LELAND — A dispute over a laptop purchase has prompted Leland Town Council to seek a legal opinion on whether a sitting council member overstepped his authority.
During a Feb. 9 special meeting that turned heated, council voted 4-1 — Frank Pendleton dissenting — to authorize Town Attorney Steve Coggins to open an investigation into a potential breach of state fiscal laws. Pendleton allegedly bypassed administrative staff to order a laptop directly from a vendor, which has drawn criticism from the town manager, David Hollis.
READ MORE: As Leland growth surges, officials organize overhaul of zoning, development rules
ALSO: DMV office opens in Brunswick County
Council called a special meeting late last week after receiving an email from Hollis detailing the allegations of potential misconduct. Though it only lasted 20 minutes, the meeting turned contentious as a vocal crowd of about 100 residents frequently interrupted proceedings. Mayor Brenda Bozeman was forced to call order multiple times after shouts of “Frank, we’ve got your back” and “the council does not respect any of us” came from the gallery. At one point, Bozeman told the audience to “hush” intending to quiet the room.
Other residents called for “respect” during the council meeting, which led to a wave of disagreement among the crowd.
At the top of the meeting, Bozeman directed the town attorney to read an email into the record that she said was sent from Hollis to council members “a few days ago.” Hollis’ email detailed a timeline alleging Pendleton “unilaterally injected” himself into the purchasing process by contacting a vendor’s corporate office directly to cancel a town order. The town manager said Pendleton should have gone through staff instead to follow the town’s “finance policy and procedure.”
According to the email, town staff initiated a laptop order for Pendleton on Jan. 16, following standard purchasing procedure. The vendor said it would take 13 weeks to complete the order. Hollis alleged Pendleton later contacted the vendor’s corporate office directly, found the delivery timeline unacceptable, and instructed a sales associate to cancel the original order in favor of an alternate, in-stock product.
“The unilateral injection of the council person into the procurement process raises serious policy and potential legal concerns,” Coggins read from Hollis’ email.
Hollis’ statement clarified the town’s finance policy grants purchasing authority exclusively to the town manager rather than individual council members. By reportedly contacting a vendor to cancel an authorized order and request an alternate product, Pendleton is accused of circumventing the rules.
Legal concerns regarding the laptop procurement center on potential violations of North Carolina’s fiscal laws, which require official authorization before a town can promise to pay for any specific item. Known as a pre-audit, the step is mandatory and legally locks in taxpayer funds for a particular purchase order. By allegedly swapping the order for a different product without a new sign-off or council vote, Pendleton is accused of breaking the chain-of-command. If the switch had gone undiscovered, the mismatch between the authorized purchase and the device received could have resulted in a violation during an audit.
Pendleton stated to Port City Daily he only contacted the vendor after being told the laptop would take months to arrive. He added a chain-of-command for purchases had not been outlined during orientation, which took place at the end of 2025 after he was sworn into office in December. Pendleton maintained he was acting in the interest of efficiency, not attempting to bypass protocols.
Pendleton characterized the proceedings as an attempt to be embarrassed “in front of the town” and claimed he was “blindsided” by the allegations.
“I didn’t think I was breaking any rules,” Pendleton said, adding he never identified himself to the vendor as a council member. “I gave my name and asked who the account manager was … I thought 13 plus weeks on the lead time was unreasonable.”
According to Pendleton, he requested the laptop to ensure he could access town records — specifically previous year’s budgets — and conduct town business on a dedicated, secure device. Municipalities often discourage the use of personal devices for governmental business due to cybersecurity concerns.
Mayor Bozeman emphasized the need for a professional review to protect the town’s reputation if a violation did occur: “We do not want any black marks when it comes to the state and we just need to find out, is this a black mark or not?”
Audience members responded with dissatisfaction, one exclaiming: “You’re all black marks” to council.
Council member Veronica Carter specified Coggins must gather all documentation to determine if Pendleton’s actions followed town policy or state law. She added the results of Coggins’ investigation must be presented in an open session to comply with state law.
Council members Leland Hyer and Bob Campbell did not speak during the session.
Ultimately, council voted to instruct Coggins to gather all relevant information and documentation regarding the attempted laptop purchase and render his legal opinion on the matter. Port City Daily reached out to town staff to clarify the scope of Coggins’ investigation and what actions council would be permitted to take if Pendleton is found in violation. A response was not received by press.
The tension between Pendleton and the town’s administration is not a new development. During his 2025 campaign, Pendleton frequently targeted incumbents and the town manager, describing the town’s decision-making process as “planned theater.” He campaigned on a promise to bring “professional accountability” to town hall, specifically signaling an intent to scrutinize the town’s budget.
Pendleton also argued Monday the town’s own adherence to protocol should be questioned. He challenged the legality of the special meeting and queried whether town staff made an error about properly publicizing the event.
Under North Carolina’s Open Meetings Law, a special meeting requires a 48-hour notice posted at a bulletin board or the door of the usual meeting room for public transparency. Pendleton alleged this requirement was not met, stating the town hall doors from Saturday and Sunday did not show the required meeting notice.
“Do you see it on the door now?” he asked Port City Daily after the meeting, though the flyer was not present on the front doors of town hall.
During the meeting, Bozeman countered Pendleton’s allegations, stating “the notice was put on the door” after she said she signed it last week.
Pendleton said he was willing to proceed with the meeting despite the alleged error, but insisted on his right to refute accusations made in Hollis’ email in an open session. Because the matter involved the conduct of an elected official, state law requires the discussion to be held in public. Pendleton did not counter at Monday’s meeting, but indicated he would offer a full rebuttal once the results of Coggins’ investigation come to light.
Beyond the laptop dispute, Pendleton is alleging a broader pattern of administrative obstruction from town staff. He stated he has been informed by Hollis he is “not allowed to communicate with the staff, any of the employees, or any of the department heads” without Hollis present. The town manager is empowered to oversee all day-to-day operations and staff directives; however, Pendleton argues this hampers his ability to perform legislative oversight.
“He [Hollis] would be the conduit and all information must flow to him and from him,” Pendleton said.
The council member further alleged when he enters town hall for non-public business, he is met at the door by staff and escorted throughout the building.
Port City Daily asked town staff whether there is an escort policy for elected officials in the town hall. The piece will be updated upon response.
Have tips or suggestions for Charlie Fossen? Email charlie@localdailymedia.com
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.
We appreciate your ongoing support.
