California's Proposition 14

I seldom agree with columnist George Will, unless the topic is baseball. There, we share an aversion to the designated hitter rule.

Sometimes, though, I stand up in agreement. Today's op-ed column in the Sun Journal is one of those cases.

Those who believe in representative democracy often cringe at California's referenda and initiatives. I think George Will is right about this one.

Voter List Maintenance

Next Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 the County Board of Elections will conduct a formal hearing on challenges to four voters on the Pamlico County rolls. They are four remaining challenges out of six originally submitted, all on the County's list of inactive voters, for whom the BOE determined probable cause existed to remove them from the rolls.

Headlines of related news articles convey a misleading idea of how voter lists are maintained. "Pamlico begins clearing voter list of dead, relocated residents," the Sun Journal reported. "Dead people haunt county's voter rolls," County Compass declared. Similar headlines in Pamlico Today and Pamlico News seem to suggest that the County is just now beginning to remove voters.

Not so.

The truth is, that State and Federal law require the state of North Carolina to maintain a statewide voter registration database. Local boards of elections in the 100 counties perform routine data entry and other tasks as prescribed by these laws. They perform regular maintenance of voter lists using certain approved methods designed to carefully protect the rights of voters. Among the methods:

1. Daily activities: Voters moving into the county or moving within the county can register during working hours any day of the week. The voter registration office is open all day long. Voters moving from the county can request removal from the registration list at any time by signing a form. Close family relatives of a deceased person can request that person's removal at any time.

2. Daily: if a voter when registering in the county indicates a previous voting registry, the Board provides that information to the appropriate agency for removal at the previous address.

3. Monthly: The NC Department of Health and Human Services and Clerks of Courts provide information to county boards to remove persons who have died or been convicted of a felony. In addition, since in many cases, death certificates for Pamlico County registered voters may be issued in other counties, the Board of Elections searches this information in counties where medical centers create the possibility that deaths might be recorded. The County Board does not have sufficient staff to search all 100 counties in NC.

4. The NC State Board of Elections participates in the National Change of Address Program sponsored by the US Postal Service. Notification of a change of address prompts a mailing to the voter asking them to confirm the change for voting purposes.

5. Every odd year, county boards of elections perform list maintenance using a computer program to identify voters who have had no contact with the Board of Elections for two federal elections. The Board mails these voters information about their registration. If the card is returned undeliverable, the voter is declared inactive. A subsequent second phase identifies inactive voters who have had no contact for two additional federal elections. These voters are removed from the voting list.

In addition, any registered voter in the county may challenge the right of any other registered voter to register, remain registered and vote. In hearing such challenges, the Board of Elections sits as a Quasi-Judicial body and must provide the challenged voter all the protections of due process. Witnesses are sworn, testimony is taken, evidence presented, and if necessary, records subpoenaed. It is a solemn process.

Removing additional voters from the rolls will make the lists more useful to political candidates wanting to target voters for their campaigns.

That is what we will be doing Tuesday.

Whining and Bullying

Lately, I've been reflecting on the surprising paradox that bullies are often also whiners. Or whiners are often bullies.

"They (he) (she) is/are treating me unfairly."

This can be a surprisingly effective technique for getting one's own way.

Neither whining nor bullying is a grown-up way of dealing with conflict. Grown-ups may be very sensitive to treating other people fairly. They are seldom obsessed with how others treat them.

Another bullying technique is to focus on excessively literal reading of rules. Bullies distrust the exercise of judgment by others.

Since most people think of bullying and whining as separate things, I thought I'd see if anyone else sees a possible connection. I found at least one expert who sees it my way. Ben Leichtling's analysis of bullies who use moaning to take control and power is pretty clear. His list of suggestions for what to do about it is also helpful.

What if his suggestions don't work? I would like the answer to that.

What Next in Oriental?

I just learned from Town Dock that an investigation is finally underway into the possible criminal acts alleged in a letter from Oriental's town attorney to the District Attorney earlier this year.

