Governor Perdue has proclaimed September 2010 as Citizens Voter Registration Awareness Month. The goal is to provide North Carolina citizens with every opportunity to register to vote.
This is a statewide effort, conducted by County Boards of Elections. We will be working on the details at our next meeting of the County Board.
Showing posts with label pamlico county. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pamlico county. Show all posts
Friday, August 27, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Secret Meeting
Here it is! The long-awaited audio recording of the "Secret Meeting" between County Board of Elections Chair David Cox and Board Member Ed Credle during recess of the March 23 2010 Board meeting!
This is the recording that cost Pamlico County taxpayers $1,400 when Board Member Judy Smith consulted the county attorney about:
Background:
Ms. Smith recorded the March 23, 2010 BOE meeting in her capacity as Secretary in order to aid her in preparing minutes. She then refused multiple requests to provide the Board’s custodian of records with the recording. She also subsequently refused to provide recordings she made of the Board’s April 5, April 13, and April 20 meetings.
At the Board’s April 27 meeting, Ms. Smith was again asked to provide the recording to the Board as a public record, and she stated she would not provide the recording unless and until I and Mr. Credle agreed to “explain” to her satisfaction several comments she had recorded during a recess when she was outside the room.
I did not believe Ms. Smith had the right to hold recordings of public meetings as hostage for any reason, so I made a written demand under North Carolina General Statutes 132-5 that she turn over the recording. Ms. Smith contacted the county attorney, who explained that a recording of a public meeting made by the Secretary of a body to assist in preparing meeting minutes is a “public record,” and not a “personal” recording. Ms. Smith finally turned over a copy of the recording to the Board’s custodian of records.
As for the recording made during the recess, contrary to assertions made elsewhere, the county attorney never "advised [that the] segment of the recording [made during the recess] is a public document and is a part of the meeting business." The attorney never even listened to the recording to evaluate its content and determine whether the recess conversation actually involved Board of Elections “business.” Instead, he simply took his client's (Ms. Smith’s) assertions as true (as attorneys generally do when writing opinion letters to client inquiries);
Now that Ms. Smith has turned over the recording, including the portion recorded during the recess, we can all listen and determine whether Mr. Credle or I broke any rules.
The Accusations
Mr. George Smith wrote a letter to the editor of the County Compass newspaper asserting that two portions of the recess discussion violated open records and/or open meetings laws:
The Rules:
What are the rules about two Board members speaking to each other while the third member is not present?
As of May 28th, the rule was: "it is within the law for a board chairman or member to meet individually and privately with each other to discuss a public matter if no action is taken through these individual meetings." Don Wright, General Counsel, State Board of Elections.
Recently the State Board has promulgated a new rule: "Members of county boards of election should refrain from two-person conversations touching on subjects that may come before the board for a decision. Conversations that concern elections but do not touch on subjects that may come before the board for decisions are not in violation of the law and are permissible." - Robert P. Joyce, UNC School of Government July 8, 2010.
In explaining the new rule, Mr. Joyce also made clear that conversations between a Board member and BOE staff members are not covered under the Open Meetings Act.
The Substance - Where is the Violation?
The second question is whether any of the above rules were violated by anyone who was recorded by Ms. Smith during the recess.
First, we should listen to what was said:
(Note: for some reason unknown to me, you may have to hit the "play" button twice to start the player)
(my best attempt of a transcript appears below, at the end of this posting)
In the recording, Mr. Credle and I have a brief exchange about things said by several speakers during the public comment period concerning events that allegedly occurred during the election of 2008. The deadline to file a protest of the 2008 election was November 18, 2008, 16 months before the meeting and conversations about which Mr. Smith complained took place. There was no way the Board could have taken any action on the allegations and complaints made by the speakers, no matter how well-founded they might have been.
Next you will hear SBOE District Election Technician Rosemary Blizzard wondering why the Board spent so much time discussing a number of potential voter registration challenges, commenting that the challengers should simply submit their challenges for consideration and decision by the Board. Pamlico County Director of Elections Lisa Bennett also jokingly suggested that the Board simply vote to remove all challenged voters. I responded to these comments with noncommittal “yeah”s, indicating I heard and understood what the staff members were saying, but giving no substantive responses in order to protect my complete impartiality in the event the potential challenges were brought before the Board for a quasi-judicial hearing and decision.
How does a brief discussion between Board Members Mr. Credle and myself about allegations upon which the Board had no power to act violate any of these rules?
How do comments made by BOE staff members to a Board Member about any matter whatsoever violate any of these rules?
Now we can all listen and decide for ourselves whether anything in the recess recording is a public document or reveals a violation of the NC Open Meetings Act.
(Transcription:)
Ed Credle: Give me a hand. (laughter)
Ed Credle: Give up, give up a "Jesse Jackson." (as Mr. Cox gave a hand to help Mr. Credle stand up) There ya go. Thank you. (laughing)
Dave Cox: Alright.
Ed Credle: I need to straighten up a little (sighs)…
Dave Cox: Yeah
Ed Credle: Gee. Thank you.
Dave Cox: Well, heh-heh.
Ed Credle: I’m catchin’ it.
Dave Cox: Yeah?
Ed Credle: Yeah. Yep. [indiscernible]
Dave Cox: I hope you can see who they focused on uh you know, Mesic and who they were looking at real closely in Oriental?
