Local News

Meeker to defray cost of Raleigh council reception

Posted December 9, 2009

— Mayor Charles Meeker said Wednesday that he would use leftover campaign funds to help pay for a reception held last week when the new City Council was sworn into office.

Meeker said he would give a check for $6,400 to City Manager Russell Allen to cover about two-thirds of the cost of the taxpayer-funded reception.

The mayor said he wants a city committee to review the budgets for all future council events.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • james27613 Dec 10, 2009

    It it legal to use campaign money to pay for
    a private party ?

  • larky74406 Dec 10, 2009

    So he's giving away money that he couldn't keep anyway. What a guy.

  • csplantlover Dec 10, 2009

    Well, bless his little heart..........

  • Thought Criminal WS Dec 10, 2009

    The reception was for new city council sworn in, and Meeker is using HIS campaign money to pay for it. I may disapprove of his action 98% of the time, but this seems like he's putting his own (campaign) money up. It doesn't read clear in the article but him asking that budget be reviewed makes this sound like these funds that were used from the budget and he doesn't agree with it, hence his own funds going towards paying it.

    Regardless of disagreeing with him, I think he is a quality politician.

  • bill0 Dec 10, 2009

    Meeker announced he wasn't going to run again. He's not buying political favors or other such nonsense. He didn't plan the party and he didn't even eat or drink there. He's just trying to keep the taxpayers from having to foot the bill. This method may or may not work under campaign finance laws, but it certainly isn't a selfish move on his part.

  • WXYZ Dec 10, 2009

    Hmmmm.... Mayor Meeker is cartainly aware that the source of that money was private citizens. And maybe this is not the best way to get publicity. He must be very cautious in how he handles that money--especially when it goes into the hands of government employees; and, when it might be construed to be an attempt to influence other elected officials. I should think that donating the money to an approved and worthy charity would be looked upon much more favorably. Also, does this mean that he won't be trying to get re-elected?

  • whatelseisnew Dec 10, 2009

    It was particularly foolish to even have this event and it just shows the arrogance of people that occupy public office. Whether the economic times be good or bad, the public should not be paying for stuff like this, ever.
    As to the campaign funds being used, I prefer that over taxpayer funds being used, however, the laws around how these funds can be used needs to be tightened up. Put simply any expenditure has to be tied to a specific CAMPAIGN expense.

  • djofraleigh Dec 10, 2009

    We weren't happy with the tax payers paying out ten grand
    and we are not happy now with the campaign money paying 6 grand.
    Why not argue about the $3500

  • veyor Dec 10, 2009

    I'm all for it if it means he won't run again.

  • WHEEL Dec 10, 2009

    Where was Russell Allen when all this was going on?