OBEY CREEK (A WCHL Commentary)

Let’s take a survey.  If you are against the current plan for the development of the parcel known as Obey Creek, shout out, I’m Against It!  OK, I hear some of you shouting, and that’s interesting because my commentary today is about that fact that there is no current plan to be against.  In March 2010 an Initial Concept plan presented to the Town Council.  It went nowhere.  In September 2012, a 2nd Concept plan was presented to Town Council; significantly, scaling back the initial proposal to correspond to the Chapel Hill 2020 recommendations. 

The Council referred the plan back to staff to begin working on a review process.  And in November, the staff came back to Council asking for approval to initiate a Development Agreement process by hiring a consultant. The Council granted approval and stipulated that there must be further dialogue and information gathering before any formal process may begin.  Clearly, large developments attract diverse opinions, but I think it is only fair that a developer should expect guidance and direction from the Town staff and Council in a timely fashion.  Three years is not only too long, but it is also very expensive.  

 I have no opinion on any Obey Creek proposal at this point, but I do believe that we can and should do better. Somehow, other jurisdictions not only ace us out but they seem to have a development process that works and serve the interests of multiple stakeholders; why can’t we? 

HAPPY NEW YEAR! (A WCHL Commentary)

Happy New Year to all!  I think it’s only natural that when the new year arrives, we look with some anticipation and even anxiety towards what’s ahead of us and if at the end of the year, we will be able to pronounce it a good year or not.   We know for sure that the new year will bring change, for change is a constant, and we hope it will be change for the better.  Since this is an odd-numbered year, we know we will have municipal election.  But before we get to them, we have some vacancies to fill.   

The Carrboro Board of Alderman must decide whether to call for a special election to fill their open seat or wait until the November election to fill it.  Holding a special election may cost around $18,000, so the decision has real consequences.  In Chapel Hill, we are nearing the deadline to apply for the open seat that the Town Council will fill, as we don’t have the same ordinance covering filling vacancies.  I am already on record saying that the decision should be driven by who is the best qualifies and not be based on gender or other demographic factors; select who can do the best job, woman or man and of any ethnic origin and skin color.   

Yes, decisions have consequences and soon we will know some of the important ones for early 2013.  I hope that each of you has a great 2013 and that our local decision makers exercise good judgment in reaching their decisions that affect us all, and help to make this the great new year we aspire to have!  

DO THE RIGHT THING (A WCHL Commentary)

When the votes were counted in the May 8th primary, we learned that our Town Council member Penny Rich had won one of the two primary spots on the democratic ballot. Barring a successful write-in vote, Rich should be elected on November 6th and take her new office in December. After the vacancy is declared, the Council will accept applications, possibly interview candidates, and make a selection. 

Of course, there is already a variety of opinions as to who should be selected by the Council to serve out the remainder of Ms. Rich’s term that expires in December 2013. That’s to be expected, but I really am troubled when I hear someone say that the Council should appoint a woman to replace Ms. Rich. The argument is that over 53% of the Town is women and only having two women instead of three on the Council is something that should concern us. 

 My opinion is that we should exam the applicants and select the woman or man who is best qualified to serve on the Council. That should be the only criteria, who can best serve us, but we know historically that a person appointed to the Council usually has an advantage if they decide to run for a full term in the next election, so the appointment can have advantages. And a guy having a leg up in 2013 might be what the proponents of appointing a woman are concerned about. 

I think the Council ought to make their criteria for considering all of the applicants clearly known. Otherwise, they ought just to proclaim, “Men Need Not Apply!

OUR COUNCIL (A WCHL Commentary)

I am really proud of our Town Council, as well as our Town Manager and all of the town staff who made an amazing thing happen at the meeting on Wednesday, May 30th. Our Council by a unanimous vote authorized the Town Manager and Town Attorney to develop and execute agreements in support of an economic development initiative to create a small business incubator/joint working space at 321 W. Rosemary St. to attract startup companies looking to work with others in a collaborative atmosphere.

The economic development initiative arose when 3 Birds Marketing, a local marketing firm, outgrew its current space on Rosemary Street and needed new space to accommodate their future growth. Key to the plan is 3 Birds’ relocation to Franklin Street and their use of the new public parking lot on Graham Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and during other hours, the parking lot would be open to anyone. Sounds complex? Yes, it is, and that’s why I’m proud of our council for being willing to move in unfamiliar territory and take a risk to keep a business, and in partnership with Orange County and UNC, create a space to help incubate new businesses.

