NCBLOGGER.COM

Power Play at Wake Schools

NC Blogger — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:50:00 GMT

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.

No Room for Mean Spirited Debate

NC Blogger — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:06:00 GMT

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.

North Carolina Democratic Party is Wrong

NC Blogger — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:17:00 GMT

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.

Final Observations and Conclusions on the Easley Hearings

NC Blogger — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:12:00 GMT

March 5, 1998

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.

Observations from Day 3 of the Easley Hearings

NC Blogger — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:36:00 GMT

March 5, 1998

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.

Oberservations from Day 2 of the Easley Hearings

NC Blogger — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:40:00 GMT

We didn’t learn a lot Tuesday. Witnesses were considerably more guarded than those on Monday. The former Treasurer of the Easley Campaign, former fundraiser, policy wonk and a donor failed to remember much regarding how the campaign raised money and how it related to the Democratic Party.

Whereas Monday’s witnesses appeared willing to share information Tuesday’s group kept answers short and volunteered little information. We didn’t think the Board did a very good job of questioning and following up on answers. It was especially amusing to watch Board member Bob Cordle’s questioning. He was so obvious in his attempts to help out the witnesses that he left little doubt of his political affiliations.

Dave Horne is a consummate attorney and straight-up guy. He gave carefully measured responses to questions asked. Folks who know him know he would not risk perjuring himself. The funniest moment of the day came when Horne described himself as a marriage counselor. We have known for years that Mike Easley was a maverick, unwilling to conform to expectations from others, but perhaps the greatest insight gained Tuesday was that Easley was frequently at odds with his own campaign team and that Horne had to intercede to make peace.

Neither Horne, Michael Hayden, the fundraiser for the Easley ’04 re-election campaign or policy wonk Mac McCorkle couldt seem to recall to whom they reported, who made decisions, and whether there were funds channeled to the state Democratic Party. They certainly have no knowledge of any slush funds at the Democratic Party, even though Chairman Leake and others kept asking them questions about them. They may have kept themselves out of legal trouble but they did little to convince the average citizen they were telling the whole truth.

Why would a man give more than $100,000 to the North Carolina Democratic Party? Especially if he was a political appointee who wanted to be reappointed to his job and a developer who needed permitting for a boat ramp? That’s the question the Board tried to ask but never could quite put so bluntly to Garry Allen. Let’s hope Allen is more convincing to real estate investors and buyers than he was in his testimony. Since he is so generous wonder if he would like to contribute to a certain statewide TV show?

Jim Cooney, attorney for the Democratic Party used an easel to do some new math he claims proves conclusively that there was no slush fund and the Easley gave more money to the Party than they gave the candidate.

WRAL-TV anchor David Crabtree reported a conversation he had with former Ag Commissioner Meg Scott Phipps. Crabtree says that Phipps wondered why Easley wasn’t put on the stand first, as she was. She had to give testimony, then hear what other witnesses had to say. Easley at least has the benefit of having heard both the line of questioning and the comments of other witnesses before he takes the stand Wednesday morning.

Wednesday may be the make or break day for this hearing. Former Governor Easley is expected to be the first witness called. Will there be fireworks or more “I don’t recall?”
Stay tuned.

Observations from Day 1 of the Easley Hearings

NC Blogger — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:15:00 GMT

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.

Rielle Hunter starring at Grand Jury?

NC Blogger — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:38:00 GMT

Sources tell us that Rielle Hunter, the woman who admitted having an affair with former Senator N.C. Senator John Edwards, will be in Raleigh this Thursday to testify before the Grand Jury. It is understood that federal investigators have been seeking to determine if inappropriate expenditures were made by the Edwards for President campaign

Moderates rule...even if they don't know it

NC Blogger — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:59:00 GMT

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.

The Governor is missnig

NC Blogger — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:09:00 GMT

Have you ever wanted to run away from home and go live in a cave?

It looks like the Governor of South Carolina has done it. Folks in South Carolina were alerted Monday that Governor Mark Sanford had been missing for four days over the Father's Day weekend. His wife said she didn't know exactly where he was and wasn't concerned. The media finally learned he was somewhere on the Appalachian trail. Later Jenny Sanford said her husband was "writing something and wanted to get away from the kids." Writing something on the Appalachian Trail? Even if true it sounds suspicious.

