OIBI AI-generated editorial illustration of two binders representing the 2024 and 2026 Town Manager searches. Not a photograph of actual Town records or Council proceedings.
By Oak Island–Brunswick Independent
When Oak Island announced its new Town Manager in July 2026, the Town described maintaining a transparent search process as a top priority. Its public updates listed applications received, interviews underway and the final appointment. OIBI compared that record with Oak Island’s previous Town Manager search in 2024. Both required Council to evaluate individual candidates, but the opportunities for residents to observe and participate in the process surrounding those confidential evaluations were substantially different.
2024: Developing the Town Manager Search in Public
On January 24, 2024, the previous Town Council devoted a substantial portion of a public retreat to “New Town Manager – Staging for Success.” Council publicly discussed Oak Island’s future and developed the skills, experience and personal characteristics it wanted in its next manager. The meeting record identified leadership, team building, environmental and shoreline commitment, financial acumen, project and operations management, integrity, strategic thinking, collaboration, communication, accountability and staff retention among the desired characteristics. Council also discussed how the recruitment should work, including whether to use a professional search firm, whether the search should be regional or national, how interviews should be conducted and whether citizens and Town employees should help develop the manager profile. Council agreed to seek public input. The Town subsequently invited residents, property owners and business owners to public input sessions. In its March 4 newsletter, the Town confirmed that five public sessions and two staff sessions had been held before Council finalized the desired manager profile. The result was a public record showing not only what Council wanted in its next manager, but how those priorities were developed, with an opportunity for community participation.
2026: Qualifications Published, Deliberations Largely Out of Public View
The 2026 search followed a different public path. The Town advertised the position through recruitment channels and published desired qualifications for prospective candidates. Those materials told applicants and residents what the Town ultimately sought, but OIBI has not located a comparable open Council discussion showing how those qualifications were developed or what community priorities shaped them. The public record instead documents a series of special meetings involving closed personnel sessions. On June 12, the Town announced special meetings for June 16, June 18 and June 19 specifically for closed sessions concerning personnel. On June 26, the Town reported that more than 50 applications had been received and reviewed, first-round interviews had occurred during the previous two weeks, and second interviews were being scheduled. Additional personnel sessions followed on July 6 and July 7. On July 23, Council met again in special session, with the agenda identifying potential land acquisition and specific personnel for closed-session discussion. After returning to open session, Council publicly voted unanimously to hire Katherine Cathey as Town Manager. The public announcement identified the selection, but the information released at that meeting did not explain Council’s comparative evaluation of the candidates.
The number of candidates who advanced through the interview process is another detail not included in the Town’s public updates. OIBI requested existing records showing how many applicants received initial interviews, advanced to a second round and participated in any later rounds, without seeking names or confidential personnel information. In a September 3 response, the Town said no document had been created listing the number interviewed. Following a narrower request dated October 7, the Town gave the same explanation for the remaining figures, including the total number of interview rounds: no document listing those totals existed, and the Town was not required to create one to answer a public-records request. North Carolina’s public-records law generally does not require an agency to create a record that does not exist. The response does not establish that the Town withheld existing records or acted improperly; it means the requested numbers were not available through the records request. Whether Council should routinely share such non-identifying information during future searches remains a separate question.
The 2026 record therefore provides several points along the timeline — recruitment, applications, interviews, special meetings and final selection — while providing considerably less public information about the deliberative process connecting those points.
What the Comparison Shows
The contrast between the two searches extends beyond how Council developed the desired qualifications. In 2024, Council agreed to seek community input and held listening sessions for residents, property owners, businesses and staff. OIBI has not located a comparable opportunity for public participation in the 2026 search. That difference helps define the transparency question. The 2024 process gave residents opportunities both to observe Council’s discussion about what Oak Island needed in its next manager and to provide input before the search moved forward. The 2026 process provided residents with the qualifications ultimately advertised, notices that special meetings were occurring, updates on the progress of the search and the final selection, but considerably less opportunity to observe or participate in the development of the process itself. North Carolina law permits governing boards to discuss qualifying personnel matters in closed session and protects confidential applicant information. Nothing in this comparison establishes that Council’s use of closed sessions violated state law or that the 2026 Council failed to carefully evaluate the candidates. The issue is narrower: How much could the public see and participate in the process surrounding those confidential evaluations? Public notice tells residents when government is acting. Recruitment materials tell them what qualifications were ultimately established. Public deliberation and community participation can additionally show residents how and why their elected representatives reached those decisions.
Why It Matters
The Town Manager administers Oak Island’s day-to-day operations and implements the policies set by Town Council. How Council chooses that official is therefore a matter of public interest, even though individual applicants’ information is confidential. The 2024 search showed that public discussion about the hiring process and confidential candidate evaluations can take place within the same recruitment effort.
A Path Forward
OIBI has not located a Town-adopted framework establishing how future Town Manager searches should address public information, Council deliberation and opportunities for community participation. The differences between the 2024 and 2026 searches raise a practical question: Should Oak Island establish such a framework before the next vacancy occurs? A Council-adopted framework could establish expectations for the public-facing portions of a Town Manager search while preserving the confidentiality required for individual applicants. It could address public review of the manager profile and community priorities, communication of the general recruitment and interview process, reporting of non-identifying information such as the number of candidates advancing through interview stages, and documentation of Council’s final action. Residents could also help shape that framework. Rather than creating another committee, Council could use a questionnaire or public survey asking residents what information they expect to receive and what opportunities for participation they consider appropriate during a future Town Manager search. Council could consider those responses while retaining its authority and responsibility for the hiring decision. Such a framework would not dictate whom a future Council should hire or prevent Council from adapting a search to its circumstances. It would establish expectations for public information and participation before the next vacancy occurs while preserving Council’s discretion over the recruitment and selection process. The comparison between the two searches therefore offers an opportunity to look forward: identify which practices provide useful public visibility, ask residents what they expect from the process, and determine whether those practices should become part of a standing framework for future Town Manager selections.