Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Cary council on theater programming, transparency and alleged financial misconduct
Summary
Public speakers at the Feb. 5 Cary council meeting urged the council to address accountability and transparency, raised concerns about a town‑run theater program and alleged financial malfeasance tied to recent reporting; speakers also requested public invoices related to an external investigation and pedestrian-safety fixes.
Multiple residents used the public‑comment portion of Cary’s Feb. 5 council meeting to press elected officials for transparency, accountability and public‑safety fixes.
Longtime resident Phil Katros urged council to restore a 5% merit pool for town employees, arguing the town’s staff are high performing and cuts risk losing experienced employees. "The dedicated staff of the town of Cary are in many ways what make this place great," Katros said.
Other commenters raised sharper allegations and requests: Thomas Pavick accused local leaders of conflicts of interest and said a public‑records request revealed spending tied to a council member; he called for greater accountability and suggested resignations. The council did not act on removal requests during the meeting; officials noted parallel inquiries by the State Auditor, the district attorney and the SBI are ongoing.
Emanuel Per criticized programming at the town‑operated Cary Theater, alleging a recent screening was offensive and could inflame tensions in the community; Per said prior decisions at the theater had created public controversy and asked council to enforce master‑plan controls.
Resident Elliot Tardiff asked staff to expedite pedestrian‑safety improvements at a busy intersection (Kildair Farm Road and Kilmain Road) and requested that invoices for the outside firm investigating matters connected to the former town manager be made public. Tardiff also suggested the planned employee engagement survey be run in‑house to reduce costs and institutionalize regular staff feedback.
Several speakers asked for transparency about the $250,000 the council had previously agreed to spend on outside reviews (a $150,000 investigative contract and $100,000 for an employee engagement survey) and whether invoices or deliverables would be made public. Council members responded that invoices and audit reports are being processed and that the survey implementation and outside‑review recommendations will be integrated with staff follow‑up.
The public comments framed much of the evening's debate about morale, transparency and the council's decision to restore merit pay.
