April Civitas Capitol Connection

Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue and Republican leadership are not seeing eye-to-eye as budget negotiations are about to begin in Raleigh. Perdue recently neglected to tell Senate and House leaders about a vital deadline that would affect 37,000 unemployed North Carolinians. Photo: News & Observer

Cathy Heath talks to a reporter at a rally in opposition to the North Carolina League of Municipalities in 2006. Photo: Anonymous

Civitas

BY JANA BENSCOTER

BY TAYLOR HOLGATE

100 S

outh

Har

ringt

on St

reet

Ralei

gh, N

.C. 27

603-

1814

NO

N-P

ROFI

T O

RG.

US

POST

AGE

PAID

Perm

it #1

44

Reid

svill

e, N

C

A t roughly the same time legislative budget work has kicked into high gear in Ra-leigh, Democratic Gov. Bev

Perdue is ratcheting up more political tension. Perdue, like President Barack Obama in Washington, may be trying to insure that she has the upper hand in negotiations with legislative leaders by threatening a state-government shut-down. The federal government recently faced a similar situation, something both state chamber leaders would like to prevent.

Perdue neglected to inform Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R-Rock-ingham) and House Speaker Thom Til-lis (R-Mecklenburg) about an April 16 funding formula deadline the state was required to meet that would continue providing unemployment benefits to thousands of unemployed. Berger and

Gov. Bev Perdue Issues 5th Veto of the YearSays yes to possible government shutdown and no to extending unemployment benefits

NC Gas Tax Drives Consumers to Spend in Other StatesGas prices are on the rise again

and if the North Carolina General Assembly does not take action, taxes will be too. Part of the North Caro-lina gas tax is calculated as a percent-age of the wholesale price of fuel, so when prices at the pump rise, so does the gas tax. The next scheduled in-crease is July 1.

House Bill 399, “Cap Motor Fuel Excise Tax Rate,” would miti-gate the burden of rising gas prices by capping the gas tax at its current rate. Capping the gas tax would ben-efit everyone, but would be especially helpful to small business owners in counties that border other states.

Most gas stations are owned and operated by local small business pro-prietors. Gas stations in border coun-ties are hit especially hard by high

gas prices and taxes because the North Carolina tax rate is higher than every bordering state. Consumers can save as much as 16 cents a gallon in taxes just by filling up in a station across state lines.

Facing rising costs to fill their tank, consumers will face even great-er incentive to seek cheaper fuel out of state. North Carolina’s compara-tively high gas tax rates have such a significant impact on businesses in other states that scheduled gas tax in-creases in North Carolina often gener-ate headlines across the border. After the last scheduled increase in January, SCNow.com published a story titled: “N.C. Gasoline tax drives some resi-dents south for fuel.”

When consumers leave the state for fuel not only do North Carolina gas stations lose business, but also the

CAPITOL CONNECTION

In This Issue1

GA Leaders to Perdue: No Shutdown

Gas Taxes Drive Consumers to Spendin Other States

Civitas Citizen of the Month

2

From the Editor

NC’s Future Redistricting

3

Budget Can’t Handle High-Speed Rail

4-5

Smart Start Administrative Salaries

6-7

Redistricting Maps

Unemployment Map

8

Health Benefit Exchanges

Unborn Victims Recognized

Annexation Reform Lacking

9

Global Warming Equals Higher Energy Bills

Wind Energy Hearings

10-11

Legislative Directory

12

Scandal

April 2011 • Vol. 3, no. 3 www.nccivitas.org

Civitas Citizen of the MonthCathy Heath: Advocate Against Forced AnnexationBY JANA BENSCOTER

Working the equivalent of a full-time job for the past eight years, Cathy Heath jumped on board with StopNCAnnexation in 2003 when she felt the arm of local government made its way too close to her house in Cary. The town of Cary, the year before, had been in a contentious battle with local residents and landowners over annexing 629 Wake County residential units into the town limits. From her knowledge and interest in property rights, Heath decided to investigate the matter fur-ther.

Her research and efforts catapulted

ShutdownContinued on Pg. 5

CitizenContinued on Pg. 3

Gas Tax MapContinued on Pg. 3

her into a statewide endeavor. She now is working as the volunteer Di-rector and Chairperson for the board of the North Carolina nonprofit – StopNCAnnexation.

“I gladly gave to this effort be-cause of the injustice of forced an-nexation and the financial damage it was doing to people who more often than not could not afford it,” Heath said. “And the idea of forcing people under a city government against their will was counter to the principles that America stood for.”

Using the Internet as the main resource to bridge gaps between com-munities across the state, Heath con-tinues to work tirelessly alongside many volunteers. She educates and brings together residents who have shared common experiences and gone through court processes.

“This has been a cause that people join willingly and that has grown with nearly every forced annexation that has been attempted over the last 10 years,” Heath said. “And it has been

state loses revenue as well. Allowing the gas tax to increase will cause the state to lose revenue in the future as more drivers buy gas in other states.

House Bill 399 is not a perfect so-lution, but it is a good start that will protect consumers from the impend-ing tax increase. The bill would buy General Assembly members time to

discuss more significant changes to the gas tax and the state’s inefficient transportation funding model. Doing so could make North Carolina gas tax rates more competitive to those in surrounding states. w

Tillis said they found out about the change five days before the deadline.

“We learned at the very last minute that we have to clean up yet another mess,” said Tillis. “With one signature, the governor can prove she’s serious about bipartisanship, about averting a catastrophic government shutdown, about streamlining government, and about extending unemployment ben-efits to those in need.”

