regular session of the February town board meeting, Mooresville commissioners went into closed session to discuss economic incentives for Langtree.

Though the details of that discussion are unknown, continuing e-mails between Parker and town administrators after the February town-board meeting indicate that things quickly went sour behind closed doors.

The Friday before Monday’s town board meeting, Husemann wrote in an e-mail to Parker: “It is my feeling that our willingness to proceed with this very complicated bonding process is sufficient incentive. I know that you are concerned about additional taxes but we are going to incur costs as well. We need to get a fire station built before that 1st building is occupied. Then we will have to man it.”

Husemann told Parker that if Langtree wanted to negotiate an agreement with commissioners at the Feb. 2 board meeting, then the developers would likely want to contact Russ Rogerson – executive director of the Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation (MSIEDC) – “and ask him to present it to the Board.”

Rogerson did in fact approach commissioners in closed session on behalf of the MSIEDC. He apparently asked for economic incentives for Langtree, which is a top financial sponsor of the MSIEDC’s Partners in Progress campaign. Additionally, Rick Howard – Langtree’s CEO – is on the MSIEDC board of directors.

In closed session, Rogerson apparently broached a subject that he wasn’t allowed to discuss in closed session, per the Open Meetings law – and his request for incentives for developers apparently wasn’t well received by all the commissioners.

The day after the Feb. 2 town board meeting, Parker clarified in an e-mail to Gambill: “We are not asking for incentives. It is possible that (John Q.) Hammons will ask for incentives, but Langtree has never asked for any – Russ was not correct.”

In an e-mail to Husemann, Parker said: “I will take the blame for the conversation about incentives not being stopped immediately – I did not foresee that possibility. I fully concur with Steve Gambill that under the Open Meetings law, the SIAD (sic) could not be discussed under the Motion for Closed Session.”

The Open Meetings law allows commissioners to meet behind closed doors to discuss a limited and specific list of confidential matters such as personnel, litigation, economic incentives, etc. The board must provide to the public the subject of what they will be discussing behind closed doors and the accompanying statute that allows them to discuss that particular subject confidentially. Additionally, the law clearly states that the discussion cannot stray from what was advertised as the subject matter. Minutes of closed-session discussions must be released to the public once their release would no longer compromise the matters at hand.

“Russ apparently thought that he was going to talk about the bonds (in closed session) and when he found out that he could only talk about incentives, he did his best,” Parker said in the e-mail to Husemann. “We have not asked for those in the past.

“The tax issue should have never been raised with the Board by Russ the other night,” Parker stated. “I wanted this to go away and merely be looked at later inside the context of the Utilities Agreement. Our understanding was that we would not withdraw the Voluntary Annexation Petition and that we would not be involuntarily annexed until we had a CO (Certificate of Occupancy) – I was simply trying to preserve the original understanding in this new context of having to be annexed now in order to be considered for bond issuance.”

In an e-mail on Feb. 3, Parker wrote to Gambill: “The only thing we wanted on the taxes was to keep our agreement under voluntary annexation that we would not start paying taxes until we had a CO – just trying to keep the same deal that we had before.

Agreement? What agreement? With whom?

The “agreement” to which Parker referred in several e-mails prompted a response from Gambill and Husemann, both of whom said that such an agreement seemed illegal.

“I was not a party to any agreements concerning taxes and annexation,” Gambill wrote in a Feb. 4 e-mail to Parker, “(and, as I have stated before, I do not believe that property taxes can be abated per NC Constitution). I say this to be clear that I have not been involved in any agreements, formallyl (sic) or informally, where I have in any way stated that property taxes would be abated,” Gambill added. “I realize you are not saying that I have been but I have an obligation to be clear on this point.”

A clearly frustrated Husemann jumped into the e-mail discussion, responding to Parker: “I just read your E-mail that you sent to Steve Gambill and once again fear that you are trying to imply that some type of agreement exists or existed that has never existed,” Husemann wrote. “I made it very clear to you last week that we never agreed that you ‘would not start paying taxes until you had a CO.’ I said I thought it was illegal and Steve (Gambill) sent you information to that effect.