We will see a cash contribution from 3 Birds and they will engage in mentoring. This is exactly what we discussed in Chapel Hill 2020, and when we are successful in growing new businesses, we will benefit from the taxes that they will pay. I believe we are moving in a very positive direction, and as many of you have heard me say here on WCHL, “Chapel Hill economic development; open for business to business!”

DISRESPECTFUL? (A WCHL Commentary)

I suspect the entire country knows by now that the Chapel Hill Town Council voted 5 to 4 to ban all cell phone use while operating a vehicle.  Prior to making this decision they heard plenty about why this isn’t a god idea, but they did it anyway.  It appears that logic and common sense was trumped by the desire to be the first to have such a law, even if it was uncertain that they stood on firm legal ground to do this.   

This action is also troubling because our police officers now have an even harder job.  If they stop someone and cite him or her for this secondary offense, the exceptions, discriminatory, counter-productive, and illogical as they are, will probably be used to get out of a ticket.  What’s the officer to do to prove that someone’s untruthful, snatch the phone and review the call history?  What about our many visitors?  This “only in Chapel Hill only law” will confuse them.   

Bottom line is that this unenforceable law will lead to less respect for the law, and it’s not clear that it has any chance of affecting the serious problem of distracted driving.  Many people will continue to drive while talking on their phones, and they will feel smug about doing so if some court throws it out.   

The five in the majority didn’t want to wait for the General Assembly to act, nor were they willing to wait to learn how much their education plan might actually cost the taxpayers.  If you respect our citizens, our police officers, and our visitors, is this a way to show it?  I think not.

DISCONNECT? (A WCHL Commentary)

 I wasn’t at Town Hall on Monday, February 20^th but I watched the proceedings from the comfort of home.  Too bad what I heard didn’t make me very comfortable.  I appreciated the emotional and heartfelt comments from those who want the Town of Chapel Hill to be the first jurisdiction in North Carolina to ban the use of cell phones while driving.  I get that driving while distracted is not conducive to the safe operation of a moving vehicle, and I also get that unsafe driving puts people at risk.
 

What I don’t get is how the proposed ordinance with various loophole exceptions solves the problem.  As a secondary offense, a police officer can only cite you for cell phone use if you are stopped for some other reason.  If that’s the objective, the fine of $25 isn’t much of a deterrent.  How will officers know if you were using a hands-free device?  I guess the officer can say your lips were moving, but do we want to place our officers in that position?   

The last thing we need is an ordinance that is overly difficult to enforce.  Moreover, we aren’t even sure that the proposed ordinance is legal.  I didn’t feel very reassured when I heard our Town Attorney say that he believed it could withstand a court challenge.  Of course that might mean we will have to spend money on another court case and surely, we have better things to do with our money.  Education is the key so let’s educate about all driving distractions and not pass an ineffective ordinance just to be able to brag that we were first.  Is there a disconnect here?  

A Way to Serve

I heard a news report the other day that Orange County wanted people to know that there were vacancies on some of their boards and commissions and they wanted people to apply. With over 40 different boards and commissions that provide opportunities to serve, citizens have an opportunity to bring their skills, knowledge, abilities, and common sense to a wide range of issues and make recommendations to the County Commissioners.

As of early August, the county was looking for almost 80 people to serve. Chapel Hill also relies heavily on citizen volunteers to serve on the over 20 boards and commissions that they appoint people to. As of July, they had almost 30 appointments they needed to make. Carrboro lists 29 boards and commissions and they too are looking for a few good citizens. Each of the governments provides information on the positions and have their applications online.

I think service in this way is meaningful and really does contribute to our towns and county. Making recommendations as a board or commission doesn’t mean that the elected officials will accept that recommendation but it does mean that you and your fellow members provided input.

Let’s hope that enough citizens will volunteer and fill all the vacancies and continue this significant tradition of public service. And let’s also hope that our elected leaders will appoint the right people for the right reasons.

Fireworks! (A WCHL Commentary)

One of the wonderful things that the Internet allows us to do is to keep up with things while you are traveling. While away, I read that the Chapel Hill News gave the Town “Raspberries” for what they called a “shortsighted decision to do away with the July 4 celebration and fireworks show this year.”

