A new NC constitution and a new applicant for Charlotte City Council (05-13-2025--Hour1)

[00:00:04] What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to 3 on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to thepetekalendershow.com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button, get every episode for free, right to your smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for your support.

[00:00:29] As we always do on the Tuesday show at noon, we kick off with Andrew Dunn, the publisher of Longleaf Politics and a contributing columnist to the Charlotte Observer. Andrew, how are you, sir? Fantastic. This is always my favorite part of the week. Oh, that's very kind of you to say. Now I don't feel bad about not paying you anything to do this. Okay. So first off, I wanted to get to this because we talked about it a couple of weeks ago.

[00:00:53] The, you know, I think the first post that you had done on this, I guess it was at the, it was at the McClatchy Papers, I think, the op-ed, the original op-ed talking about the problem with the North Carolina Constitution, which I think then prompted this follow-up, which is your ideas for what a new state constitution could look like.

[00:01:12] So is this just like one of these political exercises that you like to run through that people like me are interested to read, but it probably doesn't happen. But what's the, what was the impetus for kind of putting these thoughts down on paper and saying, okay, this is what a better constitution might include? Yeah. Well, you know, I don't want to just complain about stuff without offering solutions, right? That's what I, that's what I try to teach my kids. So I better take my own advice.

[00:01:41] So yeah, you're right. A couple of weeks ago had the piece in the NNO and the Charlotte Observer basically saying that the root cause of so many of the political fights that we've been having over the past 10 years are a confusing state constitution. You know, the state constitution was written in the 1960s, adopted in 1970, and it creates this tension or more than tension, really conflict between the governor and the rest of the executive branch, because it's completely unclear on who does what.

[00:02:12] And in that regard, it's way different from the U.S. Constitution that has a unitary executive, you know, at the state level, there's 10 different executive branch figures. So I wanted to come through and actually offer a solution. And, you know, one of the big things, probably the big thing that would be part of it is streamlining that executive branch.

[00:02:31] You know, having the governor and the lieutenant governor run as a ticket, continuing to elect an attorney general, secretary of state and state auditor, but then everything else essentially becomes a cabinet position chosen by the governor. And I think just doing that is going to solve so many of the problems that we have. Right. So agriculture, insurance, labor commissioners, treasurer, superintendent of public instruction, they become the cabinet posts.

[00:02:58] And that still leaves you with essentially a council of state of five members with your governor, lieutenant governor, AG, secretary of state and state auditor. Yeah, that's precisely it. I mean, that's a lot more manageable. You know, there's there's value in continuing to elect those other executive branch positions. But another requirement essentially of a new constitution would be to really spell out what those jobs entail.

[00:03:27] There's very little in the current constitution that actually says what the attorney general does, what the secretary of state does. And there's some very general guidelines, but then it basically says the general assembly gets to assign them whatever duties that they want. But that creates plenty of tension with the general assembly because, you know, their prerogative is to change things based on who's in the office. And the, you know, the elected officials are saying, well, hey, I mean, I do have a constitutional duty here.

[00:03:56] It's just undefined. So I think it would solve a lot of problems, like I said, to actually spell out what we want these folks to do. Right. And the latest fight on all of this is the state board of elections. But this has been going on in North Carolina. Legislatures have been taking power away from various council of state posts in the past. When Democrats control the legislature, they would strip power from a Republican when they would win lieutenant governor's race, for example,

[00:04:22] and then move powers back if if a Democrat took control. And so the current legislature, Republican majority, they've done the same thing. And they've had fights with with Democrat and Republican governors over what powers the governor has and and other offices as well. And so it creates this tension. And that leads to litigation, which, you know, we keep seeing as well.

[00:04:46] You also mentioned four year staggered terms in the Senate and with half the chamber elected each cycle, because right now the Senate is elected all at once and for a two year term, just like in the House. So why go for a four year staggered setup? Yeah, well, I think the U.S. Constitution actually has a good idea in making the U.S. House and the U.S.

[00:05:11] Senate distinct, you know, with different term lengths, because I think it really does lend itself to different dynamics in those bodies. And I think it would be a good idea to have in North Carolina. I think six years is maybe a little too long for a state post. So that's why I put it at four. You know, that's the beauty of writing, you know, a newsletter. You get to decide whatever you want.

