Ferry Terminal

Here is a scan from this week's County Compass of the ferry terminal planned for Cherry Point. Cost: who knows? But it's pretty certain to exceed a million dollars. Let's say a million and a half.

Cost of collecting the tolls? About a million dollars.

Annual additional revenue ordered to be collected: three million.

Amount gained by ditching the tolls and leaving the terminal as it is? two and a half million.

Shortfall? Half a million, much of which will be recovered from reducing the ferry schedule.

Anyone still think the toll is about the budget?

This Is The Way We Starve The Beast - One Bite At A Time

Today's commuter ferry tax story fits in with a theme I wrote about almost exactly a year ago here. This latest move is just more evidence that the ferry issue isn't about budgets. It's about services to citizens.

Commuter Fairy Hijinks

The commuter fairy made two visits this week - last night, when County Compass printed an artist's rendition of the planned new ferry terminal at Cherry Branch and today's announcement by DOT that five ferry runs each way will be cancelled as of March 1.

Town Dock, who broke the story, asked if this move, which complied with state legislative directives to reduce ferry operating costs, would remove pressure to institute tolls. The answer: "no, these are two separate issues."

More evidence that this isn't about budgets. See my earlier analysis here.

Original Intent

There is a theory of judicial review holding that judges should determine the meaning of the US Constitution on the basis of "original intent."

I always thought that was a bit flaky, especially since the drafters of the constitution kept no official journal of the proceedings. No minutes. No agreement among the participants as to the purpose and intent of each passage. No record of the debates.

So how can we deduce "original intent?"

On a smaller scale, we have had much speculation about why the NC State Legislature decided to insist on tolls for our commuter ferries.

That particular sausage was made behind closed doors, and the reasons were not debated or communicated to the Department of Transportation.

So we are left to guess at the original intent. But some participants have given a few hints. Here are various theories, conjectures and explanations:

1. The legislature was faced with a large deficit and had to do something to reduce it. This is something. Therefore they had to do it.

Comment: a) The legislature didn't do this. Only the Republican members of the General Assembly did it. b) Governor Perdue's budget would have been equally effective at reducing the deficit;

2. The General Assembly wanted to reduce government. Translation: Republicans in the General Assembly wanted to reduce government services to those who need them;

3. The General Assembly had to look in obscure places to find enough money.

Comment: a) Balderdash! It wasn't about money and it wasn't about deficits. That is plain from the provision that ordered the collection of a certain amount of gross revenue, with no possibility of achieving the same budget figure with DOT economies either with ferries or elsewhere. b) The ordered target of five million dollars in revenue is about two-tenths of one percent of the budget deficit.

4. One astute local observer offers the following explanation: It was an effort by the Republican legislature to slap Governor Perdue and her supporters in Eastern North Carolina without damaging the state's relations with the military hierarchy as a cutback in the highway 70 and highway 17 projects would have.

Comment: a) This is plausible. b) It arguably also avoids arousing the big city residents who want enhanced weekend access to the beaches.

I'm sure there are other explanations. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. When you get 170 legislators working on an appropriations bill, each may have his or her own reasons.

Clearly, the welfare of Pamlico County and her citizens was not among them.

Legislative Calendar

For those who are interested, here is a link to the legislative calendar of the North Carolina General Assembly.

New Web Site In The County

The furor over over the legislature's decision to impose a commuter tax on Pamlico County continues to grow. County citizens determined to make sure this is not yet a "done deal" have started a new web site, tollfreeferry.org, with up to date information on the facts and the controversy.

Make sure to check it out.

Sign a petition.

Sign up for a bus trip to Raleigh.

Stay up to date by following towndock.net as well. Check out the letters. They keep coming in.

Just learned from Town Dock that the County Commissioners will reexamine last night's tie votes at a special meeting Monday, February 27 at 9:00 am.

On Making Various Kinds Of Sausage

Tonight's meeting of the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners offered a number of examples of the hazards of sausage-making. When combined with the revelations made during last week's public hearing on ferry tolls by NCDOT, it provides the raw material for a text book on American Politics at the state, county and local level. There is also a connection to national politics.

I won't tackle the whole thing in tonight's post, but I recommend reading Town Dock's report on How Pamlico County Got Stuck With Ferry Tolls.

The story illustrates themes such as: American theories of representation; the practice of representation; the "all politics is local" view; the tension between "I vote for the candidate, not the party" and actual policy outcomes; and why party matters, more so the higher you go up the political ladder.