We happened to be in Indianapolis, Indiana for the 4th and we had the pleasure of viewing two firework displays. The first followed a great minor league baseball game and it was a delightful display of good old time 4th of July fireworks. About the time that show ended, another one began in the downtown area. This display was the end of a series of events held downtown to celebrate the 4th, and the fireworks launched from the roof of the Regions Bank building were truly spectacular.

A local resident told us that the year before the celebration was close to being cancelled because of funding, but Regions Bank and others in the business community stepped up and made it happen.

When I read about the “Raspberries” given to the Town, I wondered why we seem to think that only the Town is responsible for the fireworks display. Maybe the Chapel Hill News could sponsor the display, or bring other civic-minded businesses together to sponsor our fireworks. Other communities seem to make this happen as we witnessed in Indianapolis, so why not here. I think a new sponsorship model could make this an even bigger and more popular community event!

2011 ELECTION: GET READY (A WCHL Commentary)

Can you believe how fast 2011 is flying by? Before you know it, it will be May Day, then Memorial Day, and much too soon it will be the 4th of July and Labor Day. Then we will go to the polls on November 8th. Filing begins on July 1st at noon and ends on July 15th, so we will know who the candidates are for the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the local school board, and we already know that the quarter cent sales tax will be on the ballot.

So why am I bringing all of this up now? Simple! I believe that our democracy flourishes when we have an informed and involved electorate. There are plenty of ways to be involved but being informed is hard work. And if you believe recent polling data, many say they don’t vote because they don’t know about the candidates or the issues on the ballot.

Now is the time to pay attention to the various issues on the agenda of the three bodies that will be on the ballot. Some of the candidates will be incumbents, so pay attention to them as they address the complex issues that they must decide in the coming months. Ask yourself how you would resolve the issues. Who knows, it might even motivate you to stand for election. Chapel Hill has the mayor and four of eight council seats, Carrboro has the mayor and three of six seats, and the school board will elect people to five of the seven seats.

Sorry Impressions, but “People get ready, there’s an election coming, you don’t need to bring no money, you just get informed and vote!”

WHAT DID WE LEARN? (A WCHL Commentary)

It appears that a plan to relocate the Chapel Hill Public Library to University Mall is now unlikely to happen. I assume that this means that we will proceed with the original plan to use the bond money to build an addition on the current facility and operate temporarily out of U-Mal during the construction.

This was an interesting process that engaged many people and with varying opinions. But what did we learn from the process? First, it’s very clear that people in Chapel Hill are very passionate about their library, and from the letters, and other comments, they care where it’s located. Some like the current sylvan setting; some thought the mall would be more assessable, and others were on the fence. Second, it’s clear that whenever we have something like this come up, those who see a conspiracy in everything will be heard from. There were any number of conspiracies bandied about and as you would expect, some people believed them. Third, we should value that the manager and staff followed an analytical process to evaluate the proposal and that our Council let them work the process.

The possibility that the decision would be based on emotions or private business interests or anything other than what is the best use of our money did concern some people, but that was not how it played out. Last, I think we should have learned that the process we follow to make a decision is critical, and the more open it is and the more we deal with facts and not conjecture, the better our decisions will be. Now let’s get busy building our library addition.

VETERANS MEMORIAL AT CHAPEL HILL

On November 22, 2010 the Veterans Memorial at Chapel Hill Committee presented their petition to the Chapel Hill Town Council to create a memorial in Chapel Hill. The following is what was presented to the Council:

The Veterans Memorial at Chapel Hill Committee Petition

Project:

The veterans of Chapel Hill and surrounding area have expressed an interest in a Veterans Memorial in the Town of Chapel Hill. The interest has grown and reached a point where it is necessary to return to the town council with a veterans’ memorial site recommendation.

History:

On November 23, 2009, a petition was made by Jim Merritt, a Chapel Hill Town Council member, to create a Veterans Memorial in Chapel Hill. The petition was accepted by the town and sent to committee. There is no existing town memorial.

A committee was formed of local citizens and veterans groups’ representatives to consider options, possible location, and funding.

(See committee website at: http://www.chapelhillmemorial.org/)

In October 2010, a decision was made by the Veterans Memorial at Chapel Hill Committee to recommend the use of Chapel Hill Memorial Cemetery as the site for the memorial.

On November 10, 2010, the Committee presented a proposal to the Chapel Hill Cemetery Committee to site the veterans memorial at Chapel Hill Memorial Cemetery. The proposal was voted on and accepted.

