When voters in Wake County sent word to the School Board and School System that they wanted change we are not sure what they expected, but they got a double barrel blast Tuesday night at the first meeting of the newly-elected Wake Board.

In rapid-fire succession the new board elected a new chair, did away with Wacky Wednesdays (Yea!) and pretty quickly let it be known there was a new sheriff in town and the new gang wanted change.

Reaction to the board’s actions was immediate and, at least in the media, was negative. News and Observer columnist Ruth Sheehan and NC Policy Watch head  Chris Fitzsimons  blasted the board for their actions.

Time will tell whether the new board is better than the old, but here are the cold, hard facts in this situation. Power is hardly ever generously and freely given. It is most always taken. Further, this new board had obviously studied and knew that if they wanted to make change, real change, they had to do it quickly and they could not telegraph their plans. Incumbent board members, teachers, administrators, the media and some sectors of the public may want to complain that this group didn’t adequately warn the public what was to happen, but as former House Speaker Joe Mavretic asked us, what would have happened if they had given advance notice of the changes they wanted to make? It is almost assured that they would never have been able to get changes made.

Mavretic knows these lessons well. He led the revolt against powerful House Speaker Liston Ramsey and his chief Lieutenant Billy Watkins. As Mavretic says, if he and his leaders had publicly informed Ramsey and his cadre of supporters (including lobbyists, party leaders, and other legislators) what they were doing it was unlikely they could have held onto their votes long enough to force a change in leadership. Was that change necessary? Some may argue but many will say it was a good thing for the state. Ramsey had been in power too long.

Mavretic’s team met in private, just as the new School Board did. If they had met publicly the newspaper and TV (all of whom openly endorsed their opponents in the election) would have defeated them before they started.

So it was quick and dirty. And perhaps not in the best interests of Wake Schools’ parents, students or teachers. But to the victor belongs the spoils. The new board members won and they get to call the tune. Those who want it changed can do so at the ballot box and through public opinion.

Let’s watch what they do from here on out.

Earlier this week I wrote a column titled “Would Republicans Rather Fight than Win in 2010?” I wrote that 2010 should, by all accounts, be a year Republicans gain seats in our state house and in Congress. But a proposal before the Executive Committee of the North Carolina Republican Party might once again snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for Republicans.

The measure would prohibit unaffiliated voters from choosing a Republican ballot when they vote in primary elections. Advocates for the proposal believe that unaffiliated voters ensure that more moderate candidates are chosen in the primaries, candidates that don’t embrace the litmus test issues of the ultra conservative wing of the GOP. Because more moderate candidates are chosen, they maintain, the base doesn’t show up to vote and Republicans don’t get elected.

My column points to facts that show they wrong. Republican registration numbers are constantly declining. Unaffiliated registrations are constantly increasing. People have a choice to register Republican but are choosing otherwise. Without unaffiliated voters the GOP cannot win. And the more right wing the candidates, the fewer unaffiliated votes they will receive.

My question was whether Republicans would rather fight or win elections?

The Charlotte Observer excerpted this column in their Friday paper. By 9 a.m. it had already received several comments. Most of them support the ultra-conservative stance of the GOP. One sounded off by saying, “Tom, there is a reason you are on a 15 watt radio station, you are a tool.” At a recent talk I gave one woman boldly stated that Barack Obama was “the evil one.”

These are two of many examples of what is wrong with political debate in this country today. There is, and always has been, plenty of room for people with differing opinions to discuss and debate issues. For whatever the reasons public policy debate has turned mean-spirited, angry, disrespectful and irrational.

Speaking as one unaffiliated moderate I can say categorically that when I hear people on either the ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative end of the pew spouting off mean-spirited opinions I decide to vote against whatever they advocate. Evidently there are others who agree. This is why they register unaffiliated.

To the gentleman’s point in Charlotte, I am not on a 15 watt radio station but a statewide network of 13 stations and 18 TV stations with more than 100,000 people per week who listen and watch. And we remain an independent production because we are not and refuse to be a tool for anyone.

The unanimous vote of the State Board of Elections to forward the Easley case to the Wake District Attorney for further investigation and possible prosecution was wrongly interpreted and reported. Andrew Whalen, Executive Director of the North Carolina Democratic Party, released a statement saying, “Today, in a unanimous vote, the State Board of Elections fully exonerated the North Carolina Democratic Party of any violations of election law.”

