New N.C. State chief jabs a few stakes in the ground
Randy Woodson, incoming chancellor at N.C. State University, was in town this week to make the rounds, including spending the day with legislative leaders Tuesday, breakfasting with former Gov. Jim Hunt (and and N.C. State grad) and dropping by the News & Observer to chat with reporters and editors. Woodson showed right off the bat a willingness to talk candidly about academic matters at N.C. State, the largest public university in North Carolina. In his words, he stuck a few stakes in the ground to make points about the university. Among them:
-- He thinks N.C. State has become "a bit risk averse" in academic matters and that it should take more risks that make an impact upon the state and the nation -- for example, declaring a goal for the university's program to become the best anywhere in chemical engineering, say, or other disciplines. "Academic risk is where you … put a stake in the ground" and say you're going to the next level. That includes budget choices, and some departments clearly need to grow to meet challenges. "It's time to decide where you're going to expand" -- and N.C. State needs a clearly articulated strategic plan that includes targets and measurements.
-- N.C. State's endowment, he says, is far too small and ought to be three times as large. N.C. State, he said, "has one of the smallest endowments of a research university… that I've ever seen." On paper, he noted, the endowment is $400 million, but $100 million of that is land. So the investment endowment that produces income is about $300 million. It ought to be, he said, $1 billion. He also sounds unconvinced that N.C. State's model of school-based foundations raising money is the best way to proceed. "It's very unusual," he said and added, "It doesn't appear to have been very effective."
-- And the university's faculty, he thinks, is too small. North Carolina's high schools are graduating more students, creating demand for space in higher education, and a larger endowment will help attract the best faculty and keep them to serve the students.
-- The N.C. State freshman class generally has about 9 or 10 percent out-of-state students, considerably less than the 18 percent allowed by state policy. He'd like to see N.C. State's freshman class proportion of out-of-state students rise because of the mix of intellect and experience a broader mix of students brings to the class and to the state.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
Dan Pollitt: He loved to argue
If you've paid attention to the major social controversies for the last half-century or so in North Carolina, chances are you're familiar with the name of Dan Pollitt, a law professor at UNC Chapel Hill and one of the most aggressively outspoken champions for free speech, the little guy and individual rights of our times. He was also the standard by which liberals were often measured, and he seemed to relish a good fight. He'd smile and tell a good story, too, but you could tell he loved to argue.
Pollitt, spouse of state Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, died Friday in Chapel Hill at the age of 88. Anne Blythe had a story on him here.
The short take is that he had one of the most interesting careers of anyone I've known in public life. He was a Marine who fought in the South Pacific, where he was awarded two Purple Hearts, one of them occurred in a fight with a Japanese soldier where Pollitt was armed with a canteen, of all unlikely weapons. He practices with Joe Rauh and often represented clients before the notorious House Unamerican Activities Committee before coming to UNC in 1957.
Taylor Sisk of The Independent had a terrific long-form story on him in 2000. I can't get the link on the story to work consistently, but if you Google "Taking Liberties: Dan Pollitt unfashionably defends 'free speech, nude dancing, the works,' published March 15, 2000, you should find the piece.
One Pollitt story I had never heard, also related in the Indy's story, was his role in the recruiting of basketball star Charlie Scott to Chapel Hill back n the late 1960s. Pollitt was, as his obituary in the N&O noted, an outspoken advocate of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Holden Beach and the Tar Heels.
Pollitt, spouse of state Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, died Friday in Chapel Hill at the age of 88. Anne Blythe had a story on him here.
The short take is that he had one of the most interesting careers of anyone I've known in public life. He was a Marine who fought in the South Pacific, where he was awarded two Purple Hearts, one of them occurred in a fight with a Japanese soldier where Pollitt was armed with a canteen, of all unlikely weapons. He practices with Joe Rauh and often represented clients before the notorious House Unamerican Activities Committee before coming to UNC in 1957.
Taylor Sisk of The Independent had a terrific long-form story on him in 2000. I can't get the link on the story to work consistently, but if you Google "Taking Liberties: Dan Pollitt unfashionably defends 'free speech, nude dancing, the works,' published March 15, 2000, you should find the piece.
One Pollitt story I had never heard, also related in the Indy's story, was his role in the recruiting of basketball star Charlie Scott to Chapel Hill back n the late 1960s. Pollitt was, as his obituary in the N&O noted, an outspoken advocate of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Holden Beach and the Tar Heels.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Carry (not Carrie) Nation in Raleigh
Sunday's column about the choices facing policymakers about the N.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission mentions a historical anecdote from 1907, when the well-known temperance leader Carry Nation visited Raleigh. Sharp-eyed readers may recall seeing her name spelled "Carrie" -- but her real name was Carry Amelia Nation. She authored a book entitled "The Use and Need of the Life of Carry A. Nation" and signed it Carry A. Nation. Still, you'll see her name spelled "Carrie" in a lot of places.