“If you ever intend to make such a claim,” Husemann added, “please send me such information immediately. I am uncomfortable with an inference that such an agreement exists when in my opinion there has been no agreement and would like to put this matter to rest before we move forward with discussions about the special assessment bonding process.”

In an e-mailed response on Feb. 4 to Gambill and Husemann, Parker said: “There has been no agreement on tax abeyance, rebates, or anything else – only discussions at a hypothetical level.”

So why, then, the repeated references to an agreement? Who, on behalf of the Town of Mooresville, led Langtree to believe that a potentially illegal agreement regarding taxes could be reached?

The answer to that question was made clear in a Jan. 28 e-mail from Parker to Gambill. The answer? Mayor Bill Thunberg.

“We did not discuss this this AM,” Parker said in the e-mail to Gambill, “but my agreement with the Mayor and others is that we will not pay Town taxes until we get a CO.”

Mayor gives public the finger

It is unclear if Thunberg documented any such agreement with Langtree in e-mails. He has ignored repeated requests over the past few weeks from the Gatton Report to provide any and all e-mail correspondence with any Langtree at the Lake official. Those e-mails, according to the N.C. Public Records Law, are documents that belong to the public. By ignoring the Report’s request for those records, not only is the mayor violating law, he is also giving his constituents the proverbial middle finger.

As soon as he has decided to comply with the law, I will post any relevant e-mails here.



Click on each document below to read the e-mails that were sent to the Report by Husemann; I have placed them in chronological order (except for the first one):



Jan. 28 e-mail exchange:



Jan. 29:





Jan. 30:




Feb. 2:

Feb. 3:


Feb. 4:


Feb. 18:

Getting Back to Basics

Wednesday night’s “town hall meeting” was an eye opening experience – in many ways.

From fraternizing with developers to the treatment of the town’s elderly and special-needs population – mingled, of course, with lively discussion about some of the town’s more controversial issues – the meeting offered citizens a rare opportunity to speak casually, yet candidly, with their elected representatives.

Two commissioners – Ward 4 Commissioner Chris Carney and At-Large Commissioner Miles Atkins - turned out for the three-hour-long informal meeting, organized by Rev. Larry Green and attended by about a dozen local residents, including Iredell County Commissioner Ken Robertson. Green said every commissioner except Thurman Houston responded in some way to his invitation. Mitch Abraham and Mac Herring said they had previously-scheduled plans, and Frank Rader didn’t respond to Green but told the Charlotte Observer that he wouldn’t attend. Mayor Bill Thunberg, said Green, didn’t respond to the invitation at all.

And that’s unfortunate because even though I wasn’t sure what to expect from the meeting – or if it would be fruitful or productive at all – the free flow of information and the uninhibited exchange of ideas was unlike anything we have ever witnessed in Mooresville before.

I left the meeting with fresh insight. Perhaps the most compelling impression that the meeting left on me was that our town and its government is headed in the right direction. It is progress, not perfection, that we expect. And as long as elected officials are talking to us, and listening to us, we’ll continue to move in that direction.

The open dialogue that transpired at the meeting reminded me of the original purpose of my blog – and it highlighted for me just how far some have strayed from that purpose.

I am a fervent believer in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and I staunchly defend people’s right to speak freely – even when their speech displeases me, and even when their words stand in opposition to everything in which I believe.

Commissioner Atkins and his wife, Kim, have been heavily criticized in the comments section of my blog since last week when the Mooresville Downtown Commission announced that it had hired Kim Atkins to serve as its executive director. I have no problem with people questioning public officials, doubting their motives and/or intentions, and holding them accountable for their actions.

What I do have a problem with is this: Despite sustained attacks on this blog against Atkins and his wife, when he stepped out of Town Hall and sat down willing to face his critics on Wednesday, only one person confronted him about his potential influence over his wife’s hiring. That one person: local attorney Cliff Homesley.

Homesley pointedly asked Atkins if at any time during the hiring process he had discussed his wife’s candidacy with other government officials or MDC board members.

“I have had no contact even with fellow commissioners,” Atkins said. “I’ve had some talk to me, but I have refrained.”

