Category Archives: CitizenWill

Greensboro’s Chief Problem: Transparency?

One of the more interesting aspects of Greensboro’s Chief Wray debacle involves a report (the RMA) prepared by outside consultants for internal consumption by Greensboro’s leadership. Questions swirl around both the legality of releasing the full report on the conditions leading to Wray’s firing and the public necessity of those revelations.

A number of GSO bloggers, current ‘blogger and former Council candidate Dave Hoggard for instance, have called for a redacted version to be released. As the Hogg points out,

After reading the whole thing I’m convinced our City Council should call a meeting and vote to release at least the first 31 pages of the report (Section 1).   From my non-legal view, that section of the report confirms Bledsoe’s Rhino reported investigations and presents all of the justification needed for the public to understand why David Wray is no longer employed as our Chief of Police.

Others, like Greensboro’s newest ‘blogger (but longtime commenter), The Conservative Alternative, question the assertions that legal action can and will be taken against GSO ‘bloggers publishing the report “in toto”. The grounds for doing so, at least based on her/his analysis, seem pretty shaky.

My interest is more than academic. As a local citizen working on governance issues, the extent to which I can publish or provide documentation of governmental malfeasance hinges on the legal determinations at play in cases like those exposed by Greensboro’s RMA report.

This is one of the reasons I support the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their efforts to preserve and protect the online community’s First Amendment rights.

Greensboro’s Chief Problem

An update from Ed Cone on my reference to the release of a report on Greensboro’s Chief Wray, his behavior in managing his department, and the eventual breaking of trust between him and the Council. The fall and rise and fall of the leaders of Greensboro’s police force are well documented in Jerry Bledsoe’s Rhino Times series (nicely collated by Ed).

Why do I care about what goes on Greensboro?

To learn how a community, a government and individuals within both groups grapple with a serious and controversial problem. The crux of Wray’s problem appears to have been trust – the lack thereof…

I’ve also followed last year’s Durham City Manager debacle and this year’s Durham DA’s handling of the Duke lacrosse case for a similar reason: to learn how leaders, elected or otherwise, and “lowly” citizens grapple with crippling problems at the highest echelon of their civic structures.

What will I do with Greensboro’s and Durham’s “lessons well-learned”? Well, I believe it has helped sharpen my understanding of internal politics within a governmental organization, helped me focus on the relevant and salient actions of those at the top and, I hope this never happens, helped prepare me, an individual citizen, to step-forward and work with others to sort out similar messes should they ever occur in Chapel Hill.

BTW, it was nice seeing Greensboro’s ‘blogging Council rep Sandy Carmany yesterday at ConvergeSouth. Her community outreach, including her comments on the Chief Wray case, set a standard for elected officials.

Two Neighborhoods Revisited, Church St. Mugging Victim Recovering

Not quite sure where on Church St. Eric Dawkins was when he was assaulted but the location caught my eye reading Wednesday’s Chapel Hill News police blotter. According to the blotter, the two attackers (since described as two black males, 5′ 10″ wearing black hoodies) beat Dawkins when he resisted and then fled in a light colored sedan.

I work on the corner of Church and Franklin streets – this feels close to home. Last year I wrote a post, Two Neighborhoods, about safety on my corner of downtown – and the difference between my perception and others (like my Aveda neighbors).

Since then the town has increased police patrols downtown. But, between the recent rash of car break-ins, assaults and this third gun-related crime in a month, one wonders if we’re seeing a trend that belies my old assertion that downtown is basically safe.

I hope not.

The good news is Eric is recovering from his pistol whipping.

Here comes the judge: The Forum – Anderson’s Question

Chuck Anderson asks how the current system for selecting our judges (by election) might be modified to better serve the public.

Carl Fox and Chuck Anderson were omitted because I ran out of juice for my camera.

And then the last of my batteries went kaput. I apologize to Carl and Chuck for not capturing their last answers of the evening. My notes of their answers:

Fox – appellate selection – most current appelate judges haven’t served as superior judges, electing of judges then have a retention election

Anderson – unlikely we can change the way NC selects judges – legislative actions – how many folks of high quality are discouraged form running? the current system kind of screens out good candidates – don’t want to expose themselves to election – %85 of electorate (Timson) doesn’t know candidates or issues in current election….

Here comes the judge: The Forum – Fox’s Question

Carl Fox starts with the observation that 9 out of 10 people sitting in his court audience are young African-American males.

“What are we doing wrong that is causing so many males to end up in court and what can we do to fix the situation?”