She was afraid of no one and was famous for having taken a hatchet to saloons in her campaign against liquor, tobacco and other devilish substances. When she visited Durham in 1907, she called Duke's tobacco "all the works of the Devil." The story goes that when she took a hatchett into a saloon where prize fighter John Sullivan was having a few drinks one day, he ran and hid.
She is pictured in a visit to Raleigh with the Rev. Sylvester Betts. I've been asked before if I'm related to Rev. Betts, and while I've long thought that possible, I have never found a connection. But who knows? My great grandfather was the Rev. A.D. Betts, a Civil War chaplain and longtime Methodist minister who was still living when Sylvester Betts was preaching from time to time at what became Pullen Baptist Church in Raleigh. And in 1907, my father was one year old, having been born the previous year in a house where his grandparents lived near the corner of Bloodworth and Jones Street across from the Governor's Mansion. It's my guess that old A.D. Betts and his son W.A. Betts, also a Methodist minister, both of them teetotalers, would have at least known Sylvester Betts -- and might have campaigned with Carry Nation in her war on Demon Rum.
She was afraid of no one and was famous for having taken a hatchet to saloons in her campaign against liquor, tobacco and other devilish substances. When she visited Durham in 1907, she called Duke's tobacco "all the works of the Devil." The story goes that when she took a hatchett into a saloon where prize fighter John Sullivan was having a few drinks one day, he ran and hid.
She is pictured in a visit to Raleigh with the Rev. Sylvester Betts. I've been asked before if I'm related to Rev. Betts, and while I've long thought that possible, I have never found a connection. But who knows? My great grandfather was the Rev. A.D. Betts, a Civil War chaplain and longtime Methodist minister who was still living when Sylvester Betts was preaching from time to time at what became Pullen Baptist Church in Raleigh. And in 1907, my father was one year old, having been born the previous year in a house where his grandparents lived near the corner of Bloodworth and Jones Street across from the Governor's Mansion. It's my guess that old A.D. Betts and his son W.A. Betts, also a Methodist minister, both of them teetotalers, would have at least known Sylvester Betts -- and might have campaigned with Carry Nation in her war on Demon Rum.
Friday, March 05, 2010
In elections, who's buying whom?
Michael Weisel, a Raleigh lawyer and law professor who represented a real estate agent Thursday in a complaint before the State Board of Elections that involved the difficulty of finding out where and how much the N.C. Association of Realtors had spent on local anti-tax campaigns, is trying to help focus attention on some big changes wrought by a recent Supreme Court decision.
Weisel brought along a complicated multi-colored chart that showed a dizzying array of connections between where the money began and where it wound up -- all legally reported, but in different places because the campaigns were in separate counties.
But the board didn't want to spend time Thursday on what changes the court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will require in state campaign law.
Weisel says it starts with a simple understanding: "All this board is going to have in the future is reporting," he warned the board Thursday, if I heard him correctly.
I asked him via email if that's what he said, and here's how he responded:
"Basically, the only enforcement mechanism that will be available to the Board is the ability to enforce substantive, timely disclosure of contributions and expenditures in the post Citizens United world. This disclosure will be complicated/obfuscated by the money trail outlined in the chart. You can (and people have) move money around to evade date specific reporting requirements.
"No one cares how much money was spent on an election 3 or 4 months after the election. Particularly what the losers are whining about."
I think he's right about this. The courts have made it difficult to regulate campaigns in so many ways because they often get wrapped up in First Amendment questions of free speech. But courts have regularly endorsed one key tool that regulators can use so at least the public will know who's spending how much to affect which elections: public disclosure requirement for campaign finance. It's an ugly way to put it, but the question is the same: Who's buying whom? Or what?
Weisel brought along a complicated multi-colored chart that showed a dizzying array of connections between where the money began and where it wound up -- all legally reported, but in different places because the campaigns were in separate counties.
But the board didn't want to spend time Thursday on what changes the court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will require in state campaign law.
Weisel says it starts with a simple understanding: "All this board is going to have in the future is reporting," he warned the board Thursday, if I heard him correctly.
I asked him via email if that's what he said, and here's how he responded:
"Basically, the only enforcement mechanism that will be available to the Board is the ability to enforce substantive, timely disclosure of contributions and expenditures in the post Citizens United world. This disclosure will be complicated/obfuscated by the money trail outlined in the chart. You can (and people have) move money around to evade date specific reporting requirements.