It appears, however, that at least two elected officials did not “refrain” from attempting to interfere in the process. In fact, those two individuals apparently threatened to withdraw the town’s funding of the MDC if it hired Kim Atkins as the new executive director.

Atkins neither confirmed nor denied the information, but he said that since his wife’s hiring he has heard that some of his fellow elected officials were “really opposed” to her hiring.

Carney, however, stated that members of the MDC board of directors approached him, concerned about their funding from the town. He said they asked him if the funds would be “at risk” if they hired Atkins as the executive director “because they had heard that from other elected officials.”

Carney acknowledged that he warned the MDC board members upon their selection of Atkins that “they better be sure their policies and procedures were in place.”

He told those in attendance at Wednesday night’s meeting that it was improper for commissioners to have spoken for the entire town board and to have threatened to pull an organization’s funding.

Carney explained that town commissioners earlier this year agreed to fund the MDC as long as the organization met certain goals that it spelled out in a three-year business plan that was shared with town commissioners in budget talks this year.

Homesley also pointed out that Carney’s brother, Robby, was recently hired as the existing industry and marketing manager of the Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation – an organization that, not unlike the MDC, receives annual funding from the Town of Mooresville.

County Commissioner Ken Robertson chimed in, denying that government agencies “play favorites” with family members of public officials. “They actually get scrutinized more,” he said, because of precisely what is happening right now to the MDC. “The employers are afraid they’ll be accused of cronyism,” Robertson said.

Sometimes, he said, that means the employer will “work twice as hard” to find a reason not to hire the family member.

And the government official, Robertson said, “is scrutinized only because they are related to someone who is trying to maximize their value in this world.”

Said Atkins: “I hope that people will get to know Kim and myself. She is accountable to her board as I am accountable to you as your public servant.

“She has to stand on her own as a professional,” he said.

Simple, straightforward questions. Simple, straightforward answers. A free-flowing exchange of ideas and opinions. That's what Wednesday night’s meeting proved is possible.

It’s also what my blog is about.

Let me make something clear: My reporting is about principles, not personalities. And I expect out of others what I expect out of myself -- that any criticism will be relevant, well-founded and factual. If I ever fail in that, I ask that you hold me accountable for it.

I created my blog just over seven months ago to foster open, uncensored dialogue among and between the residents of Mooresville, southern Iredell County and beyond about issues that are important to us.

At times, certain readers have used my blog as a conduit for outright lies about me and other private citizens. One example: an innocent joke by a reader was turned into an accusation that I was having an extramarital affair … without regard for the fact that my husband, my two young daughters … my mother … all read my blog.

One reader has repeatedly called for investigations of private citizens, including me, accusing us of having “skeletons in our closets,” always stopping short, however, of disclosing just what those skeletons are.

I have even been accused of being “on welfare.” Though I see no shame in human beings who fall on hard times and need a little help, the fact remains that my husband and I chose to make financial sacrifices in order for me to be at home with our children while he earns our living … and pays our taxes.

Many readers who have signed their names to their comments, and others who are simply mentioned in my posts or readers’ comments, have been randomly grouped together despite the fact that some of us would not know each other if we ran into one another in the grocery store.

One reader wrote obscenities and attributed them to me and other community activists. Other readers have gone so far as to ridicule peoples’ appearances, their body shape, their national origin and their religious beliefs. They have stooped so low as to use derogatory and vulgar terms such as “sheep,” “freaks,” and “retarded” to describe readers who have posted statements that are critical of government officials.

I agree with one reader who pointed out that in our system, there is a fundamental distinction between public officials and private citizens. When it comes to criticism, public officials are fair game. Private citizens are not. Why? Because public officials are public officials by choice. If they don’t relish scrutiny and exposure, they can rescind their status, reverting back to being a private citizen. Private citizens don’t have that luxury; they can’t “rescind” their status as a private citizen.

The long and the short of it is this: Like many of you, I have been appalled by the hateful content of some comments that have been posted on my blog. Countless people have contacted me, beseeching me to censor such comments. But I have refused to do so. My loyalty to freedom of speech easily trumps any hurt feelings which may result from someone’s words.

