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.
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.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Climate Change Events
Those who think climate change is a hoax might want to check out Dr. Jeff Masters' blog on Weather Underground web site. Something unusual seems to be going on, affecting the entire globe.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Eyes on the Prize: the Prequel
Watching Eyes on the Prize last night on PBS brought back memories.
A decade before the Selma march, I was a student at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss), quietly going about my business while under surveillance by agents of the White Citizens Council and the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission. It was an interesting time.
In 1956, I worked with a group of students on an underground newspaper called the Nigble Papers. I was essentially the publisher, which mostly meant finding a mimeograph machine somewhere that wasn't under lock and key. It was much like what was known in the Soviet Union as samizdat.
Our paper was later reprinted under the title Southern Reposure by a small group of Mississippi citizens: P.D. East, editor and publisher of The Petal Paper of Petal, Mississippi (near Hattiesburg); Hodding Carter, editor and publisher of The Delta Democrat-Times of my then home town of Greenville, Mississippi; Professor James Silver of Ole Miss (one of my history professors); and William Faulkner.
I recently came across a reference to the event in P.D. East's memoirs, The Magnolia Jungle, in a book of collected narratives by Marion Barnwell.
Our efforts didn't accomplish much in the short term, but I'd like to believe they helped in the long run.
A decade before the Selma march, I was a student at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss), quietly going about my business while under surveillance by agents of the White Citizens Council and the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission. It was an interesting time.
In 1956, I worked with a group of students on an underground newspaper called the Nigble Papers. I was essentially the publisher, which mostly meant finding a mimeograph machine somewhere that wasn't under lock and key. It was much like what was known in the Soviet Union as samizdat.
Our paper was later reprinted under the title Southern Reposure by a small group of Mississippi citizens: P.D. East, editor and publisher of The Petal Paper of Petal, Mississippi (near Hattiesburg); Hodding Carter, editor and publisher of The Delta Democrat-Times of my then home town of Greenville, Mississippi; Professor James Silver of Ole Miss (one of my history professors); and William Faulkner.
I recently came across a reference to the event in P.D. East's memoirs, The Magnolia Jungle, in a book of collected narratives by Marion Barnwell.
Our efforts didn't accomplish much in the short term, but I'd like to believe they helped in the long run.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Eyes on the Prize
An important program note: tomorrow night, Wednesday, July 14 at 9:00PM, UNC TV Channel 25 will show a special edition of American Experience, Eyes on the Prize: Mississippi: Is This America? 1963-1964/Bridge to Freedom 1965. If you have never seen this powerful documentary, make a special point of doing so. Even if you have seen it, take another look. You will probably notice something you didn't notice before.
At 8:00, the lead-in program is Terry Sanford & The New South. The contrast between North Carolina and Mississippi in 1962 could hardly be more stark.
At 8:00, the lead-in program is Terry Sanford & The New South. The contrast between North Carolina and Mississippi in 1962 could hardly be more stark.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Closed Session Minutes - South Avenue I
A while back, I reported that I now have copies of closed session minutes relating to South Avenue.
Here is the first one:
Here is the first one:
"Town of Oriental - Board of Commissioners Meeting
August 7, 2007
August 7, 2007
The Oriental Town Board of Commissioners met on Tuesday August 7, 2007 at 6:00 pm at the Oriental Town Hall. Present were Mayor Styron and Commissioners Bohmert, Herlands, Inger and Venturi.
CLOSED SESSION: Attorney Davis informed the Board that Mr. Henry may offer the Town 30 feet in fee simple, down the middle of the right-of-way of South Avenue. The Board requested the offer in writing and in detail.
MOTION: Commissioner Bohmert made a motion to go out of closed session. Second by Commissioner Inger. Vote 4-0."
Comment: The Board was right to ask for a written, detailed offer. None was ever received, nor was it credible to expect one. The Town had in its possession a copy of Mr. Henry's CAMA permit for an eight-slip marina, using Mr. Henry's own lot and the full sixty-foot width of the Town's right-of-way. One can only wonder if Attorney Davis ever looked at it.
More later.
CLOSED SESSION: Attorney Davis informed the Board that Mr. Henry may offer the Town 30 feet in fee simple, down the middle of the right-of-way of South Avenue. The Board requested the offer in writing and in detail.
MOTION: Commissioner Bohmert made a motion to go out of closed session. Second by Commissioner Inger. Vote 4-0."
Comment: The Board was right to ask for a written, detailed offer. None was ever received, nor was it credible to expect one. The Town had in its possession a copy of Mr. Henry's CAMA permit for an eight-slip marina, using Mr. Henry's own lot and the full sixty-foot width of the Town's right-of-way. One can only wonder if Attorney Davis ever looked at it.
