You are on page 1of 45

From:

To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

plm1
Driggs, Edmund H.; krsmith@charlottenc.gov
Broughton, Jimmy
Re: Non-discrimination ordinance
Sunday, February 21, 2016 2:51:06 PM

Ed and Kenny --- Thank you for your inquiry. Although I have made a point as the former 14 year Mayor and
current Governor to stay out of specific issues being voted on by the Charlotte City Council, the item of changing
basic long-established values and norms of access to public restrooms is misguided and has major statewide
ramifications.
It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by changing basic restroom and locker room norms but
also citizens from across our state and nation who visit and work in Charlotte. This shift in policy could also create
major public safety issues by putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by individuals taking improper
advantage of a bad policy.
Also, this action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for example, to use a female restroom or locker room will
most likely cause immediate State legislative intervention which I would support as governor. This action also puts
an unneeded strain on the relationship between the City of Charlotte and the State of North Carolina.
I encourage you to convince your colleagues to focus on issues most important to our citizens and this proposed
change is not one of them. In fact, the City of Charlotte is causing more problems by trying to solve a problem that
does not exist.
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Driggs, Edmund H. <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us> wrote:
>
> Governor McCrory,
>
> Tomorrow night Charlotte City Council is scheduled to vote on amendments to the City's non-discrimination
ordinance that, among other things, would add members of the LGBT community to the protected classes in areas
such as the use of public accommodations. There are no exclusions or special provisions in the proposed
amendments related to the use of gender-specific public accommodations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. As
Chair of the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee, I am interested to know if you have an opinion
on how such a change to the ordinance might affect North Carolina or relations between Charlotte and Raleigh.
>
> Thank you
>
> Ed Driggs
> Charlotte City Council
>
> Sent from my iPhone
________________________________
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may
be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.

From:
To:
Date:

plm1
Ellis, Joshua N
Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:19:37 PM

The expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a


restroom or locker room for each gender was violated by
government over reach and intrusion by the mayor and city
council of Charlotte . This radical breach of trust and security
under the false argument of equal rights not only impacts the
citizens of Charlotte but people who come to Charlotte to work ,
visit or play. This new government regulation defies conmen
sense and basic community norms of allowing for example a
man who thinks he is a woman to use a women's shower or locker
room,.
While local municipalities have important priorities working to
oversee police, fire, water and sewer, zoning, roads, and transit,
the mayor and city council took action far out of its core
responsibilities. As a result I will sign legislation passed to night
by a bipartisan majority tonight to stop this breach of basic
privacy and etiquette which was to go into effect April 1.
Although other items included in this bill should have waited
until regular session, this bill does not change existing rights
under state or federal law.
It is now time for the city of Charlotte elected officials and state
elected officials to get back to working on the areas most
important to our citizens.
Sent from my iPad

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

plm1
Ellis, Joshua N
Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:47:04 PM

FYI. Pat
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Date: February 21, 2016 at 3:59:40 PM EST
To: Jennifer Roberts <jenniferdwroberts@gmail.com>, "Kinsey, Patsy"
<pkinsey@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Austin, Alvin J." <aaustin@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Mayfield, LaWana" <lmayfield@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Phipps, Greg A."
<gaphipps@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Autry, John" <jautry@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Smith, Kenny R." <krsmith@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Fallon, Claire"
<cfallon@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Eiselt, Julie" <Julie.Eiselt@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, Vi
Lyles <violalyles@gmail.com>, "Mitchell, James"
<James.Mitchell@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Subject: Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Mayor and Council colleagues,
One issue that has concerned me during our deliberations concerning changes to
our non-discrimination ordinance is how Charlotte's relationship with our state
government might be affected. In my capacity as Intergovernmental Relations
chair, I felt it would be better to find out before rather than after our vote, so I
wrote to Governor McCrory. I am forwarding to you below my message to him
and the response he sent me and Councilmember Smith.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pat McCrory
Date: February 21, 2016 at 2:51:02 PM EST
To: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"krsmith@charlottenc.gov" <krsmith@charlottenc.gov>
Cc: "Broughton, Jimmy" <jimmy.broughton@nc.gov>
Subject: Re: Non-discrimination ordinance
Ed and Kenny --- Thank you for your inquiry. Although I have made
a point as the former 14 year Mayor and current Governor to stay out
of specific issues being voted on by the Charlotte City Council, the
item of changing basic long-established values and norms of access

to public restrooms is misguided and has major statewide


ramifications.
It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by
changing basic restroom and locker room norms but also citizens
from across our state and nation who visit and work in Charlotte.
This shift in policy could also create major public safety issues by
putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by
individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy.
Also, this action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for
example, to use a female restroom or locker room will most likely
cause immediate State legislative intervention which I would support
as governor. This action also puts an unneeded strain on the
relationship between the City of Charlotte and the State of North
Carolina.
I encourage you to convince your colleagues to focus on issues most
important to our citizens and this proposed change is not one of them.
In fact, the City of Charlotte is causing more problems by trying to
solve a problem that does not exist.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Driggs, Edmund H.
<edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us> wrote:

Governor McCrory,

Tomorrow night Charlotte City Council is scheduled to


vote on amendments to the City's non-discrimination
ordinance that, among other things, would add members
of the LGBT community to the protected classes in areas
such as the use of public accommodations. There are no
exclusions or special provisions in the proposed
amendments related to the use of gender-specific public
accommodations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.
As Chair of the City Council Intergovernmental
Relations Committee, I am interested to know if you
have an opinion on how such a change to the ordinance
might affect North Carolina or relations between
Charlotte and Raleigh.

