Forty-five years ago, August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, effectively ending the deal struck almost ninety years earlier that let southern states deprive a large number of their citizens of rights enjoyed by the white majority.
The Voting Rights Act is often seen as a measure primarily benefiting African Americans. I see it as a victory for all Americans. It took another four decades, but the events set in motion that long-ago August eventually led to the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and countless court decisions establishing the right of every American to vote. No poll tax (that hindered all poor people from voting), no literacy test (first used in the Northeast to prevent Irish immigrants from voting), no competency test, easier procedures for servicemen and overseas Americans to vote, removal of administrative barriers.
The bottom line: now every citizen has the right to vote somewhere unless that right has been taken away by a court of law.
We can best honor the memory of the courageous Americans who gave their lives so this could happen by taking the time to register and vote.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
County Audit
At last Monday's meeting (August 2) of the Pamlico County Commissioners, we learned that the County's auditors have completed their work except for one minor item: adding the revenue from the County's share of NC State sales tax, which will not be received until next month.
Good Job!
At Tuesday's meeting of Oriental's Town Commissioners, we heard nothing about the town's audit. I have since learned that the auditors plan to begin their work in a couple of weeks.
You may recall that the NC Local Government Commission sent a letter to the Town on March 1 requiring the Town to correct a dozen deficiencies from our last audit. The LGC went on to "urge the Board to develop a corrective action plan immediately and begin eliminating these serious internal control weaknesses."
Town Board minutes of April 6 report that Mr. Cahoon was to provide information and after consulting with the auditors, Mayor Sage would sign and send a letter in response to the LGC. I have been unable to find any record of action by the Board to develop or even adopt a corrective action plan.
Good Job!
At Tuesday's meeting of Oriental's Town Commissioners, we heard nothing about the town's audit. I have since learned that the auditors plan to begin their work in a couple of weeks.
You may recall that the NC Local Government Commission sent a letter to the Town on March 1 requiring the Town to correct a dozen deficiencies from our last audit. The LGC went on to "urge the Board to develop a corrective action plan immediately and begin eliminating these serious internal control weaknesses."
Town Board minutes of April 6 report that Mr. Cahoon was to provide information and after consulting with the auditors, Mayor Sage would sign and send a letter in response to the LGC. I have been unable to find any record of action by the Board to develop or even adopt a corrective action plan.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Tonkin Gulf 1964
Forty-six years ago today, August 4, 1964, I was aboard USS Higbee (DD-806), steaming at twenty-seven knots toward the Tonkin Gulf. The day before, our destroyer squadron commander, Captain Vincent Patrick Healey, rushed our departure from the naval base at Yokosuka, Japan, so we could get into the action following the North Vietnamese PT Boat attack Sunday, August 2 on USS Maddox.
The above photo, taken from Higbee's helicopter deck, shows USS Mason (DD-852), followed by USS Orleck (DD-886) in the distance. Not seen is the squadron flagship, USS Joseph B. Strauss (DDG-16), leading the way ahead of Higbee.
My wife Elizabeth and our two young sons had arrived in Japan from the states after nineteen hours in a four-engined propeller plane the evening of August 3, hours after our departure. I would not see them for two more months.
That night (August 4) I stood the mid watch (midnight to 0400). After my watch, I stopped by the radio shack to read the fox skeds (incoming messages broadcast to all the ships in the fleet, printed on yellow teletype paper). I soon came across a stack of messages sent at flash precedence from USS Maddox and the embarked destroyer squadron commander, Capt. Herrick. It read like a war novel.
Maddox and her companion ship USS Turner Joy reported being under attack by PT boats. The ships took evasive action to avoid torpedoes detected by sonarmen. The attacking boats, seen on radar, maneuvered at high speed. Lookouts reported flashes of gunfire and cockpit lights. Maddox and Turner Joy fired their five inch guns and reported destroying several boats.
After several messages of that kind, Commodore Herrick sent a message calling into question some of the earlier messages. His messages conveyed increasing doubt that the ships were under attack at all. Then I saw messages from the Pentagon asking probing questions and directing Herrick to keep all of the records, including tracks from the ship's dead reckoning tracer (DRT), radio logs, sonar records and so forth. Commodore Herrick recommended to the Pentagon to take no action until the records were reviewed.
Unknown to him, action was already underway, with a retaliatory strike planned for dawn.
Suddenly there were no more messages on the fleet broadcast about the event. I was certain the message traffic had been moved from general service communications channels to a "back channel" not shared with the operating forces.