More later.
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.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
First the Facts - Then the Solution
There was some discussion at last Tuesday's meeting of the Oriental Board of Commissioners about the alleged need for a surveyor to determine how much of Mr. Henry's fence at the end of South Avenue needs to come down. As one of the attendees (our son Benjamin) pointed out, the answer is "all of it."
The next day, he showed Mayor Sage the "railroad iron" depicted on Mr. Henry's own survey of the premises that shows clearly that the entire fence along Mr. Henry's lot is in the town right of way. The survey also shows the boundary between the South Avenue right of way and Mr. Henry's lot marked by an iron pipe. Shooting a simple transit line from that point would complete the boundary.
The other side, between the town's right of way and Chris Fulcher's property may be more complicated. Even there, the town should consult the very detailed survey completed in late 2007 at the urging of the Town Attorney, which was never used. That survey may clear up any uncertainty. It shows a pipe found at the very edge of the right of way, though it is not immediately visible at the moment.
Another proposal is that the town may need to work a deal with Mr. Henry to allow the pavement to continue encroaching on Mr. Henry's lot to allow truck access to Chris Fulcher's property south of the avenue.
I don't think so. I checked to see the tuning radius needed to accommodate 18-wheelers. They require an inside radius of 45 feet and an outside radius of 65 feet. Once the fence is out of the way, there is enough room in the originally platted intersection to allow a curve with those dimensions. Let's check it out before doing any deals.
The next day, he showed Mayor Sage the "railroad iron" depicted on Mr. Henry's own survey of the premises that shows clearly that the entire fence along Mr. Henry's lot is in the town right of way. The survey also shows the boundary between the South Avenue right of way and Mr. Henry's lot marked by an iron pipe. Shooting a simple transit line from that point would complete the boundary.
The other side, between the town's right of way and Chris Fulcher's property may be more complicated. Even there, the town should consult the very detailed survey completed in late 2007 at the urging of the Town Attorney, which was never used. That survey may clear up any uncertainty. It shows a pipe found at the very edge of the right of way, though it is not immediately visible at the moment.
Another proposal is that the town may need to work a deal with Mr. Henry to allow the pavement to continue encroaching on Mr. Henry's lot to allow truck access to Chris Fulcher's property south of the avenue.
I don't think so. I checked to see the tuning radius needed to accommodate 18-wheelers. They require an inside radius of 45 feet and an outside radius of 65 feet. Once the fence is out of the way, there is enough room in the originally platted intersection to allow a curve with those dimensions. Let's check it out before doing any deals.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Croaker Fest - Oriental Welcomes Visitors
Tomorrow, July 2, 2010, sees the opening of the Croaker Fest, Pamlico County's midsummer celebration, hosted each year in Oriental. It is a community event, prepared and carried out by many civic-minded people, from parade organizers to garbologists.
Oriental residents and businesses welcome the flood of visitors.
Except for a few. Some take the opportunity to block off "their" section of the town's right of way to prevent visitors from parking on "their" grass. Some even install permanent barriers to prevent parking on public property next to their houses.
Apart from the fact that blocking the town right of way is a violation of the law, it is an offense to the kind of neighborly welcome the rest of us try to extend to visitors. Shame on you!
Oriental residents and businesses welcome the flood of visitors.
Except for a few. Some take the opportunity to block off "their" section of the town's right of way to prevent visitors from parking on "their" grass. Some even install permanent barriers to prevent parking on public property next to their houses.
Apart from the fact that blocking the town right of way is a violation of the law, it is an offense to the kind of neighborly welcome the rest of us try to extend to visitors. Shame on you!
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Great Recession? Or Third Depression?
The great mystery of the great depression of the 1930's was: how could the economy achieve apparent stability at low levels of use of economic resources?
Classical economic theory held that, unfettered by government interference, the market would naturally establish equilibrium at full employment. Periods of reduced economic activity were held to be unstable, leading to a return of stability at full employment.
But from 1929 on, the world economy was stubbornly stable at very low levels of activity. John Maynard Keynes researched the problem with a sense of urgency, publishing his magnum opus, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, in 1936. He demonstrated that in times of massive unemployment and economic stagnation, only government spending could get the economy moving again. Under such circumstances, budget deficits were not important. Keynes was unimpressed with arguments that "in the long run" things would get better. "In the long run," he responded, "we'll all be dead." Over the following quarter century, his theories were adopted by nations all over the world, with great success.
Why would countries abandon a set of insights that worked so well? That is the question economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman examines in today's newspaper. Although he doesn't come out and say so, he seems to fear that once again (as in the 1930's) the world economy is in the hands of fools.
