Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Farmers Market topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pitt County dismantles Leroy James Farmers Market advisory board after vendor complaints
Summary
After a public comment alleging vendor retaliation and a manager briefing on operations, the Pitt County Board voted to dissolve the Leroy James Farmers Market advisory board and direct market management and staff to provide recommendations and hold regular vendor listening sessions.
The Pitt County Board of Commissioners voted Jan. 13 to dissolve the Leroy James Farmers Market Advisory Board and delegate market recommendations to the market manager and county staff, after hearing testimony alleging unfair treatment of longtime vendors.
Malcolm Heath, who identified himself as a former vendor and advisory-committee member, told the board that "on January 9, 2025, vendors were punished for disagreeing with county officials, retaliation for having a difference of opinion" and said some applications were rejected days later. He asked why promised farm inspections had not occurred and charged that county staff and the chair may have violated GS 153A-52.1 and GS 143-318.10.
County Manager (unnamed) said she had met with Heath and other vendors, observed the Farmers Market Advisory Committee on Jan. 9 and described "volatility of the interaction between the advisory committee members, vendors, staff and the public" that affects market operations. The manager said 2025 vendors were selected using objective criteria, explained contract enforcement (including a requirement for vendors to be present for market hours), and outlined a PRN (on-call) vendor approach to fill booths when regular vendors cannot attend.
Commissioner White framed the market as a community space and moved to "dismantle the advisory board and have the market manager and county staff give recommendations to this board ... based on vendor and community input." Commissioners raised procedural questions about the advisory board's composition; the manager said the board has seven members, four of whom are vendors and two at-large members, and reiterated the advisory board's three charges: recommend operating procedures, recommend an annual budget, and receive and act on reports from vendors and the manager.
The board voted by hand and the motion passed. The manager offered to provide a written report answering vendor questions and suggested the board consider alternate structures — such as quarterly vendor listening sessions — to improve communication and market consistency.
The board did not adopt immediate disciplinary actions in open session; manager staff indicated they would supply a written response to the concerns raised and the board will receive recommendations from staff about market governance and future vendor engagement.