Ed Credle: Ha, ha. Yeah. OK, well we can take care of that.
Dave Cox: Yeah.
Lisa Bennett (entering room): Mr. Credle, I think I caught you napping [laughter]
Ed Credle: Almost. Wow. Almost. [laughter continues]
Rosemary Blizzard: [indistinct] ten minutes [indistinct].
Ed Credle: You got it.
Lisa Bennett: It’s still on (referring to audio recorder)
Rosemary Blizzard: Why are we discussing? Just turn it in. Y’all do the voting.
Dave Cox: Yeah.
Rosemary Blizzard: If you vote “no” you vote “no.”
Dave Cox: Yeah. It’s OK.
Rosemary Blizzard: Majority rules.
Lisa Bennett: Just vote “yes” so I can take them off, OK? [snickers].
Dave Cox: Yeah.
Lisa Bennett: "[indiscernible/laughing] Just get rid of ‘em."
This is the recording that cost Pamlico County taxpayers $1,400 when Board Member Judy Smith consulted the county attorney about:
1) whether or not a recording she made of the March 23, 2010 Board of Elections meeting was a “public record” which she was therefore obliged to turn over to the Board’s custodian of records; and
2) if so, whether nineteen seconds of audio captured by her recorder when she left it running during a recess of the meeting is also a public record.
Background:
Ms. Smith recorded the March 23, 2010 BOE meeting in her capacity as Secretary in order to aid her in preparing minutes. She then refused multiple requests to provide the Board’s custodian of records with the recording. She also subsequently refused to provide recordings she made of the Board’s April 5, April 13, and April 20 meetings.
At the Board’s April 27 meeting, Ms. Smith was again asked to provide the recording to the Board as a public record, and she stated she would not provide the recording unless and until I and Mr. Credle agreed to “explain” to her satisfaction several comments she had recorded during a recess when she was outside the room.
I did not believe Ms. Smith had the right to hold recordings of public meetings as hostage for any reason, so I made a written demand under North Carolina General Statutes 132-5 that she turn over the recording. Ms. Smith contacted the county attorney, who explained that a recording of a public meeting made by the Secretary of a body to assist in preparing meeting minutes is a “public record,” and not a “personal” recording. Ms. Smith finally turned over a copy of the recording to the Board’s custodian of records.
As for the recording made during the recess, contrary to assertions made elsewhere, the county attorney never "advised [that the] segment of the recording [made during the recess] is a public document and is a part of the meeting business." The attorney never even listened to the recording to evaluate its content and determine whether the recess conversation actually involved Board of Elections “business.” Instead, he simply took his client's (Ms. Smith’s) assertions as true (as attorneys generally do when writing opinion letters to client inquiries);
“You [Ms. Smith] believe that a portion of the tape recording during the recess includes discussions regard Board of Elections’ business…If any of these assumptions or facts are incorrect… my opinion may change accordingly…"
- Jimmie B. Hicks, Jr. letter of May 6, 2010
Now that Ms. Smith has turned over the recording, including the portion recorded during the recess, we can all listen and determine whether Mr. Credle or I broke any rules.
The Accusations
Mr. George Smith wrote a letter to the editor of the County Compass newspaper asserting that two portions of the recess discussion violated open records and/or open meetings laws:
1) a discussion between Mr. Cox and Mr. Credle about some complaints made by members of the public during the public comments portion of the meeting; and
2) comments about a number of potential voter registration challenges.
The Rules:
What are the rules about two Board members speaking to each other while the third member is not present?
As of May 28th, the rule was: "it is within the law for a board chairman or member to meet individually and privately with each other to discuss a public matter if no action is taken through these individual meetings." Don Wright, General Counsel, State Board of Elections.
Recently the State Board has promulgated a new rule: "Members of county boards of election should refrain from two-person conversations touching on subjects that may come before the board for a decision. Conversations that concern elections but do not touch on subjects that may come before the board for decisions are not in violation of the law and are permissible." - Robert P. Joyce, UNC School of Government July 8, 2010.
In explaining the new rule, Mr. Joyce also made clear that conversations between a Board member and BOE staff members are not covered under the Open Meetings Act.
The Substance - Where is the Violation?
The second question is whether any of the above rules were violated by anyone who was recorded by Ms. Smith during the recess.
First, we should listen to what was said:
(Note: for some reason unknown to me, you may have to hit the "play" button twice to start the player)
In the recording, Mr. Credle and I have a brief exchange about things said by several speakers during the public comment period concerning events that allegedly occurred during the election of 2008. The deadline to file a protest of the 2008 election was November 18, 2008, 16 months before the meeting and conversations about which Mr. Smith complained took place. There was no way the Board could have taken any action on the allegations and complaints made by the speakers, no matter how well-founded they might have been.
Next you will hear SBOE District Election Technician Rosemary Blizzard wondering why the Board spent so much time discussing a number of potential voter registration challenges, commenting that the challengers should simply submit their challenges for consideration and decision by the Board. Pamlico County Director of Elections Lisa Bennett also jokingly suggested that the Board simply vote to remove all challenged voters. I responded to these comments with noncommittal “yeah”s, indicating I heard and understood what the staff members were saying, but giving no substantive responses in order to protect my complete impartiality in the event the potential challenges were brought before the Board for a quasi-judicial hearing and decision.
