© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.
MP3 file derived from WAV preservation master, which was derived from original analog cassettes.
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South.
An audio file with the interview complements this electronic edition.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar and spelling have been preserved.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as "
All em dashes are encoded as —
Transcript on deposit at The Southern Historical Collection, The Louis Round Wilson Library
Citation of this interview should be as follows:
“Interview
B-0067, in the Southern Oral History Program Collection #4007,
Southern
Historical Collection, The Wilson Library,
University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill”
Stanford Raynold Brookshire was born on July 22, 1905 in Troutman, North Carolina. He became a member of Charlotte's Chamber of Commerce in 1960, and later served as the city's mayor from 1961 to 1969. Brookshire held distinction as Charlotte's first four-term mayor. Throughout his political tenure, Brookshire espoused a moderate stance on racial conflicts. As a businessman, his political moderation developed in large part due to his interest in attracting businesses to the area. In this interview, Brookshire discusses his role and attitude toward the consolidation of the city of Charlotte with Mecklenburg County's public services. Although Charlotte and Mecklenburg consolidated their school systems in 1959, the merger of city and county services did not emerge until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Brookshire explains the objections to consolidation, including fears of over-broad representation, gerrymandering, increased county taxes, and rapid political change. To Brookshire, a broadened representation produced limitations on the administration of city services. He discusses how Charlotte differed sharply from the city-county consolidation of Jacksonville, Florida and Nashville, Tennessee. He maintains that unlike Jacksonville and Nashville, Charlotte exhibited efficient government that did not require a dramatic change in local governmental affairs. Because of these varied factors, Charlotte's and Mecklenburg's public services did not consolidate. Brookshire also briefly talks about the benefits of Charlotte's statewide statute to annex heavily populated areas.
Stanford Raynold Brookshire, Charlotte's first four-term mayor, explains why Charlotte and Mecklenburg County failed to consolidate their city services in the early 1970s.
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
Let me say for the benefit of the record that I'm Bill Moye and I'm talking with Mr. Stan Brookshire in his office in Charlotte on the 18th of August 1975. Let me say that I appreciate your taking the time, allowing me to talk with you a little bit. As far as your record, you were president of the Chamber, I guess, maybe in '58 or '59?
I was president of the Chamber in 1960.
1960. Then ran for mayor in 1961 (That's right) and then won four terms (Four elections.). You've been active in Dimensions for Charlotte Mecklenburg since then?
Yes. Well, not since then. The Dimensions for Charlotte Mecklenburg was started about two and a half, well, a little over two years ago, and I served the first two years as chairman and still hold corporate office. Dimensions was incorporated as a nonprofit organization and serving as president of the corporation, as I facetiously said to somebody, meant only that I had to see that we lived within our budget. Cliff Cameron, chairman of the board of First Union Corporation, is presently our chairman.
That's an interesting connection. He was chairman of the campaign committee for the consolidation.
Consolidation, that's right. A very civic-minded, very able man. Too bad that effort failed because he took that as something of a personal failure, I think. He shouldn't have.
He had been involved in some of the planning before. Hadn't
Yes. I believe he was on the Chamber committee that proposed the consolidation.
One question I have is why the attempt came up at that time. I seem to recall that it had been an idea that had sort of been around in the background and there had been a Chamber committee in maybe '63 or '64 which had done some studying on it. Then, all of a sudden there in '68-'69, sort of snowballs all of a sudden.
That's right. I believe that it was in '68, possibly '69, that the Chamber program of work for the year had that as one of the projected programs. You could check that with the record, of course.
Was there a particular crisis? Seems that, perhaps, the watersewer between the city-county might have had something to do with it?
No, really I don't think there was any such crisis. I'll add that if there had been it might have provided a better background for a successful effort.
You think that one problem in getting the consolidation was that you didn't have some particular problem that you could point to and say, "This is really a crisis for us, and we need to…"
I would say that the absence of any crisis, any real problem, or any
great dissatisfaction on the part of the citizens toward local
government…The absence of those things was largely
It went very extensively into just about every area, as I recall.