If we hope to avoid a third depression and put people back to work, it is not yet time for Congress to worry about deficits.
Classical economic theory held that, unfettered by government interference, the market would naturally establish equilibrium at full employment. Periods of reduced economic activity were held to be unstable, leading to a return of stability at full employment.
But from 1929 on, the world economy was stubbornly stable at very low levels of activity. John Maynard Keynes researched the problem with a sense of urgency, publishing his magnum opus, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, in 1936. He demonstrated that in times of massive unemployment and economic stagnation, only government spending could get the economy moving again. Under such circumstances, budget deficits were not important. Keynes was unimpressed with arguments that "in the long run" things would get better. "In the long run," he responded, "we'll all be dead." Over the following quarter century, his theories were adopted by nations all over the world, with great success.
Why would countries abandon a set of insights that worked so well? That is the question economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman examines in today's newspaper. Although he doesn't come out and say so, he seems to fear that once again (as in the 1930's) the world economy is in the hands of fools.
If we hope to avoid a third depression and put people back to work, it is not yet time for Congress to worry about deficits.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Dump the Runoff
The June 22 runoff or second primary cost the citizens of North Carolina between four and five million dollars.
Few voters turned out.
The outcome, at least in the statewide democratic party primary would have been the same without the runoff, had we accepted the vote by plurality.
Only eight states, all in the South, hold runoff primaries. In recent years, Kentucky and Florida have abandoned the runoff.
The runoff primary is a relic of an earlier time, when winning the Democratic Party Primary was tantamount to winning election in the states of the "Solid South."
It's time for the NC legislature to join Kentucky and Florida in abandoning the runoff.
Few voters turned out.
The outcome, at least in the statewide democratic party primary would have been the same without the runoff, had we accepted the vote by plurality.
Only eight states, all in the South, hold runoff primaries. In recent years, Kentucky and Florida have abandoned the runoff.
The runoff primary is a relic of an earlier time, when winning the Democratic Party Primary was tantamount to winning election in the states of the "Solid South."
It's time for the NC legislature to join Kentucky and Florida in abandoning the runoff.
General McChrystal and Military Professionalism
In earlier times, there was a close relationship between the military and our elected officials. In fact, ten of the twenty-two US presidents elected in the nineteenth century had been generals. All Republican presidents between the Civil War and 1900 were former Union generals, except for McKinley. He was too young and had only been a major.
Our founders admired the Roman Republic, especially that citizens answered the call to arms, unlike the standing armies of the Empire. They opposed standing armies and extolled the use of militias. That is really what the Second Amendment was about. We would have no redcoats.
Article 17 of the North Carolina Constitution adopted December 18, 1776, made the idea perfectly clear:
Amen!
Our founders admired the Roman Republic, especially that citizens answered the call to arms, unlike the standing armies of the Empire. They opposed standing armies and extolled the use of militias. That is really what the Second Amendment was about. We would have no redcoats.
Article 17 of the North Carolina Constitution adopted December 18, 1776, made the idea perfectly clear:
"17. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
By the late nineteenth century, however, the country was moving away from the militia model and increasingly in the direction of military professionalism. By the time the leading generals and admirals of World War II received their professional training at the US Service Academies, the dominant idea was that a force led by professionals trained in the science of warfare but subordinate to elected and appointed civilian leaders offered the best approach to civilian control. Perhaps the extreme example of such subordination was the case of George C. Marshall, who never voted, even after he was appointed to the position of Secretary of State.
Fortunately, many of our senior military leaders still understand the concept:
Amen!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
General McChrystal
So General Stanley McChrystal has apologized for his remarks demeaning Vice President Biden and senior defense officials. Secretary of Defense Gates characterized McChrystal's remarks as a "mistake" and "poor judgment."
It was more than that. McChrystal violated Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the legal regime that applies to members of the military.
"ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
It was more than that. McChrystal violated Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the legal regime that applies to members of the military.
"ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Monday, June 21, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, June 18, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, June 14, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
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.
"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.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, June 4, 2010
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
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Closed minutes - South Avenue
Just before last Tuesday's Town Board meeting, Randy Cahoon handed me an envelope containing the minutes of closed sessions of the Town Board about South Avenue. The Board had agreed to release them at their agenda meeting the previous Thursday.
Randy predicted it might be his last official act.
I plan to review and analyze the minutes in conjunction with my own notes I kept at the time. Afterwards, I will share facts and conclusions with my readers.
Randy predicted it might be his last official act.
I plan to review and analyze the minutes in conjunction with my own notes I kept at the time. Afterwards, I will share facts and conclusions with my readers.
Local Government Commission and Audit
Conspicuously absent from last Tuesday's Town Board Meeting was any discussion of the town's response to the letter from the Local Government Commission requiring correction of four control deficiencies and eight material weaknesses from the most recent audit.