North Carolinians know what its like to have a Governor missing. Sometimes it is even better. More often than not, however the state needs real leadership and it is best to have our Governor playing the role of cheerleader, instigator, negotiator and using the bully pulpit to exhort us into doing the right thing. This is a moment in our history when we don't need a Governor who is AWOL.

Fetzer's Got a Big New Job

NC Blogger — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:12:00 GMT

Tom Fetzer, the newly elected Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party is one of the most astute politicians in our state, charged with trying to resurrect the Grand Old Party following the 2008 rout they suffered at the ballot box. To be sure Barack Obama was the deciding factor, but in 2008 state Republicans were outspent, outmaneuvered, out-messaged, and out of step with the majority of voters.

Problem number one for the new Chair lies within his own ranks. The most vocal Republican supporters are demanding a return to the good-old days when Republicans railed against abortion, gays, and gay marriage. The further to the right the better these folks like it. In his acceptance speech Fetzer promised a return to those times. It might make them feel good but that dog won't hunt. If you want bag the big donkeys you go where they are. In politics that's toward the middle, not he far right.

Republicans have a major image problem. We know what they are against but few can articulate what they stand for. Republicans can’t be just a bunch of angry white men if they want to make inroads in 2010. Newt Gingrich energized national and state Republicans in designing the Contract with America. The state GOP must develop a compelling platform of what they want to do, then begin a major message campaign on TV and radio wooing voters. This can’t be accomplished overnight and Republicans can’t wait til 2010 to begin their message campaign. While Fetzer is a master of the media another problem stands in his way.

The state Republican Party doesn’t have the bucks to wage a media war in the heat of the campaign season, much less firing a strong early salvo to improve their image. There are big money Republicans in our state but they will sit on the sidelines until they see a plan they think puts them back in the game with a chance to win.

Even staunch Democrats will agree we need a healthy two-party system in our state. Debating and deciding public policy should not be a one-sided game. Our republic and our state functions most effectively when we have loyal opposition, regardless of thr. So we wish Tom Fetzer well in his new task. The smart money would bet against Tom Fetzer being able to make Republicans competitive again, but others have bet against the former Raleigh Mayor before…and lost. He’s got a big job a little more than one year to produce success.

What We Learned This Week

NC Blogger — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:23:00 GMT

This week was one of the most unusual and newsworthy in some time. Let’s try to summarize what we learned.

We learned that people in power have no hesitation seeking favors or privileges for family and friends. The e-mails released this week prove that former Governor Easley had no reluctance to request a job for his wife at NC State University. Those in power appoint, hire, and reward those related to them, those who contribute to them or those who help them.

We learned that people in power have no problem granting favor to other people in power. Power recognizes and rewards power. The administrators at NC State didn’t have any problem granting the Governor this favor. It happens all the time, regardless of the field.

We learned that people in power will do anything, including lying and other nefarious acts, to remain in power. Once gained, holding onto power is the ultimate goal.

We learned that people in power rarely get in trouble for what they did but for what they do to cover up what they did. People in power frequently tell the truth as a last resort rather than as a first response. The web they weave when first they practice to deceive is often what snares them. What NC State officials did in giving Mary Easley a job was not illegal but it is sad when a federal Grand Jury subpoena forces officials to finally reveal the truth to us.

We learned that people in power are willing to scare, intimidate, and even threaten us in order to take the action they know they need to take in the first place. For weeks leadership in our state House has been scaring the beejesus out of parents, teachers, mental health advocates, the poor, the disabled and the rest of us, threatening draconian cuts of $4.6 billion from the state budget. The co-chair of the House Appropriations Committee was on TV bemoaning all the pain that was going to be caused by these cuts. Based on past experience it is hard to believe this was little more than a ploy designed to whip up support for raising taxes. We elected them to do the right thing not manipulate us into begging them to do the right thing.

Yes, we already knew most all these things but this week was a startling and disappointing reminder how people in power often behave.

What we have yet to learn is who really has the power. It is you and me. We hold the real and ultimate power, but either don’t realize it or are unwilling to exercise that power. The government we get is the government we permit, just as it is in business, religion, and every other aspect of our lives. When we get concerned enough to demand better we will get better. The one thing people in power are afraid of is us when we become riled enough to take action.

Let us awaken to that reality and rise up to demand better of our public figures.

Is the House jerking us around?