"No one cares how much money was spent on an election 3 or 4 months after the election. Particularly what the losers are whining about."
I think he's right about this. The courts have made it difficult to regulate campaigns in so many ways because they often get wrapped up in First Amendment questions of free speech. But courts have regularly endorsed one key tool that regulators can use so at least the public will know who's spending how much to affect which elections: public disclosure requirement for campaign finance. It's an ugly way to put it, but the question is the same: Who's buying whom? Or what?
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Money and politics: more hard questions
At a State Board of Elections hearing this afternoon, a lawyer for the N.C. Assocation of Realtors and a lawyer for real estate agents are facing off over the question whether the association violated state law in assessing members $70 extra in 2007 to fight proposed referenda in two dozen counties that would have raised the local real estate transfer tax.
The lawyers are still going through a lot of throat-clearing while board chairman Larry Leake of Buncombe County has pressed each of them to say whether they think it's a violation of the law to require trade association members to pay fees such as assessments to pursue a political end. To remain members of the association and have access to the multiple listing service, agents had to pay the assessment. Was that a form of coercion to support a political issue? Cary real estate agency Becky Harper, who filed the original complaint, said access to the multiple listings is like a carpenter's hammer -- absolutely necessary to make a living.
But the key subtext of the hearing is how a recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission affects this issue and many other state laws. The decision allows corporations, labor unions and trade associations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns, and it's fairly clear that states are going to grapple with how to require disclosure of the sums spent.
In the audience at the State Board of Elections hearing is Damon Circostsa, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education. He sent around this electronic comment a few minutes ago:
"Listening to this hearing and trying to decipher when and how money was spent to influence elections in 2007 makes my head hurt... And I am an elections lawyer.
"The supreme court has opened the doors for groups like the realtors to spend freely in future elections.
If we are going to have any idea how money is spent to influence elections we are going to need some serious reform of our disclosure laws.
"At the very least we need to know where the money is coming from. Listening to this hearing is proof positive that the general assembly is going to do some serious work, soon, so we can know why and how money is spent in our campaigns.
The lawyers are still going through a lot of throat-clearing while board chairman Larry Leake of Buncombe County has pressed each of them to say whether they think it's a violation of the law to require trade association members to pay fees such as assessments to pursue a political end. To remain members of the association and have access to the multiple listing service, agents had to pay the assessment. Was that a form of coercion to support a political issue? Cary real estate agency Becky Harper, who filed the original complaint, said access to the multiple listings is like a carpenter's hammer -- absolutely necessary to make a living.
But the key subtext of the hearing is how a recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission affects this issue and many other state laws. The decision allows corporations, labor unions and trade associations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns, and it's fairly clear that states are going to grapple with how to require disclosure of the sums spent.
In the audience at the State Board of Elections hearing is Damon Circostsa, executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education. He sent around this electronic comment a few minutes ago:
"Listening to this hearing and trying to decipher when and how money was spent to influence elections in 2007 makes my head hurt... And I am an elections lawyer.
"The supreme court has opened the doors for groups like the realtors to spend freely in future elections.
If we are going to have any idea how money is spent to influence elections we are going to need some serious reform of our disclosure laws.
"At the very least we need to know where the money is coming from. Listening to this hearing is proof positive that the general assembly is going to do some serious work, soon, so we can know why and how money is spent in our campaigns.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Wake school board dumping diversity policy
Readers following the upheaval in Wake County over the change of direction a newly-elected majority of the Wake Board of Education is taking may have missed a short item by News & Observer reporter Tommy Goldsmith: a conservative think tank financed by businessman and former legislator Art Pope, and closely associated with the John Locke Foundation and other non-profits that favor limited government, will provide training for the new board. (Update: This sentence should have said "will be on the list of those who can provide training for the new board members," as a commentor points out below.)
Goldsmith writes:
"Wake County school board members agreed Tuesday to accept the Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank, as a provider of annual training for school board members.
"Under state law, members must receive at least 12 hours of training annually. Previously, they have received it from the N.C. School Boards Association or the School of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill.
"The Civitas Institute, founded by Raleigh businessman Art Pope, says its mission is to "facilitate the implementation of conservative policy solutions to improve the lives of all North Carolinians."
Pope is a smart fellow and so are those who run the various non-profits his business funds. There's little question about where they stand on a number of education issues, and they must be happy with the board's direction.
And the new school board majority clearly is happy, too. There's little pretense about what the board is doing as it moves to dismantle a diversity program and bring about more neighborhood schools starting in 2011. The board may have only a 5-4 majority, but it's sending a pointed message in its recent dealings that it is closely allied with the conservative goals and policies of the Pope-supported foundations and other nonprofits.