A new audit is just around the bend. The LGC is unlikely to allow these dozen longstanding deficiencies to continue being swept under the rug.
A new audit is just around the bend. The LGC is unlikely to allow these dozen longstanding deficiencies to continue being swept under the rug.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Town Board Meeting 1 June 2010: Curious Utterance
There were more than a few curious utterances during last night's Town Board meeting.
One of the most curious was Mayor Sage's explanation to Oriental resident Ron Stevens concerning the delay in removing the fence in the town's right of way at the end of South Avenue. The mayor said that Mr. Henry wants the town to remove the paving on his property at the corner of South Avenue and Avenue A and that Mr. Henry wants to remove certain pieces of the former marine railway from the town's property.
Both claims of Mr. Henry lack merit.
The reason the town has pavement on the corner of Mr. Henry's lot is that the fence Mr. Henry placed in the town's right of way otherwise blocks access by commercial vehicles to Chris Fulcher's property. Has the town consulted either Mr. Fulcher or Mr. Fulcher's attorney about this request?
As for any pieces of equipment remaining on the town's property, Mr. Henry should have removed them in 1992, when his lease to that portion of the town's right of way expired.
This is spelled out in the lease, a copy of which was mailed to Mr. Marvin Jennings, Town Manager of Oriental* by Mr. Henry's attorney, Neil B. Whitford, on September 8, 1982. Mr. Whitford's letter and the accompanying lease are included as Exhibit J to PLAINTIFF TOWN OF ORIENTAL'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by the Town Attorney, Michael Scott Davis*, December 28th, 2007.
After some whereas's, a therefore and a description of the bounds of the property, the lease goes on to say:
"The terms and conditions of the said lease are as follows:
1. Term of the lease shall commence on July 1, 1977 and shall terminate on June 30, 1992.
2. Lessee [Mr. Henry] will pay to lessor [Town of Oriental] a monthly rental in the sum of Thirty Dollars ($30.00) per month, payable on the first day of the month in advance.
3. All improvements and additions to the property made at the expense of the Lessee and any and all improvements and additions not removed by said Lessee upon expiration or termination of this lease will revert to Lessor."
In plain English, Mr. Henry should have removed his stuff on or about June 30, 1992 when the lease expired. It is now the property of the Town of Oriental.
* Some of my readers advise that I am entirely too subtle. They missed the point of the first highlighted text that the Town of Oriental had a Council-Manager form of government in place as early as 1982 and probably before that.
The second point on which I was apparently too subtle was the fact that the lease in question came from a document prepared by the Town Attorney, Scott Davis, who seems not to have remembered it in connection with his current discussions with Mr. Henry's attorney.
A third point I simply omitted from my post, but on reflection the public has a right to know. I recently raised the fence issue and Mr. Henry's deadline with Mr. Cahoon, who had (correctly in my view) taken the position that Mr. Henry must first remove the fence and then we might talk about the pavement on the corner of Mr. Henry's lot.
Judging from the mayor's explanation Tuesday night to Mr. Stevens, he (the mayor) must have overruled the Town Manager. The word "feckless" seems to apply. You can look it up.
As I understand it, Mr. Henry has been given a deadline and has missed it. The town should remove the fence forthwith and send Mr. Henry the bill.
One of the most curious was Mayor Sage's explanation to Oriental resident Ron Stevens concerning the delay in removing the fence in the town's right of way at the end of South Avenue. The mayor said that Mr. Henry wants the town to remove the paving on his property at the corner of South Avenue and Avenue A and that Mr. Henry wants to remove certain pieces of the former marine railway from the town's property.
Both claims of Mr. Henry lack merit.
The reason the town has pavement on the corner of Mr. Henry's lot is that the fence Mr. Henry placed in the town's right of way otherwise blocks access by commercial vehicles to Chris Fulcher's property. Has the town consulted either Mr. Fulcher or Mr. Fulcher's attorney about this request?
As for any pieces of equipment remaining on the town's property, Mr. Henry should have removed them in 1992, when his lease to that portion of the town's right of way expired.
This is spelled out in the lease, a copy of which was mailed to Mr. Marvin Jennings, Town Manager of Oriental* by Mr. Henry's attorney, Neil B. Whitford, on September 8, 1982. Mr. Whitford's letter and the accompanying lease are included as Exhibit J to PLAINTIFF TOWN OF ORIENTAL'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by the Town Attorney, Michael Scott Davis*, December 28th, 2007.