However, I call on those of you who have committed to joining me in my “mission” to refrain from engaging with those whose sole purpose is clearly to personally attack others – that includes private citizens and public officials alike. This does not preclude legitimate, factual and pertinent criticism of public officials.

Let's get back to basics. In the coming days, I plan to post several different topics that were discussed at Wednesday night’s meeting. I will provide a brief synopsis of what was discussed, and, as always, I welcome and encourage your voice in the ensuing discussions and debate.

Among the issues that will be posted:

• Town commissioners and town staff fraternizing with developers
• What ever happened to the town-hall protestors’ demands for the assistant town manager’s firing? Does the town really need an assistant-town-manager position?
• The town’s hiring of engineering firm CH2M Hill for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant
• The ever-controversial question: Should Iredell County’s two school districts merge?
• Town employees’ use of the municipal golf course

MSIEDC newsletter (edited)

FYI, here is a scanned copy of the edited version of the Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation's new newsletter; the copy I received, which was posted earlier this week, was apparently an unedited draft:

New Economic Development newsletter

FYI, here's the first edition of the Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation's newsletter. It includes three pages; click on each document for a larger version:

Former legislator says it's time to dissolve the SICDC

The state lawmaker who set up legislation to establish the South Iredell Community Development Corporation (SICDC) years ago said this week that the organization has served its purpose and needs to be dissolved.

“The SICDC was set up as a partnership between the Town of Mooresville, Iredell County and the Chamber of Commerce, and it took some tall talking to get it through the General Assembly because the concern was that people would take it over for greed and personal gain,” said Robert Brawley, a Mooresville resident who served 18 years (1980-1998) in the N.C. House of Representatives.

At the time the SICDC was formed, Brawley said, “Nobody was interested enough in Mooresville to make investments. We had a big tract of land that belonged to the Oliphants. They were willing to sell it for an industrial park, but nobody with money was interested in developing Mooresville.”

That tract of land eventually became the Mooresville Business Park on Mazeppa Road.

To develop that business park, the SICDC borrowed nearly $3 million from Iredell County between 1989 and 1994. The county had the money to lend because of its January 1986 sale of the former Lowrance Hospital, which turned into Lake Norman Regional Medical Center and is now the Government Center South on Center Avenue in Mooresville.

In 1994, Iredell County transferred to the Town of Mooresville the responsibility for collecting the SICDC’s debt. By 1999, the SICDC had paid back the principal amount of the loan, but it had not made a single payment on nearly $850,000 in accrued interest between 1999 and 2002.

After the debt was exposed by the local media in 2002, Mooresville’s town board voted unanimously to approve a proposal by the SICDC to repay the loan interest. The SICDC agreed to pay the town 10 percent of its outstanding balance every year and half of all proceeds from selling land in the Mooresville Business Park until the debt was paid in full.

The SICDC still owes the town $388,263 and has not made a payment since 2006. Additionally, the SICDC has not paid the town any percentage of two pieces of property that the organization sold in the business park earlier this year for a combined $1 million.

Mayor Bill Thunberg, who has sat on the SICDC board the past two years while the organization has defaulted on its repayment plan to the town, said in an e-mail Tuesday that the SICDC discussed in its annual meeting in February a plan to repay the town in full by June 30 of this year. (See “Mayor: SICDC to pay town in full by June 30," April 17.)

Brawley said this week that the SICDC was originally set up so “the Chamber and SICDC could borrow money with the backing of the taxing authority of the city and the county.

“They borrowed money from the city rather than from the outside, and they bought the land as a non-profit corporation,” he said. “As such, they’re not supposed to be in the business of buying and selling property for a profit.”

“This was a prime example of the city, county and Chamber working together for the good of the community, but there are some people that have tried to convert the SICDC into a personal-profit real estate organization,” Brawley said. “It was originally a partnership to allow the city and county to become what it is today. It’s a shame that the people in there today are turning it over to personal gain.”

“I don’t think it needs to remain in existence.”

However, Brawley said, if the SICDC dissolves and distributes its assets to the Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation (MSIEDC), “to me, that’s going to be a real travesty. You’d be going from a government entity with the SICDC to a public-private entity with the MSIEDC.