I'll try to develop these themes over the next few days.

Tolling The Ferries

Monday night, February 20 at 7:00, the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners will discuss and consider possible action on Ferry Tolls. This was triggered, at least in part, by the disclosure at last week's DOT hearing that there is a provision in North Carolina General Statutes against converting "any segment" of the nontolled State Highway system to a toll facility. The provision is as follows:

"G.S. 136-89.187  Page 1
§ 136-89.187.  Conversion of free highways prohibited.
The  Authority  Board  is  prohibited  from  converting  any  segment  of  the  nontolled  State
Highway  System  to  a  toll  facility,  except  for  a  segment  of  N.C.  540  under  construction  as  of
July 1, 2006, located in Wake County and extending from the N.C. 54 exit on N.C. 540 to the
N.C. 55 exit on N.C. 540. No segment may be converted to a toll route pursuant to this section
unless  first  approved  by  the  Metropolitan  Planning  Organization  (MPO)  or  Rural  Planning
Organization (RPO) of the area in which that segment is located.  (2002-133, s. 1; 2006-228, s.
3; 2008-225, s. 5.)"

Examination of the map of the state transportation system made available to attendees make it plain that both the Minnesott ferry and the Aurora ferry are segments of state highway 306.

Unfortunately, the "Authority Board" mentioned in the law is the North Carolina Turnpike Authority board, not the state legislature.

So we need to review the North Carolina Constitution with a fine-tooth comb. I have a couple of ideas, but they aren't ready for prime time yet.

Busy Week In River City [Oriental]

It has been a busy week here along the Neuse River.

A week ago, the Oriental Town Board approved "in principal" the abandonment of public rights of way near the intersection of South Avenue and Avenue A in return for a donation of land on the harbor by Mr. Chris Fulcher. Details to be negotiated.

On Monday this week, the candidate filing period opened for federal, state and county elections. The filing period ends at noon on February 29th. The most prominent person to file last Monday (Feb. 13) was Mr. Norm Sanderson, incumbent member representing Pamlico County and part of Craven County in the NC State House. He filed to run for election to a vacant seat in the State Senate.

Earlier on Monday morning, the Oriental Board of Commissioners held a workshop on restoration of Town Hall, damaged by hurricane Irene. The board gave Town Manager Bob Maxbauer the go-ahead to expend funds on interior demolition, preparing for a major rebuilding and rearrangement of space. This project has been talked about for years. Irene finally pushed it to the top of the agenda.

Bob Maxbauer also has the town's public works crews out cleaning up along Raccoon creek, improving drainage and generally giving the town a beauty treatment. This is a continuation of his effort, the results of which can be seen along Wall Street and the intersection with South Avenue.

Most dramatic of the week's events was the somewhat raucous meeting of disgruntled Pamlico County residents at the Delamar Center at Pamlico Community College Wednesday night. At that meeting, Department of Transportation officials attempted to explain the various schemes for determining toll rates. Bottom line: DOT has no discretion in this matter, because the Republican state legislature requires DOT to charge, exempted two routes from the increases, and overrode the governor's veto.

This is an ongoing story. More to follow as the Pamlico County Commissioners meet next Monday night (Feb 20) to consider what actions to take.

Local Bill Shenanigans

Thirty-five years ago, the North Carolina state legislature passed a local bill taking away the right of municipalities in Pamlico County to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) subject to the same conditions that apply in all of the other 99 counties in North Carolina. In essence, this deprives citizens of Pamlico County of equal protection of the laws.

The original local bill also added preconditions to annexation that did not apply in other counties. The annexation provisions were repealed in 1983 by another session law, Chapter 636, Senate Bill 107, Section 37.1.

I believe Chapter 478, House Bill 1045 of the North Carolina General Assembly 1977 Session is an example of abuse of the local bill system and should be repealed.

NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1977 SESSION

CHAPTER 478

HOUSE BILL 1045

AN ACT TO AMEND CHAPTER 160A OF THE GENERAL STATUTES RELATING TO ANNEXATION BY MUNICIPALITIES IN PAMLICO COUNTY.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

Section 1.  G.S. 160A-44 is hereby amended by adding a new sentence at the end of the first paragraph to read:

"No territory in Pamlico County may be annexed under the provisions of this Part by any town or city with a population of 1,000 or less according to the most recent federal decennial census."

Sec. 2. G.S. 160A-25 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph.