NC Blogger — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:30:00 GMT

Now we know what a puppet feels like. The House carefully and artfully painted the doomsday picture of the devastating budget cuts to vital programs they were about to make. Because of the economic recession they were going to be forced to cut more than $4 billion from the continuation budget. One House subcommittee after another came forward with the bad news. Appropriations chair Mickey Michaux solemnly talked about the pain that was sure to result in the budget cuts the House was making. Then House Democrats waited for the outpouring of reaction they knew would follow.

The campaign was as well designed as any battle plan and, it now appears, highly effective. Isn’t it a bit interesting that suddenly, from out of the blue, House leadership put forth a tax increase plan that included a quarter-cent hike in sales taxes, increased taxes on services, and income tax increases on high income citizens? A pretty comprehensive plan that raises $940 million in new revenues.

While none of us wants our taxes raised, it’s not the tax increase that has me so bothered. I have said all along that lawmakers couldn’t cut their way out of this budget mess. By the way, do not for one moment think this means that I favor higher taxes. We are in much the same spot we were in when former Governor Jim Martin, a Republican who campaigned on a “no new taxes” platform, came to the conclusion that there was no way to resolve the budget crisis and brokered a “temporary tax increase” with legislators.

Were it not for the pain that would be caused to so many it would be good to let lawmakers stew in this pot they created. But if they are going to sell this plan to us as the best solution I, for one, want to hear legislative leaders tell me two things. First, they have learned the lessons from years of piling on new and expanded programs without ever seriously reducing or eliminating older and out-of-date programs. They should own up to the fact that they just cannot continue to increase the size and cost of government with no accountability to us who pay for it. And, most importantly, they should pledge they are going to change the budget process; they are going to return to the days of zero-based budgeting where every program comes under the microscope on a regular basis to determine how effective and valuable it is. There is waste, duplication and inefficiency in government but you can’t find it when you aren’t looking and across the board cuts are a lazy man’s way out of budget problems.

No, the part that angers me is that I we have been jerked around, much like a puppet. It feels like this was part of a carefully scripted play, a drama in which the outcome was predetermined. Maybe I’m being too cynical but if true we, the citizens of North Carolina, deserve better than this.

What happens when public figures don't tell the truth

NC Blogger — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:49:00 GMT

It wasn’t surprising that James Oblinger had to resign as Chancellor at NC State University. He was a very fine man and had done a great job as Chancellor. But he forgot, as do so many, the first commandment of public figures: How will this look on the front page of the newspaper or the 6 o’clock news?

The second commandment is to fess up and tell the truth when asked questions you’d rather not answer. Too many believe they are smart enough or clever enough to prevent the truth from coming out. It always does. The third mandate is a corollary that says when you’ve dug yourself in a hole, stop digging.

We now know that Governor Easley, Chancellor Oblinger and Provost Larry Nielson all lied. It didn’t come as a surprise to many. After all, Mary Easley was the wife of a sitting Governor. And, at some level, the Governor had some control over the NC State budgets and their jobs. What would have happened if Oblinger and Nielson had come clean when the questions first started? We will never know, but we know now that the former First Lady’s hiring at NC State was politically orchestrated and the lame attempts made to convince us otherwise only piqued the interest of reporters to dig deeper when the Mike Easley scandals started surfacing for real.

The public owes a debt to News and Observer investigative reporter Andy Curliss and others who have bird-dogged this scandal. But while we praise them for sound reporting we have to ask why it took so long to begin the digging. After all, that is the role of the fifth estate isn’t it? Don Carrington with The Carolina Journal first started asking questions about some of the Easley transactions two years ago. The answers he got about the Easley Southport home remodeling, cronyism, sale of the Southport Marina, Canonsgate and other circumstances led a reasonable person to suspect cover-ups and half-truths. Carrington shared all this information with several mainstream media reporters at the time but nothing resulted from his information until federal investigators started nosing around the stories.

This is a sad chapter in North Carolina history, but we need to get all the dirt out and hear whatever there is to hear. Then we need some leadership to step up and not only promise to clean things up but to take whatever action is needed to do so. We once were known as the Good Government state and it is time to return to those days.

Our Pay-to-play Culture

NC Blogger — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:34:00 GMT

There’s no denying we live in a “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” culture. There’s nothing wrong with people helping people, but the line can be crossed when people resort to bribery, kickbacks and other such illicit dealings. Especially in the public sector.

We count on people to do the right thing in their dealings. There are many (we hope most) who do so, but unfortunately there are too many who don’t. Either these breaches occur more frequently today than in times past or we are better at uncovering them. One reason many laws are passed is that too many didn’t do the right thing.