Thank you

Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council

Sent from my iPhone


________________________________
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

plm1
kennysmthd6@gmail.com
Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Sunday, February 21, 2016 4:24:49 PM

Sent from my iPhone


Begin forwarded message:
From: plm1 <plm1@nc.gov>
Date: February 21, 2016 at 2:51:02 PM EST
To: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"krsmith@charlottenc.gov" <krsmith@charlottenc.gov>
Cc: "Broughton, Jimmy" <jimmy.broughton@nc.gov>
Subject: Re: Non-discrimination ordinance
Ed and Kenny --- Thank you for your inquiry. Although I have made a point as
the former 14 year Mayor and current Governor to stay out of specific issues
being voted on by the Charlotte City Council, the item of changing basic longestablished values and norms of access to public restrooms is misguided and has
major statewide ramifications.
It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by changing basic
restroom and locker room norms but also citizens from across our state and nation
who visit and work in Charlotte. This shift in policy could also create major
public safety issues by putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by
individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy.
Also, this action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for example, to use a
female restroom or locker room will most likely cause immediate State legislative
intervention which I would support as governor. This action also puts an
unneeded strain on the relationship between the City of Charlotte and the State of
North Carolina.
I encourage you to convince your colleagues to focus on issues most important to
our citizens and this proposed change is not one of them. In fact, the City of
Charlotte is causing more problems by trying to solve a problem that does not
exist.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Driggs, Edmund H.
<edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us> wrote:

Governor McCrory,

Tomorrow night Charlotte City Council is scheduled to vote on


amendments to the City's non-discrimination ordinance that, among
other things, would add members of the LGBT community to the
protected classes in areas such as the use of public accommodations.
There are no exclusions or special provisions in the proposed
amendments related to the use of gender-specific public
accommodations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. As Chair of
the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee, I am
interested to know if you have an opinion on how such a change to
the ordinance might affect North Carolina or relations between
Charlotte and Raleigh.

Thank you

Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council

Sent from my iPhone


________________________________
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an
authorized state official.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

plm1@nc.gov
Billy Constangy
Fwd: As discussed
Friday, March 25, 2016 9:53:14 AM

I need hard copy of this delivered to house. Pat


Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dan Bishop <dan@votedanbishop.com>
Date: March 25, 2016 at 12:42:17 AM EDT
To: "plm1@nc.gov" <plm1@nc.gov>
Subject: RE: As discussed
Actually, on very last point -- the prohibition from regulating wages was
also a clarification of existing law only.

From: Dan Bishop


Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 12:36 AM
To: 'plm1@nc.gov' <plm1@nc.gov>
Subject: As discussed

Q: Why could the General Assembly not simply reverse the "bathroom provision"
of the Charlotte ordinance?

A: The N.C. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 24, prohibits the General Assembly from
passing local acts on certain subjects, including business regulation (trade, labor,
mining and manufacturing). There is no precedent for the General Assembly to
amend or modify an ordinance of a municipality, and to do so on a subject of
business regulation would almost certainly violate Art. I, Sec. 24. Therefore, we
could not pass a law to amend or modify Charlotte's ordinance specifically and
directly to reverse the bathroom-access aspect.

The City Council, in amending an existing ordinance to mandate cross-sex


bathroom access in local businesses,not only acted beyond their delegated
authority, they alsocreated direct conflicts with at least two state statutes, the
Building Code and the indecent exposure statute, both of which already preclude
unisex use and operation of such facilities. Had we attempted to write a bill just
to forbid cities from passing ordinances allowing use of opposite-sex facilities, we
would have created a thirdstatutoryconflict, but no clear resolution. And despite
continuing uncertainty, at best we would have invalidated the Charlotte

ordinance entirely by virtue of that conflict.

For a clearer result, we could expresslypreempt cities entirely from regulating


business discrimination. But we still would have invalidated the Charlotte
ordinance completely.

In either event, invalidating the ordinance wholly would mean that protections
from public accommodations discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion,
national origin and sex that had been in place (perhaps without proper authority)
since 1968 (sex actually was added in 1972) would have been eliminated,
arguably by act of the General Assembly.

The way to prevent that result was whatwe did. We enacted a public policy
statement applying Charlotte's legacy public accommodations protections on a
statewide basis. We coupled that with a preemption of cities from adopting
ordinances in this area, to prevent further conflicts. And we adopted a policy of
sex-separated bathrooms statewide for government buildings. That policy is not
binding on private businesses, which are free to pursue their own policies.

All of this was necessary to undo the cross-sex bathroom maneuver without
uncertainty and without killing the legacy public accommodations protections.

While all of this is true and accurate, and explains why addressing the bathroom
policy alone did require us to proceed as we did in Parts I and III of the bill, I
personally believed that it was even more appropriate on policy grounds to clarify
through field preemption the existing limits on city authority that Charlotte
disregarded. They simply have not been delegated this authority and it is
inconsistent with our governing constitutional structure. Indeed, the one
remaining section of the bill, preempting cities'regulation of their contractors'
business practices, was essential to prevent the City from imposing mandates on
businesses located outside city limits. The prohibition on wage regulation is the
only item that was not strictly necessary, but it also was well warranted and will
be welcomed by businesses.

Regards,

Rep. Dan Bishop


Candidate
North Carolina Senate

Cell: 704-619-7580
Work: 704-716-1202
dan@votedanbishop.com
To donate: www.votedanbishop.com

Paid for by Bishop for Senate. North Carolina law requires candidate
committees to report the name, mailing address, job title or profession,
and name of employer or employers specific field for each individual
whose contribution aggregate is in excess of $50 in an election.
Contributions may not exceed $5,000 per individual and are not tax
deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.
Corporate contributions and contributions from foreign nationals are
prohibited by law.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

plm1@nc.gov
Chuck Allen
Fwd: NEWS ALERT: Major businesses stand against NC anti-discrimination law
Thursday, March 24, 2016 6:05:12 PM

A total mischaracterization of bill and our state. shameful.


Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: McCrory News Alerts <newsalerts@nc.gov>
Date: March 24, 2016 at 4:47:40 PM EDT
To: McCrory News Alerts <newsalerts@nc.gov>
Subject: NEWS ALERT: Major businesses stand against NC antidiscrimination law
Major businesses stand against NC anti-discrimination law
Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-north-carolina-antidiscrimination-law-20160324-story.html
Major corporations took stands Thursday against a new North Carolina law that
bans anti-discrimination measures based on sexual orientation and gender
identity and requires transgender people to use public bathrooms that match
their birth certificates.
American Airlines, which operates its second-largest hub in Charlotte; the biotech
company Biogen, which manufactures pharmaceuticals in Research Triangle Park;
and payments processor PayPal, which last week announced plans to hire 400
people in Charlotte, were among the corporations condemning the new law.
"We believe no individual should be discriminated against because of gender
identity or sexual orientation," American Airlines spokeswoman Katie Cody said.
"Laws that allow such discrimination go against our fundamental belief of equality
and are bad for the economies of the state in which they are enacted."
The impact on North Carolina jobs will take time to quantify, but Democrats
warned that North Carolina risks losing billions in federal education dollars by
conflicting with Title IX anti-discrimination regulations that apply in public schools.
The NCAA, which is scheduled to hold men's basketball tournament games in
Greensboro in 2017 and Charlotte in 2018, also said it's monitoring the situation

and takes diversity into account when it chooses its event sites.
North Carolina passes controversial bill blocking city, county LGBT protections
North Carolina passes controversial bill blocking city, county LGBT protections
"Our commitment to the fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of sexual
orientation or gender identity, has not changed and is at the core of our NCAA
values. It is our expectation that all people will be welcomed and treated with
respect in cities that host our NCAA championships and events," the
organization's statement said.
Supporters of the law signed by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory Wednesday night
say it protects all people from having to share bathrooms with people who make
them feel unsafe. Advocates for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights call
the law a "devastating" setback that they may try to challenge in court.
Determined to undo a Charlotte ordinance that would have protected
transgender people who use restrooms aligned with their gender identity, the
North Carolina legislature convened a special session to produce the new law,
which prevents all cities and counties in the state from passing their own antidiscrimination rules.
The new law also prohibits local governments from requiring businesses to pay
workers more than the state's minimum wage, currently set at $7.25 an hour.
McCrory had sought a bill dealing exclusively with bathrooms, but signed it
anyway.
Critics of the Charlotte ordinance, which would have taken effect in North
Carolina's largest city on April 1, focused on its language involving transgender
people and restrooms.
McCrory, who was the mayor of Charlotte for 14 years, said the new law was
"passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach of basic privacy and
etiquette."
Republicans and their allies said they had to protect the safety of women and
children, arguing that any man perhaps even a sex offender could enter a
woman's restroom or locker room simply by calling himself transgender.
"It's common sense biological men should not be in women's showers, locker
rooms and bathrooms," said GOP Rep. Dean Arp of Monroe before the House
voted 82-26 in favor. Although 12 House Democrats joined all Republicans

present in voting for the bill, all Senate Democrats walked out in protest, leaving
Republicans to voice unanimous approval.
"We choose not to participate in this farce," Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue of
Raleigh said.
Gay rights leaders and transgender people said the law demonizes them and
espouses bogus claims about risks in bathrooms to defeat a much broader range
of protections, denying lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people the right to
get a hotel room, hail a taxi or dine at a restaurant without fear.
Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts, who pressed for the anti-discrimination
ordinance, said in a statement that the General Assembly "is on the wrong side of
history."
McCrory countered that Roberts and the city council had overreached into "the
most personal of settings."
Ordinance supporters and opponents spoke to legislators in House and Senate
committees.
Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, Donna Eaton of Cary
told lawmakers, but she worried that Charlotte's ordinance would "open the door
for people with malicious intent who would masquerade as transgenders to come
in and actually take advantage and have access to our kids."
Skye Thompson, 15, of Greenville, who was born female but now identifies as
male, told senators that requiring him to use a woman's restroom puts his life in
danger: "I've dealt with bullying my whole life and now I worry that my own state
lawmakers are bullying me as well. I feel bullied by you guys," Thompson said.
Bathroom use has proved to be a potent wedge issue for opponents of gay rights
protections around the country since Houston's anti-discrimination law was
overwhelmingly voted down in a referendum last year, but LGBT advocates have
had some victories, too. South Dakota's legislature failed to override Gov. Dennis
Daugaard's veto of a bill requiring students to use bathrooms corresponding to
their birth gender, and a similar bill in Tennessee bill died Tuesday.
Associated Press

Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

plm1@nc.gov
Ellis, Joshua N
Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:47:00 PM

FYI. Pat
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Date: February 21, 2016 at 3:59:40 PM EST
To: Jennifer Roberts <jenniferdwroberts@gmail.com>, "Kinsey, Patsy"
<pkinsey@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Austin, Alvin J." <aaustin@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Mayfield, LaWana" <lmayfield@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Phipps, Greg A."
<gaphipps@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Autry, John" <jautry@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Smith, Kenny R." <krsmith@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Fallon, Claire"
<cfallon@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Eiselt, Julie" <Julie.Eiselt@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, Vi
Lyles <violalyles@gmail.com>, "Mitchell, James"
<James.Mitchell@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Subject: Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Mayor and Council colleagues,
One issue that has concerned me during our deliberations concerning changes to
our non-discrimination ordinance is how Charlotte's relationship with our state
government might be affected. In my capacity as Intergovernmental Relations
chair, I felt it would be better to find out before rather than after our vote, so I
wrote to Governor McCrory. I am forwarding to you below my message to him
and the response he sent me and Councilmember Smith.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pat McCrory
Date: February 21, 2016 at 2:51:02 PM EST
To: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"krsmith@charlottenc.gov" <krsmith@charlottenc.gov>
Cc: "Broughton, Jimmy" <jimmy.broughton@nc.gov>
Subject: Re: Non-discrimination ordinance
Ed and Kenny --- Thank you for your inquiry. Although I have made
a point as the former 14 year Mayor and current Governor to stay out
of specific issues being voted on by the Charlotte City Council, the
item of changing basic long-established values and norms of access

to public restrooms is misguided and has major statewide


ramifications.
It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by
changing basic restroom and locker room norms but also citizens
from across our state and nation who visit and work in Charlotte.
This shift in policy could also create major public safety issues by
putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by
individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy.
Also, this action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for
example, to use a female restroom or locker room will most likely
cause immediate State legislative intervention which I would support
as governor. This action also puts an unneeded strain on the
relationship between the City of Charlotte and the State of North
Carolina.
I encourage you to convince your colleagues to focus on issues most
important to our citizens and this proposed change is not one of them.
In fact, the City of Charlotte is causing more problems by trying to
solve a problem that does not exist.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Driggs, Edmund H.
<edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us> wrote:

Governor McCrory,

Tomorrow night Charlotte City Council is scheduled to


vote on amendments to the City's non-discrimination
ordinance that, among other things, would add members
of the LGBT community to the protected classes in areas
such as the use of public accommodations. There are no
exclusions or special provisions in the proposed
amendments related to the use of gender-specific public
accommodations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.
As Chair of the City Council Intergovernmental
Relations Committee, I am interested to know if you
have an opinion on how such a change to the ordinance
might affect North Carolina or relations between
Charlotte and Raleigh.

