The Mayor, The Contractor, and The “Sticky” Dinners; A Case Study in Cary’s Ethics Problem
Cary Mayor Harold Weinbrecht, a paid consultant for engineering firm WithersRavenel, which does business with Cary’s government, invited top town staff to company-funded dinners.
In September 2023, Cary Mayor Harold Weinbrecht sat down at his computer to perform a task for his private employer, the engineering firm WithersRavenel. Using email, he extended invitations from the firm to top Cary town staff, including the former Town Manager, for dinners at an Asian fusion restaurant and an upscale steakhouse in Austin, Texas during an International City/County Management Association (ICMA) conference.
The mayor was acting as a conduit for a gift from a government contractor to the very officials who administer that contractor’s work, likely including himself. This act, revealed through public records and the mayor’s admissions, presents a direct challenge to North Carolina law.
The Invitation and The Law
The facts, as reported by The News & Observer, are straightforward;
Who; Mayor Harold Weinbrecht, a paid consultant for WithersRavenel since 2023, earning roughly $60,000 in fees.
What; He invited the Town Manager and assistant town managers to two company-hosted dinners via email on September 26, 2023.
Why; The stated goal, in the mayor’s own words, was for WithersRavenel “to invite attendees to dinner to further our relationships”.
This scenario triggers a clear North Carolina statute, G.S. 133-32. This law prohibits municipal officials involved in contracting from accepting “anything of value” from a contractor that currently works for the town, has worked for it within the past year or anticipates future work. Dinners are explicitly considered gifts under this law.
The violation is a misdemeanor for both the giver and the recipients.
Requirements of G.S. 133-32; Application to the Cary Case
The “Giver” is a Contractor; WithersRavenel has an extensive, active contracting history with Cary, including major infrastructure projects.
The “Gift” is Something of Value; Dinners paid for by the company constitute a gift of value.
The Recipient is a Covered Official; The Town Manager, assistant managers and the mayor himself are precisely the officials who “administer contracts” for the town.
No Valid Exception Applies; The dinners were for small groups (under 20), not the large, open “banquets” or widely attended gatherings that state law may allow.
A Web of Entanglement and a Weak Defense
The dinner invitations are not an isolated incident but a symptom of a deeper entanglement. Mayor Weinbrecht’s consulting role with a major town vendor creates a perpetual conflict of interest. Government ethics experts universally warn such employment relationships can interfere with an official’s duty to act in the public’s best interest and must be managed with extreme transparency and recusal.
The mayor’s defense has been lacking. He called questions about conflicts “insulting” and later claimed he was merely filling empty seats at the last minute. This contradicts his emails, sent four days before the conference, proactively inviting staff to “one or both” of the pre-scheduled dinners.
Sherri Zann Rosenthal, a former Durham deputy city attorney, summarized the core problem; “Part of that stickiness is that the town manager knows his or her job depends on keeping the good favor of the mayor”. The power dynamic itself corrupts the independence of the staff and the integrity of the contracting process.
A Public Blueprint for Entanglement
Months before the dinner invitations in Austin, Mayor Weinbrecht’s dual roles had already been presented on a public stage. On May 17, 2023, he participated in a webinar hosted by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) titled “Asset Management and Stormwater Master Planning.”
The presentation was led by David Perry, a Senior Stormwater Project Manager for WithersRavenel. The official description of the event is telling; it lists the participants as “WithersRavenel’s... Jon Mills, along with Town of Cary Mayor Harold Weinbrecht, who is also a local government asset management specialist.”
This is not a minor detail. It is a clear, date-stamped record that shows;
The Formalization of the Conflict; Months prior to the ICMA conference, Weinbrecht was publicly appearing in a hybrid capacity, using the credibility of his elected office (“Town of Cary Mayor”) to bolster his and his employer’s standing as experts for state government audiences.
Leveraging Public Office for Private Benefit; The webinar was a business development and marketing activity for WithersRavenel, aimed at municipal clients across North Carolina and beyond. Weinbrecht’s presence as Mayor inherently endorsed the firm to other public officials.
The Established Pattern; This evidence dismantles any notion that the later dinner invitations were an isolated lapse. It reveals a sustained practice of merging his public identity with his private financial interest, effectively using the former to advance the latter.
