CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Central Piedmont Community College is facing a federal lawsuit alleging violations of North Carolina’s open meetings and public records laws, as well as First Amendment rights. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed the suit on behalf of five individuals, initially in state court before it was transferred to federal court at the request of the college.
The focus of the legal complaint centers on the transparency of meetings held by the CPCC Board of Trustees. A controversial project at the Levine Campus in Matthews, which proposes a public safety training facility, has ignited local concern and activism. The facility is designed for comprehensive emergency response training, covering areas such as mental health support for safety personnel, conflict resolution, and cross-training among different public safety departments.
While CPCC has branded the initiative as “Community Lifeline,” opponents have dubbed it “Cop City,” drawing connections to prolonged protests against a similar training facility in Atlanta. The proposed training area encompasses 23 acres for emergency response training and an additional 14 acres dedicated to driver safety programs.
Activist groups have mobilized against the project, organizing rallies and planning to voice their opposition at a Board of Trustees meeting on November 13, 2024. However, the situation escalated during a prior meeting in March, when the lawsuit alleges that only 14 of approximately 30 attendees were allowed entry. A security guard cited fire safety concerns for the limitation and, after a short interval, the Board transitioned to a closed session, leading to the ejection of remaining community members.
The plaintiffs were impacted directly during this closed session; some were asked to show identification to enter the meeting, a request that has stirred debate regarding its legality under North Carolina’s open meetings law. While the law does not explicitly require identification, attendees have expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and accessibility.
Xavier T. de Janon, one of the plaintiffs, articulated feelings of intimidation, stating he felt threatened during his attempts to participate in what should have been an open forum. He noted a lack of information about the board’s activities and their reluctance to provide agendas or respond to inquiries.
The CPCC Board has defended itself by asserting that no one was denied access to the meetings and that minutes were recorded and eventually shared. However, it acknowledged that a justification provided for entering closed session was incomplete, raising questions about the procedural integrity of the meeting.
Security personnel reportedly issued bans to two plaintiffs for alleged harassment, which they claimed disrupted the meeting. These individuals argue their First Amendment rights were violated as they were merely questioning officers about conduct during the meeting.
In April, the Southern Coalition for Social Justice initiated legal action in state Superior Court, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt what they allege are unlawful practices by CPCC. Just days before a scheduled hearing, the college requested the case be moved to federal court, claiming it deserved examination at a higher level due to the federal claims involved.
As the controversy continues, De Janon described the frustration many feel regarding communication with CPCC. He emphasized that local residents and taxpayers should have easy access to information about significant public projects, asserting that such transparency is a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Legal experts, including Pate McMichael from the North Carolina Open Government Coalition, have noted that the misuse of closed sessions threatens the public’s trust in governmental institutions. The case exemplifies growing scrutiny over compliance with public information laws and diligence among public agencies to conduct operations transparently.
Janki Kaneria, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment over perceived retaliation against those demanding accountability from CPCC. The Southern Coalition for Social Justice is calling for corrective measures to address their claims, including the release of relevant information about the training facility and rescission of any punitive actions taken against the plaintiffs for their inquiries.
As challenges to public transparency continue, advocates for open governance stress the importance of accessible information and the protection of citizens’ rights to engage in civic discourse without fear of reprisal.
This article was automatically written by Open AI; the facts, circumstances, and individuals described may not be accurate. Any article may be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.