North Carolina has had too many who were supposed to be public servants using places of privilege and influence for personal gain. We, as a people in this state, need to decide whether or not this is acceptable and, if not, what needs to be done to rectify the situation.

Over recent years we have had an Agriculture Commissioner, a Congressman, a legislator and even the Speaker of the North Carolina House caught and convicted. Our legislature reluctantly passed ethics reform laws that, while good, didn’t go nearly far enough to set out clear guidelines for their own members and others in public positions to follow. It now appears our former Governor, along with family, friends and associates may have crossed that ethical line, revealing once again the “pay to play” culture that has crept into the public sector.

We limit the amount of money that can be given a politician to $4,000 per election, but have no limits on what an individual, business or PAC can contribute to a political party. So large sums can be accumulated, by legislative campaign committees, for example, and donated to the party. These large contributions can and frequently are earmarked for a particular candidate as an “in-kind” contribution, a classic example of pay-to-play politics.

In the 2008 election, for example, one coastal Senator received more than $300,000 from her party, a direct earmark from the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. Badly outspent, her opponent lost.

Now this legislator is very smart and knows where the money came from that helped ensure victory. When the time came to vote for leadership in the Senate guess where her vote was cast? Further, guess how she is going to vote when measures come before the Senate? Lest you think us picking on one legislator this isn’t an isolated incidence. So the same leadership stays in power for too many years and runs roughshod over the way business is conducted. Nobody raises a voice in opposition. They are bought and paid for.

It is time for the next round of ethics reforms. Doing nothing is doing something. Our legislature needs to show us they recognize the pay-to-play culture and fix it. Otherwise, they are telling us clearly they see nothing wrong with the way things are going today. Do you?

Perdue Just Can't Win

NC Blogger — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:40:00 GMT

It ain’t easy being Governor Perdue. A Public Policy Poll released this week shows that 51 percent of those surveyed don’t approve of the job she is doing as Governor. The most disappointing news to Perdue is that Democrats have turned on her. Only one out of two Democrats think she is doing a good job. Just 29 percent of teachers and 36 percent of other state employees think she’s doing a good job.

They are not at all happy about the one-half of one percent pay cut she gave them in the form of a furlough.

What is so curious about this result is that Governor Perdue did the least she could have possibly have done to make the state budget balance. She could have (and many believe should have) done much more. These state workers all kept their jobs instead of being fired. They kept their hospitalization insurance and retirement benefits. Theirs was a minor individual sacrifice for the benefit of all. But they obviously don’t see it that way and turned on Perdue big time. One has to wonder just how much worse she would have polled had she had cut them 5 or 10 percent or, worse yet, ordered all state agencies to fire a certain percentage of their employees?

There are thousands in our state who would gladly trade places with these unhappy state employees because they don’t have jobs.

Face it, government is a service business and the largest single expense is payroll. It is highly likely that the legislature is going to be far harder on state employees than did Perdue. By the time the new budget is passed they may come to understand Perdue has been their real friend, not the enemy.

It isn’t so curious is that 60 percent of independent voters gave Perdue an unfavorable rating. Despite her frequent admonitions that she’s a big girl and can make tough decisions we suspect many don’t believe she has been bold enough, either in dealing with the deficits in the current budget or in her proposed budget for next year.

But the one lesson the Governor should take away from this all is that governing in recessions isn’t easy, so you just have to do what is right and best for everyone in your state and let the chips fall where they may. Forget about popularity contests. There are times in which you just cannot win. Governor Perdue is in that situation now.

Allred Is Merely a Victim

NC Blogger — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:07:00 GMT

Alamance County’s Representative Cary Allred is a misunderstood victim of partisan politics, of a vicious news media and of the N.C. Highway Patrol. The good representative was in a hurry to get to Raleigh Monday night to vote on important issues of state. The urgency of these matters prompted him to be just a little lead-footed. In fact, when the state trooper stopped Allred he was driving 102 in a 65 mile-an-hour zone. Allred flashed his legislative ID card to the trooper and was given a warning to slow down. The poor trooper just didn’t know who he had stopped since Allred was so inconsiderate as to not to be driving his car with the State House license plates.

“He wanted to verify that I had a good reason for going over the speed limit,” Allred told a reporter. Perfectly explainable. Most people going 102 in a 65 wouldn’t have a good reason. Why is the media badgering Allred?