[00:05:33] But the staggered terms would would just be to create a little bit more continuity so that you don't have the potential for a completely new body every two years. Also, you you want a new constitution to allow citizens to propose amendments through initiative petitions. But you don't want to open it up like California style. Yeah, exactly. That that's the one that I had the hardest time with, because, you know, like you mentioned,

[00:06:01] states like California get themselves into a lot of trouble. I think Florida is also potentially problematic. You'll see all sorts of different ballot initiatives. I want it to be a high bar, but I do think there is value in having some sort of process in, you know, citizens getting something on the ballot to vote on. So, I mean, my general take is, you know, let's get 10 percent of registered voters to sign a petition and then two thirds of voters have to approve it.

[00:06:31] So, you know, with that high of a bar, it really has to be a very serious effort and a very broadly supported effort to get anywhere. Sure. I'm talking with Andrew Dunn. He's the publisher of Longleaf Politics. You can read that at Longleaf Pol dot com. He's also a columnist at the Charlotte Observer or maybe I should say city councilman, Charlotte City Councilman, maybe just an interim city councilman.

[00:06:55] So you applied to fill the the vacant seat that was Tark Bakari's seat on the Charlotte City Council. Are you insane? Are you crazy, Andrew? I mean, probably a little. I guess depending on your perspective, it may give you comfort that I'm very much a long shot. But, you know, I am taking it seriously. You know, I put in my application. You know, my top priority would be to try to get this transit plan over the finish line in a smart way.

[00:07:24] You know, you and I have talked about this a lot over the past couple of months. But, you know, it really feels like there is a path forward to do this right, do this in a smart way and get Charlotte set up for the next 30, 40 years. And I think, you know, with my knowledge of the issue and my relationships with the General Assembly, I feel like I feel like the council could could do worse than picking me for the for the seat.

[00:07:49] And you also you say you're not going to run for the seat that is up. It's up for election this year. So you're not interested in actually running to keep the seat. No, absolutely not. There is a zero percent chance I would be on the ballot. You know, I've got four young kids. I got a full time job. I got a Cub Scout pack that I lead. You know, I I don't have time for that.

[00:08:12] And and that's actually something that city council in the past that they they always kind of pick people that aren't going to be running because they feel like putting somebody in there gives them like a power of incumbency kind of a deal. And they don't want to be seen as as helping somebody secure a seat without a vote. At least that's been the that's been the past operations.

[00:08:36] I'm not sure the current city council seems to be blowing up a lot of traditional norms, but so I'm not sure if that's still the case. But that's always and that's why Greg Phipps like he I think he's gotten appointed to city council like two and I know two times, maybe three. They just keep putting him in unfilled, unexpired terms whenever they have one. So and he was at the last council meeting. They gave him a shout out in the audience. So I'm not sure if he's got the inside track or not.

[00:09:06] But and so Krista Bakari, Tark Bakari's wife, she's also expressed interest in in getting appointed to this. But I don't know if she she may be a longer shot than you after what she posted on Facebook last week about all of the settlement stuff. Do you have any thoughts on on this story that erupt that has erupted over the last two weeks? Yeah, well, yeah, maybe so.

[00:09:30] So, you know, I'm thinking back to to Dan Claude Felter getting appointed as the mayor. And, you know, that was a big topic of discussion. You know, we they wanted to pick somebody who wouldn't run. But then, of course, he did run. But anyway, you know, I mean, that's the main reason why I did put in my application is I do know that some people on council are interested in picking someone who won't run for the seat. And, you know, like I said, I'm 100 percent guaranteed not to. The Bakari's are friends of mine.

[00:09:59] So, you know, I'm definitely not running against her or anybody else. But as far as the controversy over the last two weeks, gosh, I mean, there's people are right to have questions. It was not handled in a very good way. You know, I wasn't in any of those closed session meetings. And, you know, how I'm approaching it for this application and appointment process is I'm not interested in relitigating that.

[00:10:28] I just want to move the ball forward. So you did write at the very end of this piece, Charlotte has always been an aspirational city. But lately it's felt like we have lost some of that spark and you want to try to help to restore it. And I feel the same way, like when I was a reporter here 20 years ago and like it was we were all like focused on becoming a world class city. It became a bit of a punchline because it was so prevalent. But that was aspirational.

[00:10:57] It was, you know, we're aiming up. We're aiming towards a higher thing. And it feels like now that that's not really the case any longer. So how do you go about trying to restore that aspirational attitude? Yeah, that's a great question. You know, and I moved to Charlotte 14 years ago. And, yeah, I had the same experience. You know, there was definitely an energy there. People, we were talking all the time about whether Charlotte was a world class city.