How does a brief discussion between Board Members Mr. Credle and myself about allegations upon which the Board had no power to act violate any of these rules?
How do comments made by BOE staff members to a Board Member about any matter whatsoever violate any of these rules?
Now we can all listen and decide for ourselves whether anything in the recess recording is a public document or reveals a violation of the NC Open Meetings Act.
(Transcription:)
Ed Credle: Give me a hand. (laughter)
Ed Credle: Give up, give up a "Jesse Jackson." (as Mr. Cox gave a hand to help Mr. Credle stand up) There ya go. Thank you. (laughing)
Dave Cox: Alright.
Ed Credle: I need to straighten up a little (sighs)…
Dave Cox: Yeah
Ed Credle: Gee. Thank you.
Dave Cox: Well, heh-heh.
Ed Credle: I’m catchin’ it.
Dave Cox: Yeah?
Ed Credle: Yeah. Yep. [indiscernible]
Dave Cox: I hope you can see who they focused on uh you know, Mesic and who they were looking at real closely in Oriental?
Ed Credle: Ha, ha. Yeah. OK, well we can take care of that.
Dave Cox: Yeah.
Lisa Bennett (entering room): Mr. Credle, I think I caught you napping [laughter]
Ed Credle: Almost. Wow. Almost. [laughter continues]
Rosemary Blizzard: [indistinct] ten minutes [indistinct].
Ed Credle: You got it.
Lisa Bennett: It’s still on (referring to audio recorder)
Rosemary Blizzard: Why are we discussing? Just turn it in. Y’all do the voting.
Dave Cox: Yeah.
Rosemary Blizzard: If you vote “no” you vote “no.”
Dave Cox: Yeah. It’s OK.
Rosemary Blizzard: Majority rules.
Lisa Bennett: Just vote “yes” so I can take them off, OK? [snickers].
Dave Cox: Yeah.
Lisa Bennett: "[indiscernible/laughing] Just get rid of ‘em."
Monday, July 19, 2010
Open Meetings Act and Boards of Elections
Last week the Pamlico County Board of Elections joined other Boards at a training session in New Bern. We (the Pamlico Board) were handed a paper by Bob Joyce of the UNC School of Government concerning the Open Meetings Act and County and Municipal Boards of Elections.
The problem is that in North Carolina, such boards consist of three members and a discussion between any two of them can under certain circumstances be construed as an "official meeting." The previous interpretation by the State Board had been that two members could have a conversation, so long as no agreements were concluded and no votes taken.
The newly-promulgated rule is more restrictive: "Members of county boards of elections should refrain from two-person conversations touching on subjects that may come before the board for a decision." Then the paper goes on to call for common sense. Right.
I have been quite aware of the problems created by the Open Meetings Act. The public is right to be suspicious of back room deals. On the other hand, agreements have to be negotiated. Public meetings aren't the best place for such negotiations. The North Carolina state legislature has exempted itself from most of the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. Otherwise, nothing would get done. Or, alternatively, only the staffs would be allowed to negotiate, cutting the elected or appointed members of the public body out of the loop as active participants.
For smaller bodies - say, the Oriental NC Town Board, with very limited staff resources, drafting ordinances under the constraints of the Open Meetings Act becomes a challenge.
My solution was to start this blog. My theory is, I don't care who knows what my position is on a public issue. I'll just put it out there in the open. Any member of the public who wants to know can just look. What could be more open than that? Should other Board members be among those who want to know what I think, they can look, too. No secrets.
The problem is that in North Carolina, such boards consist of three members and a discussion between any two of them can under certain circumstances be construed as an "official meeting." The previous interpretation by the State Board had been that two members could have a conversation, so long as no agreements were concluded and no votes taken.
The newly-promulgated rule is more restrictive: "Members of county boards of elections should refrain from two-person conversations touching on subjects that may come before the board for a decision." Then the paper goes on to call for common sense. Right.
I have been quite aware of the problems created by the Open Meetings Act. The public is right to be suspicious of back room deals. On the other hand, agreements have to be negotiated. Public meetings aren't the best place for such negotiations. The North Carolina state legislature has exempted itself from most of the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. Otherwise, nothing would get done. Or, alternatively, only the staffs would be allowed to negotiate, cutting the elected or appointed members of the public body out of the loop as active participants.
For smaller bodies - say, the Oriental NC Town Board, with very limited staff resources, drafting ordinances under the constraints of the Open Meetings Act becomes a challenge.
My solution was to start this blog. My theory is, I don't care who knows what my position is on a public issue. I'll just put it out there in the open. Any member of the public who wants to know can just look. What could be more open than that? Should other Board members be among those who want to know what I think, they can look, too. No secrets.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Meeting Minutes
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what goes into minutes of official meetings of government bodies.
Early this year, when Oriental Town Commissioners reviewed draft minutes, newly-elected Commissioner Jennifer Roe made it quite clear: minutes record what was done, not what was said. This general rule applies no matter what the nature of the body. Otherwise approval of the minutes becomes a reiteration of every argument raised at the previous meeting and so on, ad infinitum.
As for public records, any correspondence concerning the business of a board becomes a public record, including audio and video recordings of public meetings. The custodian of all public records of the County Board of Elections is Lisa Bennett, the Director of Elections.
