Second Primary - June 22

Tomorrow, June 22, is the last day to vote in the second primary. This is a democratic party runoff primary to choose the party's candidate for United States Senate this fall.

Who can vote?
a. Registered Democrats;
b. Registered Unaffiliated voters who voted in the Democratic Party Primary May 4;
c. Registered Unaffiliated Voters who have not yet voted.

Voter turnout at One Stop and Absentee by Mail has been very low.

Return of the Masked Marvel

I'm always genuinely pleased when Tony Tharp, (Former) editor of Pamlico Today, makes a reappearance.

Mr. Tharp isn't really masked, though from time to time he seems to wear different guises. And, as I have said before, he frequently raises issues that need raising.

While I disagree with his conclusions from time to time and am often uncomfortable with his personal invective, I agree with him on substance more often than he seems to believe.

Take the case of the letter from Heidi Artley to Oriental's Town Commissioners (or at least to some of them) last February. The entire letter is currently being withheld from the public on the grounds it is a personnel matter. Mr. Tharp wants the entire letter made public. I agree in part and disagree in part.

I just reread Charlie Hall's article in the Sun Journal February 11, 2010. It sounds to me like portions of the letter (which I have never seen) legitimately constitute a personal grievance letter conveying allegations about Mr. Cahoon's treatment of her. Those portions probably must be handled as a personnel matter and may not be made public, even though person(s) unknown who were privy to the letter did release it to the press. This is apparently the basis for allegation number three of the Town Attorney's letter of February 25 to the District Attorney.

The bulk of the letter, judging from Mr. Hall's account, seems to deal with allegations of financial irregularities involving the Town's books. Those allegations deserved serious attention.

A major problem with the allegations is that, as our auditor pointed out last December, the Town has no effective computer software controls. At the time of Ms. Artley's letter, at least four individuals had access to the Town's Peachtree Accounting System software. I believe all four had unrestricted rights to change entries in the system.

So far as I know, that is still the case. There is no integrity to the Town's books.

That's why I recommended to three of the current commissioners as early as last January that they get to the bottom of the matter by causing a forensic accountant to take a close look at the accounting system to uncover what actually happened.

I think it was irresponsible not to do so.

Voter List Maintenance II

A funny thing happened on the way to the hearing.

Yesterday the State Board of Elections (SBOE) advised the Pamlico County Board of Elections and the Director of Elections to remove two of the challenged voters administratively (they had registered in other states) and to continue the hearing on the other two challenged voters until later, in expectation that surviving family members will confirm their deaths, allowing them also to be removed administratively.

In addition, the SBOE General Counsel provided clarification that if a County Director of Elections is presented with some evidence of death or a move that may not be sufficient in itself to meet administrative removal requirements, the Director will make some investigation to verify the information. If the information is verified through official or family sources, the voter can be removed. That is new guidance.

So maybe we won't have "hundreds" of challenge hearings.

The Law

Are judges umpires or do they make law? According to a new book reviewed by Stanley Fish in today's New York Times, the answer is "yes."

In the book, “Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging,” Brian Z. Tamanaha first describes the supposed conflict that people imagine — on the one hand “self-applying legal rules,” on the other “judges pursuing their personal preferences beneath a veneer of legal rules” — and then debunks it. According to Fish's review, the key to understanding what a law means is to understand its purpose. Disagreements about a particular law, often couched in arcane legal language, usually mask disagreements about the very purpose of the law. The language of laws frequently fails to illuminate the underlying purpose, probably because the legislators themselves disagree on that score.

I doubt there will ever be a solution.

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.