Goldsmith writes:
"Wake County school board members agreed Tuesday to accept the Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank, as a provider of annual training for school board members.
"Under state law, members must receive at least 12 hours of training annually. Previously, they have received it from the N.C. School Boards Association or the School of Government at UNC-Chapel Hill.
"The Civitas Institute, founded by Raleigh businessman Art Pope, says its mission is to "facilitate the implementation of conservative policy solutions to improve the lives of all North Carolinians."
Pope is a smart fellow and so are those who run the various non-profits his business funds. There's little question about where they stand on a number of education issues, and they must be happy with the board's direction.
And the new school board majority clearly is happy, too. There's little pretense about what the board is doing as it moves to dismantle a diversity program and bring about more neighborhood schools starting in 2011. The board may have only a 5-4 majority, but it's sending a pointed message in its recent dealings that it is closely allied with the conservative goals and policies of the Pope-supported foundations and other nonprofits.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Perdue: Private liquor stores would operate as concessions
Gov. Bev Perdue has told legislative leaders that if they decide to privatize the state's ABC system -- either ABC stores, the wholesale and distribution, or both -- then the developing stores or wholesalers would be concessionaires for a fixed period of time. They may also be allowed to renew their terms.
In a letter to legislative leaders, Perdue said she was concerned about a number of ABC issues, including ethical performance and business operations. "It has become very clear to me that ethical standards, operations, control and oversight of local ABC boards and stores must be strengthened. I have set and enforced the highest standards for openness and transparency of any administration in our state’s history. I expect that those high standards will be upheld down to the local level if state government has any responsibility or oversight for actions and standards at the local level," she said.
Perdue also said she wants a close look at the financial side of ABC system changes. "In order to fully grasp the implications and opportunities associated with privatization, we must have a very clear understanding of the revenue the state may derive, and possibly forego, as a result of selling a concession to private interests. She has ordered up an analysis by a valuation firm to help determine the best course. But if the state does privatize any or all of the system, she said, there are three elements she wants in any such plan:¬
"1) If local ABC Boards remain in the business of selling liquor, ABC Boards and their employees will have more stringent ethical standards, they will be more accountable to and under more direct control by the state.
"2) North Carolina will remain a “control” state. If we opt to privatize any part of the ABC system, it will only do so through the sale of a concession for a limited period of time, which may be renewable.
"3) Any fees paid to the state from the sale of any part of the ABC system must be used to fund critical, long-term investments in our people and our state – not to fill current or near-term budget shortfalls."
It's not knowable, of course, if the state of North Carolina will make this big change in the way alcohol is sold. It's worth noting that if the change does occur on Perdue's watch, it will be at least the second significant cultural change in the state due to her influence. The first was creation of the state lottery, which went forward after she cast a tie-breaking vote as lieutenant governor and presiding officer of the Senate to create what is now the N.C. Education Lottery.
In a letter to legislative leaders, Perdue said she was concerned about a number of ABC issues, including ethical performance and business operations. "It has become very clear to me that ethical standards, operations, control and oversight of local ABC boards and stores must be strengthened. I have set and enforced the highest standards for openness and transparency of any administration in our state’s history. I expect that those high standards will be upheld down to the local level if state government has any responsibility or oversight for actions and standards at the local level," she said.
Perdue also said she wants a close look at the financial side of ABC system changes. "In order to fully grasp the implications and opportunities associated with privatization, we must have a very clear understanding of the revenue the state may derive, and possibly forego, as a result of selling a concession to private interests. She has ordered up an analysis by a valuation firm to help determine the best course. But if the state does privatize any or all of the system, she said, there are three elements she wants in any such plan:¬
"1) If local ABC Boards remain in the business of selling liquor, ABC Boards and their employees will have more stringent ethical standards, they will be more accountable to and under more direct control by the state.
"2) North Carolina will remain a “control” state. If we opt to privatize any part of the ABC system, it will only do so through the sale of a concession for a limited period of time, which may be renewable.
"3) Any fees paid to the state from the sale of any part of the ABC system must be used to fund critical, long-term investments in our people and our state – not to fill current or near-term budget shortfalls."
It's not knowable, of course, if the state of North Carolina will make this big change in the way alcohol is sold. It's worth noting that if the change does occur on Perdue's watch, it will be at least the second significant cultural change in the state due to her influence. The first was creation of the state lottery, which went forward after she cast a tie-breaking vote as lieutenant governor and presiding officer of the Senate to create what is now the N.C. Education Lottery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