Since the meeting of the County Board of Elections held March 23, 2010, all minutes have included the following statement: "An audio recording was made of the proceedings. A copy has been provided as a public record to the Director of Elections, who will maintain it in accordance with the Records Retention and Disposition Schedule for County and Municipal Boards of Elections, dated October 7, 2002."
Any citizen who wants a copy of any of these records should contact Lisa Bennett at the County Board of Elections - 745-4821.
Early this year, when Oriental Town Commissioners reviewed draft minutes, newly-elected Commissioner Jennifer Roe made it quite clear: minutes record what was done, not what was said. This general rule applies no matter what the nature of the body. Otherwise approval of the minutes becomes a reiteration of every argument raised at the previous meeting and so on, ad infinitum.
As for public records, any correspondence concerning the business of a board becomes a public record, including audio and video recordings of public meetings. The custodian of all public records of the County Board of Elections is Lisa Bennett, the Director of Elections.
Since the meeting of the County Board of Elections held March 23, 2010, all minutes have included the following statement: "An audio recording was made of the proceedings. A copy has been provided as a public record to the Director of Elections, who will maintain it in accordance with the Records Retention and Disposition Schedule for County and Municipal Boards of Elections, dated October 7, 2002."
Any citizen who wants a copy of any of these records should contact Lisa Bennett at the County Board of Elections - 745-4821.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Bay River Again
Yesterday's report in Pamlico Today was good news about Bay River. The state has held off the moratorium on new hookups until June 7, hoping proposed repairs prove successful.
The news doesn't, however, resolve a longstanding issue that needs to be addressed. There is no agreement between the Town of Oriental and Bay River Metropolitan Sewer District obliging BRMSD to provide sewer treatment for new residences or businesses in Oriental, even though the town's Growth Management Ordinance seems to require sewer hookups for new construction and clearly requires it for subdivisions.
At the time Oriental sold its sewage treatment plant to BMRSD, no one thought to protect the Town's interests with a formal agreement. The problem with handshake agreements, though, is that they are only good while the handshakers are still around. Even then, they may not have thought to cover every likely contingency.
We are all mortal. We owe it to our progeny to protect their interests with formal agreements. An interlocal agreement between the Town and Bay River seems in order.
The news doesn't, however, resolve a longstanding issue that needs to be addressed. There is no agreement between the Town of Oriental and Bay River Metropolitan Sewer District obliging BRMSD to provide sewer treatment for new residences or businesses in Oriental, even though the town's Growth Management Ordinance seems to require sewer hookups for new construction and clearly requires it for subdivisions.
At the time Oriental sold its sewage treatment plant to BMRSD, no one thought to protect the Town's interests with a formal agreement. The problem with handshake agreements, though, is that they are only good while the handshakers are still around. Even then, they may not have thought to cover every likely contingency.
We are all mortal. We owe it to our progeny to protect their interests with formal agreements. An interlocal agreement between the Town and Bay River seems in order.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Effluent Issues
Whenever cruising sailors get together, the conversation eventually touches on holding tanks and pumpouts.
Last week an old friend and his wife stopped by on the way north from cruising in Florida. They were accompanied by two other couples and their boats returning to the Patuxent River. The inevitable subject came up. They complained that there are very few pumpout stations available for transient vessels in North Carolina waters.
This is a serious problem for cruising sailors.
It may also represent an opportunity.
Our friends were confident that cruising boats would drop into Oriental if they knew there was a readily available municipal pumpout facility.
17,000 boats go up and down the ICW every year.
A lot of potential visitors to Oriental and customers for our businesses.
Last week an old friend and his wife stopped by on the way north from cruising in Florida. They were accompanied by two other couples and their boats returning to the Patuxent River. The inevitable subject came up. They complained that there are very few pumpout stations available for transient vessels in North Carolina waters.
This is a serious problem for cruising sailors.
It may also represent an opportunity.
Our friends were confident that cruising boats would drop into Oriental if they knew there was a readily available municipal pumpout facility.
17,000 boats go up and down the ICW every year.
A lot of potential visitors to Oriental and customers for our businesses.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Voter Registration Challenges
Under North Carolina General Statutes, any registered voter in a county can challenge the right of any other registered voter in the same county to remain on the voter registration rolls.
The county board of elections is obligated to process all such challenges prior to the next election. Hearing the challenge is a two step process: 1) a preliminary hearing to determine whether probable cause exists that the challenged voter should not be registered; 2) a formal hearing by the board of elections sitting as a quasi-judicial body and providing all of the protections of due process normally provided by a court.
The county board will require the advice of an attorney representing the county during the hearings, and will also require the services of a court reporter. Should there be an appeal from the Board's decision(s), the appeal will go to Superior Court and will require a transcript of the proceedings.
This is uncharted territory for Pamlico County.
The most recent comparable experience in North Carolina is Brunswick County. Following last year's municipal elections, the defeated candidate for mayor of Bald Head Island filed 39 challenges against the town's registered voters.
Of the 39 challenged voters, the Brunswick County Board of Elections failed to find probable cause in eight cases. The challenger appealed to Superior Court, but after discussion, agreed to drop five of the eight challenges. Superior Court returned two cases to the County Board and the Board found in favor of the challenged voters. Superior Court has ordered the Board of Elections to hear the one remaining case.
