LELAND — A legal investigation into Councilmember Frank Pendleton’s attempt to expedite a town-purchased laptop has concluded no laws were broken, though official Leland town policies were violated, sparking a contentious special meeting after the report was presented to council.
Detailed in a legal advisory opinion by Town Attorney Stephen Coggins, the investigation determined Pendleton bypassed standard procurement procedures in January 2026. Pendleton claimed he reached out to a vendor to inquire about his laptop purchase, placed by the town; however, only certain staff members have that authority, thus triggering the investigation.
READ MORE: ‘Blindsided’: Leland council member takes heat for allegedly breaking purchasing protocol
The advisory — presented to council and the public at a March 18 special meeting — recommends formally updating finance policies to explicitly prohibit elected officials from interfering in the purchasing process and prevent similar confusion in the future.
At Thursday’s special called meeting, Pendleton explained how the incident unfolded in February and stated he was not aware of details of the procurement process. However, Coggins wrote in the report that Pendleton attended a Dec. 30, 2025 councilmember onboarding session where finance director Carly Hagg detailed how items are purchased.
The procurement policy follows an administrative chain of command. Once council approves a budget item — in this case, the laptop order — the finance department issues a formal purchase order or contract with a vendor. Any modification to the agreement is considered a change order, approved exclusively by the town manager and finance director.
Pendleton thought he was being unfairly portrayed by council and town officials at the meeting, stating he was “convicted in the court of public opinion” and the situation was an attempt to tarnish his reputation.
“I feel strongly that the people of the town of Leland are smarter than the town manager believes them to be,” Pendleton said at the meeting. “I believe that many people in this town see this as a vindictive attempt to attack me personally and discredit me with the voters of this community.”
Council believed he could have handled the situation better and expressed as much during the hour-and-a-half meeting.
The backstory and attorney’s report
The laptop kerfuffle began on Jan. 12, 2026, when council approved the purchase of a custom laptop for the newly elected council member. By Jan. 20, Pendleton began contacting the vendor directly to inquire about delivery, frustrated with a 13-week delay. Over the next week, Pendleton and the vendor exchanged multiple communications regarding canceling the original order in favor of a faster “off-the-shelf” substitute, with Pendleton instructing the vendor on Jan. 27 to “confirm with me first” before involving town IT staff in the new order.
The process was halted Jan. 29 when Town Manager David Hollis learned of the unauthorized contact and intervened, eventually prompting council to call for Coggins’ investigation at a Feb. 9 special meeting.
The investigation included interviews with town staff and representatives from laptop vendor DHE Computer Systems, plus a review of relevant documentation. It concluded Pendleton’s actions did not violate North Carolina criminal or civil laws. Coggins noted no town funds were ever spent, no unauthorized contract was finalized, and no “meeting of the minds” between the vendor and Pendleton regarding a specific purchase ever took place.
Coggins’ report further clarified any “conceivable risk” of a legal violation was removed when Hollis intervened. Hollis instructed DHE Computer Systems to cease all communication with Pendleton and informed the vendor they were only to take direction from authorized town staff. Hollis further directed the vendor not to process any substitute hardware orders initiated by the councilmember.
Had the process continued without intervention, Coggins warned the councilmember’s actions could have created an unauthorized or unwritten contract, potentially triggering a state auditor investigation and scrutiny under state laws governing the protection of public funds. Statute 159-181(a) indicates any board member who knowingly approves an unauthorized payment can be charged with a misdemeanor and held personally liable for the funds. Additionally, bypassing administrative procedures could be viewed as a “willful omission” of official duties, a violation of statute 14-230.
Coggins emphasized in the report the violation wasn’t just about the laptop, but about Leland’s council-manager form of government. In Leland, council sets policy, but the town manager and staff handle all administrative tasks, including procurement. The rule mandates any modification to a purchase order be handled exclusively by the finance director or town manager to ensure equipment meets the town’s specific technical and security standards.