The Cemetery Committee joins the Veterans Memorial Committee in this petition.

Memorial Site:

After reviewing several possible town locations and the acceptability, accessibility, and cost, the existing “memorial” plaza at the Chapel Hill Memorial Cemetery was selected as the most viable location. Changes to the existing site would include:

-Restoration of the existing cemetery memorial plaza to create a “go to” site at an entrance to Chapel Hill.
-Add flagpole, solar-powered lighting, a monument, seating, and landscaping.
-Modify existing walkways’ entrances.
-Solicit design proposals as part of a Master’s Program or Arts Council project.
-Rededicate the existing site as the town-sponsored site for annual Memorial Day commemoration (similar to UNC Chapel Hill’s ROTC sponsored Veterans Day event.

Financial Considerations:

Current Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation plans are for a programmed restoration of the core existing infrastructure.
Funding for an actual co-located veterans memorial would be from private, civic, and corporate donors.
Once the memorial is added to the existing plaza site and dedicated, maintenance and upkeep of the memorial site would continue under the sponsorship of the Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Department.

Petition Request:

The Veterans Memorial at Chapel Hill Committee, joined by the Chapel Hill Cemetery Committee, petitions the Town of Chapel Hill to approve the siting of the proposed memorial at the Chapel Hill Memorial Cemetery memorial plaza.

Submitted November 22, 2010

FRED BLACK
Colonel, US. Army (Retired),
Vietnam Veteran
Committee Chairman

IT WAS JUST TOO LONG!

On March 22d the Chapel Hill Town Council had a meeting. Nothing surprising with that, but this was a long meeting, a really long meeting. It went on for five and one-half hours. That’s right, it started at 7pm on Monday and ended at 12:35 am on Tuesday. That’s 335 minutes, or 20,100 seconds.

In other words, it went on for a long time! Why? Because there were lots of major things to discuss packed into the agenda, not to mention petitions and reports to the Council. There’s plenty wrong with meeting this long – any meeting over three hours is just wrong! The council members are not at their best, the staff has to still come to work in the morning, presenters have to sit through these things and waste a lot of their time, citizens tune out before the meeting is over, and worst of all, there may be some terrible decisions made by tired people.

I would encourage the Council and manager to take a hard look at their meeting agendas and work hard to keep them to three hours max, or better yet, two hours if possible. Sad to say, long meetings are real barriers --- a barrier for people who might want to serve on the council and still have a job, have a family or even want to have other activities in their lives. And it’s also a barrier to the public who wants to watch the process in real-time. We can and must do better!

LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE (A WCHL Commentary)

It's a new year and a new Council. I wish all of them well as they go about the difficult task of governing this opinion-gifted town. One of the things I hope our new mayor and council members work hard to do is to avoid mistakes of the past. Before former Mayor Kevin Foy left office, he did an interview on WCHL with Jim Heavner. Jim asked about defeats and Mayor Foy responded by stating that the biggest mistake was the renaming of Airport Rd. for Martin Luther King process because the Council didn’t do what it normally did, and that was to engage the public and having community dialogue before making a significant decision. When they backtracked and instituted a process, Mayor Foy said that there wasn’t a lot of trust.

Instead of learning from this mistake, the Council, he said, repeated it with moving forward with the health care debacle last year before getting community input. Since some of the key players in both mistakes are still on the Council, I hope that they don’t have to relearn this lesson once again. Conversation is surely time consuming and the process may even be frustrating, but as the Council says about the tedious development process, it produces a better outcome.

Keep that in mind, Town Council, as we are depending on you to do the right things for all of us. And just because you might not think something has a lot of interest to the community, give the community the chance to decide that.

PROGRESS?

How do we know when we as a nation or even as a smeall community have made progress, particularly on the social front? Some like to point to the election of Barack Obama as president as a sign that we are able to look at the "content of one's character" instead of the color of one's skin. But even though we know his election did not magically solve the issues of race in America, it did tell us what voters would elect an African American to our highest office - something that is surely character revealing.

Here in Chapel Hill we face a test of our character. Here's why: before the election a council member resigned, but after the date when his seat would have been on the November 3d ballot. Under our ordinance the Town Council gets to appoint the replacement who fill the remaining two years of the seat.