[00:11:27] You know, we wanted the Super Bowl. We wanted a major league baseball team. We wanted the DNC. And then, you know, of course, we did get that. But there was a real sense of forward momentum. I feel like we could spend two hours unpacking why that's changed. But, you know, my goal is, you know, there's so much to celebrate about Charlotte. You know, the people, neighborhoods, the potential, all the people moving here, the things that we're doing.

[00:11:54] And I think just being up front about it and talking about it, talking about the good things, putting the spotlight on it. You know, not cheerleading, per se, but, you know, just trying to instill a little bit of civic pride, I think, could go a long way. Andrew Dunn, you can read his work at the Charlotte Observer, where he's a contributing columnist and also at his Substack newsletter. It's called Longleaf Politics, longleafpol.com. Andrew, always good to talk with you, buddy. Thanks for your time. I appreciate you. Yeah, great talking with you. Here's a great idea.

[00:12:24] How about making an escape to a really special and secluded getaway in western North Carolina, just a quick drive up the mountain? And Cabins of Asheville is your connection. Whether you're celebrating an anniversary, a honeymoon, maybe you want to plan a memorable proposal, or get family and friends together for a big old reunion, Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you where you can reconnect with your loved ones and the things that truly matter.

[00:12:47] Nestled within the breathtaking 14,000 acres of the Pisgah National Forest, their cabins offer a serene escape in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Centrally located between Asheville and the entrance of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, it's the perfect balance of seclusion and proximity to all the local attractions. With hot tubs, fireplaces, air conditioning, smart TVs, Wi-Fi, grills, outdoor tables, and your own private covered porch,

[00:13:12] choose from 13 cabins, 6 cottages, 2 villas, and a great lodge with 11 king-sized bedrooms, Cabins of Asheville has the ideal spot for you for any occasion. And they have pet-friendly accommodations. Call or text 828-367-7068. Or check out all there is to offer at cabinsofashville.com and make memories that'll last a lifetime. And thanks again to Andrew Dunn for joining us.

[00:13:41] So he put his name in the hat and then threw the hat into the ring. He applied to be a Charlotte City Council member. And he's not going to run for the seat permanently. He just wants to help for the next six months or so. So that should be interesting. We'll see what happens there. The Charlotte City Council, in case you haven't heard, are embroiled in a bit of a scandal. We've covered it extensively here on the program.

[00:14:10] A lot of reporting being done, good reporting being done by Joe Bruno at WSOC-TV, Steve Harrison, WFAE, Brett Jensen, obviously at WBT. So a lot of details getting filled in to give us a greater picture of what all has transpired.

[00:14:35] And the more details that I hear, the more it becomes pretty obvious that this was essentially a collusive settlement. There was a collusive agreement. The collusion, and I'm not saying illegal because I don't know it to be illegal, but there is a collusion. There's a working together, a cooperation that appears to me based on the details that we have.

[00:15:02] And again, the city and the city council members and the city attorney and the city manager and the mayor, none of them are confirming any of these details. This is just from people speaking off the record, council members speaking off the record, an email that was sent by the local NAACP president to Joe Bruno at WSOC-TV inadvertently.

[00:15:27] But for that mistake, we would not know that two of the police chief's right hand, or I guess one would, maybe one's the right hand, one's the left hand. Is that maybe? I don't know. But he had one of his majors and the communications director work with, via email, on their own personal email accounts, work with the NAACP chapter president,

[00:15:55] Corinne Mack, on drafting the ethics complaint that she then filed against former Councilman Tarek Bakari. That was dismissed. Right? The city attorney made a determination that there was no ethics violation by Bakari, and so dismissed that.

[00:16:20] That then leads to the chief, who it is hard for me to believe that he had no idea that his two hands, his right hand and his left hand, were working with Mack to file that ethics complaint, particularly because Corinne Mack also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to try to get the text messages so she could fill out the complaint, the ethics complaint.

[00:16:50] And she knew what terms to search for in her FOIA request. This is all according to the reports. Now, if the reports are incorrect, then I am incorrect. But I'm relying on the media reports of what transpired and the text messages that have now become public through a Freedom of Information Act request, which she was able to target specific words to get those text messages.

[00:17:16] I don't believe Bakari would have been the one to send her the text message terminology to search for, right? Because she's filing a complaint against him. So I suspect that came from the chief. So that's why I'm saying this is collusive in that the chief and two of his hands, they are working to get the ethics complaint filed.