Nice try, Andrew. Even the news media bought the party spin on the decision. It sounds good but isn’t true. Democracy North Carolina’s Bob Hall, the impetus for the investigation and head of Democracy North Carolina, read Whalen’s press release and subsequent stories in the press and disagrees with the spin placed on the Board’s decision:

“I don’t think it’s right to say the State Board of Elections cleared the Democratic Party of all wrongdoing. The unanimous vote to order the Party to forfeit $9,000 resulted from concluding that there was sufficient evidence to show that donations had been solicited for Easley’s benefit, made payable to the Party, and used to pay expenses for the Easley campaign – i.e., that the donor, Easley Committee, and Democratic Party were all involved in a type of earmarking that violates NCGS 163-278.14(a): “No individual, political committee, or other entity shall make any contribution anonymously or in the name of another. No candidate, political committee, referendum committee, political party, or treasurer shall knowingly accept any contribution made by any individual or person in the name of another individual or person or made anonymously.” 

“The statute of limitations has expired on misdemeanor charges, but not on a civil penalty. The Board decided that it had evidence regarding the donations from Lanny Wilson and Nick Garrett, but testimony did not support charges involving other donations.  The penalty could not have been assessed unless there was evidence the Party participated in the earmarking scheme for the Wilson and Garrett donations.”

First, the board did find evidence the Party accepted earmarked contributions to benefit Easley from the Wilson and Garrett donations. But the board did not clear the party of wrongdoing. Chairman Larry Leake’s quote in forming the motion was to fine the Democratic Party “. . . the sum of $9,000 and, as there has not been sufficient evidence shown of any OTHER violations of North Carolina law on the part of the North Carolina Democratic Party, that the remainder of the complaint as to that entity be dismissed.”

Note that Leake said testimony did not show any other violations. Leake did not say there were no other violations, just that the testimony heard during the Easley hearings did not show further evidence.

We suspect Hall isn’t through with the subject. A closer examination of contributions from the House and Senate leadership campaigns to the respective party will show large contributions made to the party earmarked and expended for specific candidates. The bottom line is that state election laws need to be revised so that the parties cannot spend any more on behalf of a specific candidate than can you or I. That amount is $4,000.

What we can’t figure out is whether Scott Falmen’s testimony was intentionally complicated and confusing or if the subject is so complicated as to make it almost impossible to understand. Whatever the motive, Falmen’s testimony was clear as mud. Falmen is a smart man and did a great job for Democrats as Executive Director. His entire time as a witness was tedious as the Board was trying to get Falmen to admit something he wouldn’t acknowledge, until the Party’s lawyer started questioning him.

Democratic Party attorney Jim Cooney was trying to demonstrate the party had done nothing wrong but he may have unconsciously helped prove that donations going to the party are indeed designated for the benefit of a particular campaign, something Falmen spent a lot of time refuting. Cooney introduced an exhibit from the 2000 campaign showing Vinroot supporters had given the Republican Party money and, in turn, in-kind expenditures were made on behalf of Vinroot that roughly equaled what was donated. Cooney then asked Falmen if there was anything wrong with this scenario. Falmen stated there was nothing wrong with it or with similar donations to Democrats who were Easley donors. In one statement Falmen admitted that designated contributions and expenditures were a truth. Falmen tried to assert that he and the Party had total control over these circumvented funds and that he could have denied any requests for expenditures on behalf of a specific campaign, but could remember any instances when he had done so.

Tommy Hicks, Easley’s lawyer, shocked many by asking the Board to refer the matter to the Wake District Attorney. Elections Board Chair Larry Leake appeared stunned when Hicks made the request. Once again Easley was gaming the process. Why would he ask such a thing? Perhaps if you were convinced the Board was going to take this action anyway, why not get out in front of this parade? Easley turned the tables on the Board, putting them on the spot. They either had to refer or appear totally partisan and weak.  

Every generation has one or more heroes. Bob Hall, with Democracy North Carolina, has to be one of this era’s champions. He is willing to speak truth to power and did so at the end of the hearings. Even as he wandered in his remarks Hall was clear there has been a longstanding practice of establishing shadow campaigns within both political parties. Donors can circumvent the $4,000 contribution limits by making designated donations to political parties to be used on behalf of one or more specific candidates. The NC Senate and NC House leadership PAC’s do it every two years….and everybody knows it. This circumvention is wrong and Hall is one of the few willing to speak publicly against it.