Thank you

Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council

Sent from my iPhone


________________________________
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

plm1@nc.gov
kennysmthd6@gmail.com
Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Sunday, February 21, 2016 4:24:49 PM

Sent from my iPhone


Begin forwarded message:
From: plm1 <plm1@nc.gov>
Date: February 21, 2016 at 2:51:02 PM EST
To: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"krsmith@charlottenc.gov" <krsmith@charlottenc.gov>
Cc: "Broughton, Jimmy" <jimmy.broughton@nc.gov>
Subject: Re: Non-discrimination ordinance
Ed and Kenny --- Thank you for your inquiry. Although I have made a point as
the former 14 year Mayor and current Governor to stay out of specific issues
being voted on by the Charlotte City Council, the item of changing basic longestablished values and norms of access to public restrooms is misguided and has
major statewide ramifications.
It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by changing basic
restroom and locker room norms but also citizens from across our state and nation
who visit and work in Charlotte. This shift in policy could also create major
public safety issues by putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by
individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy.
Also, this action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for example, to use a
female restroom or locker room will most likely cause immediate State legislative
intervention which I would support as governor. This action also puts an
unneeded strain on the relationship between the City of Charlotte and the State of
North Carolina.
I encourage you to convince your colleagues to focus on issues most important to
our citizens and this proposed change is not one of them. In fact, the City of
Charlotte is causing more problems by trying to solve a problem that does not
exist.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Driggs, Edmund H.
<edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us> wrote:

Governor McCrory,

Tomorrow night Charlotte City Council is scheduled to vote on


amendments to the City's non-discrimination ordinance that, among
other things, would add members of the LGBT community to the
protected classes in areas such as the use of public accommodations.
There are no exclusions or special provisions in the proposed
amendments related to the use of gender-specific public
accommodations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. As Chair of
the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee, I am
interested to know if you have an opinion on how such a change to
the ordinance might affect North Carolina or relations between
Charlotte and Raleigh.

Thank you

Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council

Sent from my iPhone


________________________________
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an
authorized state official.

From:
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject:
Date:

plm1@nc.gov
Driggs, Edmund H.; krsmith@charlottenc.gov
Broughton, Jimmy
plm1
Re: Non-discrimination ordinance
Sunday, February 21, 2016 2:51:01 PM

Ed and Kenny --- Thank you for your inquiry. Although I have made a point as the former 14 year Mayor and
current Governor to stay out of specific issues being voted on by the Charlotte City Council, the item of changing
basic long-established values and norms of access to public restrooms is misguided and has major statewide
ramifications.
It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by changing basic restroom and locker room norms but
also citizens from across our state and nation who visit and work in Charlotte. This shift in policy could also create
major public safety issues by putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by individuals taking improper
advantage of a bad policy.
Also, this action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for example, to use a female restroom or locker room will
most likely cause immediate State legislative intervention which I would support as governor. This action also puts
an unneeded strain on the relationship between the City of Charlotte and the State of North Carolina.
I encourage you to convince your colleagues to focus on issues most important to our citizens and this proposed
change is not one of them. In fact, the City of Charlotte is causing more problems by trying to solve a problem that
does not exist.
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Driggs, Edmund H. <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us> wrote:
>
> Governor McCrory,
>
> Tomorrow night Charlotte City Council is scheduled to vote on amendments to the City's non-discrimination
ordinance that, among other things, would add members of the LGBT community to the protected classes in areas
such as the use of public accommodations. There are no exclusions or special provisions in the proposed
amendments related to the use of gender-specific public accommodations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. As
Chair of the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee, I am interested to know if you have an opinion
on how such a change to the ordinance might affect North Carolina or relations between Charlotte and Raleigh.
>
> Thank you
>
> Ed Driggs
> Charlotte City Council
>
> Sent from my iPhone

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

McCrory, Pat
Governor"s Office
FW: Message from an ex-pat
Tuesday, March 22, 2016 9:32:00 AM
image001.png
image002.png

Lisa Frazier
Executive Assistant to Governor Pat McCrory

919 814 2105 office


919 434 8738 mobile

lisa.frazier@nc.gov

1 East Edenton Street


20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the


North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
_____________________________________________________________

From: CAROL [mailto:ckingnc@gmx.com]


Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:56 AM
To: McCrory, Pat <pat.mccrory@nc.gov>
Subject: Message from an ex-pat

I moved to Europe from North Carolina because NC is so ignorant and backward. Heard your
special session to try to stop Charlotte's LGBT protective ordinance has been called. Note the
world sees what NC Republicans are doing and it looks backward and actually hurtful not
helpful. This is sad for the children of NC that grown ups are blind and want discrimination
instead of holding a special assembly over something worthwhile like poverty, equality,
education or being the best you can be. It is not about beating people down or stomping on the
rights of people not "like" you or of your religion. So glad I am in Europe and watching this
from NC..... Shame on you for your ignorance in 2016.....it is not 1960 anymore....
Carol King
Sent from my Xperia tablet

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

McCrory, Pat
Governor"s Office
FW: Special Session Called for Wed (March 23rd)
Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:21:00 AM
image001.png
image002.png

Lisa Frazier
Executive Assistant to Governor Pat McCrory

919 814 2105 office


919 434 8738 mobile

lisa.frazier@nc.gov

1 East Edenton Street


20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the


North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
_____________________________________________________________

From: Billy Roosenberg [mailto:uncbrr@gmail.com]


Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 10:14 AM
To: Rep. Rob Bryan <Rob.Bryan@ncleg.net>; Senator Bob Rucho <Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net>
Cc: Rep. Tim Moore <Tim.Moore@ncleg.net>; President Pro Tem Phil Berger
<Phil.Berger@ncleg.net>; McCrory, Pat <pat.mccrory@nc.gov>; mayor@charlottenc.gov;
krsmith@charlottenc.gov
Subject: Special Session Called for Wed (March 23rd)

Hello Mr. Bryan and Mr. Rucho.