We have to anticipate and budget for a similar process.
The county board of elections is obligated to process all such challenges prior to the next election. Hearing the challenge is a two step process: 1) a preliminary hearing to determine whether probable cause exists that the challenged voter should not be registered; 2) a formal hearing by the board of elections sitting as a quasi-judicial body and providing all of the protections of due process normally provided by a court.
The county board will require the advice of an attorney representing the county during the hearings, and will also require the services of a court reporter. Should there be an appeal from the Board's decision(s), the appeal will go to Superior Court and will require a transcript of the proceedings.
This is uncharted territory for Pamlico County.
The most recent comparable experience in North Carolina is Brunswick County. Following last year's municipal elections, the defeated candidate for mayor of Bald Head Island filed 39 challenges against the town's registered voters.
Of the 39 challenged voters, the Brunswick County Board of Elections failed to find probable cause in eight cases. The challenger appealed to Superior Court, but after discussion, agreed to drop five of the eight challenges. Superior Court returned two cases to the County Board and the Board found in favor of the challenged voters. Superior Court has ordered the Board of Elections to hear the one remaining case.
We have to anticipate and budget for a similar process.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Second Primaries and Instant Runoff
Here's a topic to make your eyes glaze over. The sort of detail only a policy wonk enjoys.
In last Tuesday's Democratic Party primary election, there were six candidates seeking nomination as the party's candidate for U.S. Senate. The leading vote getter was Elaine Marshall, with 153,953 votes (36.6% of the 423,453 votes cast). Second was Cal Cunningham with 115,590 votes (27.3%).
So Elaine Marshall won, right?
Not exactly.
Under North Carolina Law, a candidate has to win 40% of the vote to win. Elaine Marshall came up 3.4% short.
What now?
We have to hold a second primary (also called a runoff) between the top two candidates to determine the winner.
In Pamlico County, the second primary will require us to hold one-stop voting for a couple of weeks, followed by the election on June 22. We are required by state law to open all ten precinct polling places for election day, no matter how light we think the turnout will be. Some other counties have runoff primaries for local elections, but U.S. Senate is the only race here in Pamlico County.
Who can vote?
Any registered Democrat can vote, whether or not he or she voted in the first primary.
No registered Republican can vote.
Anyone registered as unaffiliated who did not vote in the May 4th Republican Party primary can also vote.
Is there a better system? Probably. Some options:
1. Just pick the leading vote getter at the first primary. Most states do that. Runoff primaries are only prevalent in the South. The origin of primaries, including the runoff system, is often attributed to the populist or progressive movement. The true origin may be less benign, as recent research seems to show.
2. Use "instant runoff," where voters rank their choices. This needs computers to determine the outcome. Some US municipalities have tried it.
For real policy wonks, there are at least a dozen different variations of instant runoff.
In last Tuesday's Democratic Party primary election, there were six candidates seeking nomination as the party's candidate for U.S. Senate. The leading vote getter was Elaine Marshall, with 153,953 votes (36.6% of the 423,453 votes cast). Second was Cal Cunningham with 115,590 votes (27.3%).
So Elaine Marshall won, right?
Not exactly.
Under North Carolina Law, a candidate has to win 40% of the vote to win. Elaine Marshall came up 3.4% short.
What now?
We have to hold a second primary (also called a runoff) between the top two candidates to determine the winner.
In Pamlico County, the second primary will require us to hold one-stop voting for a couple of weeks, followed by the election on June 22. We are required by state law to open all ten precinct polling places for election day, no matter how light we think the turnout will be. Some other counties have runoff primaries for local elections, but U.S. Senate is the only race here in Pamlico County.
Who can vote?
Any registered Democrat can vote, whether or not he or she voted in the first primary.
No registered Republican can vote.
Anyone registered as unaffiliated who did not vote in the May 4th Republican Party primary can also vote.
Is there a better system? Probably. Some options:
1. Just pick the leading vote getter at the first primary. Most states do that. Runoff primaries are only prevalent in the South. The origin of primaries, including the runoff system, is often attributed to the populist or progressive movement. The true origin may be less benign, as recent research seems to show.
2. Use "instant runoff," where voters rank their choices. This needs computers to determine the outcome. Some US municipalities have tried it.
For real policy wonks, there are at least a dozen different variations of instant runoff.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Words
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Through the Looking Glass.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Through the Looking Glass.
The White Queen
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.
Public Records
We've had a few discussions over the past year or so about public records in North Carolina. Among other things, a public record is pretty much any record made of the public's business.
Here's what North Carolina General Statutes have to say:
"§ 132 1. "Public records" defined.
(a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public officer or official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political subdivision of government.
(b) The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law. As used herein, "minimal cost" shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information.)"
Seems pretty clear.
So any record made by a public official in connection with the people's business is a public record. It doesn't matter whether it was made on or with a privately owned piece of equipment, it is a public record. And it must be turned over to the public agency's official custodian of public records.
Here's what North Carolina General Statutes have to say:
"§ 132 1. "Public records" defined.
(a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public officer or official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political subdivision of government.
(b) The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law. As used herein, "minimal cost" shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information.)"
Seems pretty clear.