There was a great deal of community discussion on this, especially on the timing of the resignation's effective date, who knew what when, and whether or not the old council or new council should make the appointment. The Council has now decided that the new Council will make the appointment in December. There are 10 applicants, but none of the incumbents running for reelection applied.

OK, here is where it gets interesting. The member who is an African American who was appointed to fill the seat of an African American who died last year was not elected to a full term. Since he did not apply for the appointment, the only way to ensure that there is African American representation on the Council is to appoint one of the two African Americans who applied.

Another of the ten who applied for appointment finished fifth in the elect-four contest we just had, and was very close in total votes to the fourth place winner. This person is white. The local NAACP argues that for many historical reasons, the Council should appoint one of the two African Americans to the seat to ensure a voice from that community remains on the Council.
(see: http://www.orangepolitics.org/2009/11/future-of-the-town-council-without-broad-representation)

Simply put, I have a lot of problems with this approach. First, the author of the NAACP paper (the president of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro NAACP) is wrong in calling this a case of “taxation without representation.” It's interesting to note that the voters who did not elect an African American to the Council elected two African Americans to the School Board, and they will join another African American who is already on the seven member Board.

There are many African Americans I know in Town who are offended by this "you must appoint an African American" approach. If there is no African American on the Council, it is best explained by the campaign the candidate ran, the terrible overall turnout of 16%, and drastically less turnout by African Americans. Clearly, the outcome is not about the unwillingness of the voters to vote for an African American.

The fifth-place finisher ran a campaign that garnered him a lot of votes. Running a campaign is good prep for serving in office; you have heard directly from many citizens and interacted with them in forum after forum. Given the timing of the appointment on the heels of an election, why didn't those seeking the appointment run for office?

Well, the decision will clearly have tremendous impact on our community, no matter which way it goes. Those of us who are African American and don't support the NAACP position have and will continue to be labeled, negatively by some but not by others. Those who are not African American and don't support the NAACP position are also subject to similar actions because of their position. Those who remain silent for whatever reasons pose an entirely different question. Clearly, to put your convictions out there is character revealing.

Progress?

A TALE OF TWO CITIES

In late July, Town of Chapel Hill Councilman Bill Strom announced that he would not complete his third term and would resign effective August 1st. He resigned, he said, “to pursue other personal and professional opportunities outside the community.”

By resigning when he did, it was too late for his seat to be included in this year’s municipal races. The filing period for those races ended on July 17. According to Chapel Hill Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, had Strom stepped down within three days of the end of the filing period his seat would have been included on the ballot and the town council would have been charged with filling his seat until the election.

Now, when the council reconvenes on Sept. 14, Mayor Foy will officially announce the vacancy. The council will then set a time period of not less than seven and not more than 30 days for applications for the seat. Council members will then review the applications and officially place names in nomination. After the nominations, the council must wait at least one week before making its decision. The council will consider the opening at each meeting but is not required to make a decision by any set date. The new council member will serve out Strom’s term, which ends in December 2011.

This decision by Strom brought the blogs to life, in what had been a pretty slow summer. Some questioned Strom's timing, especially since there had been rumors of his departure for some time. Some, including this writer, wondered why he wouldn't trust the same voters who elected him three times to fill his seat. Some called on the four incumbents on the ballot to support the 5th place finisher for the appointment. Some candidates on the ballot, including incumbents, declared that they would not seek an appointment. Nothing is certain at this point except that this resignation and process to fill the seat will be an election issue.

Meanwhile, over in Carrboro, they also have a resignation. On August 20th, Carrboro Alderman John Herrera, who had already said he would not seek re-election this fall, has resigned effective immediately, five months before the end of his term and has moved out of Carrboro.

The Carrboro Board of Aldermen has not decided on a process yet, but many think that they will leave the seat empty since it will be filled by the election. The Strom seat has two years; should it be filled quickly, after the election so we know who came in fifth, or what?. The interesting thing to me is the Carrboro situation received no where near the reaction that the Chapel Hill situation did. What explains the "tales" in these two cities? Timing is everything!

SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT -PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS

In May 2008 I wrote the Town Council about my concerns about public financing. I was intrigued by the fundamental assumptions of the ordinance, so I asked the Town Attorney. What follows is the exchange with the Attorney and Councilman Strom that is now part of the public record. Note how my position got personalized in the 7th email, and my response to Mr. Strom in the 8th. Councilman Kleinschmidt concludes the exchange in the 9th email with a very "lawyerly" response.