“Some people might try to get it transferred over to make it their own little personal domain. It would make them very rich at the expense of the public, and they’d do it in the name of being public servants.

"In addition to that,” he added, “it would be illegal.”

Instead, Brawley said, the SICDC should be dissolved, and any remaining land and savings should be handed over to the Town of Mooresville and Iredell County. “They should settle up their debt and transfer their assets to the city and the county and let them use it for public purposes,” Brawley said.

He said not enough tracts of land remain in Mooresville for the SICDC to purchase and use for industrial parks, and competition to buy any land that is available should be left to private developers. “We don’t need government sponsorship of bringing development to Mooresville right now, especially government sponsorship of people trying to get on the MSIEDC and SICDC boards for personal gains,” Brawley said. “This is no longer a sleepy little town that has to have an infusion.

“We appreciate these entrepreneurs, but as a taxpayer, I want them out of my pocket,” he said. “The SICDC was in our pocket, too, but if it hadn’t been for the SICDC as it was originally formed, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

“The SICDC has served its purpose,” Brawley said, “and now it’s time to dissolve it.”

MSIEDC should operate more publicly before receiving more public funds

“The public has a right to know how their tax funds are being used. If the EDC does not want to be subject to such provisions, the EDC ought to keep its hands out of the public coffers.” (Cabarrus County Commissioner in 2006)

Not to change the subject, but the Mooresville Downtown Commission isn’t the only “outside agency” asking the Town of Mooresville for public funding this year.

The Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation (MSIEDC) wants $100,000.

Last year, the MSIEDC happily skipped away with $95,000 in public funds from the town. Then in January, the organization asked its executive director, Melanie O’Connell Underwood, to resign. In the following days, the Charlotte Observer apparently asked the MSIEDC for Underwood's salary. And in turn, the MSIEDC turned up its nose to the press and the people, basically saying that how it chooses to spend our money is none of our business. In fact, Sara Haire Tice, chair of the MSIEDC board of directors, was quoted in newspapers saying: “we … will not allow our internal business decisions, especially those involving the livelihoods of our employees, to become topics of public debate and display.”

The MSIEDC, since it is a “public-private” entity, does not technically have to disclose its financial information ... despite the fact that it’s funded in large part by tax dollars.

But that could soon change.

The Town of Mooresville has not yet voted on the MSIEDC’s funding for the upcoming fiscal year. And four town commissioners – Thurman Houston, Mac Herring, Miles Atkins and Chris Carney – said this week that they’d like to see the MSIEDC operate more publicly. The other two commissioners – Mitch Abraham and Frank Rader – disagree. (Actually, I can’t say with certainty that Rader disagrees. He told me in December 2006, when I was freelancing for the Tribune, that the MSIEDC should not operate publicly. But he did not respond to several Report e-mails in the last few days, asking if he stands by his 2006 comments.)

Commissioner Thurman Houston, however, said on Monday: “Personally, I would like to see that their financial statement was public record.” However, he added, “As a commissioner, I would need a few questions answered” first.

And that’s understandable. Most would agree that some aspects of economic development should remain confidential … but only for a limited period of time. But, as Commissioner Mac Herring put it, some “happy medium” should be reached so the MSIEDC can maintain the confidentiality of the businesses it’s trying to recruit to southern Iredell and the public can know how its money is being spent.

Commissioner Miles Atkins said this week: “I would expect there to be oversight and accountability for any organization that receives public funding.” The MSIEDC, Atkins said, “should be accountable for those tax dollars by operating publicly, and I would add that as a stipulation to their funding this year.”

Atkins was sworn into office in December 2007 – one month before Underwood was asked to resign. “You may be surprised to learn that since taking office in December, and with the termination of the executive director shortly thereafter, the MSIEDC has not officially communicated with the town board, to my knowledge, as to what their intentions are and where they are headed,” Atkins said.

So it sounds as though at least one town commissioner is as much in the dark as the taxpayers … which is indeed surprising, considering the mayor is also the secretary of the MSIEDC board.

Commissioner Chris Carney said in December 2006, and reaffirmed this week, that he believes the MSIEDC should operate more publicly. “(The MSIEDC) is using public money,” he said. “We understand the need for closed-session meetings when conducting deals, but after the deals are done, the information should be made public.