"No territory in Pamlico County may be annexed under the provisions of G.S. 160A-24 through G.S. 160A-30 by any town or city with a population of 1,000 or less, according to the most recent federal decennial census, unless the persons living in the area to be annexed vote in favor of annexation and the governing body shall not adopt an annexation ordinance until after a favorable vote has been obtained in the area to be annexed."

Sec. 3.  G.S. 160A-360 is amended by adding a new subsection (k) at the end thereof to read:

"(k)      No town or city in Pamlico County having a population of 1,000 or less, according to the most recent federal decennial census, shall exercise any extraterritorial jurisdiction or powers outside its corporate limits pursuant to the provisions of this Article."

Sec. 4. This act shall become effective upon ratification.

In the General Assembly read three times and ratified, this the 7th day of June, 1977.

How To Fix Congress - And Why It Won't Happen

According to polls, public approval of Congress is at an all time low - about 12% and disapproval at an all time high - about 84%. How to fix this? I have some ideas, but before suggesting a cure, there must first be a diagnosis.

So. What's wrong with the congress?

Some of the ills of congress are built into our constitution. The US Senate, for example, which likes to characterize itself as "the world's greatest deliberative body" is arguably the "free world's" least democratic body. That is, first of all, a consequence of the constitutional arrangement that each state, regardless of size or economic output, have an equal number of senators. This is compounded by the increasingly inexplicable commitment of the senate to the requirement of a supermajority of senators to pass any legislation at all. My solution to that: get rid of paper filibusters imposed by the cloture rule. Let's go back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" style of filibuster. Filibusters would become more rare because voters could see what was happening and better understand what it was about.

By the way, some republicans want to fix the senate by repealing the seventeenth amendment that provided direct popular election of senators. What, we have too much democracy?

A common complaint about the House of Representatives is "My representative doesn't listen to people like me."

Some advocate term limits to fix this. I say, we already have term limits. Elections. What we don't have is enough representatives.

We are going through redistricting right now. This is the process after every decenniel census (except for the 1920 census - there was not a reapportionment after that census). First congress reapportions seats in the House of Representatives to the states according to population. District boundaries are then redrawn by state legislatures and in some cases by courts.

Contrary to popular opinion, the number of seats in the House of Representatives is not in the constitution. But the number has not changed since it was set at 435 in 1911. At that time, each member of the House represented about 216,000 citizens. Since then, our population has more than tripled, but the number remains the same. Now each member represents about 708,000 constituents.

My suggestion: enlarge the House so that each member represents about 216,000 citizens. With modern communications systems, that would allow the members closer communication with constituents. It would also lower the financial and organizational barriers to running for office. It might reduce the influence of money in politics and even create opportunities for more political parties to become competitive.

How many representatives would we have? About 1,426. Admittedly, that might make the body even more unwieldy, but it might force more cooperation. It would certainly induce representatives to be more responsive to constituents.

How could we accommodate so many representatives? We could replace the desks on the floor of the House with benches. We could also reduce representatives' personal staffs. Currently, members are allowed to hire as many as eighteen personal staffers. Reduce that to five per member. Representatives might have to study bills themselves, possibly answer phones and write some of their own correspondence. Where would they get the time to do this? By going to fewer fund raising events.

Something else worth trying is proportional representation, but that's a really wonky subject I'll save for later.

None of this will happen, because all of these measures would reduce the present power of incumbents and wealthy patrons.

YOYO vs. WITT

Much of today's vicious political discourse reflects a conflict between those who believe in YOYO (you're on your own) against those who favor concerted action for the common good (WITT - we're in this together). This is an ancient struggle, but the twentieth century saw great strides in the ability of American society to work together for the "general welfare," as our constitution puts it. We came out of the great depression and defeated the Axis powers by following the policies of WITT. We created general prosperity for two and a half decades after WWII by extending the policies and attitudes of WITT.

The efforts of government at both the federal and the state level to act in the public good has been under constant attack for about four decades now. Last night's attack by North Carolina Republican legislators on public school teachers is a recent example of the YOYO philosophy.

This Wednesday, Robert Reich, Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, posted a very thought-provoking article entitled "The Decline of the Public Good." I recommend it.

Reich makes it clear that the decline in spending on public assets that everyone uses is a consequence of relentless attacks. Not only public schools, but parks, roads, playgrounds and transit systems have been victims. His most striking statistic: "Outside of defense, domestic discretionary spending is down sharply as a percent of the economy. Add in declines in state and local spending, and total public spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research has dropped from 12 percent of GDP in the 1970s to less than 3 percent by 2011."