This webinar is the crucial link that transforms the timeline from a series of questionable events into a demonstrable pattern of conduct. It proves that by the time he extended the dinner invitations in September, Mayor Weinbrecht was already deeply engaged in promoting his paying client under the banner of his official title.
Illegal Lobbying?
A search of the North Carolina Secretary of State’s official database shows that Harold Weinbrecht is not registered as a lobbyist. This absence is legally significant. State law, under Chapter 120C of the North Carolina General Statutes defines lobbying broadly. It includes not only direct attempts to influence legislation but also the act of “developing goodwill” through communications and relationship-building with the intention of influencing government action. Individuals who engage in such activities on behalf of a paying client must register as a lobbyist within one business day. The Mayor’s own description of his work for WithersRavenel, attending conferences “to interact with as many attendees as possible” and facilitating dinners to “further our relationships” with public officials, appears to align closely with this statutory definition of developing goodwill to influence future decisions.
If these activities were undertaken with the intent to benefit WithersRavenel’s business with state government entities, they may have triggered the legal requirement to register. The consequences for failing to do so are not merely administrative. Willfully lobbying without registration is a Class 1 misdemeanor under state law.
The Legal Standards for Prohibited Voting
If Mayor Weinbrecht voted on or approved appropriations for contracts for WithersRavenel immediately before or after his employment began, he would likely face a far more serious and clear-cut potential violation of North Carolina state law.
Evidence of voting or direct administrative approval for ongoing funding would move the allegations from concerning “appearances” (like the dinners) to the core of anti-corruption law. It would provide the clearest basis for a formal complaint to a district attorney or the state attorney general’s office, as it directly involves a public official’s financial self-interest.
A sitting mayor being hired by a firm after it secures major contracts from his town creates a powerful appearance of a quid pro quo and triggers specific legal prohibitions.
North Carolina law is designed to prevent exactly this scenario. It prohibits a public official from participating in or influencing a government contract if they have a “direct personal or financial interest” in it. If Weinbrecht voted on or influenced the awarding of the Downtown Cary Park or other contracts to WithersRavenel in 2022, and was then hired by them in 2023, it creates the appearance that the official action was taken in anticipation of or in exchange for future private employment, a classic “revolving door” concern, even if the hire was not formally agreed upon at the time of the vote. Once his paid consultancy began in 2023, any subsequent advocacy, vote, budget appropriation or administrative action that benefited WithersRavenel’s existing Cary contracts would be a direct violation. His financial interest in the firm’s success is clear, and participating in any matter affecting that interest is prohibited (G.S. § 14-234 & § 160A-75).
Timeline;
The Foundation is Laid (Oct 2022): WithersRavenel wins major public contracts, establishing itself as a key town vendor.
The Conflict is Created (2023): The sitting mayor, who presided over the town that awarded those contracts, becomes a paid employee of the vendor.
The “Gifts” Occur (Sept 2023): The mayor then acts as a conduit for that vendor to give gifts to town staff who manage the contracts. This act now appears as part of an ongoing, improper relationship rather than an isolated incident.
Did Mayor Weinbrecht participate in any official action regarding WithersRavenel contracts after his employment began in 2023?
At a moment when public scrutiny of Cary’s government is arguably at its highest, with the North Carolina State Auditor conducting a preliminary review and the Town Council having hired the law firm Womble Bond Dickinson for an internal investigation, the town’s online portal for accessing key public records like meeting agendas and minutes is simultaneously unavailable due to “vendor technical difficulties”. The timing is notable, as these formal inquiries were prompted by citizen concerns over spending, including a councilmember’s tuition payments and the former town manager’s costly hotel stay. The coincidence of these overlapping probes with a technical barrier to public oversight has not gone unnoticed.
Related;
This article is based on a review of public records, published reports, legal statutes, and statements from public officials. The allegations and analyses presented concern matters of public interest and governance. They are published in good faith for the purpose of informing public debate. The Town of Cary, Mayor Harold Weinbrecht, and WithersRavenel are invited to provide any response or correction, which will be included promptly and with equal prominence.