“I would want to see a happy medium between making sure public funds are being used appropriately, providing some openness, but not taking away from the competitiveness of the economic development group,” Carney added.

In FY2006, the Town of Mooresville and Iredell County approved a combined total of $201,180 specifically for economic development purposes. In FY2007, the MSIEDC – which reportedly has an annual income of $415,550 – received $209,230 in public funds, including $95,000 from the Town of Mooresville and $114,230 from Iredell County.

This year, the MSIEDC is asking for $100,000 from the Town of Mooresville and, according to newspaper reports, $117,000 from Iredell County. All public contributions are sent directly to the MSIEDC.

Despite those public contributions, two town commissioners – Mitch Abraham and Frank Rader – said in December 2006 that they do not believe the MSIEDC should operate publicly.

Abraham, in an e-mail to the Report on Monday, said he stands by his 2006 statements. “To my knowledge the MSIEDC is not a public body and confidentiality is a must,” he wrote.

Though Rader did not respond to this week’s e-mails, he said in December 2006 that “economic development with the town board is closed session with minutes sealed until fruition or not. Until economic development gets to the town board as a deal, the talk/negotiation and name of parties should stay very close to the vest. Otherwise, there will be no deal.”

Making the MSIEDC adhere to the public laws, Rader said in 2006, “would invert the effectiveness of our economic development, to the delight of every competitor in North Carolina and out. We compete with the nation and the world for economic development and need to build our deals quickly and quietly.”

Added Abraham at that time: “We did not make a stipulation that the new MSIEDC run by the open meetings act. It was not a discussion that was brought up in any meeting I attended.”

Carney said that was a mistake that the town board made. “We should have requested that at times when appropriate, the information should be made public. We did not discuss that. That’s our mistake, and it’s something we should keep in mind for next year’s request.”

The request wasn’t made that particular year, but Carney said this week he feels the same now as he did then. “I appreciate you bringing this back up,” he said, adding that he will address the topic when the town discusses the MSIEDC’s funding. It’s unclear exactly when that will happen.

“Anybody who receives public funding should be accountable,” Carney said Monday.

And contrary to what some might say, the arrangement can be carried out successfully. For example, Cabarrus County’s Economic Development Corporation (CEcD) was reorganized in August 2004. And as a stipulation of public funding, Cabarrus County included in its contract with the CEcD the requirement to adhere to the state’s public records and open meetings laws.

“All meeting minutes, annual audits, etc. are available for public review,” said CEcD Executive Director Ryan McDaniels in December 2006. Additionally, he said, “In our contract with Cabarrus County, it states that we follow the N.C. open meetings law.”

However, he added, “We do go into closed session in accordance with (N.C. General Statute) 143-318.11. This allows us to discuss confidentially businesses that may be looking to move or expand in Cabarrus County.”

McDaniels said in 2006 that the CEdC’s total annual budget is $734,000, with $553,000 of that being from municipalities’ public money. Private contributions account for approximately $181,000 of the CEcD’s annual budget, he added.

“With this amount of money,” said one Cabarrus County Commissioner, “the EDC (economic development corporation) ought to comply with the state’s public records and open meetings laws.

“The public has a right to know how their tax funds are being used. If the EDC does not want to be subject to such provisions, the EDC ought to keep its hands out of the public coffers.”

To the contrary, Mooresville’s Abraham said in 2006, and reaffirmed this week, that while he is “100 percent for our compliance to the open meetings and public records act,” he is opposed to adding a stipulation to the MSIEDC’s public funding that would require the organization to adhere to the public records and open meetings laws.

“Many economic development contacts need confidentiality for many reasons,” Abraham said. “I believe in this system. Its past accomplishments in Mooresville-South Iredell are very apparent and monumentally successful. Why change a system that has this type of success?”

Rader agreed. “Mooresville has very effective, efficient, productive and envied economic development program which the Town of Mooresville trusts and supports,” he said in 2006.

Added Abraham: “The Chamber and Melanie (O’Connell Underwood) have operated with great integrity and confidentiality in the past.” That’s why, he said, “no one brought up the notion of the open meetings rules.”