I still believe that the Town Council would have been wise to allow two elections to come between their approval of the program and the execution for the first time. Doing that would have allowed people to consider any incumbent running for reelection who voted for or against it. Let the people speak and don't penalize them because of their legal contributions to political candidates!

ORIGINAL EMAIL

From: Fred Black [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:56 PM
To: Town Attorney
Subject: VOE Ordinance
Ralph,

I wasn't able to attend the hearing last night because of another commitment, but maybe you can help me with my question. I realize that the State Board of Elections required you to use the purpose language that you did, but it says in the proposed ordinance:
The Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill finds that:
(a) There is a compelling need to address the detrimental effects of increasingly large amounts of money being raised and spent to influence the outcome of elections for Mayor and Town Council.
(b) These contributions and expenditures may cause corruption or the appearance of corruptions in the election process.
How was this "found?" Has there been any research on this?
Thanks,

Fred
________________________________________
2D EMAIL

From: Toni Pendergraph
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:06 PM
To: Ralph Karpinos
Subject: FW: VOE Ordinance
RDK – we received this email from Mr. Black today at our website address.
Toni
________________________________________
3D EMAIL

From: Ralph Karpinos [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:36 PM
To: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Bill Strom; Sally Greene; Mark Kleinschmidt; Jim Ward
Subject: FW: VOE Ordinance

Fred,

You may wish to make this inquiry directly to the Council or to the Committee of the Council that worked on this project.

From my perspective, having worked with the Committee and attended their meetings over the last several months, I believe that the ordinance that the Committee has proposed for the Council includes findings that are based on the collective and individual experiences of the committee members and, if enacted by the Council, would be based on the collective and individual experiences of the Council members who chose to vote for the program. This, I believe, would include the numerous campaigns each committee member has been involved with as a candidate, as well as other experiences they have had observing and working in local campaigns, perhaps on behalf of other candidates. In addition, some of the committee members have had conversations with other candidates for other local offices and have had conversations with persons associated with local election administration at the Orange County Board of Elections, as well as conversations with staff at the North Carolina Board of Elections.

Committee members are copied on this response to your inquiry and may wish to respond to you as well.

Ralph
________________________________________
4TH EMAIL

From: Fred Black
To: 'Ralph Karpinos'
Cc: 'Bill Strom' ; 'Sally Greene' ; 'Mark Kleinschmidt' ; 'Jim Ward'
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: VOE Ordinance

Thanks Ralph. Maybe a committee member is able to share how this was "found" and any research that was done. I ask only because the SBOE and the ordinance direct the use of this language, but the statement indicates that the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill finds that the points are true. So, my question remains, how, other than anecdotally, was this discerned?

Fred
________________________________________
5TH EMAIL

From: Bill Strom [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 10:54 AM
To: Fred Black
Cc: Mark Kleinschmidt; Ralph Karpinos; Sally Greene; Jim Ward
Subject: Re: VOE Ordinance

Thanks for your question Fred. Hope you are well, and we ought to grab a cup of coffee one of these days and catch up. I looked for you yesterday at The Chamber's reception but must have missed you....or you had better things to be doing :-)

Just to be clear about where you stand on this issue - even if the ordinance findings you are concerned about were eliminated you would still be standing in opposition to the V O E program for Chapel Hill - correct? My understanding has been that you simply don't believe this program hold benefits for the community of any sort. Please let me know if I'm misinformed.

My current thought (prior to hearing all the evidence which will be on the record prior to a vote) is that there has been reporting and editorials in the local papers over the years which support the two finding findings - and I will see that some of these articles are entered into the public record when the hearing continues on 6/9. I also believe Ralph's response to your inquiry was a reasonable representation of the feelings and beliefs of the committee members.

I sure hope you can appear at the hearing on 6/9 and make your concern known, or if you wish I will offer your emails for the public record. I expect they will be discussed by council at that time regardless since you clearly raise a good point (or two).

Regards,

Bill

Chapel Hill News Editorial Sunday, February 16, 2003

Mayor's race shows need for reform

Chapel Hill has a campaign-spending law that's better than most.
The law limits contributions to $200 per individual in an election, and it requires disclosure of any donors who give more than $20. That's much more restrictive than state law, which "limits" contributions to $4,000 and has a $100 threshold for disclosing contributors' names.