That's right.
That's one thing I'm wondering about. It seems that one interpretation might be that the Chamber started the idea but, once the Charter Commission actually got functioning, they went a good deal beyond, perhaps, what the Chamber would have liked to have seen.
They went beyond the simple means of consolidation to develop a reorganized, modernized version of local government that was just too different from what we had.
How did that happen? Were they, in some way, operating in sort of a void and were seeking, you might say, the perfect solution, the ideal solution?
To a considerable degree, yes. I think they were very idealistic in their
projections of the proposed new government. I think, perhaps, the broad
representation we had on the Charter Commis|sion
Now, as I recall, you were involved in appointing members to the Charter Commission.
That's right. Charlie Lowe, who was at that time chairman of the County Board of Commissioners, and I made the appointments, and we selected the chairman for the Charter Commission.
Mr. Pharr.
Right.
I wonder, why was it that you chose to go to this broadly representative commission? I mean, it seems like on other occasions in time of seeking a program or to come up with a solution, the approach has been a smaller, maybe a businessman or whatever primarily.
Well, it was simply an effort in democratic procedure to give various
segments of the community a voice in the preparation of the charter. It
didn't work too well. I would say that. I would also add
that, and you may or may not want to use this,
That, in a way, is why I was asking that. It seems that the group who wanted consolidation might have realized, before appointing such a broad commission, that by appointing such a broad commission you might open the door to getting beyond what they wanted into a sort of unworkable…
Well, I guess we just weren't wise enough or smart enough to see that. Didn't anticipate that. Back to the point I just made or the opinion that I expressed that pure democracy doesn't work, I'll illustrate that. During the hearings for the proposed goals for Charlotte Mecklenburg last May a year ago in one of the meetings which I attended, one man got up and proposed that one of the goals provide for a referendum on city and county budgets. That before adopting a city budget, for example, the City Council would hold a city-wide referendum to approve the proposed budget. That particular individual also wanted, after the adoption of such a budget, all expenditures of over $100, I believe he said, to be approved by referendum. Well, can you imagine…
You'd have a hard time.
The administration of city affairs would get stalled on the first referendum. But, that would be pure democracy if everybody had a right to say how the city money was to be spent under given budgets.
Something of an unworkable situation.
That's right.
Who were the strong…Were there individuals on the commission who were, you might say, stronger than others, more likely to get their views incorporated or to lead the others around to their way…
I never attended any of their meetings. Well, I did, too. I testified before the Charter Commission once or twice. I don't believe I can answer that question specifically. I'm under the impression that when they were debating any given matter relating to the reorganized government, after discussions, they would take a vote, and a majority out of that commission carried. It was a simple majority.
You reckon anybody had special interests or axes to grind? In other words, were some of the sort of social implications involved in the number of districts and some of the guarantee of fair…
Definitely. I think that did have an important part. For example, I'm sure that our black citizens were much concerned with the districting to be sure that the weight of their total votes wouldn't be wasted. That some of the districts would be set up so that representatives from those districts most certainly would be black.
As I recall, the proposed charter pretty much guaranteed there would be three districts or representatives on the council from…
The black neighborhoods.
You think that that's part of the reason that the district representation became such a controversy during the…
Yes. I think that was primarily the reason. Then, of course, there was always the argument against district representation that we might be getting back to the old ward system, you know. Where people, representatives elected from given districts would swap out on a lot of issues. "You vote for me on this. I'll vote for you on that."
That sort of argument…I wonder if there's the possibility that some of these slogans like "going back to the ward system" or complaining so much about gerrymandered districts or things along this line were sort of code words in a way involved with the school busing situation to sort of keep the agitation about black representation or black influence or whatever alive in the community and take advantage, perhaps, of the emotions…
I'm certain that played a part. Yes. The blacks at that time, and you can understand why because of the progress that had been made in providing blacks with equal rights and opportunities as citizens which is nothing but what we should have done…It was legal. It was moral to grant them those petitions in those regards. They began feeling they had gained a lot of ground, and they just wanted to make some more ground with this matter of representation in local government.