Here comes the judge: The Forum – Baddour’s Question

What is the most important thing, if elected, you’ll accomplish over the next 8 years?

Adam Stein talks about how he can only serve about 1/3rd of a term (about 2 years).

Here comes the Judge: The Forum

[UPDATE:] All videos have been uploaded to youTube and are available here.

Tonight, four candidates for Superior Court faced off before 24 folks that appeared to be students (grad or otherwise) and, including myself, two older folk.

Our cup runneth over. Every one of the candidates this evening was quite impressive.

While our choices can be narrowed on externalities, like Adam Stein’s preplanned obsolescence, the character, tenor, experience of these candidates came through…

[UPDATE:]

Posting videos on youTube as I process them. This is my first attempt to film an inside event. I ran into a few problems: dying batteries, filled memory cards, mystery heads popping up, bottle woman, standing candidates, Mr. Tongue clicker, etc.

I apologize to the candidates for clipping various speeches (like Carl’s opening statement which starts late due to a camera glitch). My next effort should be PRO quality ;-).

[UPDATE:]

Moved videos to separate posts to improve page loading times.

The forum wrapped without an opportunity for the folks in the audience to ask a question or two. That said, I appreciated the moderator’s giving the candidates enough time to fully answer.

All in all, a good forum.

I’m using a wonderful open source software (OSS) tool VirtualDub to edit the raw AVI files from my Canon S3 and convert them to YouTube (or is it GooTube) friendly 320×240 MPEG-4 XVids.

Redistricting Referendum: Is Education Enough?

The League of Women Voters has asked me to speak at two forums in the coming weeks as “the opponent” to this referendum (because of my Sept. 2006 Chapel Hill News column “All Quiet on the Election Front”).

Moses Carey will argue for the referendum and I’m supposed to do 5 minutes on my opposition. Of course, I don’t have either the gravitas or the months of background Moses brings to this issue so it’ll be a bit of David and Goliath.

I’m trying to bend my schedule so I can make at least the first forum. More when I know.

Until then, here’s a press release (via Mark Peters and SqueezeThePulp) on the initial education efforts:

October 11, 2006

With upcoming discussions on the District Election Referendum, a web page has been created on the Orange County website to provide basic information. You may wish to consider this as a research source.

The page contains links to the following:
– Simplified wording of the issue
– Questions and Answers
– Maps
– Links to sample ballots (for the exact wording of the referendum)
– Information on educational sessions

The page can be found under “What’s New” from the main Orange County web page or the link below.

http://www.co.orange.nc.us/OCCLERKS/DistElectWeb.htm

This link will be updated as additional information arrives.

Within the next week, brochures with much of the same information will be distributed to many public locations.

All Quiet on the Election Front?

Or are we waiting on the real battles to begin?  This election season I have two goals: to squash the mediocre Orange County districting referendum and to get Judge Baddour elected.

Here’s my latest Chapel Hill News column “Election referendum doesn’t fly”:

How much does it cost to unload a real turkey? This month, our county commissioners are struggling with that question as they try to sell their foul bird of representational reform to local voters.

Reform? Over the last few months, with little public involvement, they have cobbled together an ill-tasting electoral melange — two geographical districts, two distinct primaries, district and at-large seats — that owes more to satisfying short-term political goals than to promoting democratic ideals.

Not a surprising outcome given the coercive genesis of the reform project.

In a March 29 guest column in The Chapel Hill Herald, ironically headlined “Give voters the power of choice,” state Rep. Bill Faison wrote how proposed legislation would carve our county into new electoral districts that would recognize the ” the distinct diversity of our county” and “provide for district representation to reflect that diversity.”

Yet, rather than strengthening our community’s bonds, Faison’s bill promoted a brittle, mediocre, contentious reapportionment scheme codifying one of the worst of political practices, divisiveness.

By favoring a small constituency unhappy with its current rural representatives, County Commissioners Stephen Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs, Faison’s plan invited disenfranchisement of other geographically, economically and socially distinct voting blocks.

Fortunately, because of state Rep. Joe Hackney’s command of the legislative process, Faison’s attempt to weaken one person/one vote died, though the impetus to continue with some type of representational reform remained.

Yes, some inequity exists under the current system, but the measure now before voters on the November ballot is no remedy.

Possibly lulled by spring’s promise of renewal, I asked the Board of Commissioners March 21 to accelerate the roll out of super precincts, to listen to Faison’s call to broaden their membership to seven and to make two major changes in our current voting process: non-partisan elections and cumulative or proportional voting.