Nobody knows what went on in closed session but the Board referred this case to the Wake District Attorney after fining the Easley campaign and making recommendations to the legislature for changes in laws that would force the candidate to personally be responsible for fines and penalties from the Board.

There were several facts the State Board of Elections could not ignore. McQueen Campbell gave testimony that was personally detrimental to himself while accusing Easley. Lanny Wilson essentially did the same. The personal assistant to the Treasurer of the Easley campaign appeared to corroborate some of the testimony. The smoking guns were the memos by the Easley campaign specifically planning to circumvent contribution laws. The Board would have acted irresponsibly not to pass this on for state investigation and possible prosecution.

Because of the personal relationship Wake DA Colon Willoughby has with the Easleys’ he immediately recused himself and asked the Republican DA in Rowan County, Bill Kennerly, to head the investigation, also asking the Administrative Office of the Courts to assign Kinnerly temporarily to Raleigh to handle it. Through the years we have come to expect nothing less from Willoughby than honest and honorable administration of his job. He did the correct and the right thing.

It is a sad day for North Carolina. The picture we got this week of our political system and political leaders substantiates why people don’t want to be involved. It won’t help this state or the Democratic Party.

Mike Easley missed his calling. His performance Wednesday, through five hours of testimony before the State Board of Elections, is worthy of an Academy Award nomination. In the finest Gone with the Wind tradition, Easley, the white Butterfly McQueen effectively said, “Lawsy, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know nuthin’ ‘bout runnin’ no ‘lection campaign for gubner. I been too busy fightin’ crime and legalizin’ gamblin’ to pay ‘tention to puny details about campaigns..”

Mike Easley was the essence of Southern gentility, charm and humility, playing rope-a-dope with the State Board of Election board members. He even acted a bit like Mr. Rogers, helping folks at home who might be watching the video streaming by explaining from time to time  just what was going on.. Easley’s attitude seemed to be saying, “Don’t try this at home people.  I used to do this for a living. I know how this game is played.”

Here’s what we learned from Easley’s testimony:

• Nobody was in charge of the 2000 and 2004 election campaigns. Easley just called a couple of buddies and everything came together.
  
• Easley didn’t know Jack about the campaign. He never went to the campaign office, never asked anyone for money, never asked any questions about what anybody was doing. But somehow he could get involved when he thought too much money was being spent and rattled cages to cut spending. By the way, who has ultimate legal authority for what goes on in an election campaign? Isn't it the candidate?
  
• Nothing was done that was illegal, but if anyone can find something that isn’t squeaky clean just let the Governor know and he’ll make it right…after all he was the top dude.
• McQueen Campbell is a liar. O.K., he’s a handy liar. He knows everyone who can get your home fixed. But he absolutely lied when he said he had been paid for all the flights he provided, then told the State Board he provided $102,000 in flights that had gone unpaid. And never mind the fact that the amount of the Easley home repairs and the check cut to Executive Air were for the same amount.
• Lanny Wilson is a;so a liar.
• Nick Garrett may be a liar…but questioning didn't go there.
  
• If you say Governor Easley or his campaign did something illegal you’re a liar too!
• There is no slush fund and no donors give money earmarked to a candidate to Democratic Party headquarters.
• Car dealer Bob Bleeker is just one of the finest humans on earth and will probably let you “lease” a car under the same terms as the Easley’s. (By the way, why didn’t anyone ask Easley why Bleeker remembered a conversation with the Governor in which Easley told him the Yukon was for his son, Mike?)

The State Board seemed more on their game Wednesday, but still missed a lot of opportunities for follow-up. They were properly respectful of a former Governor who appointed many of them to their positions but they failed to follow up on many fronts. Once again we loved Bob Cordle’s generous tribute to Easley. Bob, Mikey didn’t need your help.

Tomorrow the hearings are supposed to end. It will be interesting to see how, after such contradicting evidence, the Board will respond. A federal investigator has been present in the room during the entire event. We doubt much was missed. Our bet is that the investigation will be turned over to DA Colon Willoughby.

It was fascinating watchin the State Board of Electionshearings Monday. You didn’t have to be Perry Mason to see that Chairman LarryLeake and the Board were carefully crafting a web designed to catch formerGovernor Mike Easley. The board has obviously done its research and is wellprepared.

