A contentious censure hearing that included the removal of two residents by the Goldsboro Police Department — several others were issued multiple warnings — resulted in a 4-3 vote to censure District 1 Councilman Antonio Williams, an outcome that fell shy of the threshold required to take the action.
The hearing was conducted after an investigation concluded that the city could be held legally liable for Williams’ alleged actions toward Community Affairs director Shycole Simpson-Carter.
Investigators found that not only was Williams’ behavior at a Sept. 27, 2018, GWTA meeting “unacceptable,” but that his demand, a little more than a week later, for Simpson-Carter to be fired, “could very well be found to be retaliatory.”
“The City Council need not take any particular side in the history of acrimony between Ms. Simpson-Carter and Councilmember Williams in order to justify its action of taking sufficient action now to prevent any future occurrence of the escalated behavior which occurred on September 27 and which has not abated and which could very well be found to be retaliatory towards Ms. Simpson-Carter,” the report reads. “What the City Council should remember is that the facts in this case are clearly sufficient to put the City (at) risk for liability for allowing further allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory behavior to occur.”
But Williams’ attorney took issue, during the hearing, with the fact that the witnesses interviewed during the investigation were not made available for cross-examination — and likened the way his client has been treated to a “lynching.”
“I’ve been doing this for 25 years and due process, to me, means being able to confront and cross-examine my accusers. … Somebody should be upset other than me. Somebody should see the injustice in this other than me,” he said. “(The City Council) can’t be fair. They can’t be impartial. They’re biased. They’ve read this report and none of them have questioned these witnesses. They’ve taken (the investigator) at her word.”
Councilman Bevan Foster also took exception to the way Williams’ case has been handled.
“It’s sad that we’re sitting here wasting citizens’ time and citizens’ money,” he said. “All of this is going for what? Even at the end of the day with a censureship (sic), according to what I’ve been reading … it almost means nothing. … It’s just sad that we wasted all this time trying to censure Mr. Williams when, one, he didn’t do anything to be censured, and then, two, we’re not going to get anything out of it. Absolutely nothing.”
And that was after he — and more than a dozen Williams supporters — questioned the impartiality of the judge.
“You’re being biased right now, as you’re conducting this hearing,” Foster said early in the session, as the judge tried to restore order amid booing and shouts of “this is a kangaroo court” from the crowd. “You be quiet and answer my question.”
But sources familiar with the reasoning behind the censure process told the New Old North that given the findings of the investigator, the city found it necessary to take whatever steps it could to show it had not dismissed Simpson-Carter’s claims — so that if she does, in fact, file a lawsuit, the city can argue it tried to rectify the situation.
Councilman David Ham had his own reasons — and after he spoke, he moved that Williams be censured and voted to do so.
“It is my belief that we cannot just ignore these actions,” he said. “It’s a sad day for Goldsboro. … It’s been an embarrassment.”
Williams would ultimately have the last word.
“Did hate, jealousy, and envy play a role within this situation. I will always reflect on this day. There are no winners. Only losers. There have been many sleepless nights, much pain and suffering. Our community must trust all our leaders. Our community must trust all city employees,” he said. “My stance has never changed. I was elected to stand with the people of District 1, to bring transparency. I have been honest throughout this employee’s allegations. However, I have found many that are involved that lack honesty. Many have chosen to side with those who lack integrity. What side of history will you stand on? Good or bad? Right or wrong? Justice or injustice?”