After some whereas's, a therefore and a description of the bounds of the property, the lease goes on to say:
"The terms and conditions of the said lease are as follows:
1. Term of the lease shall commence on July 1, 1977 and shall terminate on June 30, 1992.
2. Lessee [Mr. Henry] will pay to lessor [Town of Oriental] a monthly rental in the sum of Thirty Dollars ($30.00) per month, payable on the first day of the month in advance.
3. All improvements and additions to the property made at the expense of the Lessee and any and all improvements and additions not removed by said Lessee upon expiration or termination of this lease will revert to Lessor."
In plain English, Mr. Henry should have removed his stuff on or about June 30, 1992 when the lease expired. It is now the property of the Town of Oriental.
* Some of my readers advise that I am entirely too subtle. They missed the point of the first highlighted text that the Town of Oriental had a Council-Manager form of government in place as early as 1982 and probably before that.
The second point on which I was apparently too subtle was the fact that the lease in question came from a document prepared by the Town Attorney, Scott Davis, who seems not to have remembered it in connection with his current discussions with Mr. Henry's attorney.
A third point I simply omitted from my post, but on reflection the public has a right to know. I recently raised the fence issue and Mr. Henry's deadline with Mr. Cahoon, who had (correctly in my view) taken the position that Mr. Henry must first remove the fence and then we might talk about the pavement on the corner of Mr. Henry's lot.
Judging from the mayor's explanation Tuesday night to Mr. Stevens, he (the mayor) must have overruled the Town Manager. The word "feckless" seems to apply. You can look it up.
As I understand it, Mr. Henry has been given a deadline and has missed it. The town should remove the fence forthwith and send Mr. Henry the bill.
Town Board Meeting June 1, 2010
The word that comes immediately to mind about Tuesday night's interminable meeting of Oriental's town board is: "deplorable." Then, too, "bizarre" works.
To get a sense of the proceedings, it might help to re-read the court room scene of Alice in Wonderland.
Except unlike Alice, no one woke up at the end.
By all means, read the more detailed account on Town Dock.
To get a sense of the proceedings, it might help to re-read the court room scene of Alice in Wonderland.
Except unlike Alice, no one woke up at the end.
By all means, read the more detailed account on Town Dock.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Decoration Day
Tomorrow, May 31, 2010, the last Monday in May, is Decoration Day.
You may know it as Memorial Day.
Wikipedia explains: "Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May (May 31 in 2010). Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. men and women who died while in the military service.[1] First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War (it is celebrated near the day of reunification after the Civil War), it was expanded after World War I."
Many Americans will spend tomorrow shopping. And that's fine.
But please take a little time out to attend one of the Memorial Day observances, such as the one at the Bayboro Court House at 11:00.
And don't forget to vote. Next Thursday One Stop voting starts at the Board of Elections office at Bayboro for the second primary. The May 4th primary won't be completely over until after the second primary on June 22.
Never forget: courageous American patriots died so you would have the right to vote. Honor them by going to the polls.
You may know it as Memorial Day.
Wikipedia explains: "Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May (May 31 in 2010). Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. men and women who died while in the military service.[1] First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War (it is celebrated near the day of reunification after the Civil War), it was expanded after World War I."
Many Americans will spend tomorrow shopping. And that's fine.
But please take a little time out to attend one of the Memorial Day observances, such as the one at the Bayboro Court House at 11:00.
And don't forget to vote. Next Thursday One Stop voting starts at the Board of Elections office at Bayboro for the second primary. The May 4th primary won't be completely over until after the second primary on June 22.
Never forget: courageous American patriots died so you would have the right to vote. Honor them by going to the polls.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Closed Meeting Minutes
Yesterday evening at Oriental Town Board's monthly agenda workshop, the Board finally addressed closed meeting minutes. Commissioner Johnson moved to open a long list of closed session minutes, including the minutes I had requested. The vote was unanimous.
That's a good move. I hope it becomes more routine.
That's a good move. I hope it becomes more routine.
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.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Legal Fees
According to today's Pamlico News, the Town of Oriental has so far paid $21,000 in legal fees for a study by an employment attorney of "personnel problems" at Town Hall. It sounds like there is no end in sight.
From Maureen Donald's article, one could deduce that the Town Board has spent $21,000 in order to avoid paying a $25,000 severance package. Few attorneys would recommend that course of action. Is there something else they are trying to protect?
If the object of the attorney's effort was to uncover the truth or obtain evidence, the Board could have done that at little or no expense by exercising their power of investigation:
"§ 160A‑80. Power of investigation; subpoena power.
From Maureen Donald's article, one could deduce that the Town Board has spent $21,000 in order to avoid paying a $25,000 severance package. Few attorneys would recommend that course of action. Is there something else they are trying to protect?