[00:17:41] But when it got dismissed, then chief goes to the city attorney and the city council and says he's going to sue. He's considering litigation against the city for defamation. But there's no evidence that any defamation occurred. Particularly when considering the high bar you have to clear as a public figure, which the chief is. But rather than have to draw up a lawsuit, rather than have to actually litigate or anything like that,

[00:18:11] the same city attorney, interim city attorney, Anthony Fox, who dismissed the ethics complaint, now says the city council should settle. If the case is strong enough that you're worried about losing, so you're just going to pay him off, why wouldn't the evidence be strong enough for an ethics complaint violation? See, it doesn't make sense. All right. If you're listening to this show, you know I try to keep up with all sorts of current events. And I know you do too.

[00:18:40] And you've probably heard me say, get your news from multiple sources. Why? Well, because it's how you detect media bias, which is why I've been so impressed with Ground News. It's an app and it's a website and it combines news from around the world in one place. So you can compare coverage and verify information. You can check it out at check.ground.news slash Pete. I put the link in the podcast description too.

[00:19:06] I started using Ground News a few months ago and more recently chose to work with them as an affiliate because it lets me see clearly how stories get covered and by whom. The blind spot feature shows you which stories get ignored by the left and the right. See for yourself. Check.ground.news slash Pete. Subscribe through that link and you'll get 15% off any subscription. I use the Vantage plan to get unlimited access to every feature. Your subscription then not only helps my podcast,

[00:19:35] but it also supports Ground News as they make the media landscape more transparent. So two quick headlines. Both from the local NPR affiliate WFAE. How it started. First headline. How it started. Charlotte City Attorney says nothing from closed session can be discussed. State law says otherwise. So that's how it started. How is it going? Update.

[00:20:05] Charlotte's interim city attorney revises statements on closed session discussions. Yes, right. Because the reporter was correct and the attorney was not. So Steve Harrison with the story from a couple days ago. Remember, there was the news conference. We covered the news conference, played a bunch of sound bites from it. Where the Charlotte City Council members, the city attorney got up there.

[00:20:34] And rather than address the scandal, right, they addressed the reaction to the scandal, which is how dare Victoria Watlington come out and make these allegations of corruption? When in fact that is the scandal. That's the problem. It's the settlement that the council agreed to that and they won't talk about with the police chief. Because the police chief had his feelings hurt. Over.

[00:21:03] A public fight between former Councilman Tark Bakari and the chief about the outer carrier vests. That the chief did not want to purchase or utilize because he said they aesthetically looked too militarized. That was the fight. Bakari pulled the budget item. He took it out of the budget. He raised the money privately. And then they donated a bunch of vests. And then the chief said, fine, if anybody wants to wear the vests, they can ask for. And that was the end of this.

[00:21:34] Or so we all thought. But behind the scenes, they were trying to get a pound of flesh from Bakari. With an ethics complaint that seems very likely to have been coordinated through the chief's office. And when that was dismissed for lack of merit. The same officials then turned around and recommended that the city council pay the chief $300,000. To avoid a lawsuit. That would probably also not have any merit.

[00:22:04] So the Charlotte interim city attorney, Anthony Fox, said last week that state law prohibits elected officials from talking about anything that happens in a closed session. And that there are criminal penalties for people who do so. However, his interpretation runs counter to how Charlotte's previous three city attorneys have interpreted state law. One legal expert said Fox's interpretation is not correct.

[00:22:31] North Carolina law allows public officials to meet in closed session to discuss things like lawsuits, economic development deals, and personnel issues. And all of that, in my mind, makes sense. Right? You don't want it disclosed that you're looking to purchase a bunch of land because then you could end up driving up the cost when people find out the city is involved and they got really deep pockets and they really want to assemble a bunch of parcels of land or something.

[00:23:02] You're trying to recruit a business from out of state. You don't want that getting out because you don't want the other state to now get into a bidding war, that kind of thing. Lawsuits, you got to talk to your attorney with privilege. That makes sense. Personnel issues, right? The city employees have a right to privacy. Their public or their personnel files should not be made public.

[00:23:24] But at a news conference, Fox started talking about the board's right to meet, the council's right to meet in private for personnel matters. And then he began speaking about closed sessions in general. And he said, quote, The law provides that when you go into closed session, that information is confidential. It's not to be shared. And it actually imposes criminal sanctions against anybody, any individual who has found to violate that law.

