A quick vote, a recusal, and a single word change could shape who gets a seat
On a zoning night that was supposed to be about land use, Charlotte City Council opened with a procedural detour and quietly rewrote parts of its appointment plan for the MPTA, the city’s transit authority. Members voted unanimously to add the item to the agenda. They then voted to recuse District 5 Council Member Marjorie Molina from the matter based on an appearance‑of‑impropriety concern, as explained by Interim City Attorney Anthony Fox, who also said there was no financial interest in play.
What followed was a short but consequential edit to both timing and language. Council agreed to wait for partner organizations to finish their picks and then run the city’s process in November, and replaced a hard rule with a nudge: instead of “Council will nominate one applicant per category,” the motion now reads, “Council is encouraged to nominate one applicant per category.”
Council adopted the new cadence and the softened standard. Council Member Tiawana Brown voted no. Everyone else voted yes.
What Changed
New dates the Council adopted
- Nov. 6: Council defers its voting to this date to align with partners. Council Member James Mitchell said he would meet with partners that morning and email their nominees to Council by 12 p.m.
- Nov. 12–15: Candidate interviews.
- Nov. 17: Council nominations at the start of the zoning meeting.
- Nov. 24: Final appointments.
The one‑word pivot that matters
- The operative sentence now reads: “Council is encouraged to nominate one applicant per category.”
- Members said they still want nominees tagged to skill areas to avoid gaps, but they do not want to be boxed into category quotas if partner choices change the board’s balance.
Why They Did It
Several members said syncing to outside timelines would reduce friction and give Council a fuller picture before selecting its slate. Mitchell framed the goal as collaboration with the Alliance and Foundation Carolina, with a promise to share partner nominees by midday on Nov. 6. Council Members Victoria Watlington and Malcolm Graham pressed for flexibility, arguing that a strict three‑per‑category or one‑per‑category system can backfire if partner organizations pick heavily in one area. LaWana Mayfield and Renee Johnson insisted that the edits be put on the record that night, not handled “offline.”
Johnson also said she supported the move because it lands after the election. Ed Driggs reminded the body that Council had already adopted an overall procedure earlier; in his view, the action was largely a shift in dates within that framework. Attorney Fox repeatedly tightened the language at the dais and confirmed the recusal mechanics for Molina.
What It Means for the Board
Flexibility vs. structure
By living with “encouraged,” Council gives itself room to balance skill sets after partner slates arrive. The tradeoff is less rigidity. The chair and attorney urged members to keep identifying each nominee’s category so the final pool covers the full range of expertise.
Partner leverage
Waiting for partners gives those organizations a first move. Council said the midday email on Nov. 6 is designed to level‑set before interviews begin.
A tight November
Interviews, nominations, and final appointments will unfold in less than two weeks. Council asked for clarity in how nominees are tagged, and for staff to ensure the calendar holds.
What to Watch Next
- Nov. 6 at noon: Do partner nominations arrive on time, and will members share them beyond the dais?
- Interviews Nov. 12‑15: Who sits in, and how transparent is the process?
- Nov. 17 nominations: How Council translates “encouraged” into an actual slate.
- Nov. 24 vote: Final composition and whether skill categories are evenly covered.
The Roll Call, At a Glance
- Added to agenda: Unanimous yes.
- Recusal: Marjorie Molina recused; unanimous.
- Timeline + “encouraged” language: Adopted; Brown opposed.
Meeting Notes, Straight From the Dais
- Mitchell: Pushed November cadence, promised a partner breakfast on Nov. 6 and a noon email of nominees.
- Watlington, Graham: Sided with flexibility.
- Mayfield, Johnson: Wanted the language change captured on the record.
- Driggs: Framed this as a date shuffle within an adopted procedure.
- Attorney Fox: Clarified recusal, motion text, and that “encouraged” is the operative wording.
Read More Transit and City Hall Coverage
Start here: The Charlotte Mercury
Latest reporting: News
All our City Hall work: Politics
And yes, our special 2025 election package is busy tracking the people who will soon inherit this calendar: Poll Dance 2025. It’s where the endorsements, money lines, and turnout math all learn the foxtrot together. See it here: Poll Dance 2025
About the Author
Jack Beckett covers city governance the way most people order coffee: strong, no froth, and on deadline. If you see him around Government Center, the notebook’s open and the mug’s empty. Refill both.
You can find more reporting at The Charlotte Mercury, daily updates on News, and every vote, motion, and eye‑roll in Politics. Our election hub, Poll Dance 2025, is the one‑stop for ballots, guides, and who’s spending where: Poll Dance 2025. You can always message us on X, or Twitter, or as we call it Twix: x.com/queencityexp.
The Fine Print
For how we operate
Privacy Policy • About Us • Terms of Service • Media • Contact Us
Creative Commons License
© 2025 The Charlotte Mercury / Strolling Ballantyne
This article, “How Charlotte Will Pick Its Transit Board Next: Council Tweaks MPTA Timeline and Rules,” by Jack Beckett is licensed under CC BY‑ND 4.0.
“How Charlotte Will Pick Its Transit Board Next: Council Tweaks MPTA Timeline and Rules”
by Jack Beckett, The Charlotte Mercury (CC BY‑ND 4.0)