When public duty & belief blur

A local business helping a Cub Scout pack might reasonably expect a word of thanks from town hall. This week in Drexel, it drew a public rebuke from the mayor instead.

Mayor Dennis Anthony objected to the pack’s fundraiser at Moondog Pizza in Morganton because the restaurant hosts drag shows. He said he did not want the town associated with the business for that reason. As Alderman Victoria Taylor pointed out, however, the fundraiser was not taking place during a drag show. The restaurant’s owners, whose children belong to the pack, were helping Scouts raise money for their activities.

To his credit, Anthony has since acknowledged that his comments were inappropriate for the setting. In a statement released two days after the meeting, he described his opinion as “poorly timed and placed for my official position.” He commended Moondog for its measured response, praised the Scouts and their leader, and said the pack should be free to choose where it holds fundraisers.

And Anthony’s statement reinforces the distinction at the heart of this discussion: Personal convictions carry different weight when expressed from a position of public authority.

We recognize that some Drexel residents will agree with Anthony’s original objections. Some share his religious objections to drag shows and may appreciate hearing their mayor say so. Likewise, some residents undoubtedly agreed with the Board of Aldermen’s decision earlier in the meeting not to allow R-rated movies at the town-owned fairgrounds. Those views are no less legitimate than the views of residents who disagree.

But that is precisely where the responsibilities of public office become important.

The question is not whether Anthony is entitled to his beliefs. Of course he is. The question is when an elected official’s personal convictions begin to exert inappropriate influence over people and businesses that do not share them.

The Moondog fundraiser is a good example of where that line can be crossed. Anthony characterized his objection as his personal opinion. But Drexel is the pack’s chartering sponsor, provides the land for its cabin, and pays its utilities. When the mayor expressed his displeasure, Scout leader Jacob Anderson responded, “I’ll honor that.”

No vote was taken to prohibit another fundraiser. And Anthony has since made clear that the Scouts should be free to choose where they raise money. But influence is not exercised only through votes and ordinances.

An elected official speaking during a public meeting carries authority that the same person speaking as a private citizen does not. Anderson’s response demonstrated that clearly enough.

Moondog owner Elizabeth Winn said after the meeting, “We live here. We’re in that community.” That gets to the heart of the matter. Elected officials do not represent only those whose beliefs align with their own.

If living in the same community required consensus on religion, politics, entertainment, or social issues before we could help one another, not much would get accomplished. Neighbors ought to be able to find common ground without first agreeing about everything else.

The discussion involving The View drive-in raises some of the same questions, although the circumstances are different. The fairgrounds are town property, the lease already restricts R-rated movies, and the town has a legitimate responsibility to consider what might be visible on a large outdoor screen near places children gather.

Those are reasonable government concerns.

But owner Rex Willis sought permission through the process provided in his lease. Later showtimes and other accommodations were discussed. Still, the board voted 3-1 against allowing the films, and during the discussion another concern emerged: whether the town wanted its name associated with them.

That sounds remarkably similar to the concern raised later about Moondog.

The two situations should not be treated as identical. But taken together, they raise a question Drexel’s leaders should consider carefully: Does allowing a lawful activity mean the town endorses it?

We do not think it does.

Allowing adults to watch an R-rated movie does not make Drexel an advocate for that movie. Allowing a Scout pack to raise money at Moondog does not make Drexel an advocate for drag shows. Government does not have to place its stamp of approval on everything it permits.

That distinction matters especially in a small community. We depend on one another too much to divide every business, organization, and neighbor into categories of those whose values we approve and those whose values we do not.

Anthony does not need to change his faith or his beliefs. Residents who agree with him do not need to change theirs. Nor should Taylor, Willis, Winn, or anyone else be expected to surrender theirs.

Elected leaders must, however, exercise public authority fairly among neighbors who sometimes think very differently. That is how a town remains a community rather than becoming a collection of camps.

Anthony’s subsequent statement suggests he recognizes that responsibility. His willingness to reconsider his words deserves recognition. The larger lesson deserves remembering.

Public office does not require elected leaders to abandon their convictions. It requires them to remember that the people they serve are entitled to theirs.