But even with the tighter restrictions, spending in the last Chapel Hill mayor's race was double the amount from the previous mayoral race in 1999 and more than triple the amount spent in 1995. Democracy North Carolina, the Carrboro-based public interest group, released a report last week calling the trend "troubling" and urging public financing of campaigns in Chapel Hill.

In the 2001 mayoral election, Kevin Foy beat Lee Pavao, 57 percent to 39 percent. They each spent more than $25,000 on the election, for a total of $51,000, or $6 per vote.

The Democracy North Carolina study made several troubling findings about that election:
-- Most of the money - $43,100 - came from 247 people who gave $100 or more. Put another way, 84 percent of the spending came from less than one half of 1 percent of the population.
-- More than a third of Pave's major donations came from people connected to the development industry.
-- Foy did not disclose the occupations of most of his large donors. Pave did, although the descriptions often were vague.
-- Each candidate ended up digging into his own pocket to finance the campaign - Foy $9,800 and Pavao $4,354.

As Democracy North Carolina points out, those kinds of entry fees put the mayor's race out of the spending range of many ordinary citizens. They also subject candidates, when they are elected, to undue pressure from their contributors.
The report doesn't address a key question: Why have campaign costs escalated so much in recent years? Chapel Hill is not a television market, but the costs can be attributed to increasing sophistication of campaigns. Both candidates spent heavily on direct mail - which entails hefty printing and postal expenses - and Foy also employed a paid campaign consultant and polling in his campaign.

Unfortunately, the lesson from the election is that such expensive tactics work, and they thus will become the norm in future elections.

Unless, that is, the town does something to short-circuit the spending cycle. Democracy North Carolina offers a good alternative. The organization is proposing for Chapel Hill a "voter-owned elections" program that would give candidates public funding in exchange for accepting spending limits.

The proposed limits would be $10,000 for the mayor's race and $5,000 for a town council seat. To qualify, candidates would have to raise small donations of $5 to $10 from a minimum number of contributors - 200 for mayoral candidates, 100 for council.

The program would be voluntary, and non-participating candidates would be free to spend as much as they want, within the existing laws.

We think this model, in some form, is a good idea. It would instantly curtail campaign spending, level the playing field for all candidates, lower entry barriers for the non-wealthy and, most important, eliminate influence of special interest groups. There will be objections to the notion of using taxpayer money to fund campaigns - the 2001 election would have cost about $80,000, Democracy North Carolina figures - but that cost is more than offset by the benefits in terms of clean campaigns and better candidates.

Chapel Hill prides itself in being on the cutting edge of progressive government. There is no better place to start than with campaign finance reform.

________________________________________
6TH EMAIL

From: Fred Black
To: 'Bill Strom'
Cc: 'Mark Kleinschmidt' ; 'Ralph Karpinos' ; 'Sally Greene' ; 'Jim Ward'
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: VOE Ordinance

Bill,
I do not support this program and I was struck by the assertion in the purpose statement that seemed to be anecdotal at best. Are they really findings from some sort of rigorous examination of the issue? I think the Council can do better if serious about making the point. The Council seems to require a much higher standard from others who appear before them, but it doesn't seem to me that in this case the Council is holding itself to that same standard. If my perception is incorrect, remember, many perceptions are but they are still perceptions.

Your write, "My understanding has been that you simply don't believe this program hold benefits for the community of any sort. Please let me know if I'm misinformed." That is not my position. In the email that I sent to each member of the Council, I laid out my concerns about the assumptions that are built into the ordinance. I wrote Ralph about the language of the Ordnance purpose statement, and in particular, the "finding" language. This is not to say that it might not do something beneficial at some point, but in my opinion, it has problems and it just doesn't rank higher than many other important priorities in my mind. I would rather us our limited resources on things other than subsidizing campaigns.

I really think our leaders at all levels of government will be put to the budget test as the economic pressures increase and our available dollars are reduced. When I add potentially $60K for the art position and $50K for this program, I see $110K going to things that are not as high a priority in my mind and the minds of some other citizens. It's sad, but too many are unwilling to bother speaking out because they sense that the majority vote is already there, so why bother they ask.

I just think we can do better as stewards of our limited resources than spending this kind of money on a problem that has not been adequately described.

Fred
________________________________________
7TH EMAIL

From: Bill Strom [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 5:11 PM
To: Fred Black
Cc: Sally Greene; Mark Kleinschmidt; Jim Ward; Ralph Karpinos
Subject: Re: VOE Ordinance

OK Fred - Thanks.