I frequently help Orange County Democrats with their get- out-the-vote drives, usually support their candidates and am generally sympathetic to their goals. I’m not troubled by the board’s current political composition.

I am against rigging the game so that near perpetual control rests in their party’s hands.

Have you noticed how quiet the commissioners race is? This time last year, during my non-partisan run for Town Council, I was incredibly busy getting my policy message out through forums, neighborhood meetings, personal outreach and media events.

Considering the county commissioners’ taxing authority, responsibility for schools and other duties, you would think the race for the Board of Commissioners would raise twice the hullabaloo of a simple municipal race.

Yet, nothing. Political calm. Why?

Of the currently 88,944 registered voters, 47,152 Democrats and 19,629 Republicans can nominate candidates, hold primaries, turn out a small percentage of party loyalists and, in this strongly Democratic county, fill the seats.

May’s primaries are a Democratic “fait accompli.” Some 22,163 citizens, Independents, are limited to participating from the sidelines.

That’s not healthy for our local democracy.

Non-partisan elections would solve at least three of our electoral problems: ease independent candidacies, reduce the chance a party will “game” the system early in the cycle and force candidates to reach out to a broader spectrum of voters (and maybe work a bit harder for their votes).

Unlike the current “winner-take-all” system, where numerically disadvantaged voting blocks cannot influence outcomes, proportional voting systems amplify minority input — but only if disparate groups truly collaborate.

Simply, united we stand, united we win.

The cumulative system, a system suggested by a 1993 Orange County advisory group to redress voting disparities, gives each voter as many votes as there are seats. Four seats up for grabs? Cast all four votes for one candidate or cast one vote for each.

The strength of this system lies in collaboration. For example, a natural coalition, based on a common interest in sustainable agricultural policy, could be built between feared southern Carrboro liberal elites and supposedly conservative northern Orange County farmers. Each group could cast two of its four votes for the candidate most supportive of their single-issue goal. Their remaining two votes could be cast quite differently.

United they stand, united they win.

Faison, absent adequate study or effort to legislate, said proportional representation was “not viable in any way.” I disagree.

What is not equitable, not acceptable and definitely not viable is November’s representation reform referendum.

Madison: Some Smoozing, No Snoozing.

At least, not much snoozing as participants have reported on local ‘blog OrangePolitics.org.

I appreciate the time and effort Mark Chilton, Gene Pease, Fred Black and Dan Coleman put into real-time reviews.

I hope some of our other “known” blog commenters (Anita, Linda, Aaron, Andrea, Diane ?) get in to the act.

[UPDATE:] Anita and Frances Henderson joined in.

UNC’s Board of Trustee Roger Perry: You’re Insulted?

UNC trustee and local developer Roger Perry said his sense was that UW-Madison officials essentially tell the community that the university’s mission requires it to do a certain project, and then everyone goes to work on preventing negative impacts, without trying to stop the project in general.

He said he’d like to get to that point in Chapel Hill, and that it can be somewhat “insulting” when someone not connected to UNC says they really aren’t convinced the university needs to do what it says it needs to do.

HeraldSun 09/27/06

Perry is insulted when someone outside of UNC questions the whys-and-wherefores of campus development?

What the hell? Near quoting from the authoritarianism playbook, Perry says he likes a community that doesn’t question the diktat of the university – a community that just “deals” with the university’s negative impacts.

Perry appears to long for the day when citizens “shut up” and STOP SAYING they aren’t really convinced about what the university needs to do. My guess? It isn’t the citizen taxpayer questioning the “needs” as much as the citizen taxpayer that questions the “hows” that really inflames his ire.

The obvious sub-text is Carolina North.

The fine residents of our community, the hard-working taxpaying citizens of our State, deserve more than the University’s current flimsy assertions of positive financial, economic and social impacts. From a straight business perspective, for the investment demanded of our community and State, the return is hardly clear.

While I believe the University needs to expand, I have been quite clear that the justifications UNC, to-date, have offered up for Carolina North are, at best, fundamentally weak, at worse, downright disingenuous.

Roger Perry and the rest of UNC’s Board of Trustees absolutely must address the glaring absence of any reasonable, documented, calculable return on investment before I, a single North Carolina citizen taxpayer, will be convinced of the soundness of their plans.

Of course, this is the board Carolina North’s designated quarterback Jack Evans claims can’t handle reading a 15 page list of development principles for Carolina North.

What a trip for the Carolina North boys. Perry’s “shut up” is a fine bookend to Moeser’s reaction to “freelance dissent”.