If the object of the attorney's effort was to uncover the truth or obtain evidence, the Board could have done that at little or no expense by exercising their power of investigation:
"§ 160A‑80. Power of investigation; subpoena power.
(a) The council shall have power to investigate the affairs of the city, and for that purpose may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, and compel the production of evidence.
(b) If a person fails or refuses to obey a subpoena issued pursuant to this section, the council may apply to the General Court of Justice for an order requiring that its order be obeyed, and the court shall have jurisdiction to issue these orders after notice to all proper parties. No testimony of any witness before the council pursuant to a subpoena issued in exercise of the power conferred by this section may be used against him on the trial of any civil or criminal action other than a prosecution for false swearing committed on the examination. If any person, while under oath at an investigation by the council, willfully swears falsely, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
The only downside is that allegations would have to be made and responded to in the light of day rather than in the shadows.
Secrecy can be expensive.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Negotiating with Bay River
The Town of Oriental provides Bay River Metropolitan Sewer District with billing services. We include the sewer bill with our monthly water bill. The town collects the sewer payments and forwards the money to Bay River.
Interestingly enough, there appears to have never been a contract with Bay River to provide this service since the expiration of a non-renewable contract about 1995.
In 2008 the Town increased the monthly per customer fee that we charged Bay River for the service.
Bay River didn't like that. I wasn't pleased either, since a back of the envelope calculation indicated we still weren't charging enough to cover all our costs. How much are we losing? I think the figure is about two bits per water customer per month.
Almost a year ago, Bay River proposed that we sign a contract agreeing, among other provisions, to freeze our fee for five years.
Now there's a really bad idea.
Randy Cahoon, Bill Sage and I drafted proposed changes to the Bay River draft and the Town retained Ben Hollowell to represent us in the negotiations.
We still have no agreement. Bay River has rejected every one of the Town's proposals.
Someone needs to explain why the Town wants to continue negotiating for the privilege of losing money to Bay River.
Interestingly enough, there appears to have never been a contract with Bay River to provide this service since the expiration of a non-renewable contract about 1995.
In 2008 the Town increased the monthly per customer fee that we charged Bay River for the service.
Bay River didn't like that. I wasn't pleased either, since a back of the envelope calculation indicated we still weren't charging enough to cover all our costs. How much are we losing? I think the figure is about two bits per water customer per month.
Almost a year ago, Bay River proposed that we sign a contract agreeing, among other provisions, to freeze our fee for five years.
Now there's a really bad idea.
Randy Cahoon, Bill Sage and I drafted proposed changes to the Bay River draft and the Town retained Ben Hollowell to represent us in the negotiations.
We still have no agreement. Bay River has rejected every one of the Town's proposals.
Someone needs to explain why the Town wants to continue negotiating for the privilege of losing money to Bay River.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Why all the Secrecy?
Last Friday I submitted a request in writing for copies of closed session minutes pertaining to lawyer client discussions on South Avenue.
Today I was told that on advice of counsel, the Town Manager (who is the custodian of the town's public records) could not release them because the Town Board has not finally agreed to their release.
Why the foot dragging? Is someone afraid to let the minutes see the light of day?
Last December, in its final meeting, the previous board agreed that the South Avenue closed session minutes would be released when the case was finally over. Judge Crow signed the final order last February 5th, after Mr. Henry exhausted all his rights of appeal. A case can't be any more "over" than that.
North Carolina General Statutes are quite clear about closed session minutes:
"NCGS 143-318.10:
(e) Every public body shall keep full and accurate minutes of all official meetings, including any closed sessions held pursuant to G.S. 143‑318.11. Such minutes may be in written form or, at the option of the public body, may be in the form of sound or video and sound recordings. When a public body meets in closed session, it shall keep a general account of the closed session so that a person not in attendance would have a reasonable understanding of what transpired. Such accounts may be a written narrative, or video or audio recordings. Such minutes and accounts shall be public records within the meaning of the Public Records Law, G.S. 132‑1 et seq.; provided, however, that minutes or an account of a closed session conducted in compliance with G.S. 143‑318.11 may be withheld from public inspection so long as public inspection would frustrate the purpose of a closed session."
Note:this provision assigns the Town Board no role in the release of closed session minutes.
On the other hand:
"§ 132‑1.1. Confidential communications by legal counsel to public board or agency; ...
(a) Confidential Communications. – Public records, as defined in G.S. 132‑1, shall not include written communications (and copies thereof) to any public board, council, commission or other governmental body of the State or of any county, municipality or other political subdivision or unit of government, made within the scope of the attorney‑client relationship by any attorney‑at‑law serving any such governmental body, concerning any claim against or on behalf of the governmental body or the governmental entity for which such body acts, or concerning the prosecution, defense, settlement or litigation of any judicial action, or any administrative or other type of proceeding to which the governmental body is a party or by which it is or may be directly affected. Such written communication and copies thereof shall not be open to public inspection, examination or copying unless specifically made public by the governmental body receiving such written communications; provided, however, that such written communications and copies thereof shall become public records as defined in G.S. 132‑1 three years from the date such communication was received by such public board, council, commission or other governmental body."
