Today’s the last day to vote early for the mayor and Ward 4 alderman runoff races.
If you haven’t voted again for New Bern’s mayor and Ward 4 alderman races, you can vote today or you can vote on Tuesday, which is the Runoff Election Day in New Bern, NC.
New Bern citizens living in the city will be asked to pick the mayor in the runoff between incumbent Jeffrey Odham and Holly Raby. Ward 4 voters will also choose the alderman in the runoff between incumbent Johnnie Ray Kinsey and Lainy White.
Saturday, Nov. 1, 2025, is the last day to vote early for the runoff election. Polls will be open from 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. at Stanley A. White Recreation Center at 603 Third Ave. in New Bern, NC. This location is different from the election day voting location.
The Runoff Election will be held on Tuesday, Nov. 4. Polls will open at 6:30 a.m. and close at 7:30 p.m. at various polling places in New Bern. “You must vote at your assigned precinct, based on your residential address, to receive your correct ballot,” according to the CC BOE website. Find your election day polling place here.
“A valid photo identification is required when voting in person,” per the CC BOE.
More details can be found at the North Carolina State Board of Elections website.
In October’s Municipal Election, incumbent Jeffrey Odham received the most votes and Holly Raby received the second most votes. Since no one received 50 percent plus one vote, Raby requested a runoff election. Learn more about Raby and Odham here.
In the race for Ward 4 Alderman, Lainy White received the most votes and Johnnie Ray Kinsey received the second most votes. Since no one received 50 percent plus one vote, Kinsey requested a runoff election. Learn more about White and Kinsey here.
Things to consider
While you think about who you’re voting for, you may want to consider:
Do you want a small group of elected and non-elected officials to use city staff, resources and public funds to make deals without informing the entire city council?
Or do you want the elected officials to work together and be able to compromise on tough issues for the betterment of all wards?
Is one single issue important enough to not vote for a candidate who has a chance to improve the city?
On paper, New Bern has a city-council manager system of government – not a strong mayor as some big cities in other states. The city manager is responsible for handling the day-to-day administration while the city council focuses on policy-making and legislative duties. The mayor represents the city for ceremonial purposes, presides at meetings and has powers that are vested by the aldermen and General Statutes.
Prior to 2011, the mayor only voted to break a tie, now the mayor has the ability to cause a tie.
In reality, an old change to the city’s charter created an imbalance of power.
Tipping the scales
In 2006, the city manager and city attorney sat alongside the aldermen and mayor on the dais at New Bern City Hall.
A few years later, newly elected officials were took office in 2009 and the city manager and city attorney no longer sat with the board, instead their seats were positioned below the dais.
In 2011, aldermen Sabrina Bengel, Denny Bucher and Dana Outlaw voted to approve a motion that asked the NC General Assembly to change New Bern’s city charter to set term limits. The motion included giving the mayor a vote on all matters versus only voting to break a tie, according to meeting minutes. Aldermen Johnnie Ray Kinsey and Bernard White voted no. Alderman Victor Taylor was absent, according to meeting minutes.
A few months later, the General Assembly approved the charter change that allowed the mayor to vote on all matters, as noted in the meeting minutes.
In 2013, aldermen Bengel, Bucher and Outlaw ran for mayor. Bengel got the most votes and Outlaw got the second most votes, but no one received 50 percent of the vote plus one. Outlaw requested a runoff election and won.
When the new board was seated in 2013, “Alderman Kinsey asked the board to address eliminating the mayor from voting on issues, unless there is a tie,” according to meeting minutes.
Years have passed and the three aldermen have said they changed the charter so the mayor could have a voting record.
Some have said the mayor represents the city and should have a vote because the aldermen represent the wards.
A closer look tells a different story – the charter change diluted the aldermen’s votes and the mayor had the ability to veto a majority number of aldermen for 454 days when the Ward 6 seat was vacant, as reported here.
The charter change also led to two of New Bern’s six wards (where the mayor lived) having two votes on all matters while four wards had one vote.
Prior to the change, the mayor only voted to break a tie. Between 2011-2013, the Ward 1 alderman and the mayor had a vote when the rest of the aldermen had one vote. Between 2013-2024, the Ward 6 alderman and the mayor had one vote each on all matters and the other aldermen only had one vote.
It’s important to note that there’s a significant difference between the aldermen’s vote and the mayor’s vote. The aldermen have a duty to vote and can’t abstain from voting whereas the mayor has a choice to vote on all matters.
Political backsliding
There’s another dynamic at play — the mayor isn’t following the Board of Aldermen’s Rules of Procedure.
The city attorney advised the board and mayor that, “The mayor is the chairman of the meeting and is not to engage in robust discussion…If the mayor is going to actively engage in debating an issue, then the mayor would turn the gavel over to the mayor pro tem and then engage robustly in some discussion.”