Anyone who uses those public assets knows about the decline.

Aristocratic Anarchists

“The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists.”

(G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday)

Do We Really Need Smaller Government?

Yesterday's New York Times had an op-ed piece entitled "Our Hidden Government Benefits." The article summarized a 2008 survey.

"A 2008 poll of 1,400 Americans by the Cornell Survey Research Institute found that when people were asked whether they had “ever used a government social program,” 57 percent said they had not. Respondents were then asked whether they had availed themselves of any of 21 different federal policies, including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the home-mortgage-interest deduction and student loans. It turned out that 94 percent of those who had denied using programs had benefited from at least one; the average respondent had used four."

I confess. I have used government services all my life. Still do.

Did you put your hurricane debris out in front of your house to be picked up? FEMA pays most of that bill, the state of North Carolina a big chunk and town government the rest. How would we deal with that without government? Not very well. Today I received a check from FEMA and one from my insurance company (to be repaid from the National Flood Insurance Program). There will be more payments. I also received my monthly social security check.

This afternoon I have a doctor's appointment to review my annual blood test results. Who pays? The U.S. Government. Earlier this week the town's mosquito control operation fogged mosquito breeding areas. Who pays? Town government, supplemented by state government.

The list goes on. We all use government programs.

We live in a democracy. The government isn't "they," it is us.

Oriental Town Charter Loose Ends

At the end of the Oriental Town Board meeting/press conference last Friday, Commissioner Venturi announced that she had asked town employee Lori Wagoner to compile the 1899 town charter and all amendments.

It's a really good idea to have and to publish on the town web site an annotated charter. The annotations should include not only the two amendments (November 4, 1993 by referendum and 1997 by ordinance), but also all changes dictated by changes to state law and annexations not listed in Section 2 of the 1899 charter.

This won't be a simple task. A cursory perusal suggests that, in addition to the repeal of sections 3 and 7 by referendum, Sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14 have been amended or replaced in whole or in part by subsequent changes to North Carolina law. It would be helpful to the public for these changes to be annotated on a public copy of the charter.

I propose the board of commissioners appoint a citizens committee empowered to contact the state legislative library, the Secretary of State's office and the School of Government to develop an accurate annotation.

NC Education Budget and Seed Corn

I mentioned a while back that cutting education for North Carolina's young people was like eating your seed corn. The consequences can last for a long time, indeed.

We now know the budget proposed by Republicans in the NC Senate would cut the budget for public schools, community colleges and universities by more than $1.1 Billion.

We can't afford cuts like that.

NC Legislature on Elections Week of May 16

Three bills on elections have cleared State House of Representatives committees and are calendared for a vote:

H366, Special Election Dates (provides for municipal special elections to be held at same time as statewide primary or general election);

H638, Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act;

H658, Change Early Voting Period.

H366 seems reasonable.

H638 is a mystery. I don't recall any concern expressed by North Carolina voters that electors might vote for someone other than the candidate they are pledged to. Such a vote has been very rare in US history, though it appears not to be prohibited by the US Constitution. In any event, even if adopted into NC law, it may well be unenforceable under the US Constitution. The mystery is why this particular model legislation appears on the list of acts advocated by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), over eighty percent of whose funding comes from corporate sources. What is the problem to which this is the solution?

H658 isn't much of a mystery. It shortens the period of "one-stop" or early voting in North Carolina, reducing the calendar period for one stop by a third. It also abolishes any one stop voting before 10:00 in the morning. Its supporters claim the act will shorten election campaigns and save counties money. How this would shorten campaigns is a mystery. Campaigns start when potential candidates first announce their intentions, and continue until election night. Nothing in this bill reduces that period.

As for saving money by reducing the one-stop period, I can't speak for other counties, but don't believe it will save money in Pamlico County. I am concerned that the bill, if it becomes law, may have an adverse effect on Pamlico County voters and also add to the County's cost of administering elections. I am particularly concerned about the effect on planning for 2012.

While it might seem that shortening the period of one-stop voting inevitably reduces expenses, in the case of Pamlico County this is unlikely. We have already begun preliminary planning and budgeting for the 2012 election cycle. The budget our Director of Elections has submitted to the County Manager includes funding for the 2012 primary and possible runoff primary elections. Our board has determined, based on experience in 2008, that we can manage with a single one-stop location so long as the one-stop period remains as before. If H-658 becomes law, we will have to reexamine that decision and may find we need to add another one-stop site. If that becomes necessary, it could increase our one-stop expenditures by at least 50%.