I hope you're both doing well.
Both of you represent my district in the NC House and Senate. Personally, I am unaffiliated
and have supported both Republicans and Democrats - voting for the best candidate for that
particular position.
I wish to express my great disappoint that the general assembly has chosen to call a special
session tomorrow to address Charlotte's LGBT ordinance. Knowing that you are both
Republicans, I can't say I'm shocked or surprised on where you stand on the issue. Personally,
I do support the ordinance because I believe we can't ignore the reality that a minority of our
population (regardless of how small) is often the target of discrimination. While we can
easily debate this ordinance, my frustration is less about the specifics of the ordinance and

more to do with the general assemblies reaction to it.


First, I've already been angry at the state's attempt to control everything at the local level from trying to take away our airport to putting in a provision that limits any funding for mass
transit (particularly light rail). When the Republicans ran in 2010 it was to tackle economic
issues, taxes, etc. I find it ironic that we never had gay marriage close to being approved in
NC for the 100 years the Democrats were in control until the Republicans took over. It took
the Republicans less than 3 years to make it happen. The Republicans take over and
immediately they seek to divide our state with Amendment One (not starting with the
economic issues), even though gay marriage was already illegal. This social agenda doesn't
seem to stop and it's doing more harm than good to our state and its citizens.
Now you're calling for a special session to take away local control and the right of
Charlotteans to choose how we treat our own citizens. I listened to all the speakers of the
LGBT ordinance while watching from home. Understandably there are people who have legit
concerns, this isn't a non-contiguous issue. However, with the state getting involved is not
going to help. Instead you take away our right to govern. If you haven't had the opportunity,
listen to all the people who spoke against the ordinance (particularly outside the city). The
hatred is terrifying - I'm surprised anyone would move to Concord after hearing their residents
speak. No wonder we need an ordinance like this; no wonder the LGBT community feels
afraid. I don't expect that Concord is going to pass the same ordinance, but it's unfair that
you target Charlotte and seek to control our local issues.
Also, it's ridiculous that our state representatives are knowingly going to call a special session
that will be a significant cost to the state. I think about all the major issues of our state from
the assault on public education, to racial tension, to the fact that Charlotte is top on the list
when it comes to lack of economic mobility when raised in poverty. Why don't we call a
special session to deal with these critical issues? Instead you are calling a session to deal with
an ordinance, which can't even override the public decency and civil laws on the books. It's
lunacy!
Rumor is that you're not even using this special session to deal with the ordinance, but to
remove the rights of local citizens to decide for themselves whether they implement a higher
minimum wage and other issues that don't fit your social agenda. Look - if Charlotte is
making such poor decisions, then let us go our way and we'll learn the economic and social
consequences. However, I don't believe we are in the wrong - I support our local leaders.
Our banks have long led the way for inclusion and support for the LGBT community; long
before Charlotte City Council. If our state cares about economic prosperity, then we need to
move past the divisive social agenda that the Republicans constantly incite.
I would love if you could surprise us for once and actually tackle what's really important in the
special session rather than bullying Charlotte. Our next ordinance will have to be how to
protect ourselves from our own state.
Sincerely,
William Ross Roosenberg
3019 Lauren Glen Rd
Charlotte, NC 28226
704-293-5607

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Stith, Thomas A
Broughton, Jimmy
FW: Charlotte Regional Partnership Responds to NC General Assembly Action
Thursday, March 24, 2016 2:28:00 PM
image001.png
image002.png

Thomas Stith
Chief of Staff to Governor Pat McCrory
The NC State Capitol

Office: 919.814.2111
Fax: 919.733.3715

From: Tony Almeida [mailto:talmeida2113@gmail.com]


Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 2:11 PM
To: Stith, Thomas A <Thomas.Stith@nc.gov>; Steen, Fred <fred.steen@nc.gov>; jskvarla@nccommerce.com
Subject: Fwd: Charlotte Regional Partnership Responds to NC General Assembly Action

Tony Almeida
North State Media
704-245-4528
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ronnie Bryant <rbryant@charlotteusa.com>
Date: March 24, 2016 at 2:00:38 PM EDT
To: <talmeida2113@gmail.com>
Subject: Charlotte Regional Partnership Responds to NC General Assembly Action
Reply-To: Ronnie Bryant <rbryant@charlotteusa.com>

View this email in your


browser

Investor Insider.
Dear Valued Investor,

We at the Charlotte Regional Partnership are passionate about the 16-county


Charlotte region and the people who live and work here, so we are
disappointed in the North Carolina General Assemblys actions yesterday. The
discriminatory legislation lawmakers passed is contrary to our communitys
inclusive and welcoming spirit. The bill hurts both Charlotte USA businesses
and families.
Even as Charlotte USA strengthens its position in the global economy, this
regressive bill impedes our ability to attract multi-national companies and puts
into jeopardy potential capital investments and new jobs. Moreover, the law
prohibits local governments from setting new employment standards, including
raising the minimum wage.