The lawyer’s advice doesn’t appear to faze the current mayor as he frequently engages in robust discussions without handing over the gavel and gives staff directions without the approval by the city council.
Last year the mayor used city resources to hold a public meeting that was livestreamed by the city and made unfounded accusations about the majority of the Board of Aldermen without affording them an opportunity to defend themselves, as reported here.
Despite being advised that the mayor shouldn’t speak first because “it can set the tone as to — this is what the mayor wants so everyone get in line,” the current mayor is directing the outcome of meetings since he’s the first to speak and the last to vote.
In 2010, the School of Government advised the Board of Aldermen that if and when, the mayor wants to get involved in the debate, they can turn the gavel to the mayor pro tem. If the mayor pro tem gets involved, then they pick another council member. If all members are involved, then they pick the manager, clerk, attorney or someone else to preside. “But the point being, you want to have fairness. Again, fairness is a key thing in a meeting.”
The aldermen’s Rules of Procedure say, “The mayor shall preside at board meetings, if he or she is present, unless he or she becomes actively engaged in debate on a particular matter.”
“If the presiding officer becomes actively involved in debate on a particular matter, he or she may designate another board member to preside over the debate. The presiding officer shall resume presiding as soon as action on the matter is concluded.”
Do you want your aldermen to be able to represent you, or do you want a mayor to dictate everything? You decide by casting your ballot on Oct. 31, Nov. 1 or Nov. 4.
Mayor now the tie creator – not tie breaker
The mayor has repeatedly created a tie, despite only having the support of two aldermen.
In September 2025, Alderman Rick Prill said he thought the city would be better served if the Board of Aldermen considered going back to the original charter language where the mayor would only vote to break a tie when the board is deadlocked.
He asked the board if they could have staff draft a resolution that would ask the General Assembly to consider changing the city’s charter to the original language that prohibits the mayor from voting except to break a tie.
Alderman Kinsey said he concurred and said, “I was a part of that and when I first came on and when they changed the charter, I voted against that at myself.” He seconded Prill’s motion.
Mayor Odham spoke first, ignoring the board’s rules that say, “The maker of the motion is entitled to speak first.”
He kept the gavel and said the next meeting would be in the middle of voting and if it were to pass, the General Assembly wouldn’t consider it until January or after.
He claimed, “State legislators usually want to know if the request has unanimous support from the board, as they don’t want to get involved in controversial issues,” according to meeting minutes.
Instead of asking for a vote on the motion, Jeffrey Odham told the alderman that if he was willing to amend the motion, he would support a motion if it said the resolution would come back at the second agenda in December.
Alderman Bobby Aster of Ward 3 said he wanted the new board to discuss it.
Odham said that was his recommendation.
Kinsey said, “Then I agree with you because that is the way to take it.”
Prill said if there was a vote tonight, the new board could always withdraw it.
Kinsey withdrew his second.
Alderman Hazel Royal asked the assistant city attorney for her recommendation and Attorney Bullock said it was a political decision. She said, “certainly if a resolution is not unanimous going to our general assembly historically those changes have not been effective.”
Prill asked staff to bring back a resolution in two weeks that included a provision for the issue to be revisited by the new board at the first meeting of December.
Alderman Barbara Best asked for the board to take action on Alderman Prill’s motion.
Alderman Royal seconded Prill’s motion.
The aldermen voted 3-2 on the motion with Royal, Best and Prill voting yes and aldermen Aster and Kinsey voting no. Mayor Odham voted against it – causing a 3-3 tie.
A functioning board conducts business by motion – that doesn’t appear to be the case in New Bern when an aldermen’s original motion can’t be presented to the board without it being altered.
Off the rails?
It’s also noteworthy to mention that there has been a disinformation campaign since a public office holder became a radio talk show host. She claimed to have inside sources, and she was going to “get the facts and educate listeners” on what’s happening at City Hall. The hosts said they were going to hold power to account. Really?
Eleven years later, the appointed public office holder continues to talk about her government work and personal agendas while interviewing and promoting some politicians and advertising her business.
There’s a difference between the right to free speech and benefiting from public office.
What happens when the public office holder uses their public position to obtain nonpublic information and uses it to frame narratives to put political pressure on public officials ahead of meetings on key votes?
What happens when the host/public official endorses the elected official and badmouths opponents during the election while she’s also discussing the public body’s actions and advertising her businesses on the same show?
What happens when the public office holder’s media company is the only one with direct access to public and nonpublic information and spins it to shape the narrative?
Is this what New Bern voters want? We’ll find out on November 4 – Election Day.
By Wendy Card, editor. Send an email with questions or comments.