So the rules are different for written communications than for minutes. Maybe our attorney has conflated two entirely different rules.
The public has the right to see the minutes I requested.
Today I was told that on advice of counsel, the Town Manager (who is the custodian of the town's public records) could not release them because the Town Board has not finally agreed to their release.
Why the foot dragging? Is someone afraid to let the minutes see the light of day?
Last December, in its final meeting, the previous board agreed that the South Avenue closed session minutes would be released when the case was finally over. Judge Crow signed the final order last February 5th, after Mr. Henry exhausted all his rights of appeal. A case can't be any more "over" than that.
North Carolina General Statutes are quite clear about closed session minutes:
"NCGS 143-318.10:
(e) Every public body shall keep full and accurate minutes of all official meetings, including any closed sessions held pursuant to G.S. 143‑318.11. Such minutes may be in written form or, at the option of the public body, may be in the form of sound or video and sound recordings. When a public body meets in closed session, it shall keep a general account of the closed session so that a person not in attendance would have a reasonable understanding of what transpired. Such accounts may be a written narrative, or video or audio recordings. Such minutes and accounts shall be public records within the meaning of the Public Records Law, G.S. 132‑1 et seq.; provided, however, that minutes or an account of a closed session conducted in compliance with G.S. 143‑318.11 may be withheld from public inspection so long as public inspection would frustrate the purpose of a closed session."
Note:this provision assigns the Town Board no role in the release of closed session minutes.
On the other hand:
"§ 132‑1.1. Confidential communications by legal counsel to public board or agency; ...
(a) Confidential Communications. – Public records, as defined in G.S. 132‑1, shall not include written communications (and copies thereof) to any public board, council, commission or other governmental body of the State or of any county, municipality or other political subdivision or unit of government, made within the scope of the attorney‑client relationship by any attorney‑at‑law serving any such governmental body, concerning any claim against or on behalf of the governmental body or the governmental entity for which such body acts, or concerning the prosecution, defense, settlement or litigation of any judicial action, or any administrative or other type of proceeding to which the governmental body is a party or by which it is or may be directly affected. Such written communication and copies thereof shall not be open to public inspection, examination or copying unless specifically made public by the governmental body receiving such written communications; provided, however, that such written communications and copies thereof shall become public records as defined in G.S. 132‑1 three years from the date such communication was received by such public board, council, commission or other governmental body."
So the rules are different for written communications than for minutes. Maybe our attorney has conflated two entirely different rules.
The public has the right to see the minutes I requested.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Captain Marvel and Don Winslow
I've already mentioned that I used to run to the dime store in Tulsa Oklahoma each month to buy the latest edition of Captain Marvel comics.
Another one of my favorite comic books was Don Winslow, a naval intelligence officer who sometimes appeared in marine or coast guard uniforms. I even remember Don Winslow appearing in Little Big Books, a series of adventure books in novel form.
A few years ago I decided to google Don Winslow. What I learned was astounding: "The idea for Don Winslow was conceived by Lieutenant Commander Frank V. Martinek USNR [in 1934], himself a storied veteran of World War I Naval intelligence, after Admiral Wat T. Cluverius complained to him about the difficulties of recruiting in the Midwest."
I read the passage to my wife, who looked at me with a knowing smile. "It worked, didn't it?" she observed.
I also didn't know that Don Winslow was introduced to Fawcett's comic book readers in 1943 by none other than Captain Marvel.
Another one of my favorite comic books was Don Winslow, a naval intelligence officer who sometimes appeared in marine or coast guard uniforms. I even remember Don Winslow appearing in Little Big Books, a series of adventure books in novel form.
A few years ago I decided to google Don Winslow. What I learned was astounding: "The idea for Don Winslow was conceived by Lieutenant Commander Frank V. Martinek USNR [in 1934], himself a storied veteran of World War I Naval intelligence, after Admiral Wat T. Cluverius complained to him about the difficulties of recruiting in the Midwest."
I read the passage to my wife, who looked at me with a knowing smile. "It worked, didn't it?" she observed.
I also didn't know that Don Winslow was introduced to Fawcett's comic book readers in 1943 by none other than Captain Marvel.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Are the Best Things in Life Really Free?
Are you High GDP Man or Low GDP Man?
