Bellflowers violates town communication policy

Bill Speight – Is it appropriate for a commissioner to publicly protest the decision of a majority of the board?
Fullscreen capture 1152020 82551 PM.bmp
No. On December 5th, 2019 the Board met to review policy and procedures. Part of the review included the Town of Hope Mills Communication Policy.  Section C item 1 states “The Mayor, Commissioners, Manager and other town employees should always seek to present the Town of Hope Mills in the best possible light. While policy disagreements are to be expected, such disagreements should not generate into disparaging public remarks about either elected officials or town staff.”
That was 42 days ago.
Fullscreen capture 1162020 33805 PM.bmp
Bellflowers’ participation in the January 9th protest, and televised interview held at the parish house, is a direct violation of this rule.
But Bellflowers was already gearing up for a protest on January 1st when he sent me a 10-page letter refuting an article I wrote and lobbying for the parish house to be saved.
He revised that letter and submitted it to Up & Coming Weekly…they published it January 7th on-line, and January 8 in print.
Fullscreen capture 1152020 82613 PM.bmp
Fullscreen capture 1152020 83149 PM.bmp
Ironically, it was Commissioner Bellflowers who read Resolution 2018-12 (May 21, 2018) censuring former Commissioner Mitchell, and part of the resolution specifically addressed Mitchell’s collaboration with a local paper who then publicly questioned the Board’s decisions.
Fullscreen capture 1152020 82703 PM.bmp
Fullscreen capture 1152020 82734 PM.bmp
Less than 10 months later Bellflowers voted in favor of the vote of no confidence made by Commissioner Legge.  Part of Legge’s statement reads…”Whereas, the resulting article from the information shared by Mayor Jackie Warner cast aspersion upon on our community and board and was unsettling to a local university, a local resident and his students”
27 days after reviewing policy, Bellflowers was violating it. And for what?
For nearly 2 years Bellflowers waffled back and forth on nearly every issue the board discussed. It wasn’t until after the election, after the public rejected Mitchell, Larson, and their ideologies that he took a hard stance, in their favor. Interesting political strategy…wait and see who loses then align yourself with them.

Three of the protestors lobbying so hard to save the parish house were the same commissioners who voted to demolish it in March 2018.  The  Historic Preservation Commission delivered a statement to the town prior to that vote saying they simply didn’t want the land sold if the house was demolished.  But past and present members are also participating in recent protests to save it.

HPC says sell property but dont sell

If they were so determined to save the parish house, why weren’t they holding televised protests in March 2018?  The parish house wasn’t discussed again until February 2019 when the board suddenly reversed their decision and voted to keep it.

But even then…nothing happened.

For a year it was rarely discussed.  Bellflowers made a big deal of contacting FTCC and asking them to donate student services for the rehabilitation.  But they can’t access the house until the town spends more than $100,000 to stabilize the foundation.  And his solution didn’t include funding for the materials we’d need or the general contractors and site plans.

As 2019 ebbed away, the parish house was slipping further into disrepair with no viable solution in sight…and no one was looking for solutions.  Until the board asked for estimates to demolish it.  Suddenly, it’s a cause.  Suddenly, these people are motivated and have a half dozen solutions we might try.

I have nothing against the parish house.   But I take issue with their tactics.  Pat Hall, the former Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, sent this email five days ago…

Fullscreen capture 1152020 92253 PM.bmp

“I thoroughly understand that the employees and departments who submitted the condemnations and histories also work for the very persons who directed such condemnations and I cannot fault them for performing their duties as directed.”

I asked Pat Hall to provide proof of coercion…she hasn’t.  Bellflowers asserts in his published letter ‘proof’ supporting everything he and the protestors have said these last few weeks is available in the minutes from the official Historic Preservation Commission meetings.  But they’ve only provided minutes dating back to February 2019, and those minutes don’t reflect any conversations about the parish house, or efforts to save it.  I submitted a request for earlier minutes on January 6.  They haven’t provided any.

Listen to Clyp here

This morning, Commissioner Bellflowers violated the Communication Policy adopted by the town for a 4th time when he spoke on a local radio station about the parish house.   He began by telling the public the board is plagued with private agendas and personal vendettas, but he didn’t provide proof of this.  He also implied the staff purposely misled the board in 2018 when they read the statement, posted above, from the Historic Preservation Commission, and they learned a year later the HPC never intended for the board to demolish the house.  But…we know that isn’t true.

Bellflowers also repeatedly asked…”what’s the urgency to tear down the parish house?”  In fact, he posed the question five different times.  It’s another tactic to make this board look like they’re operating with a private agenda.  The previous board, HIS board, voted to demolish the parish house two years ago because it needed more than $220,000 worth of repairs, which the HPC acknowledged on their social media….!

Fullscreen capture 12212019 91121 AM.bmp

The problem…is there was NEVER a sense of urgency by the HPC.  They knowingly and willingly supported the board’s decision to demolish the house right up until they changed their minds.  Once the board rescinded the vote, the HPC simply stopped advocating.  Instead of using the opportunity as a catalyst to raise funds or research partnerships, they simply did nothing.

Now their followers, cheered on by the same former commissioners who gladly voted to demolish the house, have launched a cyber bully campaign against anyone who  disagrees with them or questions them.  Instead of simply fundraising and researching options to save the house, the supporters have resorted to terrorism.

I’m curious, how many citizens do you have to bully to save a questionably historic building?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.