So any record made by a public official in connection with the people's business is a public record. It doesn't matter whether it was made on or with a privately owned piece of equipment, it is a public record. And it must be turned over to the public agency's official custodian of public records.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Pamlico - a Wilderness County
Attendees at tonight's (Monday, March 15) meeting of the Pamlico County Commissioners learned a startling fact: the State of North Carolina does not categorize Pamlico County as a "rural county," but as a "wilderness county."
This revelation was provided by Mr. Jim Gray, who spoke in favor of adoption of the proposed Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Strategic Plan. During the ensuing discussion, Commissioner Ann Holton reluctantly admitted the category might be accurate. Just the previous day she had to kick her golf cart up to top speed to get away from a bear. Mr. Gray emphasized the contribution that improved EMS services would make to moving the county out of the wilderness into the rural county category. He noted in particular the importance of enhanced EMS to economic development by encouraging population growth, especially among retirees.
Mr. Gray was one of three attendees who spoke up strongly in favor of the strategic plan during the public hearing. County commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the plan.
The plan is good news for Oriental and nearby locations. The first phase of the plan, covering the next three years, calls for establishing a satellite EMS location in the county's southeast region. This is expected to be at the Oriental Fire Station.
The second phase, over the next five years, will involve upgrading EMS to the Paramedic level. Pamlico County is one of fewer than ten counties in North Carolina to lack a Paramedic or higher level certification.
The plan is only a beginning. It will need funding to complete, but to all appearances, the county is now committed to making it happen.
This revelation was provided by Mr. Jim Gray, who spoke in favor of adoption of the proposed Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Strategic Plan. During the ensuing discussion, Commissioner Ann Holton reluctantly admitted the category might be accurate. Just the previous day she had to kick her golf cart up to top speed to get away from a bear. Mr. Gray emphasized the contribution that improved EMS services would make to moving the county out of the wilderness into the rural county category. He noted in particular the importance of enhanced EMS to economic development by encouraging population growth, especially among retirees.
Mr. Gray was one of three attendees who spoke up strongly in favor of the strategic plan during the public hearing. County commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the plan.
The plan is good news for Oriental and nearby locations. The first phase of the plan, covering the next three years, calls for establishing a satellite EMS location in the county's southeast region. This is expected to be at the Oriental Fire Station.
The second phase, over the next five years, will involve upgrading EMS to the Paramedic level. Pamlico County is one of fewer than ten counties in North Carolina to lack a Paramedic or higher level certification.
The plan is only a beginning. It will need funding to complete, but to all appearances, the county is now committed to making it happen.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Census is Upon Us
I received notice today that the 2010 census form will arrive in the mail in about a week.
The task: "please fill it out and mail it in promptly."
The task: "please fill it out and mail it in promptly."
Monday, March 1, 2010
Be Enumerated
This month, the United States Postal Service will deliver to every postal customer a questionnaire for the 2010 census. The Constitution calls it an "enumeration."
Why would the founders use a four syllable word when a single syllable word (count) might have done just as well? Because it was never just a count.
Here is the relevant passage from Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
So the census was never a simple count. It involved arithmetic, too.
The first census of 1790 and each subsequent census through 1840 listed only the head of household, but divided the count of household members into different categories.
From 1850 on, individuals were listed, and the census began asking some pretty personal questions. In 1870, the census wanted to know if the individual was "deaf and dumb, blind, insane or idiotic." From the 1880 census (27 questions), I learned that my great grandfather was illiterate. From the 1910 census, I learned that two of my great grandmothers had children I had never heard about. The 1910 census and the 1930 census seem to hold the record to date for number of questions (32).
This year's census asks 10 questions. It should take about ten minutes to complete.
Please complete it and mail it back.
Census data not only determines how Congressional Representatives are apportioned, it determines state and local apportionment as well. Not only that, population from the census is one of the factors the state uses to determine how to distribute tax revenue to counties and municipalities, as well as to determine eligibility for certain grants.
So filling this form out is important for your town, your county, and your friends and neighbors.
One last thought: many homeowners in Oriental and elsewhere in Pamlico County also have homes elsewhere. If you have an option about where you report that you live for census purposes, count yourself here. It would help this community, and it has no effect on tax domicile. That's a separate issue.
Most of all, make sure you are enumerated!
Why would the founders use a four syllable word when a single syllable word (count) might have done just as well? Because it was never just a count.
Here is the relevant passage from Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:
Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
So the census was never a simple count. It involved arithmetic, too.
The first census of 1790 and each subsequent census through 1840 listed only the head of household, but divided the count of household members into different categories.
From 1850 on, individuals were listed, and the census began asking some pretty personal questions. In 1870, the census wanted to know if the individual was "deaf and dumb, blind, insane or idiotic." From the 1880 census (27 questions), I learned that my great grandfather was illiterate. From the 1910 census, I learned that two of my great grandmothers had children I had never heard about. The 1910 census and the 1930 census seem to hold the record to date for number of questions (32).
This year's census asks 10 questions. It should take about ten minutes to complete.
Please complete it and mail it back.
Census data not only determines how Congressional Representatives are apportioned, it determines state and local apportionment as well. Not only that, population from the census is one of the factors the state uses to determine how to distribute tax revenue to counties and municipalities, as well as to determine eligibility for certain grants.
So filling this form out is important for your town, your county, and your friends and neighbors.