Charlotte USA and North Carolina are better than this. The Charlotte Regional
Partnership stands firmly with the many voices who have spoken out against
this law, including Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts and North Carolina
Attorney General Roy Cooper. We must find a way to reverse this
discriminatory legislation and implement progressive laws that truly reflect the
people and business owners of North Carolina.
Sincerely,
Ronnie L. Bryant, CEcD, FM, HLM
President & CEO
Charlotte Regional Partnership

Copyright 2015 Charlotte USA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:


550 S. Caldwell St., Suite 760
Charlotte, NC 28202
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Stith, Thomas A
"plm1"
FW: BofA statement
Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:34:00 PM
image001.png
image002.png

Thomas Stith
Chief of Staff to Governor Pat McCrory
The NC State Capitol

Office: 919.814.2111
Fax: 919.733.3715

From: Broughton, Jimmy


Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:28 PM
To: Stith, Thomas A <Thomas.Stith@nc.gov>
Subject: FW: BofA statement

From: Whitley, Kelly [mailto:kelly.whitley@bankofamerica.com]


Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:26 PM
To: Broughton, Jimmy <jimmy.broughton@nc.gov>
Subject: BofA statement

Jimmy,

Good to speak with you. Heres the statement again, it will only be given reactively. Thanks again.

Bank of America has been steadfast in our commitment to non-discrimination and in our
support for LGBT employees through progressive workplace policies and practices. We support
public policies that support non-discrimination.

Kelly Whitley
SVP, State Government Relations
Mid-Atlantic Region
Bank of America

NC1-007-20-05, 100 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28255


m. 571.249.0084

kelly.whitley@bankofamerica.com

Lifes better when were connected

This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms
and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete this message.

Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Stith, Thomas A
John Rustin
Broughton, Jimmy
Re: Letter to Gov. McCrory re: Need for Special Session to Repeal Charlotte Ordinance Changes
Wednesday, March 02, 2016 3:26:46 PM

John,
Thanks for your input and recommendation.
Best Regards,
Thomas
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 2, 2016, at 11:18 AM, John Rustin <jrustin@ncfamily.org> wrote:
Thomas and Jimmy,
I pray this email finds you both well! Please find attached a letter to Governor
McCrory, Senator Berger, and Speaker Moore regarding the need for the
Governor to call a Special Session prior to April 1 to repeal the local ordinance
changes recently adopted by the Charlotte City Council. The North Carolina
Family Policy Council believes a FULL REPEAL of these ordinance changes
before they go into effect and preemptive legislation to prevent other cities and
counties in North Carolina from adopting similar ordinances is of utmost
importance.
Please contact me at 919.807.0800 or by email at jrustin@ncfamily.org if you
have any questions and if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
John L. Rustin
P.S. A copy of the letter is also being hand-delivered to your office today.

<NCFPC_H_Logo-270x76.jpg>
John L. Rustin, President
North Carolina Family Policy Council
P.O. Box 20607, Raleigh NC 27619
Office: 919.807.0800
Mobile: 919.389.3682
Email:jrustin@ncfamily.org
Web:www.ncfamily.org
Equipping NC families to be voices of persuasion in their communities."

<160302 Charlotte SOGI Ordinance Ltr.pdf>

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Thomas.Stith@nc.gov
John Rustin
Broughton, Jimmy
Re: Letter to Gov. McCrory re: Need for Special Session to Repeal Charlotte Ordinance Changes
Wednesday, March 02, 2016 3:26:45 PM

John,
Thanks for your input and recommendation.
Best Regards,
Thomas
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 2, 2016, at 11:18 AM, John Rustin <jrustin@ncfamily.org> wrote:
Thomas and Jimmy,
I pray this email finds you both well! Please find attached a letter to Governor
McCrory, Senator Berger, and Speaker Moore regarding the need for the
Governor to call a Special Session prior to April 1 to repeal the local ordinance
changes recently adopted by the Charlotte City Council. The North Carolina
Family Policy Council believes a FULL REPEAL of these ordinance changes
before they go into effect and preemptive legislation to prevent other cities and
counties in North Carolina from adopting similar ordinances is of utmost
importance.
Please contact me at 919.807.0800 or by email at jrustin@ncfamily.org if you
have any questions and if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
John L. Rustin
P.S. A copy of the letter is also being hand-delivered to your office today.

<NCFPC_H_Logo-270x76.jpg>
John L. Rustin, President
North Carolina Family Policy Council
P.O. Box 20607, Raleigh NC 27619
Office: 919.807.0800
Mobile: 919.389.3682
Email:jrustin@ncfamily.org
Web:www.ncfamily.org
Equipping NC families to be voices of persuasion in their communities."

<160302 Charlotte SOGI Ordinance Ltr.pdf>

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

plm1
Chuck Allen
Fwd: NEWS ALERT: Major businesses stand against NC anti-discrimination law
Thursday, March 24, 2016 6:05:12 PM

A total mischaracterization of bill and our state. shameful.


Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: McCrory News Alerts <newsalerts@nc.gov>
Date: March 24, 2016 at 4:47:40 PM EDT
To: McCrory News Alerts <newsalerts@nc.gov>
Subject: NEWS ALERT: Major businesses stand against NC antidiscrimination law
Major businesses stand against NC anti-discrimination law
Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-north-carolina-antidiscrimination-law-20160324-story.html
Major corporations took stands Thursday against a new North Carolina law that
bans anti-discrimination measures based on sexual orientation and gender
identity and requires transgender people to use public bathrooms that match
their birth certificates.
American Airlines, which operates its second-largest hub in Charlotte; the biotech
company Biogen, which manufactures pharmaceuticals in Research Triangle Park;
and payments processor PayPal, which last week announced plans to hire 400
people in Charlotte, were among the corporations condemning the new law.
"We believe no individual should be discriminated against because of gender
identity or sexual orientation," American Airlines spokeswoman Katie Cody said.
"Laws that allow such discrimination go against our fundamental belief of equality
and are bad for the economies of the state in which they are enacted."
The impact on North Carolina jobs will take time to quantify, but Democrats
warned that North Carolina risks losing billions in federal education dollars by
conflicting with Title IX anti-discrimination regulations that apply in public schools.
The NCAA, which is scheduled to hold men's basketball tournament games in
Greensboro in 2017 and Charlotte in 2018, also said it's monitoring the situation

