CPCC open meetings lawsuit moves to federal court

CENTRAL PIEDMONT COMMUNITY COLLEGE

The Levine Campus of Central Piedmont Community College in Matthews.

Central Piedmont Community College violated North Carolina’s open meetings and public records laws, as well as the First Amendment, according to plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the school that just moved to federal court at the request of the school.

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed the lawsuit against North Carolina’s second-largest community college in state court on behalf of five plaintiffs in April, prior to the move to federal court last month. CPCC is based in Charlotte and has campuses across the metro area. 

The legal complaint primarily involves allegations about the openness of CPCC Board of Trustees meetings, but the underlying issue is controversial plans for the school’s Levine Campus in Matthews. Lawyers for CPCC filed a legal response to the suit on June 6, accusing the plaintiffs of weaponizing the state’s public information laws in order to stop construction of a proposed public safety training facility.

Central Piedmont Community College violated North Carolina’s open meetings and public records laws, as well as the First Amendment, according to plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the school that just moved to federal court at the request of the school.

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed the lawsuit against North Carolina’s second-largest community college in state court on behalf of five plaintiffs in April, prior to the move to federal court last month. CPCC is based in Charlotte and has campuses across the metro area. 

The complaint primarily involves allegations about the openness of CPCC Board of Trustees meetings, but the underlying issue is controversial plans for the school’s Levine Campus in Matthews. Lawyers for CPCC filed a legal response to the suit on June 6, accusing the plaintiffs of weaponizing the state’s public information laws in order to stop construction of a proposed public safety training facility.

The facility proposes a 23-acre public safety training area near the Levine Campus for “realistic, hands-on emergency response training” through mental health training for public safety personnel, conflict resolution techniques and cross-agency training between fire departments, EMS and law enforcement. In addition, the proposition includes 14 acres dedicated to driver training, including teen driver safety programs and car seat safety checks.

CPCC calls the project Community Lifeline, but local activists opposed to the facility prefer “Cop City.”

Plans for the facility sparked a movement known as CLT Stop Cop City, a reference to the years-long “Stop Cop City” movement in Atlanta in protest of a proposed training facility that ultimately opened just weeks ago. 

In October 2024, social media accounts began posting calls to action in Mecklenburg County, urging the community to oppose the project at CPCC’s board of trustees meeting on Nov. 13, 2024. 

A clashing case

Despite about 20 to 30 people being present with the intent to attend this meeting, the lawsuit alleges that CPCC admitted only 14. The suit says a campus security guard cited fire safety as the reason for not allowing all attendees inside the meeting. After seven to 10 minutes the Board transitioned into closed session and escorted community members out of the room entirely.

On March 12, the individuals who would become the five plaintiffs in the lawsuit attended a regularly scheduled Board of Trustees meeting. Campus security asked two of the plaintiffs to show identification before entering, the lawsuit says. 

The North Carolina open meetings law does not explicitly permit or prohibit identification requirements for attending a public meeting, just that any person is entitled to attend.

Plaintiff Xavier T. de Janon said he was still allowed to attend the meeting after refusing to show identification. After de Janon and others had entered the meeting, a CPCC representative announced visitors would face a misdemeanor charge if they caused any disruption.

When de Janon asked a CPCC representative for a copy of the Board’s agenda, the employee told him that there wasn’t one, the lawsuit alleges.

“There’s no public information,” de Janon told Carolina Public Press, referring to being escorted out as the Board transitioned to closed session. “Whenever you ask questions, you get shut down. Whenever you submit a public records request, you don’t get a response. I knew that already, but then to go to a public meeting that’s on the internet, get there on time, and then to face all these cops, all this questioning, being demanded ID and then to be kicked out, it just confirmed all that I knew already.” 

He felt he was under the threat of arrest at the time, he said.

Director of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition Pate McMichael told CPP that government bodies are not necessarily required to keep agendas for open meetings, but if they do have agendas, they are subject to disclosure according to North Carolina’s public records law. 

The lawsuit argues the March 12 meeting was not properly conducted as an open meeting due to no advance notice being given on identification requirements, the lack of a provided agenda and the meeting not being formally recorded. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges the Board did not correctly cite its reason for transitioning into closed session.

CPCC’s defense has said no one was denied access to the meeting, meeting minutes were taken and eventually distributed to plaintiffs and the Board did not approve any contract related to the training facility during the March 12 closed session. 

However, the board has acknowledged in its legal response that Vice Chair Caldwell Rose failed to state one of the board’s two justifications for entering closed session. Rose cited the (a)(9) clause of section 143-318.11 of North Carolina General Statutes, which permits a body to enter into closed session to discuss “plans to protect public safety as it relates to existing or potential terrorist activity.” This was on account of reports of threats and harassment toward CPCC President Kandi W. Deitemeyer.