One last thought: many homeowners in Oriental and elsewhere in Pamlico County also have homes elsewhere. If you have an option about where you report that you live for census purposes, count yourself here. It would help this community, and it has no effect on tax domicile. That's a separate issue.
Most of all, make sure you are enumerated!
Friday, February 26, 2010
County Commissioners Meeting
Not very many people attend County Commissioners meetings in Bayboro. That's too bad, because it's possible to learn a great deal about county issues and how county government deals with them.
In an earlier post, I noted Mr. Himbry's economic development proposal for a center for internet-based businesses.
There were two other items on the Feb 15 agenda that caught my interest.
County Sheriff Bill Sawyer presented a proposal to lower the speed limit on Hwy 306N near the Head Start School. During the ensuing discussion, he disclosed that the Sheriff's Department does not have either a certified radar system or certified operators. The implications for Oriental are that if we want enforcement for our speed limits, we will have to use our own certified equipment and operators.
In another matter, the county's auditor, Mr. Greg Adams, revealed that there had been several budget violations during the budget year. The audit also recalculated the County's unrestricted fund balance. During the previous budget year, the County's fund balance was reported as 38 per cent. This was apparently erroneous. For the most recent audit, the fund balance was recalculated as 22 per cent. The auditor also restated some fixed asset accounts.
Next Monday (Mar 1), County Commissioners will address whether to authorize solicitation of proposals for auditing services for the coming year.
In an earlier post, I noted Mr. Himbry's economic development proposal for a center for internet-based businesses.
There were two other items on the Feb 15 agenda that caught my interest.
County Sheriff Bill Sawyer presented a proposal to lower the speed limit on Hwy 306N near the Head Start School. During the ensuing discussion, he disclosed that the Sheriff's Department does not have either a certified radar system or certified operators. The implications for Oriental are that if we want enforcement for our speed limits, we will have to use our own certified equipment and operators.
In another matter, the county's auditor, Mr. Greg Adams, revealed that there had been several budget violations during the budget year. The audit also recalculated the County's unrestricted fund balance. During the previous budget year, the County's fund balance was reported as 38 per cent. This was apparently erroneous. For the most recent audit, the fund balance was recalculated as 22 per cent. The auditor also restated some fixed asset accounts.
Next Monday (Mar 1), County Commissioners will address whether to authorize solicitation of proposals for auditing services for the coming year.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
North Carolina's ICW: Neglected Economic Engine
What would you think of an infrastructure project that reduces petroleum imports, reduces congestion on I-95 and 17 without expensive and disruptive construction, and brings sustainable jobs to thirteen counties in Eastern North Carolina? How could that be done? Improve and expand the North Carolina portion of the Atlantic Section of the Intracoastal Waterway as an integral part of the North Carolina and national transportation system.
Advantages:
- Water transport of cargo is the most fuel efficient and lowest cost method. A gallon of fuel moves a ton of cargo eight times as far on water as on land;
- Water transport is by far the least costly and safest of all transportation modes and has the lowest environmental impact;
- A single barge carries as much cargo as 58 trucks; typical tows are from four to fifteen barges – a single tug and fifteen barge tow replaces 870 trucks;
- USDOT projects truck traffic on I-95 will double by 2030 increasing an average of 10,000 trucks per day, equivalent to a dozen fifteen barge tows;
- Increased ICW traffic would offer the opportunity for steel barge and tug construction and maintenance, barge cleaning and storage operations and related economic development opportunities in Eastern North Carolina.
Problems:
- Decades of neglect of the ICW, lack of funding for maintenance dredging, postponed modernization projects, lack of official advocacy by the State of North Carolina;
- Failure to view the ICW as part of an integrated transportation system: the State agency that interfaces with US Corps of Engineers is Fish and Wildlife, not DOT;
- Failure to involve counties and regional councils of government (COGs): the only NC commission with ICW responsibility is the Morehead City Navigation and Pilotage Commission, with responsibility as far as Aurora, but whose membership is required to be from Carteret County (ICW transits 13 counties);
- Shortage of intermodal transshipment facilities at railheads and ocean ports;
- Failure to adapt highway asset management strategies to waterway infrastructure analysis
Recommendations:
- Create a North Carolina ICW Commission with membership from each of the 13 bordering counties, regional COGs and rural transportation planning organizations (RPOs) to develop a comprehensive, coordinated plan for water transport, integrated with land transportation planning and economic development planning;
- Investigate opportunities for intermodal transshipment facilities at Washington, New Bern, Morehead City, Jacksonville, Wilmington, Southport and other locations along the ICW with rail and truck facilities;
- Charge NCDOT with task of ICW transportation planning;
- Assign a cabinet level official to interface with US Army Corps of Engineers
For more information, consult the following:
Waterways Council, Inc., (WCI), the national public policy organization that advocates for a properly funded and well-maintained system of inland waterways and ports.
Bluewater Charts & Books Newsletter -Following the Intracoastal Folly: What is happening to keep the waterway running
NC State Ports Authority - 21stCentury Transportation Intermodal Committee - February 21, 2008 Report
North Carolina Coastal Federation
US Army Corps of Engineers: Inland Navigation - Value to the Nation
North Carolina Beach, Inlet & Waterway Association
Monday, January 25, 2010
STEP: Does it Have a Theme?