Two months later, back in Yokosuka, we began hearing rumors that the two ships may have been firing at each other. I doubted that. But I never believed that the so called second attack, the night of 4-5 August 1964, that was used to justify the Tonkin Gulf Resolution actually happened.
Maddox and her companion ship USS Turner Joy reported being under attack by PT boats. The ships took evasive action to avoid torpedoes detected by sonarmen. The attacking boats, seen on radar, maneuvered at high speed. Lookouts reported flashes of gunfire and cockpit lights. Maddox and Turner Joy fired their five inch guns and reported destroying several boats.
After several messages of that kind, Commodore Herrick sent a message calling into question some of the earlier messages. His messages conveyed increasing doubt that the ships were under attack at all. Then I saw messages from the Pentagon asking probing questions and directing Herrick to keep all of the records, including tracks from the ship's dead reckoning tracer (DRT), radio logs, sonar records and so forth. Commodore Herrick recommended to the Pentagon to take no action until the records were reviewed.
Unknown to him, action was already underway, with a retaliatory strike planned for dawn.
Suddenly there were no more messages on the fleet broadcast about the event. I was certain the message traffic had been moved from general service communications channels to a "back channel" not shared with the operating forces.
Two months later, back in Yokosuka, we began hearing rumors that the two ships may have been firing at each other. I doubted that. But I never believed that the so called second attack, the night of 4-5 August 1964, that was used to justify the Tonkin Gulf Resolution actually happened.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Conservative Fears and Timidity
Conservatives are timid. Don't take my word for it - read the words of Glen Beck's favorite economist, Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek in his 1960 essay, "Why I am not a Conservative."
"As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers," Hayek writes, "one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind."
He goes on to elaborate:
"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."
Be not afraid.
"As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers," Hayek writes, "one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind."
He goes on to elaborate:
"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."
Be not afraid.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Stop the Presses II
A couple of comments were posted taking issue with my previous post "Stop the Presses."
We need to be clear on a few points:
First, it would be good for all political parties and all candidates if there were no deceased voters or moved voters on the voter registration rolls. The reason is that parties and candidates rely on voter registration lists for candidate mailings, telephone calls to get out targeted voters, and other activities in support of political campaigns.
Second, almost every political jurisdiction in the United States has deceased voters and moved voters on its voter registration rolls. The only exception is North Dakota: they do not have voter registration.
Third, as I have explained before, maintaining voter registration rolls is a continuous process. It isn't easy, and there is no automatic system to keep rolls up to date, especially when changes involve other states.
List maintenance is a challenging, but basically tedious administrative process. There is no reason for drama.
In Pamlico County, we are fortunate to have a skilled and knowledgeable Director of Elections, Lisa Bennett, who has made continuous and effective improvements in election administration over the past three years.
Without drama.
No need to stop the presses.
We need to be clear on a few points:
First, it would be good for all political parties and all candidates if there were no deceased voters or moved voters on the voter registration rolls. The reason is that parties and candidates rely on voter registration lists for candidate mailings, telephone calls to get out targeted voters, and other activities in support of political campaigns.
Second, almost every political jurisdiction in the United States has deceased voters and moved voters on its voter registration rolls. The only exception is North Dakota: they do not have voter registration.
Third, as I have explained before, maintaining voter registration rolls is a continuous process. It isn't easy, and there is no automatic system to keep rolls up to date, especially when changes involve other states.
List maintenance is a challenging, but basically tedious administrative process. There is no reason for drama.
In Pamlico County, we are fortunate to have a skilled and knowledgeable Director of Elections, Lisa Bennett, who has made continuous and effective improvements in election administration over the past three years.
Without drama.
No need to stop the presses.
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."
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Stop the Presses!
Heedless of the roaring machinery and tons of newsprint racing by inches from his elbow, the intrepid night editor rushed along the catwalk, leapt to the fire pole on the upper deck, slid skillfully to the lower level, ran up to the pressman and shouted in his ear: Stop the presses!
The pressman sounded the siren and pressed a toggle switch. The massive machine slowed, the sound diminishing. A worker trundled a cart carrying newly cast cylinders impressed with the reverse image of the front page. The headline, a mirror image of the page itself, screamed out in 72-point type:
"Deceased People on Pamlico County Voter Registration Rolls!"
Oh, the drama!