[00:23:52] Fox's discussion of closed session was meant to justify the city's lack of transparency and possibly to warn other elected officials not to talk about it. Yes, that's exactly what that was about. That was a warning shot. That was to discourage anybody else from leaking any new information to the media. But his statement, according to Steve Harrison at WFAE, his statement about closed sessions being confidential is not what state law says.

[00:24:22] Rebecca L. Fisher Gabbard with the UNC School of Government said there is no prohibition against elected officials from discussing publicly what happens during closed sessions. Quote,

[00:24:40] She noted that while state law is silent about what can and cannot be released from a closed session, there are some documents or items that cannot be disclosed under any circumstance like trade secrets and personnel files. Charlotte's three previous city attorneys, Patrick Baker, Bob Hageman, and Mac McCarley, all declined to be interviewed for this story. I wonder why. Let me just throw this out there.

[00:25:07] If all three of these former city attorneys were in agreement with Anthony Fox's position on this stuff, if they were confident in the way this was handled, I suspect that they would have lent their voices to support the process. But they all declined to be interviewed. There are no records of them ever telling city council members that it's illegal to disclose anything from any and all closed sessions.

[00:25:35] And in fact, when I was a reporter covering city council, I never heard any threats. And this was at the height of like the arena built to get the uptown arena built, the Hornets leaving, all of that stuff was happening. And there was never, there were never any, at least public threats of anything like this sort. After the news conference last week, WFAE asked the interim city attorney, Anthony Fox, about this assertion that he made.

[00:26:05] About criminal charges. A reporter, which I'm assuming is Harrison, said they had looked at the state's open meetings law and found no such provision. Fox said that that's the reporter's interpretation versus me. So there is your appeal to authority, right? I'm the expert. You're not a lawyer. I know this. You don't. He then said, I suggest you look at 143-318.16 of that statute.

[00:26:31] However, if you look at that statute, it does not call for criminal penalties for disclosures from closed sessions. The UNC School of Government expert, Rebecca Fisher-Gabbard, said that the statute, quote, provides for a right of action for an individual who has good reason to believe there's been a violation of the open meetings law. In other words, if a citizen believes that a city council is meeting in private when they should be in public, the statute gives them a path to address that.

[00:27:00] It does not call for criminal penalties for elected officials talking publicly about a closed session. And here's the key question. Why would Fox, the interim city manager, why would Fox dismiss that ethics complaint filed against Tarek Bakari as a sitting city councilman, citing these text messages between Bakari and the police chief, Johnny Jennings?

[00:27:28] Why would he dismiss the ethics complaint only to then oversee a six-figure settlement in favor of the chief? This is the question. Nothing else really matters, to me at least. Like, this is the whole ballgame. You dismiss the complaint and then you tell city council they have to settle? Why? All right, so spring is here, a time of renewal and celebrations.

[00:27:54] You got graduations, weddings, anniversaries, and the special days for mom and dad. Your family's making memories that are going to last a lifetime. But let me ask you, are all of those treasured moments from days gone by, are they hidden away on old VCR tapes, 8mm films, photos, slides? Are they preserved? Because over time, these precious memories can fade and deteriorate, losing the magic of yesterday. At Creative Video, they help you protect what matters most.

[00:28:21] Their expert team digitizes your cherished family moments and transfers them onto a USB drive, freezing them in time so they can be enjoyed for generations to come. I urge you, do not wait until it's too late. This spring, celebrate your past. Visit Creative Video today and let them preserve your legacy with the love and care that it deserves. Creative Video, preserving family memories since 1997. Located in Mint Hill, just off 485. Mail orders are accepted too.

[00:28:50] Get all the details at createavideo.com. Let's head on over to the phones now and talk with Rodney. Hello, Rodney. Hey, Pete. How are you doing? Hey, I'm good. What's going on? I think I should do what the chief did. I need to sue you from 12 to 3 because you're a guilty pleasure. Because why? You're a guilty pleasure. I like listening to you, so maybe I can... Oh my goodness. Yes. That kind of makes me feel a little uncomfortable that I'm a guilty pleasure.

[00:29:19] But no, I appreciate that. If I hurt your feelings, I think that's the legal standard that city council is operating by. So, yeah. I've got to hurt your feelings and then you can get hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now, look, if you'd like to hurt my feelings too, then maybe we could have like a joint settlement deal with the city. It sounds good to me, man. They might go for it. They might. They very well might. Rodney, I appreciate it, man. Thanks for the call. All right, brother.