I'm wondering…Were there arguments which perhaps
the people who were supporting consolidation could have made? It
I don't know. Of course, looking backwards, it's probably easier to tell what we should have done than it was at that time to tell what we should do.
Monday-morning quarterbacks…
Monday-morning quarterbacking is quite an easy job. But, still, I think that perhaps the major reason the effort failed was that the people were too well satisfied with the honest government and, I think, rather efficient local government we had. No complaints, serious complaints about the form of city and county governments, and people didn't want to swap the known for the unknown.
Was this effort for consolidation, then, sort of a next step sort of thing? A number of things had been achieved, mergers of functions one way or another, and this just seemed to be sort of a logical next step.
I think that's right. I believe there was and there still is a feeling that any over-lapping services ought to be resolved and that either the county or the city ought to be given total responsibilities in those over-lapping areas. We have succeeded in consolidating a great many functions of local governments, and that may be the way we will eventually arrive at consolidation.
Well, just who was pushing…Who was really behind… I know that the Chamber had established a committee, and Dr. Martin was chairman of a committee, and Mr. Griffith was chairman of a committee. Who was really behind this push for consolidation? In the end, it seemed to be a very few people, in a way, when it came down to a vote. Who was really behind? If there wasn't a crisis, and a lot of people seemed pretty well satisfied, who was really behind the push in the first place? Did they, to some extent, were they dissatisfied with what had resulted from their initiation?
Well, I would guess it was largely the officers and the board of the Chamber of Commerce who were primarily interested in consolidation. Even so, I know that there were some members of that political-economic group who thought that the proposed charter was just too elaborate, too involved. Even some of them who gave lipservice to it didn't care whether it passed or didn't. Did or didn't pass.
I know there in December, just shortly before the vote, there was a Chamber committee came out recommending a number of changes, especially in the representation.
I believe that's right, but I don't believe the Charter Commission gave any heed at all to those recommendations, as I remember.
I wonder sort of how that could be. I mean, it seems that a
They've very definitely given a lot of leadership to progressive measures in this community for which it has received small thanks from a great many people. I would account for that on the basis that the Chamber, in the minds of most people, the average voter, is the establishment or represents the establishment. It is that bit of jealousy, antagonism, you name it. Just natural personal opposition in a lot of quarters to the establishment.
I wonder…I mean, since a lot of the officers or whatnot of the Chamber have been so important, just how it happened this sort of got out of hand on them? Did other interests sort of divert their attention while the commission was making or at least recommending all these changes? Seemed to be in a way a losw of communication between those who had been instrumental in making decisions and this group that was proposing some new…
Well, I guess it was just that the Chamber officials, the board itself
and the officers, just didn't back this thing as
enthusiastically as they might have if this proposal had been of a more
modest nature, if it been a more simple merger rather than a completely
rebuilt structure. I think that a lot of proponents
That seems to be…That's, you know, sort of one… That's what I sort of see. It seems that the Chamber initiated the idea, and then the commission was established, got out of hand, and a lot of those who had initiated the idea rejected the recommendation, and the charter went down to defeat. Maybe these times are such that one looks for this sort of thing, I don't know. A lot of people look for conspiratorial designs behind…
I don't think it was that, no. Again I come back to the placid attitude of citizens locally, satisfaction with local government. If you study the consolidation efforts which succeeded in Nashville and Jacksonville, you'll find they had some real problems. They had the citizenry at large up in arms. There in Nashville, for example, and they don't have the sort of liberal annexation state statutes that we have that permit the city to take in suburbs as they were established, they were having a flight of wealthy people from the core city moving into suburbs. They were county residents only, out of the city and beyond the reach of the tax collectors.
Yet, they still wanted the streets, and the sewers, and the schools, and whatnot.