I just hope it isn't too late. Computers should have been impounded long ago for evidence.

One of my main concerns has been possible violation of the integrity of the town's books. I warned of that last January here and here and here and here. It was only later that I learned of allegations about clandestine audio recordings. I also spoke to at least three commissioners last January suggesting the Town should cause a forensic accountant to look at the Town's accounting system files.

My main interest isn't sending people to jail, but finding out for sure what happened. The public has a right to know the truth. The trail is growing cold. More like "Cold Case" than "CSI."

Whatever investigators find, the important question is: "Where does the Town go from here?"

The best approach to a bad experience is to learn from it. Here are candidate "lessons learned:"

1. Audits. If one or more audits list no control deficiencies, be suspicious. The point of an audit is to uncover problems. If none are uncovered and brought to the Board's attention, better check to see if something is being swept under the rug;

2. Hiring. It may be a bad idea for the town to hire a former commissioner for clerical tasks. Sorting out the proper relationships may be confusing to all parties;

3. Hiring and Management. If the Town hires someone for a management position, be sure that person is given the responsibility and also the authority to do the job. Lines of responsibility must be clear. No micro managing or interference in daily operations by elected officials. There is a difference between oversight and interference. The former holds the manager accountable. The latter destroys accountability. To the manager: "manage!" Sink or swim;

4. Avoid a protracted turnover period with the previous manager. Stretching this process out just confuses everyone about who is really in charge;

5. Commissioners must protect the integrity of sensitive personal and financial information of which the town manager is the custodian.

I have some thoughts about management style.

Every leader or manager has his or her own style of leadership. In more than fifty years managing various size organization, both military and civilian, I have come to some conclusions as to what works best:

1. Positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement;
2. Leaders get better results when they seek cooperation and ideas rather than demanding compliance by ordering it, except in extreme cases;
3. Leaders can delegate authority but never responsibility - when a ship runs aground, the Captain is responsible even if he is asleep in his cabin;
4. Effective leaders delegate as many tasks as possible, exercising oversight by intervening only to keep things from going wrong - that's known as "control by negation";
5. Subordinates also need to understand that they are not and cannot be responsible to the degree that the "boss" is.

Oriental Budget Ordinance Hearing

This evening, June 8, 2010 at 5:00 P.M., the Town of Oriental held a public hearing on the proposed budget ordinance for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.

The budget had been well prepared and explained by the recently fired Town Manager, so there were few questions until local businessman Hugh Grady asked, "How are the taxpayers going to get their $21,000 back from the attorney's fees that had no apparent purpose?"

The mayor hemmed and hawed for awhile without answering. Then Commissioner Jennifer Roe, a slight smile on her face, commented: "we saved enough on sidewalk repair to pay for the legal fees."

The irony did not pass unnoticed. It was Randy Cahoon who researched the options, sought bids and recommended the innovative approach that saved the Town a wad of money. It was just one of his many innovations for the benefit of taxpayers.

South Avenue Missing, Stolen or Strayed

Town property has been stolen.

Crucial pieces of the Neuse Ways Marine Railway which were left behind when Neuse Ways' lease of the Town's street end expired, have disappeared. Under the terms of the lease, the parts were the Town's property.

How did this come about? I intend to find out.

Only the Town Board has authority to dispose of Town property. If the Board acted on this matter, I totally missed it.

The parts could have been used by one of the County's museums to reconstruct a historical device used in boat maintenance and repair.

South Avenue Street End

I thought readers might like to see the layout at the end of the Town's Right of Way on South Avenue, formerly leased by Lacy Henry and blocked off by his fence, even though the town has won its case. The pink wedge is the pavement on a lot owned by Mr. Henry, which allows access to Mr. Fulcher's property otherwise blocked by Mr. Henry's fence.

According to the lease, anything left behind when the lease expired in 1992 belongs to the Town.

As you can see, the fence intrudes more than halfway across the Town's Right of Way for Avenue A.

The Trial

`Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

`No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'

Alice in Wonderland