In our county, the interest of voters in one-stop has grown by leaps and bounds in each election from 2006 on. In 2008, roughly two-thirds of Pamlico County voters cast ballots during one-stop (4,527 out of 6,834 voters). Of the one-stop voters, a little over five percent made use of same-day registration, often to update their information already in the system. Reduction of one-stop voting period will inevitably increase the number of voters on election day, making for longer lines and a less relaxed voting experience. We may also have to increase staffing at some of our larger precincts for election day. This would add expense.

A further concern I have is the bill's stipulation that one-stop voting be conducted either from 10:00 to 6:00 or from 11:00 to 7:00. This will reduce, by law, our daily hours of operation. In Pamlico County, we typically conduct one-stop voting from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. In our experience, this schedule fits well with the needs of Pamlico County voters. Our heaviest hours are usually the first two hours after opening, the period either side of noon, and the last two hours. It would be helpful for county boards of elections to be authorized to tailor their hours to the needs of their voters.

Over the past two decades, I have taken part in "get-out-the-vote" efforts in several states. Of all the systems I have seen in action, North Carolina's is the most helpful to candidates and political parties. In Pamlico County, we make one-stop voter information available to the parties daily after the polls close. This allows the political parties to update their voter lists each day and reduces the challenge to them of getting voters to the polls on election day. Increased one-stop voting thus benefits everyone involved in the election process.

Where Do All These Bills Come From?

The newly elected North Carolina legislature has pursued a frantic pace of new legislation.

Some observers have charged that the new legislators have no idea what the effect of their proposed legislation will be. That may be true.

Normally, anyone taking a new job spends a little time getting to know the ropes. Not these legislators.

So where are all the bills coming from? Did you ever hear of ALEC? That is, the American Legislative Exchange Council. You thought you elected your local candidate to the state House of Representatives and the state Senate? Actually, you elected ALEC.

How do I know? I have been following the bills introduced in the legislature, and I have looked at the ALEC web site. Here is a link to ALEC's model legislation. Just read ALEC's models and compare them to the bills introduced by the new legislators. Most of them are ALEC bills.

So who is ALEC? The nationwide voice of corporate interests seeking to get their way through uniform acts by all of the state legislatures. Their aims have nothing to do with North Carolina. Do they have the public interest at heart? Not Likely.

Here is a good backgrounder.

Power to the Powerful! Wealth to the Wealthy! Blame to the Blameless!

Writing for Slate magazine yesterday, Eliot Spitzer described what he calls the "Republican war against the weak."

It is a multi front war, led by many generals. Republican governors against unions. Legislators against consumers. Judges against individuals and for corporations.

The truth is that the struggle of the wealthy and powerful against what used to be called the common man has been a feature of American politics from the beginning. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, though, it looked for a long time like the New Deal and its subsequent enhancements had permanently evened the tables. Well into the 1970's, Republican efforts to undo the New Deal and its regulatory and safety net features failed.

In the past thirty years, however, as memories of the depression faded and claims were made that we are now so smart we no longer need regulation, Republicans began to make serious inroads into the protections that had worked so well for so long.

"The unifying theme," Spitzer says, "is an assault on the weak. The power of individuals, each of us feeble in isolation, to act collectively and hence stand up to the powerful is being eviscerated. Those who already begin behind are finding the few legal protections afforded them under attack. A critical element of the Republican agenda has become increasing the legal power of those who already have power, and diminishing the power of the weak."

But Spitzer misses the boat on at least one matter. When he tries to explain why these efforts are wrong, he says: "if we are upset at the outcome of an election, we don't take away the right to vote of those who defeated us..." Yet all across the country Republican legislatures and governors are doing just that. They are introducing changes to election law clearly intended to discourage poor, elderly, handicapped, African American, Hispanic and first time voters from voting.

There are currently 41 bills in the North Carolina legislature that will, if adopted, modify election law and practice. The majority of the proposals would impede both voters and candidates. The bills appear to be part of an attempt to rig elections in favor of Republican candidates.

There are at least a half dozen proposed amendments to the North Carolina Constitution with the same apparent aim.

And we don't yet know what will be attempted with legislative redistricting.

It should be an interesting legislative session.