It may be unfair, but when I read the plan attributed to the Pamlico County STEP (Small Town Economic Prosperity) plan unveiled at a meeting at Pamlico Community College January 6, I was reminded of Winston Churchill's reaction to a particular dessert. "Madame," he said, "this pudding has no theme."
It is probably unfair to comment, since I didn't attend any of the meetings or do any of the work. A fair assessment of the proposals might be, "they can't hurt."
There may, in fact, be a unifying theme: tourism.
I don't object to tourism. It has the potential to entice visitors to come spend money in the county. That's good.
What the proposed activities don't seem to do is provide a sustained base of economic activity. A sustainable effort creates jobs. The measure of success should be jobs and payroll, preferably year-in and year-out, month-in and month-out.
I don't think a flea market, a revived Blue Crab festival, or a set of marketing materials are likely to accomplish that.
The county needs a more ambitious plan.
It is probably unfair to comment, since I didn't attend any of the meetings or do any of the work. A fair assessment of the proposals might be, "they can't hurt."
There may, in fact, be a unifying theme: tourism.
I don't object to tourism. It has the potential to entice visitors to come spend money in the county. That's good.
What the proposed activities don't seem to do is provide a sustained base of economic activity. A sustainable effort creates jobs. The measure of success should be jobs and payroll, preferably year-in and year-out, month-in and month-out.
I don't think a flea market, a revived Blue Crab festival, or a set of marketing materials are likely to accomplish that.
The county needs a more ambitious plan.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Oriental's Future: a Vision
A little over a year ago, as the Long Range Planning Committee was nearing completion of its task, Dee Sage asked the members to each draft a vision of what the Town would be like in ten years. My response focused on how the town might grow, and what paths we might follow in economic development.
The final Long Range Plan didn't incorporate every element of my vision. I hope we can have a broader discussion about the future, including a discussion about the future of Pamlico County. To foster such a discussion, I thought it might be useful to share my vision. Over the next few weeks, I will flesh out the vision in more detail.
I would welcome comments.
Oriental in Ten Years
By David Cox
My vision of Oriental in ten years is as follows:
Population: increase to 1750, through a combination of migrants from elsewhere and annexation of neighboring developed land.
Principal economic activities: water dependent activities, including fishing, shrimping and crabbing, expansion of existing marinas to include more boat repair, maintenance and construction; marine trades in support of expanded use of ICW for commercial as well as recreational purposes; support for transiting recreational boats; provision of services in support of green power and improvement of water quality; tourism, with emphasis on outdoor activities associated with the water, including paddling, exploring of marshlands, birding and related activities; recreational fishing.
Public facilities: increased boating infrastructure facilities, including additional town dock at foot of South Avenue (after town wins its lawsuit), associated marine welcoming center, shower, laundry and head; municipal mooring fields in Smith Creek, Raccoon Creek, Neuse River, protected by additional breakwater, and with protected dinghy landing at one of our street ends – this has made Oriental a “must stop” for transiting boaters; additional wildlife boat ramp on Camp Creek in newly annexed part of town.
Businesses: increase in population and tourism and more frequent visits by transiting boaters provides expanded customer base for businesses, including a convenience store, pharmacy, car rental facility, boat rental, and one or more destination restaurants.
Housing: additional housing stock through infill (building on existing lots) in R-1 and R-2 areas and construction of multi family dwellings in R-3.
Demographics: Median age of population decreases due to influx of working age families.
Oriental will have developed greater cooperation with Pamlico County, especially in area of economic development.
The final Long Range Plan didn't incorporate every element of my vision. I hope we can have a broader discussion about the future, including a discussion about the future of Pamlico County. To foster such a discussion, I thought it might be useful to share my vision. Over the next few weeks, I will flesh out the vision in more detail.
I would welcome comments.
Oriental in Ten Years
By David Cox
My vision of Oriental in ten years is as follows:
Population: increase to 1750, through a combination of migrants from elsewhere and annexation of neighboring developed land.
Principal economic activities: water dependent activities, including fishing, shrimping and crabbing, expansion of existing marinas to include more boat repair, maintenance and construction; marine trades in support of expanded use of ICW for commercial as well as recreational purposes; support for transiting recreational boats; provision of services in support of green power and improvement of water quality; tourism, with emphasis on outdoor activities associated with the water, including paddling, exploring of marshlands, birding and related activities; recreational fishing.
Public facilities: increased boating infrastructure facilities, including additional town dock at foot of South Avenue (after town wins its lawsuit), associated marine welcoming center, shower, laundry and head; municipal mooring fields in Smith Creek, Raccoon Creek, Neuse River, protected by additional breakwater, and with protected dinghy landing at one of our street ends – this has made Oriental a “must stop” for transiting boaters; additional wildlife boat ramp on Camp Creek in newly annexed part of town.
Businesses: increase in population and tourism and more frequent visits by transiting boaters provides expanded customer base for businesses, including a convenience store, pharmacy, car rental facility, boat rental, and one or more destination restaurants.
Housing: additional housing stock through infill (building on existing lots) in R-1 and R-2 areas and construction of multi family dwellings in R-3.
Demographics: Median age of population decreases due to influx of working age families.
Oriental will have developed greater cooperation with Pamlico County, especially in area of economic development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