After such a disturbing confrontation with the trooper it is easy to understand why Allred would have sought the comfort of a warm embrace and kiss on the cheek from a teenage girl who was a family friend serving as a page for the legislature. Various legislators, lobbyists, and staffers encountered Allred during the evening and speculated that he might be intoxicated. Not so. He was high on life after his reunion with this wonderful young woman

No doubt all this put Representative Allred in a fowl mood, which certainly explains the argumentative attitude he displayed to his seatmate and the House Speaker during the evening session. He is often the subject of criticism, he says because he speaks his mind.

But the tipping point came when someone forced the Highway Patrol to issue a speeding ticket to Representative Allred. Someone is obviously going to great lengths to embarrass this paragon of virtue. Allred says it is a case of reverse favoritism and he intends to hire a lawyer and challenge the ticket. No way would any other citizen have been cited five days after the fact for exceeding the speed limit by 37 miles per hour.

Cary’s momma would be proud of her boy for standing up to these bullies. But no prouder than the citizens of Alamance County who elected him. Show your patriotism, Representative Allred. Don’t you let them make you a victim.

Budget cutting for everyone else

NC Blogger — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:20:00 GMT

During tough economic times like these everyone talks about making the big cuts in government spending and reforming government but nobody does much. It's easy to see why. Any time the Governor, the legislature, or any leadership tries to cut a program there is a howl raised about who will get hurt and how much damage will be done as a result.

Case in point. Saturday's News and Observer has a front page article basically slamming Governor Perdue and our State Senate for doing little to reform the size and cost of state government. That part is true, but in that same paper, on the editorial page, is a two-column lamentation over the Senate's proposed cuts to More at Four and how it will hurt children. This is not a mere coincidence.

Budget cuts are, by their very nature, going to affect people. Time for some budget truth: everyone wants the budget cut, just not for the programs they champion. And if there is a threat to our pet program we will raise sand, then be highly critical when our elected officials won't make the tough calls about spending reductions. No wonder elected officials shy away from doing significant.

The Caste System is Alive and Well in our State Senate

NC Blogger — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:17:00 GMT

The North Carolina State Senate proclaimed a budget this week and the drama resembled the way a caste system operates.

At the top you have a handful of “those who know what is best.” They breathe rarified air and do not like open meetings or open doors. About 10 in number, they are all Democrats, mostly white, mostly older males who make their own rules. One is not to question, just accept their edicts as truth.

On the next rung are the “sheep.” Numbering slightly more than 20 they are the rest of the Senate Democrats. One day, a sheep hopes, one of the elite group at the top will die, retire, or be defeated and they might rise in the caste. They scurry from committee to committee meeting and even introduce legislation that, if properly approved in advance, may be brought to the floor for a vote. The sheep could probably wander home except for when those who know what is best need them to say “aye.” Never question, never criticize, never oppose is their mantra.

At the bottom, the outcasts, are the “obviously unimportant,” a.k.a. Republicans. They are grist for the mill, the ones at the back of the chamber who mostly vote no. Even they are not sure what role they are supposed to play, but they continue to attend Senate sessions and grumble. Their great hope is that one day the voters will actually notice what is going on in their State Senate and send enough Republicans to Raleigh so they can outvote the top two castes. It has never happened before but should this unlikely event occur it is probable that they will turn into “those who know what is best.”

If you are wondering how our Senate strayed so far from representative government, there are three seminal events to note.

The first occurred when we changed our Constitution to allow gubernatorial succession. The Lieutenant Governor, the most powerful force in the Senate, could now remain in control for eight years. This changed the balance of power in the legislature so the House changed longstanding policies to allow the Speaker to serve more than one two-year term. When a Republican was elected Lieutenant Governor Democrats, who were the majority in the Senate quickly shifted power from the Lieutenant Governor to the Senate President Pro Tem who, because of the unlimited term of the House Speaker, was allowed to serve indefinitely.

When both the Speaker and Pro Tem became the chief fundraisers for their respective houses these powerful people now had large sums to donate to see their friends elected through unlimited “in kind” contributions to political parties.

Here’s how it works. Those who know what’s best dole out large sums of cash to elect friends to office. Those friends, when elected, keep those who know what’s best in power, and if they vote, like sheep, as the power wants them to, they get enough money to get re-elected.

This system will remain in place as long as we allow those who know what’s best to buy their flocks or members. Cut off the flow of money and you will break the rank and file dependence on those in power. Until then, the caste system will continue.