The defense has said Rose should have also cited (a)(2), which permits a closed session “to prevent the premature disclosure of an honorary degree, scholarship, prize or similar award” given that the Board also discussed the proposed name of the training facility. The defense’s response said it is not required to cite both justifications, but was nonetheless corrected at the trustees meeting in May.

“Further, there is no requirement for a public body calling a closed session to provide ‘adequate explanation for its reasoning,’ as Plaintiffs claim. … All that is required for a public body is a motion that cites ‘one or more permissible purposes’ for closing the meeting with adoption occurring at an open meeting. … That occurred here,” a defense memo filed in response to the lawsuit states.

The director of campus security, Chase Hudson, and campus security officer Clark Hopkins banned two other plaintiffs, Eboni Exceus, who is a part-time student at CPCC, and Mina Ezikpe, a public defender in Charlotte, at the March 12 meeting, according to additional legal filings. The officers said the women were harassing them, leading them to issue the bans. 

Exceus and Ezikpe said this violated their First Amendment rights because they were engaging in protected speech when questioning the officers after Exceus said she saw Hopkins photograph her license plate. It is unclear how CPCC intended to enforce the ban.

Attorneys at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed the initial complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction with the state superior court in Mecklenburg County in April. If approved, a preliminary injunction would order CPCC to stop engaging in what a judge believes to be unlawful behavior until further action is taken in the courts. 

SCSJ attorneys said CPCC’s legal team requested the case be moved to the federal level, four days before the hearing for the preliminary injunction in state court. 

“This case deserves to be heard in the correct court — particularly given a federal claim is included in the case,” a CPCC spokesperson told CPP. 

“That’s why Central Piedmont filed for the shift to federal court. Beyond the request to shift courts, our recent motion to dismiss seeks an outright dismissal right off the bat on the basis that the plaintiffs’ have no viable claims.”

CPCC transparency concerns

Ultimately, de Janon said he joined this lawsuit because he feels it is the only choice left for him and others to get information on the training facility. 

“As a resident, as a taxpayer, as a voter, I have no option but to try to find information elsewhere,” de Janon said. “I have emailed my county commissioner. I have looked for more information, but they all point me back to CPCC, and then CPCC doesn’t give me anything. It’s like an endless struggle.” 

McMichael said lawsuits like this one point to growing concern in the legal community around lack of compliance with public information laws.

“Something that might be happening more often is the use of closed sessions and secret meetings to conduct public business,” McMichael said. 

“I definitely think that’s a problem. That’s why you’re seeing lawsuits about it, because people in the legal community know how dangerous this is, particularly when you’re talking about an investment of this size that’s going to be paid for by taxpayers. That’s not something that we would traditionally expect to see done completely behind the closed curtain, as is being alleged here.” 

The alleged violations are particularly concerning given the various public bodies involved, from CPCC’s board of trustees to Mecklenburg County itself, he said. 

Hendrick Automotive Group owned the 23 acres of land proposed to be used for the Public Safety Trainings known as Parcel 1. In order for CPCC to accept the land as a gift, the town of Matthews’ board of commissioners had to approve the rezoning application, which occurred May 8, 2023, according to Matthews board of commissioners meeting minutes. 

CPCC announced the gift and its plans for the facility on June 17, 2024.

“There’s a lot going on here that doesn’t look great, especially if you do it secretly,” McMichael said. “It looks like favoritism. It looks like backroom dealing to people, and that’s why you do it in public.”

Janki Kaneria, an SCSJ attorney for the plaintiffs, said seeing what she views as retaliation occur against her plaintiffs and others in search of information on the project is disappointing.

“People have the right to ask questions,” Kaneria said. “They have a right to learn information. CPCC’s ask first policy doesn’t serve the public and contradicts the essence of open meeting laws. You shouldn’t have to ask first to get an agenda. They should just be provided to you. You shouldn’t have to ask, ‘Hey, when did this public XYZ happen?’ That should be on their website. That should be public information.” 

SCSJ attorneys ask for a number of actions to rectify what they argue are violations of open meeting laws and the First Amendment, including “release all information the public is entitled to about the Public Safety Training Facility and rescind the campus bans for Mina Ezikpe and Eboni Exceus,” Kaneria said.

In addition to righting wrongs, SCSJ attorney James Huey said it’s important to prevent further violations so that the community feels comfortable seeking information.
“People are terrified to go to these meetings right now,” Huey said. “That shouldn’t be the case.”

Comments