For many years, certain people generally thought to be eccentric (cruising sailors among them) have extolled the virtues of spending less money, being more self-sufficient, growing and catching their own food and so forth. "Leaving the grid," some call it.
Economists who measure the quality of life ("standard of living") by the amount of resources used, frown on this approach. If everyone left the grid, it would lower the GDP.
Other economists, long in the minority, contend that GDP is a misleading measure of prosperity. So what would be a better measure?
Here is a summary of recent developments in assessing prosperity, including some alternate measurements already in use in other countries.
This is definitely worth reading.
For many years, certain people generally thought to be eccentric (cruising sailors among them) have extolled the virtues of spending less money, being more self-sufficient, growing and catching their own food and so forth. "Leaving the grid," some call it.
Economists who measure the quality of life ("standard of living") by the amount of resources used, frown on this approach. If everyone left the grid, it would lower the GDP.
Other economists, long in the minority, contend that GDP is a misleading measure of prosperity. So what would be a better measure?
Here is a summary of recent developments in assessing prosperity, including some alternate measurements already in use in other countries.
This is definitely worth reading.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Education: What is it? How to do it?
If you sense a lack of agreement on what education is and the best way to do it, there seems to be a lot of ferment in the field right now.
I recommend three recent New York Time articles:
"Challenges in Replicating Charter School Success," which examines whether charter schools are any better than standard public schools;
"The Education of Diane Ravitch," in which the Assistant Secretary of Education in the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration concludes that neither choice nor testing improve education;
And "Plan B - Skip College," which challenges the idea that we should push for college for everyone.
Each of the articles is worth a read.
I recommend three recent New York Time articles:
"Challenges in Replicating Charter School Success," which examines whether charter schools are any better than standard public schools;
"The Education of Diane Ravitch," in which the Assistant Secretary of Education in the George Herbert Walker Bush Administration concludes that neither choice nor testing improve education;
And "Plan B - Skip College," which challenges the idea that we should push for college for everyone.
Each of the articles is worth a read.
Captain Marvel
Shazam!
And mild-mannered Billy Batson, boy radio reporter, assumes the powers of a half-dozen superheroes.
Unless the evil Doctor Sivana's henchmen get to Billy Batson and gag him before he can say more than "Shazmpf." If he gets the whole word out (Shazam), he turns into superhero Captain Marvel.
In case you missed it, the serial at this week's Friday Flicks at Oriental's old theater, will show a Captain Marvel serial, followed by Alfred Hitchcock's 1930's black and white spy story, "Thirty Nine Steps."
When I was six years old or so, I rushed down to Woolworth's every month to buy the latest edition of Captain Marvel. I don't remember ever seeing the movie serial, so this will be a rare treat.
And mild-mannered Billy Batson, boy radio reporter, assumes the powers of a half-dozen superheroes.
Unless the evil Doctor Sivana's henchmen get to Billy Batson and gag him before he can say more than "Shazmpf." If he gets the whole word out (Shazam), he turns into superhero Captain Marvel.
In case you missed it, the serial at this week's Friday Flicks at Oriental's old theater, will show a Captain Marvel serial, followed by Alfred Hitchcock's 1930's black and white spy story, "Thirty Nine Steps."
When I was six years old or so, I rushed down to Woolworth's every month to buy the latest edition of Captain Marvel. I don't remember ever seeing the movie serial, so this will be a rare treat.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Closed Minutes Again
I hate to keep bringing this up.
Last week Oriental's Town Board Meeting Agenda included an item to consider opening previously closed minutes relating to legal considerations about the Town's South Avenue lawsuit. The board decided to postpone action until the next agenda meeting.
Say what?
Last year the outgoing Town Board reviewed the closed minutes and decided that once the South Avenue lawsuit was over, the minutes would be released to the public. The case is over. The Town won. I didn't make a big stink about it, but I believed at the time, after reviewing the minutes, that the condition established in North Carolina's Open Meetings Law for their release already existed last December. The law is summarized here.
I decided not to wait any longer. I have submitted a written request for copies of the South Avenue minutes. I think the public has a right to know what went on in those closed sessions.
Last week Oriental's Town Board Meeting Agenda included an item to consider opening previously closed minutes relating to legal considerations about the Town's South Avenue lawsuit. The board decided to postpone action until the next agenda meeting.
Say what?
Last year the outgoing Town Board reviewed the closed minutes and decided that once the South Avenue lawsuit was over, the minutes would be released to the public. The case is over. The Town won. I didn't make a big stink about it, but I believed at the time, after reviewing the minutes, that the condition established in North Carolina's Open Meetings Law for their release already existed last December. The law is summarized here.
I decided not to wait any longer. I have submitted a written request for copies of the South Avenue minutes. I think the public has a right to know what went on in those closed sessions.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