Cigarette dangling from his lip, the night editor returned to his office, put on his jacket, jammed a battered fedora on his head and called it a night. He felt the rumbling of the building as the presses started up again. He turned out the light, a note of regret on his face. If only he could have written a more surprising headline: "No Deceased People On Pamlico Voter Rolls!" That would be something - the only county in the nation.
Maybe next century. He fled into the dark shadows of the city, a dim street lamp in the distance.
The pressman sounded the siren and pressed a toggle switch. The massive machine slowed, the sound diminishing. A worker trundled a cart carrying newly cast cylinders impressed with the reverse image of the front page. The headline, a mirror image of the page itself, screamed out in 72-point type:
"Deceased People on Pamlico County Voter Registration Rolls!"
Oh, the drama!
Cigarette dangling from his lip, the night editor returned to his office, put on his jacket, jammed a battered fedora on his head and called it a night. He felt the rumbling of the building as the presses started up again. He turned out the light, a note of regret on his face. If only he could have written a more surprising headline: "No Deceased People On Pamlico Voter Rolls!" That would be something - the only county in the nation.
Maybe next century. He fled into the dark shadows of the city, a dim street lamp in the distance.
Monday, July 19, 2010
South Avenue - Closed Minutes September 4, 2007
I promised to continue the saga of South Avenue as revealed in the closed minutes. On September 4, 2007 Attorney Davis reviewed "all the facts" regarding the South Avenue Litigation with the Town Board and handed out copies of the original case filed by Lacy Henry.
After laying out a theory of the case based on the original town map of 1900, Attorney Davis explained "the other side might argue, 'show me where those streets were condemned or acquired' and we cannot."
Actually, we could have easily done so. But Attorney Davis had never researched the necessary facts in the five years since the town filed its suit. No research. No discovery. No requests for production of documents. No requests for admissions. No interrogatories.
The truth is, Ben Hollowell, when he was town attorney in 1995 and 1996, had already laid the foundation for the case. He submitted queries to the NC Attorney General and to David Lawrence of the Institute of Government, the state's expert on right-of-way law. David Lawrence outlined the winning case.
The case was simple. A plat of 34 lots and associated streets was made by the Oriental Bulkhead Improvement Company and filed. The assets of the company were bought at auction by Mr. Benjamin Wallace O'Neal in 1917, before any lots were sold. Mr. O'Neal sold one of the lots in December, 1917 by reference to the plat and to the south edge of South Avenue. He sold at least thirty more lots from the plat in February, 1918. The town opened the section of South Avenue between Wall Street and Avenue A in early 1918. Under NC law, the sale of a single lot completed the dedication to the town and the opening of any portion of any street on the plat accepted the dedication, making it irrevocable.
Attorney Davis didn't do the research and didn't have either the necessary facts or the necessary legal theory. The known facts didn't completely support his own legal theory, but he barged ahead anyway. No wonder he tried to talk the town into settling.
The September 4 minutes are too long to attach here, and I would have to provide explanatory notes that would at least double the length. I'd be happy to share the minutes and explanations with anyone who asks.
More to come.
After laying out a theory of the case based on the original town map of 1900, Attorney Davis explained "the other side might argue, 'show me where those streets were condemned or acquired' and we cannot."
Actually, we could have easily done so. But Attorney Davis had never researched the necessary facts in the five years since the town filed its suit. No research. No discovery. No requests for production of documents. No requests for admissions. No interrogatories.
The truth is, Ben Hollowell, when he was town attorney in 1995 and 1996, had already laid the foundation for the case. He submitted queries to the NC Attorney General and to David Lawrence of the Institute of Government, the state's expert on right-of-way law. David Lawrence outlined the winning case.
The case was simple. A plat of 34 lots and associated streets was made by the Oriental Bulkhead Improvement Company and filed. The assets of the company were bought at auction by Mr. Benjamin Wallace O'Neal in 1917, before any lots were sold. Mr. O'Neal sold one of the lots in December, 1917 by reference to the plat and to the south edge of South Avenue. He sold at least thirty more lots from the plat in February, 1918. The town opened the section of South Avenue between Wall Street and Avenue A in early 1918. Under NC law, the sale of a single lot completed the dedication to the town and the opening of any portion of any street on the plat accepted the dedication, making it irrevocable.
Attorney Davis didn't do the research and didn't have either the necessary facts or the necessary legal theory. The known facts didn't completely support his own legal theory, but he barged ahead anyway. No wonder he tried to talk the town into settling.
The September 4 minutes are too long to attach here, and I would have to provide explanatory notes that would at least double the length. I'd be happy to share the minutes and explanations with anyone who asks.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