That's right. They still wanted Nashville to be a progressive,
growing city, and, yet, they weren't supporting it with their
taxes. That was the big thing in that consolidation, I think,
As I recall, several of the city commissioners or whatever had been indicted by the grand jury.
They had. Here in Charlotte, there was none of that sort of thing. People just weren't concerned with swapping local government for something else that was so involved. Maybe a lot of them didn't clearly understand it. Maybe a lot of them had their fears that were groundless as far as that's concerned but they thought "We've got what's been good, sound, honest government. We're getting along okay. We haven't any particular problems. Why swap what we've got, what we know works, for something that may or may not work as well?"
I remember from reading a bit on the Jacksonville consolidation and one
or two people here in Charlotte have commented, too, that perhaps a
mistake that was made…Seems that in Jacksonville, they had
organized pretty cohesively before the …I forgot what they
called the charter commission. I believe it was the Local Government
Study Commission…Before they'd actually started
work, you might say, they had organized a good deal of support and had
gotten their war chest up, as it were,
I don't know. We had sent delegations, of course, to both
Jacksonville and Nashville to study their consolidation efforts and the
results. I think those who went to both cities were convinced that a
single government was the ideal government for a county like Mecklenburg
that had two-thirds, three-fourths of its population, I guess, within
the city limits. Well, let me tell you where some other opposition to it
came also. The five small towns, incorporated towns in Mecklenburg were
not enthusiastic at all about consolidation. They thought they might
lose their own identity even though there was provision that
they'd continue to, they could continue to operate as
corporate cities. Then, too, the rural voters in Mecklenburg County felt
There was an urban services district and sort of a county services district. The idea was you'd be paying comensurate with the services that you…
That's right, but maybe that wasn't explained carefully enough, or wasn't sold, at least.
One question that arises, too, I guess…Since a lot of this, the voting came up and aglot of the discussion came up during the school busing uproar…
That had something to do with it, the psychology of the situation, no doubt.
I'm wondering…The question was at least proposed anyway to postpone the vote, postpone the referendum on consolidation in hopes that the atmosphere and the agitation and all would improve, calm down, or whatever. Allow for a more reasoned…
Then, too, we spoke of this a little while ago, over the years,
particularly in the last fifteen years, we had been able to allocate
services and taxes between city and county somewhat
Double taxation.
The man out in the county is only paying once. The city tax-payer is paying twice. Those inequities have got to be resolved one way or another, and, of course, one way is to see that
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE A]
[START OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
consolidation was one of our first major consolidations. That was
accomplished on the basis that everybody, child, in the county
You think that, to some extent, the success of some of these mergers and cooperations and the desire, perhaps, for more… You think there will be another attempt at consolidation?
Not in the foreseeable future. The failure of the, what was it, '71, referendum…That set back any efforts to consolidate for a long time.
You feel mainly that the fatal flaw in that attempt was that the Charter Commission just recommended so many wideranging, so very thorough, almost a complete new form of government?
Recommended too much for the people to buy.
It seems…You don't buy any sort of conspiracy? I mean, the idea has occured that perhaps that there were some people who realised that maybe the talk of consolidation was going to come up. So, perhaps, they said, "Well, we'll let them try to get consolidation. Probably figuring they're going to fail. Then…Now, we want those people out there in the suburbs. Annexation is really what we want. So, we'll let them try and fall on their face with consolidation. We'll sort of give some lip-service to it. Then, we'll hit those in the suburbs and the perimeter with annexation."
I don't believe that's true. I think our annexations have come about since 1959 under the new state statute that allows a city, a City Council to annex any given area that has become urban in fact. Incidently, that's one of the finest state statutes you'll find in any one of the fifty states. It's been pointed out as being the finest by the U. S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities.
Both of which organizations you've been involved in yourself.
That's right.
Thank you.
You're certainly welcome. It's a pleasure to talk with you.
I appreciate the time, and, again, like I say, I'm sorry about last week. I will transcribe this and send you a copy.
Alright. Good. If I see any errors in the way I've stated some things…
END OF INTERVIEW