and takes diversity into account when it chooses its event sites.
North Carolina passes controversial bill blocking city, county LGBT protections
North Carolina passes controversial bill blocking city, county LGBT protections
"Our commitment to the fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of sexual
orientation or gender identity, has not changed and is at the core of our NCAA
values. It is our expectation that all people will be welcomed and treated with
respect in cities that host our NCAA championships and events," the
organization's statement said.
Supporters of the law signed by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory Wednesday night
say it protects all people from having to share bathrooms with people who make
them feel unsafe. Advocates for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights call
the law a "devastating" setback that they may try to challenge in court.
Determined to undo a Charlotte ordinance that would have protected
transgender people who use restrooms aligned with their gender identity, the
North Carolina legislature convened a special session to produce the new law,
which prevents all cities and counties in the state from passing their own antidiscrimination rules.
The new law also prohibits local governments from requiring businesses to pay
workers more than the state's minimum wage, currently set at $7.25 an hour.
McCrory had sought a bill dealing exclusively with bathrooms, but signed it
anyway.
Critics of the Charlotte ordinance, which would have taken effect in North
Carolina's largest city on April 1, focused on its language involving transgender
people and restrooms.
McCrory, who was the mayor of Charlotte for 14 years, said the new law was
"passed by a bipartisan majority to stop this breach of basic privacy and
etiquette."
Republicans and their allies said they had to protect the safety of women and
children, arguing that any man perhaps even a sex offender could enter a
woman's restroom or locker room simply by calling himself transgender.
"It's common sense biological men should not be in women's showers, locker
rooms and bathrooms," said GOP Rep. Dean Arp of Monroe before the House
voted 82-26 in favor. Although 12 House Democrats joined all Republicans

present in voting for the bill, all Senate Democrats walked out in protest, leaving
Republicans to voice unanimous approval.
"We choose not to participate in this farce," Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue of
Raleigh said.
Gay rights leaders and transgender people said the law demonizes them and
espouses bogus claims about risks in bathrooms to defeat a much broader range
of protections, denying lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people the right to
get a hotel room, hail a taxi or dine at a restaurant without fear.
Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts, who pressed for the anti-discrimination
ordinance, said in a statement that the General Assembly "is on the wrong side of
history."
McCrory countered that Roberts and the city council had overreached into "the
most personal of settings."
Ordinance supporters and opponents spoke to legislators in House and Senate
committees.
Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, Donna Eaton of Cary
told lawmakers, but she worried that Charlotte's ordinance would "open the door
for people with malicious intent who would masquerade as transgenders to come
in and actually take advantage and have access to our kids."
Skye Thompson, 15, of Greenville, who was born female but now identifies as
male, told senators that requiring him to use a woman's restroom puts his life in
danger: "I've dealt with bullying my whole life and now I worry that my own state
lawmakers are bullying me as well. I feel bullied by you guys," Thompson said.
Bathroom use has proved to be a potent wedge issue for opponents of gay rights
protections around the country since Houston's anti-discrimination law was
overwhelmingly voted down in a referendum last year, but LGBT advocates have
had some victories, too. South Dakota's legislature failed to override Gov. Dennis
Daugaard's veto of a bill requiring students to use bathrooms corresponding to
their birth gender, and a similar bill in Tennessee bill died Tuesday.
Associated Press

Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

plm1
Phil Berger; Rep. Tim Moore
Broughton, Jimmy; Steen, Fred; Stith, Thomas A
Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:50:03 PM

Please read chain FYI. Pat


Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Date: February 21, 2016 at 3:59:40 PM EST
To: Jennifer Roberts <jenniferdwroberts@gmail.com>, "Kinsey, Patsy"
<pkinsey@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Austin, Alvin J." <aaustin@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Mayfield, LaWana" <lmayfield@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Phipps, Greg A."
<gaphipps@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Autry, John" <jautry@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Smith, Kenny R." <krsmith@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Fallon, Claire"
<cfallon@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Eiselt, Julie" <Julie.Eiselt@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, Vi
Lyles <violalyles@gmail.com>, "Mitchell, James"
<James.Mitchell@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Subject: Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Mayor and Council colleagues,
One issue that has concerned me during our deliberations concerning changes to
our non-discrimination ordinance is how Charlotte's relationship with our state
government might be affected. In my capacity as Intergovernmental Relations
chair, I felt it would be better to find out before rather than after our vote, so I
wrote to Governor McCrory. I am forwarding to you below my message to him
and the response he sent me and Councilmember Smith.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pat McCrory
Date: February 21, 2016 at 2:51:02 PM EST
To: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"krsmith@charlottenc.gov" <krsmith@charlottenc.gov>
Cc: "Broughton, Jimmy" <jimmy.broughton@nc.gov>
Subject: Re: Non-discrimination ordinance
Ed and Kenny --- Thank you for your inquiry. Although I have made
a point as the former 14 year Mayor and current Governor to stay out
of specific issues being voted on by the Charlotte City Council, the

item of changing basic long-established values and norms of access


to public restrooms is misguided and has major statewide
ramifications.
It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by
changing basic restroom and locker room norms but also citizens
from across our state and nation who visit and work in Charlotte.
This shift in policy could also create major public safety issues by
putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by
individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy.
Also, this action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for
example, to use a female restroom or locker room will most likely
cause immediate State legislative intervention which I would support
as governor. This action also puts an unneeded strain on the
relationship between the City of Charlotte and the State of North
Carolina.
I encourage you to convince your colleagues to focus on issues most
important to our citizens and this proposed change is not one of them.
In fact, the City of Charlotte is causing more problems by trying to
solve a problem that does not exist.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Driggs, Edmund H.
<edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us> wrote:

Governor McCrory,

Tomorrow night Charlotte City Council is scheduled to


vote on amendments to the City's non-discrimination
ordinance that, among other things, would add members
of the LGBT community to the protected classes in areas
such as the use of public accommodations. There are no
exclusions or special provisions in the proposed
amendments related to the use of gender-specific public
accommodations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.
As Chair of the City Council Intergovernmental
Relations Committee, I am interested to know if you
have an opinion on how such a change to the ordinance
might affect North Carolina or relations between
Charlotte and Raleigh.