I respect your opinion and I take comfort knowing that you care enough to make your position known to me. You will recall that I was elected in 1999 - and at that time I made a significant issue out of public finance of campaigns in Chapel Hill....so this has been a priority for me for a while which I have made clear to the community.
We have spoken about balance and trade-offs when serving on council in Chapel Hill as well as how important it is to respect diverse opinions in our community. I've heard from many who don't think the aquatic center is a good idea, others who don't like the new Economic Development position, and others who think we ought to stop the library expansion. It just seems that the council must balance interests and provide across the board for the community's very diverse priorities. So you can hack away at Public Art and Voter Owned Elections, but it seems very political and divisive to me given the broad perspectives as well as the scale of the budget in this community. These are things I know you understand.

Again - I hope you come to the public hearing and make your position known.
I will be happy to provide any comments you wish to submit for the public record should you not be able to participate.
Have a great weekend -

Bill

________________________________________
8TH EMAIL

On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Fred Black wrote:
Bill,

Thanks for your response. I see no reason to personalize this but I do see a need to compare apples to apples. Those of us who worked on the bonds spent a lot of time informing citizens about their purposes and their cost in future years if approved. As I remember, a very significant majority of the citizens who voted supported the bonds. I see a real difference between decisions made by voters on large capital expenditures that were seen as an investment in our future and decisions made by the Council. As I said before, just stating that there is a problem with money in our elections and that more people would be willing to run with VOEs and demonstrating that it's the case are two different things.

So yes, we elected you to make decisions that include having to balance demands and make trade-offs between competing interests, but please don't make equivalent what voters approved with what the Council itself must decide.

Fred

PS: I had an EmPOWERment Board meeting yesterday during the reception – still haven't figured out how to be in two places at once!
________________________________________
9TH EMAIL--

Mark Kleinschmidt
Chapel Hill Town Councilmember
on the web at: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx

Town Hall --
405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514

From: Mark Kleinschmidt [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:23 AM
To: Fred Black
Cc: Bill Strom; Sally Greene; Jim Ward; Ralph Karpinos
Subject: Re: VOE Ordinance

Hi all,

Fred,

The ordinance and resolution as presented for public hearing articulate "proposed findings" that if voted on by a majority of council will then become the what the Council finds justifies adoption of the resolution. While you might disagree with the findings as proposed, they were generated by the Committee during the process leading up to the public hearing. The information was gathered from many sources including the originating petitioners, as well as research conducted by NC Voters for Clean Elections and Common Cause. Support was also gleaned from the successful experience the State Board of Elections has had administering the state-wide races for appellate judges. The information presented (both to the committee and through public hearing to date) has been strong evidence in support of approval for these proposed findings and is based on the experience of other jurisdicitions as well as anecdotal information. I believe the committee does not deem it necessary to wait for a time when actual corruption might occur -- which would seem to just invite community harm. And, while corruption is certainly something that we desire to avoid, it is not the only impetus for reform. The evidence does show greater citizen participation in the communities in which it has been enacted both in the numbers of candidates on a ballot as well as actual voter participation.

We are in public hearing on this issue. It is the time during which evidence in support and in opposition to proposed findings is presented. This is not unlike public hearings on other issues such as development projects where proposed "findings" are presented to the Council, and evidence is gathered (both anecdotal and otherwise) in support and in opposition prior to a Council vote. Rarely will all evidence presented be exclusively in support or in opposition

Also, it is the belief of no one that any single program can solve all the symptoms of a particular ill the community may be facing. Sure, some may be put off from running for Council solely because of the time commitments, perhaps they have deep pockets of their own and time is the only barrier. Council has been directing the staff, since the hiring of our new manager, to implement several reforms that we hope will impact the time commitment. For me, the most notable have been the changes in the budget process and agenda preparation. But as is the case with many, I'm sure, the newly found time scavenged from one aspect of the job is quickly put to work doing other things. For example, I've spent a great deal more time doing work on several Council committees and responding to constituent issues. But, admittedly, my experience is anecdotal, other Council members my feel differently.

These kinds of changes don't require ordinance changes and don't involve the kind of work the public usually sees, but just because some reforms aren't accompanied by public hearings and Council votes doesn't mean nothing is being done.

Thank you for the questions.

Mark