Dear aldermen Trey Ferguson, Sharon Bryant, Bobby Aster, Lainy White, Barbara Best, and Dana Outlaw,
Most of us have known each other for several years and I have promoted the City of New Bern’s efforts since founding NewBernNow.com in 2009 on the heels of the great recession to help individuals, nonprofits, businesses, and government officials spread the word about events and happenings in our community.
I want to believe you asked for voters to support you because you want what’s best for our community. Most of you campaigned on transparency in government, but there appears to be mixed messages coming out of City Hall.
Some city elected officials have disseminated “Press Releases;” proclamations; and other correspondence which has misled members of the community and the public into believing the statements represent the formal position of the city council. This contradicts the public information officer’s statement that she generally distributes official press releases. What’s your policy?
For over a decade, NBN had a “promote, not demote” philosophy until we began to see officials talk about implementing paternalistic political strategies that, if successful, would shape citizens behavior, societal norms, and economic choices. A city official was acting as a member of the media while using her elected office to set the public narrative to garner support ahead of Board of Aldermen meetings. Political appointees began to meet remotely and had countless “technical difficulties” which made it impossible to know if the public bodies who were charged with the responsibility of administering certain affairs were meeting their fiduciary obligations.
Recent history shows us that New Bern began what appears to be a shift to a paternalistic form of city government in 2011 when three of the six aldermen approved a motion that would ultimately reduce the Board of Aldermen’s voting power and abdicate power to the mayor, then they ran for mayor. Based on public comments, they thought they knew what was best as a small bloc rather than elected representatives of each of New Bern’s six wards. One politician became mayor, another became a Craven County commissioner, and the other became a member of the media while also acting as an appointed office holder.
The power grab eventually allowed a future mayor to cause a tie vote when it came time for the Board of Aldermen to fill a vacant elected position, which caused one ward to go without aldermanic representation for over 440 days. A board member questioned the legality of the mayor’s vote on all matters versus breaking a tie, but the mayor prevented the issue from moving forward by creating a tie vote.
A few months ago, the aldermen and mayor asked the NC General Assembly to give you an extra year in office without holding a public hearing and they did. This removed the possibility of voters being able to hold their elected officials accountable every four years.
Is it just me, or do you see a new paternalist form a government taking shape where a small bloc of politicians makes decisions without being accountable to voters? It harkens back to the days of “company towns” in the 1920s and 1930s when it was common for children to work in factories and single commercial enterprises owned worker housing and paid private detectives and police forces to monitor workers. When workers fell out of line, they were fired, evicted, and blacklisted from the industry. The industrial corporation controlled housing, schools, healthcare, libraries, churches, leisure, and most aspects of daily life. Corporation owned currency known as “scrip” could be redeemed at company-owned stores which allowed the owners to inflate prices and keep workers in debt.
When the last BOA voted on an unclear motion to adopt the 2026 meeting schedule, I asked city officials to restate the motion so it could be reported to readers, but no one responded. Instead, the mayor used his political appointee’s broadcasting studio and alternate reality show to frame the public narrative about the new schedule before the new aldermen were elected. The vice chairman of the Housing Authority Commissioners/Chairman of the Municipal Service District Advisory Committee/Alternate reality show host said, “The Board of Aldermen, instead of two meetings a month has now gone to one meeting a month. It will be on the second Tuesday of every month.” The mayor said, “It forces our staff and others to tighten up whenever they are making submissions that need to be on the agenda…,” as reported here. It’s not the mayor’s or aldermen’s job to manage employees — that’s the city manager’s job.
Despite reducing the number of regular meetings, elected officials and the city manager have seen an increase in salaries and benefits.
Since reducing the number of regular aldermen meetings, the agenda has been flooded with over 40 items which has made it nearly impossible for the average citizen to track where tax dollars are going and how decisions impact the community. Is this your intention?
A few months ago, you began allowing the mayor to pick and choose who can speak at the beginning of the meeting and who has to wait until the end of the meeting based on what he thinks people may say. This appears to be viewpoint discrimination. It’s reminiscent of the days when the mayor decided to start reading people’s home addresses aloud before they approached the podium to speak. Some thought it created a chilling effect, and they either decided not to speak or self-censored out of fear of retaliation. Despite requests form citizens the aldermen allowed it until a citizen who signed up to speak called foul after their sign-up sheet was altered without their knowledge. Another city tried the mayor’s approach but stopped doing it after they were sued.
Do you want to be remembered as the aldermen who let some people speak and make others wait 2-3 hours or more before they could petition their elected city council based on what the mayor thinks they are going to say?
Are you privately meeting with the mayor and city manager to come to a consensus prior to aldermen meetings? Are these paternalistic strategies coming from the state and/or federal level? Or is the mayor and his appointee shaping public narrative to garner support on key issues ahead of aldermen votes?
A while ago, I reached out to you, the city manager, and the mayor and asked the following questions:
-Has the board discussed and/or approved an agreement with a company to build a data center in closed session? If so, when? When will the plan be shared with the people of New Bern? What is your plan to cover costs of construction work-in-progress if the project doesn’t work out?
-Where is the proposed location of the Southeast Substation?
The Housing Authority and some city officials have said residents of Trent Court will be able to return after the redevelopment, but the authority will only pay for one move.
-Will residents really be able to return to the privately-owned riverfront property after they’ve been moved out of Trent Court, sign a new lease, and pay deposits?
-Will the meetings (involving the $25 million Choice Neighborhood Implementation Grant and matching city funds) be open to the public?
Since my request for public information, elected and appointed city officials, the city manager, and staff have propped up the mayor’s political appointee’s broadcasting studio as the go to media platform to discuss issues ahead of Board of Aldermen meetings, like the Housing Authority/City’s grant application; rezoning of land; and other civic issues that appear to be on tonight’s meeting agenda.
Is it just me, or do you think it would be highly inappropriate if city officials used a political appointee’s private commercial broadcasting studio in an attempt to control the narrative and/or manage public relations ahead of potential news stories related to the above questions as it would not only blur the line between public information and political propaganda, but it would raise systemic, ethical, and other concerns.
Also, before you decide to formally execute the Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant application during your meeting today, Oct. 13, 2026, please explain how the potential conflicts of interest will be handled.
Lastly, tens of public safety training centers for local, state, and federal law enforcement, firefighters, and other entities are being built across the state, including in or near the westside of New Bern. If crime is down, why has the city installed all of the cameras and paid third-party tech companies to provide agentic AI surveillance and tracking services? Is this a requirement to build a data center? Please explain.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
Wendy Card, Editor