The report included guidance from the UNC School of Government, which warns when elected officials intervene directly in operational matters, it can confuse staff, weaken accountability, waste time and resources, and undermine coordinated plans.
When the original order was canceled due to the unauthorized communication, staff’s work was essentially rendered useless. Coggins noted DHE Computer Systems has a significant history with the town — including a September 2025 contract for 187 hardware devices — and was reportedly confused by the councilmember’s instructions to bypass the IT director and confirm changes with him directly.
Ultimately, the investigation concluded with no formal repercussions for Pendleton. Instead of discipline, Coggins suggested the town formally update its finance policies to include language clearly prohibiting elected officials from interfering in the purchasing process, referring to the incident as a “learning opportunity.”
He noted the current rule is not sufficiently clear in how it applies to elected officials, as it was written primarily for staff and lacks explicit guidance outlining boundaries for the mayor and council.
As of March 18, Pendleton has not received a town-issued laptop. The town’s original purchase order remains canceled, and a new order has not been processed.
Council responds
Coggins briefly explained the summary of his report to council and agreed to put its meeting on the laptop issue to rest.
Councilmember Veronica Carter made a motion directing the town attorney to consult the Local Government Commission on clarifying the town’s procurement policy for elected officials. It was unanimously approved.
However, when Mayor Brenda Bozeman initially made a motion to adjourn, Pendleton asked for time to make comments regarding the report.
The discussion quickly devolved into sharp disagreements.
Pendleton stated the town attorney’s report was not entirely factual. Specifically, he took issue with Coggins’ use of the word “expedite” in regards to his intention for reaching out to the vendor.
“I did feel that the 13-week lead time was excessive,” Pendleton said. “However, I did not contact the vendor to ‘expedite’ the delivery. I called to verify the timeline and determine whether the information I was given was accurate.”
Pendleton alleged conflicting information had been provided to him by either the vendor or town staff regarding the delivery timeline. He said he was told by staff about the 13-week delay, though he said the vendor later indicated a two- to four-week timeline.
“Someone was lying — either the town manager or the vendor,” Pendleton said.
Despite Pendleton still talking, council members and Bozeman interrupted him, the latter continuing an attempt to adjourn.
Pendleton didn’t relent. He said the vendor later contacted him to offer an alternative, off-the-shelf laptop but maintained he did not request a substitution. Nor did he intend for the original order to be canceled.
He concluded by asking Hollis to reinstate the original laptop purchase order and to be “exonerated” from the town’s investigation.
Mayor Pro Tem Bob Campbell was the first to respond: “I absolutely agree somebody here was lying. And in my opinion, just from what I read, it sounds more like you.”
The room quickly grew contentious, with members of the audience and council raising voices and speaking over one another, as Bozeman struck the gavel to call the room into order.
Councilmembers Carter and Leland Hyer questioned Pendleton’s choice to not raise his concerns about the laptop through proper channels or involve town staff in communications with the vendor.
“What would have the harm been just saying: ‘Mr. Hollis, I’m having this conversation. They’re telling me this’?” Hyer asked.
Carter thought the situation could have been avoided altogether, had Pendleton directed concerns about the laptop’s delivery timeline to staff earlier.
Pendleton responded he had lost trust in the information he was receiving from Hollis.
“It seems like every time this comes up, everybody’s lying, Frank,” Hyer said.
Bozeman interjected, calling for a 5-minute recess. She left the room with Pendleton and Hollis for roughly 40 minutes.
Upon returning, Bozeman stated: “That was longer than five minutes, but it was important that we had some discussions in the back, me and Mr. Pendleton and Mr. Hollis.”
When the meeting resumed, it was unclear what was discussed during the recess, but the mood among the board was noticeably calmer. Bozeman made another motion to adjourn, seconded by Pendleton and unanimously approved.
Have tips or suggestions for Charlie Fossen? Email [email protected]
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.
