Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Residents criticize process after council places removal of commissioner Jared Wheatley on consent agenda
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters defended Jared Wheatley and criticized staff memo and evidence used to justify a resolution removing him from the Planning & Zoning Commission; council included the removal on the consent agenda and proceeded with the consent vote.
A resolution to remove Jared Wheatley from the Asheville Planning & Zoning Commission drew several public defenders on Nov. 18, with speakers calling the staff packet and supporting video clips insufficient evidence for removal.
David Morris, whose remarks were part of the consent‑agenda public comment, told council the staff memo relied on nine short video clips that, in his view, did not show inappropriate behavior and instead reflected a commissioner consistently holding staff accountable. Morris and other public commenters argued the action disproportionately affects the only enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation serving on a city board and diminishes indigenous representation on boards and commissions.
Jared Wheatley addressed council and described his two years on the commission, saying he is the only enrolled tribal member on any board or commission and that representation matters for telling the region's story 'since time immemorial.' Several residents testified in favor of Wheatley, describing mentorship, community service and his role advancing zoning reform and legacy‑neighborhood interests.
The removal resolution was placed on the consent agenda and council proceeded with the consent vote. Public commenters asked for clearer documentation and due process in removals of volunteer commissioners, and some speakers said staff had framed disagreements as misconduct. Council did not record a roll‑call tally in the transcript for that specific resolution, though the consent agenda was concluded.
Speakers urged council to ensure transparency and more detailed evidentiary standards for future removal actions so volunteer board members receive clear notice of alleged misconduct and the evidence relied upon.
The record shows community concern about how staff recommend disciplinary or removal actions and a desire from commenters that boards be allowed to hold staff accountable without being at risk of summary removal.