[00:29:48] All right, see you. Yeah, I just... I am curious. How many other people now can do what Rodney is describing and just threaten litigation? You don't even have to hire a lawyer. So there's like no out-of-pocket, upfront costs. Let me see here. Let me just read some emails. It's a peep mail from Stan. Whenever... Oh, subject line is Jennings' not quite lawsuit.

[00:30:16] Whenever they're withholding details from us about what they're doing with our money, something's up. The right or wrong here never really mattered. All that did is one more in the group had some more of our money to slosh around amongst themselves. And if you don't think that was discussed in advance, like the song says, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

[00:30:39] Yeah, the emails between the chief's hands, the right hand and the left hand, whatever, like those emails are damning. That shows a level of coordination going on with regard to the ethics complaint. And it's impossible for me to see that any other way barring any other information. And so it looks like a shakedown. That's what I called it last week. I still stand by that description.

[00:31:09] Again, absent any new information that, like, maybe there are actually damages, proof of harm, reputational harm, that had the city council so worried. But what it looks like is that council just wanted to pay Chief Jennings because they felt bad about what Tark Bakari said to the chief in the text messages, which, by the way, were not public. Nobody ever saw those.

[00:31:37] There was no reputational harm when Tark Bakari was doing his campaign. The article by Steve Harrison goes on to say that it is possible that divulging the mere fact that Jennings was considering a lawsuit or seeking a settlement, it's possible that simply divulging that would be prohibited under state law.

[00:32:02] Even a verbal request for a financial settlement could be considered as part of his personnel file, which state law says includes information about the employee collected in any form. So that would be information. But the state law about closed sessions also explicitly says if a legal settlement is considered or approved,

[00:32:26] then the terms of that settlement shall be reported to the public body and entered into its minutes as soon as possible. And considering the pace at which the city of Charlotte posts its meeting minutes, it should be available for public viewing, I think, by 2034. That's about how long it takes them now to write up their minutes. John, welcome to the show.

[00:32:56] Hello, John. Hey, Pete. As I was telling the screener, just something that I wonder about, and I hear nothing about it, especially with all this oddity going on, is this $250 million that the mayor just seemed to set aside, sort of a slush fund out of the COVID funds. And I've never heard anybody comment on what it is, where it's going,

[00:33:23] and nobody ever even questioned the legality that she could just move this money around. And, you know, with this little sleight of hand they're doing now, I'd love to see if there's any kind of audit or breakdown of what that's been used for. That's a fair question. I remember when all of that happened. It would have been about, what, two years ago or so? Tark Bacari was actually one beating the drum against this, saying that the mayor is not empowered. We interviewed him.

[00:33:51] We talked about it at length, about the creation of this fund. And I think they eventually did go back, if memory serves correctly, I think they did go back and get council approval. But it was only after the fact. It was after a big stink got made. Have you heard how it was used? I know it was set up as an equity fund, which, again, boggles the mind that she basically took, you know,

[00:34:18] $250 million out of a general fund for the whole city, and now she's making it specifically for whatever percentage of the city. Yeah. And we hear nothing about it. Well, they designated where the money was going to be going, like I think in the general areas. Maybe they named a couple of the nonprofits or programs that they were going to be working with. Again, this is all just off the top of my head. I don't remember all of the details. But I'm sure there's something on the website,

[00:34:46] because it's something that they were touting and very proud of. So that might be worth the – I might want to Pisaki back on that. Let me circle back, and I'll check into it. John, thanks, man. Thanks, sir. All right, appreciate you. All right. Another John in an email says, so Corinne Mack from the NAACP accidentally included a reporter on the secret emails. Who does she think she is, Pete Hegseth? That's fair.

[00:35:15] The city of Charlotte now says that the city attorney misspoke during a news conference when talking about state law governing closed-session meetings. He said in a statement released Friday afternoon, I was quoted as stating the law also provides that when you go into closed session, it's not to be shared. Criminal sanctions can be imposed. Some confusion exists on the application of that statement to the meeting of public boards. I wish to clarify my statement and be specific as to my quote by stating

[00:35:42] a person could be subject to criminal sanctions when disclosing information contained in a personnel file under this different law, 160A-168, not the Meetings of Public Bodies Act. Okay, so you cited the wrong statute when you were chastising the reporter who said the statute didn't say the thing that you're saying, and you're like, who are you? That's you versus me. My opinion is the correct one. And actually, the reporter was correct. You were not.

[00:36:11] All right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast. So if you'd like, please support them too and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to thepetecalendershow.com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.