Some have wondered why the testimony of Lanny Wilson, NickGarrett and McQueen Campbell didn’t venture into the Mary Easley hiring, Easley’sreal estate investment at Canonsgate, the renovation of the Easley home inSouthport, the marina lease at Southport orother reported transgressions. My guess is that these are items under investigationby federal authorities and will be revealed later.

The mission of these hearings is to determine if Easley andhis campaign violated state laws regarding the collection and reporting of campaigncash and expenditures. The State Board isn’t through. Perhaps the bigbombshells have exploded, but there’s more to come before Easley himself iscalled to testify. This will be the high point of these hearings. The former Governor will beasked to comment on whether or not he instructed his campaign to pay forrepairs to his home, thus committing insurance fraud, among other possibleviolations.

The State Board already has, to many minds, enough testimonyto recommend the case to Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby forprosecution. Easley’s testimony will be on the record and can be used in thataction.

Irrespective of any other outcome from these hearings theone overwhelming conclusion that must be reached is the screaming need for furtherreform in our election laws. We must change laws that allow candidates, PACs orcorporations from contributing large amounts to political parties that can thenbe funneled as in-kind contributions to individual candidates. The current lawprohibits this practice but everyone knows it happens and merely winks at it.

Republicans should be glad their behind-the-scenes effortsto remove chairman Leake from presiding at the hearings were not successful.Leake isn’t pulling any punches in his administration of the hearings, removingany prospective charges of political favoritism.

We were amused at Tuesday’s News and Observer columnbemoaning Easley’s metamorphosis from a hard-charging, crime busting DA andAttorney General to just another politician on the take. We’ve been toSouthport, we’ve talked to people who live there, as well as to many others whohave had contact with Mike Easley throughout his career, both at the coast andin Raleigh.They tell us he was always looking for favors, slow to pick up a check at arestaurant and willing to take advantage where he could. One politician callshim “Alligator arms,” because of his penchant for allowing others to pay thetab at meals. This is not new conduct, it is an ongoing pattern. But there is adifference between being cheap and breaking laws. That appears to be what weare hearing now.

Listen to the public debate on most any issue and you would conclude there are only two sides, the left and the right, but a new study released by Public Policy Polling indicates that moderates are growing both in number and influence in our state.

The study defined four age groups: 18-29, 30-45, 46-65, and over 65. Conservatives outnumber liberals in each of the age groups but the data confirms that younger people consider themselves more liberal and the older people get the more conservative they become. Those of the moderate persuasion actually outnumber either liberals or conservatives in the 18-45 age range, falling only five percentage points behind conservatives in the 46-65 group and trailing by ten points in the over 65 group.

You can hear the liberal or conservative positions advanced on the 24-hour news channels, the Internet, print, or over-the-air broadcasts of radio or television, but we seldom hear from those in the moderate middle. Some mistakenly believe that moderates have no opinions. They do, often as strong as either liberals or conservatives, but their positions don’t follow the predictable patterns often found on the extremes. There is no political party or dominant spokesperson articulating the moderate stance. Moderates tend to voice their opinions at the ballot box or with their feet or pocketbooks and seldom realize how powerful they are in making conclusions.

For example, let’s attempt to determine the moderate position on the current budget debate going on in the North Carolina legislature. Moderates would tell lawmakers that they do not support draconian cuts to our state budget, especially where it affects children in classrooms and human services for those unable to help themselves. They would just as quickly say they are convinced there is waste, inefficiency and duplication in government, and also plenty of programs being funded that might not be our highest priority in this recession. Moderates emphatically do not believe our leaders have done a sufficient job of identifying and cutting government. If they did become convinced that a good job had been done in reducing government they would support tax increases if needed, but they would insist these increases not benefit one income segment or particular special interest over others.

Overall the moderate endorses some liberal and some conservative viewpoints, often coming to different conclusions than either. These same approaches would be taken on positions like health care reform, bullying, public education and other of today’s hot-button issues.

Lawmakers and leaders would be well advised to shut out the noise from the left and right, while discarding the pressure from interest groups and lobbyists and listen carefully to the moderate voice. If they fail to do so they will likely hear it loud and clear come election time.

Moderates rule….even if they don’t know it.