Thank you

Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council

Sent from my iPhone


________________________________
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

plm1@nc.gov
Phil Berger; Rep. Tim Moore
Broughton, Jimmy; Steen, Fred; Stith, Thomas A
Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:50:02 PM

Please read chain FYI. Pat


Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Date: February 21, 2016 at 3:59:40 PM EST
To: Jennifer Roberts <jenniferdwroberts@gmail.com>, "Kinsey, Patsy"
<pkinsey@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Austin, Alvin J." <aaustin@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Mayfield, LaWana" <lmayfield@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Phipps, Greg A."
<gaphipps@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Autry, John" <jautry@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Smith, Kenny R." <krsmith@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Fallon, Claire"
<cfallon@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Eiselt, Julie" <Julie.Eiselt@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, Vi
Lyles <violalyles@gmail.com>, "Mitchell, James"
<James.Mitchell@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Subject: Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Mayor and Council colleagues,
One issue that has concerned me during our deliberations concerning changes to
our non-discrimination ordinance is how Charlotte's relationship with our state
government might be affected. In my capacity as Intergovernmental Relations
chair, I felt it would be better to find out before rather than after our vote, so I
wrote to Governor McCrory. I am forwarding to you below my message to him
and the response he sent me and Councilmember Smith.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pat McCrory
Date: February 21, 2016 at 2:51:02 PM EST
To: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"krsmith@charlottenc.gov" <krsmith@charlottenc.gov>
Cc: "Broughton, Jimmy" <jimmy.broughton@nc.gov>
Subject: Re: Non-discrimination ordinance
Ed and Kenny --- Thank you for your inquiry. Although I have made
a point as the former 14 year Mayor and current Governor to stay out
of specific issues being voted on by the Charlotte City Council, the

item of changing basic long-established values and norms of access


to public restrooms is misguided and has major statewide
ramifications.
It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by
changing basic restroom and locker room norms but also citizens
from across our state and nation who visit and work in Charlotte.
This shift in policy could also create major public safety issues by
putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by
individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy.
Also, this action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for
example, to use a female restroom or locker room will most likely
cause immediate State legislative intervention which I would support
as governor. This action also puts an unneeded strain on the
relationship between the City of Charlotte and the State of North
Carolina.
I encourage you to convince your colleagues to focus on issues most
important to our citizens and this proposed change is not one of them.
In fact, the City of Charlotte is causing more problems by trying to
solve a problem that does not exist.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Driggs, Edmund H.
<edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us> wrote:

Governor McCrory,

Tomorrow night Charlotte City Council is scheduled to


vote on amendments to the City's non-discrimination
ordinance that, among other things, would add members
of the LGBT community to the protected classes in areas
such as the use of public accommodations. There are no
exclusions or special provisions in the proposed
amendments related to the use of gender-specific public
accommodations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.
As Chair of the City Council Intergovernmental
Relations Committee, I am interested to know if you
have an opinion on how such a change to the ordinance
might affect North Carolina or relations between
Charlotte and Raleigh.

Thank you

Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council

Sent from my iPhone


________________________________
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

plm1@nc.gov
Phil Berger; Rep. Tim Moore
Broughton, Jimmy; Steen, Fred; Stith, Thomas A
Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Sunday, February 21, 2016 5:50:02 PM

Please read chain FYI. Pat


Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Date: February 21, 2016 at 3:59:40 PM EST
To: Jennifer Roberts <jenniferdwroberts@gmail.com>, "Kinsey, Patsy"
<pkinsey@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Austin, Alvin J." <aaustin@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Mayfield, LaWana" <lmayfield@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Phipps, Greg A."
<gaphipps@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Autry, John" <jautry@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"Smith, Kenny R." <krsmith@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Fallon, Claire"
<cfallon@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, "Eiselt, Julie" <Julie.Eiselt@ci.charlotte.nc.us>, Vi
Lyles <violalyles@gmail.com>, "Mitchell, James"
<James.Mitchell@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Subject: Fwd: Non-discrimination ordinance
Mayor and Council colleagues,
One issue that has concerned me during our deliberations concerning changes to
our non-discrimination ordinance is how Charlotte's relationship with our state
government might be affected. In my capacity as Intergovernmental Relations
chair, I felt it would be better to find out before rather than after our vote, so I
wrote to Governor McCrory. I am forwarding to you below my message to him
and the response he sent me and Councilmember Smith.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Pat McCrory
Date: February 21, 2016 at 2:51:02 PM EST
To: "Driggs, Edmund H." <edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us>,
"krsmith@charlottenc.gov" <krsmith@charlottenc.gov>
Cc: "Broughton, Jimmy" <jimmy.broughton@nc.gov>
Subject: Re: Non-discrimination ordinance
Ed and Kenny --- Thank you for your inquiry. Although I have made
a point as the former 14 year Mayor and current Governor to stay out
of specific issues being voted on by the Charlotte City Council, the

item of changing basic long-established values and norms of access


to public restrooms is misguided and has major statewide
ramifications.
It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by
changing basic restroom and locker room norms but also citizens
from across our state and nation who visit and work in Charlotte.
This shift in policy could also create major public safety issues by
putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by
individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy.
Also, this action of allowing a person with male anatomy, for
example, to use a female restroom or locker room will most likely
cause immediate State legislative intervention which I would support
as governor. This action also puts an unneeded strain on the
relationship between the City of Charlotte and the State of North
Carolina.
I encourage you to convince your colleagues to focus on issues most
important to our citizens and this proposed change is not one of them.
In fact, the City of Charlotte is causing more problems by trying to
solve a problem that does not exist.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Driggs, Edmund H.
<edriggs@ci.charlotte.nc.us> wrote:

Governor McCrory,

Tomorrow night Charlotte City Council is scheduled to


vote on amendments to the City's non-discrimination
ordinance that, among other things, would add members
of the LGBT community to the protected classes in areas
such as the use of public accommodations. There are no
exclusions or special provisions in the proposed
amendments related to the use of gender-specific public
accommodations such as bathrooms, locker rooms, etc.
As Chair of the City Council Intergovernmental
Relations Committee, I am interested to know if you
have an opinion on how such a change to the ordinance
might affect North Carolina or relations between
Charlotte and Raleigh.

Thank you

Ed Driggs
Charlotte City Council

Sent from my iPhone


________________________________
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.