Will the voters hold Jay McRoy accountable? | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

He refuses to disclose or answer questions the public has a right to know

    In most jurisdictions in this nation it is a serious crime, typically a felony, for a public official to swap his vote in return for something that benefits him/her, a member of their family and/or a business associate directly without also equally benefitting the rest of the people. Unfortunately, such is not the case in Beaufort County and North Carolina. For that reason we have one of the most corrupt states in the union...and that explains why the only people who go to jail are the Fall Guys. But it is still wrong for a politician to use his/her position to garner personal benefit.

    The assumption upon which North Carolina's anti-corruption laws and ethics rules are based is that "disclosure" will suffice. That is, the rules are written such that about all a politician has to do to avoid going to jail is openly disclose what his interests are. But when a public official fails to fully and openly disclose his/her dealings and when they are allowed by the public to get re-elected without having to even explain their actions, the system breaks down. Such is the case in Beaufort County in recent years.

    Take Jay McRoy as an example.

    We learned from court records from the infamous law suit brought by the School Board against the taxpayers of Beaufort County that Jay had written a letter threatening to see that the School Board's budget request did not pass unless the Superintendent granted excused absences to Jay's daughter's cheerleaders so the cheerleaders and his daughter could travel to Hawaii. The Commissioners did not grant the schools' budget request and subsequently the School Board sued. The letter, among other things, provoked an SBI investigation, along with evidence in the discovery process for the case, that Commissioner Jerry Langley also sought to trade his vote for a personal favor (of his wife, who worked for the school system, being given a more preferable school assignment).

    In that debacle, the investigation just went away after some school board leaders and county commissioners met at King Chicken and worked out a deal that subsequently became known as the Chickengate Scandal. Nobody knows what would have happened had there been criminal prosecutions but what we do know is that the agreement they struck at King Chicken cost the Beaufort County taxpayers about $2 million a year and it will continue to do so every year unless the schools' budgets are cut by that amount.

    But it doesn't stop with just one instance.

    In June of this year, during the budget workshop sessions, Jay McRoy tried to get a company fired that had been contracted to collect unpaid property taxes. The company audited the financial records of certain taxpayers seeking to determine if the taxpayers, and their accountants, had properly listed all of their taxable property. This is primarily what's called "personal property" but it includes business equipment and other business non-real estate taxable property. Often companies, and as we have recently learned some non-profit organizations, hide or simply fail to report the property and thus never pay taxes on it. This company looks at the books of such companies, including their purchases, inventories, tax returns (deductions) etc., and determines whether all of the taxable property has been listed. It then assesses the businesses for back taxes and keeps a percentage of what is collected. Their services cost the county nothing and the company does not make anything unless it collects back taxes.

    Mr. McRoy is a CPA. We have learned that he apparently (although he refuses to disclose whether it is true or not) handles the tax listing for a number of clients and has even represented them in hearings before the tax collection officials to fight the assessments. He usually loses, we are told.

    So when the county's budget was being debated he moved to have the company's contract terminated. Remember, the county does not budget anything for the company because it does not pay the company anything, but only allows the company to keep a percentage of what is collected. So no budget appropriation was included in the budget. Nonetheless, Mr. McRoy tried to have the contract terminated. You can watch what went on in this video:



    So was Mr. McRoy trying to use his position as a county commissioners to gain a benefit for his clients who are paying him to keep their taxes lower? We asked Mr. McRoy to explain his actions. He failed to respond. But in the video he clearly says the reason the contract should be terminated is because the company is "dishonest" according to the Department of Revenue.

    So we investigated. Based on what we learned in our investigation we posed several questions to Mr. McRoy. He has refused to answer any of the questions.

    What we have been told by a reliable source in the N. C. Department of Revenue, who was not authorized to speak for the Department but nonetheless was familiar with the situation, was that Mr. McRoy lied in the video when he said the Department of Revenue recommended that the company not be used because it was "dishonest." The official told us, off the record: "DOR would never say such a thing. That would create a major liability issue for the state unless the company had been barred from doing business in the state. I just don't think anyone in DOR would say what I heard on the video they said." Mr. McRoy refuses to disclose the DOR official he was quoting in the video.

    Mr. McRoy also refuses to disclose whether he has been paid to represent any of the companies being audited or those who may have had assessments levied against them. So it is not possible to tell at this point whether Mr. McRoy has engaged in a conflict of interest. He simply refuses to answer questions that would prove a conflict or to eliminate that possibility. State ethics rules however require him to disclose any activity on his part that "gives the appearance of being a conflict of interest." But according to the County Manager's Office, he has never filed any disclosure statements.

    But this much is certain: If Mr. McRoy tried to retaliate against the tax collection company because it had made assessments the owners or Mr. McRoy did not like, then that would be a serious violation of the ethics rules. On the other hand, if Mr. McRoy's motives were what he said in the video (that DOR recommended against using the compnay) then why will he not disclose the name(s) of the DOR officials who he says told him that?

    It's not difficult for us to conclude that Mr. McRoy was up to no good in the budget session when he tried to get the contract canceled. Not because of the contract and his attempt to get the company kicked out, but rather because of his refusal to explain his actions. We think that failure to disclose says all that needs to be said.

    The question remains about whether his actions are sufficient for the voters to hold him accountable