Asheville Mayor Esther Manheimer’s career as a real estate attorney has become a point of public discussion, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest in a city experiencing frequent and often controversial development. While she has occasionally recused herself from City Council votes, North Carolina law and the city's legal counsel provide a specific framework for managing such situations.
The debate centers on whether an elected official's professional life can remain separate from their public duties, particularly when their expertise aligns with key municipal issues like land use and zoning. The city's governance structure and state statutes play a crucial role in defining the boundaries of these responsibilities.
Key Takeaways
- Asheville Mayor Esther Manheimer is a practicing real estate attorney, which has led to public scrutiny regarding potential conflicts of interest with development projects.
- According to the city attorney, the mayor has recused herself from votes only a few times in seven years, typically due to the involvement of her law firm, not her direct representation.
- North Carolina state law mandates that elected officials vote on all matters unless a specific, legally defined conflict of interest exists.
- A recent case involving a South Asheville housing development highlighted the complexities of determining a conflict, though the mayor was ultimately cleared to vote.
- Political experts note that while potential conflicts are inherent for many professionals in public service, transparency and proper recusal procedures are key to maintaining public trust.
The Mayor's Role and Professional Background
In Asheville's council-manager form of government, the mayor presides over City Council meetings and acts as the ceremonial head of the city. While the city manager handles daily operations, the mayor holds one of seven votes on the council, influencing policy decisions.
Mayor Manheimer, first elected to the council in 2009 and as mayor in 2013, is a principal at the Van Winkle Law Firm. Her legal practice focuses on title insurance, property disputes, and representing homeowners associations across western North Carolina.
"To clarify, I do title insurance work, easement and boundary line disputes, (and) other real estate disputes. I also represent homeowners associations," Manheimer stated. She clarified that her direct work does not typically involve representing developers seeking project approvals.
Infrequent Recusals
Potential conflicts generally arise not from her own cases, but from the work of her colleagues. "Occasionally a lawyer at my firm represents a developer and I have to recuse myself, but that is not often," Manheimer explained.
Asheville City Attorney Brad Branham confirmed the rarity of these situations. In his seven years with the city, he recalled Manheimer recusing herself on only "maybe three or four" occasions. "None of her conflicts has been because of her own representation," Branham said. "It’s always been someone else in her firm that has been the issue."
Asheville's Government Structure
Asheville operates under a council-manager system. The six-member City Council and the mayor set city policy, while a professional city manager, appointed by the council, is responsible for executing those policies and overseeing administrative functions. This structure is designed to separate political decision-making from day-to-day municipal management.
A Case Study in South Asheville
The complexities of navigating potential conflicts were highlighted by a 2023 proposal for a 36-home development on Springside Road in south Asheville. The project, proposed by Sage Communities LLC, faced opposition from neighbors concerned about traffic and safety on the narrow road.
Some residents, including Kendra Miller, sought to meet with Mayor Manheimer to discuss their concerns. However, the process was complicated by connections between Manheimer's law firm and parties involved in the land deal, creating uncertainty about whether she could participate in discussions or vote on the matter.
Navigating a 'Complicated Non-Conflict'
"It was the most complicated ‘non-conflict’ I probably ever had to deal with," City Attorney Branham said. He explained that two attorneys from Manheimer's firm had peripheral involvement: one had previously worked on a related legal issue for the developer but had ceased, and another had handled unrelated estate work for an involved party.
This required extensive due diligence, including consultation with the UNC School of Government. Ultimately, Branham determined no statutory conflict existed. "We were only able to get the final word and feel confident probably about four days before the rezoning occurred," he noted.
"These conflicts of interest are a significant barrier to working to the betterment of the city," said Kendra Miller, a resident who opposed the Springside Road project. She expressed frustration that the uncertainty delayed a meeting with the mayor until the day of the council vote.
The project was ultimately approved on a 5-2 vote, with Mayor Manheimer voting in favor. While Miller stated she would not go so far as to say the situation was disqualifying for the mayor, she noted the challenges it presented for residents.
The Legal Framework for Conflicts of Interest
The city's approach to conflicts of interest is governed by North Carolina state law, which strongly presumes that elected officials should vote. According to Branham, this principle ensures that elected representatives fulfill the duty for which they were chosen by voters.
Three key state statutes dictate when an official must recuse themselves:
- General Statute 160A-75: This law establishes an "affirmative duty" to vote. Recusal is only permitted for matters involving a direct financial interest or issues related to the official's personal or official conduct.
- General Statute 160d-109: Specific to development and rezonings, this statute prohibits voting if an official has a "close, familial, business or associational relationship" with the applicant or landowner. It also restricts voting on regulations likely to have a "direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact" on the member.
- General Statute 14-234: This law prevents self-dealing, prohibiting officials from approving contracts that benefit themselves directly.
Duty to Vote
North Carolina law prioritizes the act of voting by elected officials. The statutes are designed to prevent recusals for reasons other than clearly defined financial or personal conflicts, reinforcing the idea that officials are elected to make decisions on behalf of their constituents.
Expert Perspective on Governance and Professional Life
Political scientists suggest that excluding individuals from public office based on their profession is not a practical solution. Chris Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University, argues that Mayor Manheimer's profession is not disqualifying.
"I don’t think we should be excluding anyone from public service based on their occupation," Cooper said. He noted that law is the "most common path to public service" because legal training is directly applicable to creating laws and policy.
Council-Manager vs. 'Strong Mayor' Systems
The discussion also touches on different forms of city government. Asheville's council-manager system is part of a reform movement from the early 1900s intended to professionalize city administration. An alternative is the "strong mayor" system, where the mayor functions as the city's full-time chief executive.
While a strong mayor might have fewer outside professional conflicts, Cooper explained that this system has historically been associated with corruption. Furthermore, there is no guarantee a full-time mayor would completely sever ties with their previous profession.
"You need to be upfront with voters and with the other people on your governing body, and you need to recuse yourself when you have a conflict of interest," Cooper stated. "And to the best of my knowledge, she’s done all of those things."
The consensus among legal and political experts is that while potential conflicts can arise for any official with a professional career, the existing legal framework of transparency and recusal is designed to manage these situations effectively. The primary responsibility lies with the official to disclose connections and follow the guidance of legal counsel to maintain public trust.