Leaders said they were willing to make the change with one caveat. House Bill 383, a Continuing Resolu-tion to extend unemployment benefits, included a 13 percent spending cut in Perdue’s suggested budget she handed over to the Legislature earlier this year. HB383 passed on party lines in both the Senate (30-17) and House (66-49) on April 14, but was vetoed by Perdue

2 April 2011 nccivitas.org

CAPITOL CONNECTIONCivitas

PUBLISHER

Francis X. De [email protected]

MANAGING EDITOR

Jana [email protected]

Editorial & Advertising

100 S. Harrington Street

Raleigh, NC 27603

919-834-2099 (phone)

919-834-2350 (fax)

www.nccivitas.org

All non-advertising content published

in Civitas Capitol Connection may be

republished as long as appropriate

credit is given and it is

published in its entirety.

Copyright 2011


NAME

ADDRESS

CIT Y

STATE Z IP

PHONES

EMAIL

Please mail to:100 South Harrington Street, Raleigh, NC 27603

http://www.nccivitas.org/signup | 919-747-8052

SIGN UP FOR YOUR FREE subscription of

your connection to the Raleigh beltline, without the traffic.


BY JANA BENSCOTER

F R O M T H E E D I T O R

Perdue Keeps Rolling Political Dice

The only blueprint for success that Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue is using as her framework for North Carolina’s prosperity is actually draped in red – a red-inked veto pen. She has successfully vetoed five bills, with the probability of other vetoes to follow during the 2011 General Assembly long session.

It would be more of a surprise if she would stop using the power to veto. She has vetoed Senate Bill 13, “The Balanced Budget Act;” House Bill 2, “Protect Health Care Freedom;” Senate Bill 265, “State Health Plan;” and House Bill 7, “Community Colleges, Opt Out of Federal Loan Program.” All bills are aimed at providing more decision-making flexibility and ownership back to North Carolina residents, as well as financial governing control to community colleges.

Most recently, House Bill 383, “Extend Unemployment Benefits/Continuing Resolution,” which passed both the Senate and the House on April 14, faced the veto pen on April 16. The bill made its way straight to Perdue’s desk because it was a concurrence bill, meaning it was fast-tracked through the Legislature to her desk because both chambers were in agreement.

The page 1 story, “Gov. Bev Perdue Issues 5th Veto of the Year,” includes more information about HB 383, and Perdue’s reckless behavior as a leader. In an at-tempt to discredit Republican leadership, Perdue has actually brought the spotlight back on herself for the choices she is making to try to stay in power, and bring back the Democratic Legislature. The Legislature has predominantly been under Democratic authority for more than 140 years, until this session.

Published in March Civitas Capitol Connection, I questioned how many more times Perdue was going to use her red pen in “Governor is Happy to Wield Veto Pen.” I wrote, “While she is wielding her power to veto, the question remains, how many more times will she use it during the remainder of her term? Politically, this will have some sort of affect on her run for a second term.”

In response to Perdue vetoing two bills on the same day, the North Caro-lina Senate caucus wrote, “The unprecedented “double-veto” should not surprise North Carolinians. Just last week, Gov. Perdue boasted to an audience of support-ers that she planned to use a “quart jar of red ink” to veto Republican legislation. “I’m prepared and ready to go,” Perdue said in reference to her veto stamp and jar of red ink.”

The NC Senate Caucus continued, “North Carolina is already drowning in red ink – thanks to Gov. Perdue and the former Democrat majority in the General Assembly. The state is facing a $2.5 billion budget hole for fiscal year 2011-2012 – in addition to the $515 million State Health Plan shortfall. Perdue and the Demo-cratic legislature had more than a decade to get the state’s fiscal house in order. In-stead, Democrats dramatically increased spending in 9 of the last 10 years, putting the state on an unsustainable course, and precipitating the largest tax increase in North Carolina history – over $1 billion – in the midst of a recession.”

If it’s not time to challenge Perdue’s decision making now, then when? An April 2011 Civitas Poll reveals that 52 percent of voters polled do not believe Per-due is doing a good job as Governor, while 40 percent said they approve of the job she is doing. And, if the election for Governor in 2012 was held today, 51 percent of voters polled said they would cast their ballot in favor of potential Republican candidate, former Charlotte mayor, Pat McCrory, while only 39 percent said they would vote for Perdue.

BY FRANCIS DE LUCA

Redistricting typically takes place once every 10 years, immediately after US Cen-sus data is released. Using latest population counts, state legislators redraw district lines of elected state legislators and congressional representatives. Local elected officials also redraw district lines of elected city officials, county commissioners and school board members, if local districts are based on population, and voters elect their represen-tative by district. There are laws and court decisions that govern the process, which of-tentimes have an impact on local redistrict-ing. Throughout the past 30 years, North Carolina has been involved in many land-mark court cases that have shaped redistrict-ing across the country: 1986 - Thornburg v. Gingles, 1993 - Shaw v. Reno, and 2002 - Stephenson v. Bartlett (NC Supreme Court decision with US Justice Department ap-proval).

Cases such as these, the NC Consti-tution and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) guide redistricting in the Tar Heel state. Section 5 of VRA, which covers 40 counties in North Carolina, directs “avoid-ing ‘retrogression,’ or worsening the posi-tion of racial minorities with respect to the effective exercise of their voting rights” and section 2 of VRA, which applies to all 100 counties, “may require drawing districts which contain a majority minority popula-tion.”

The NC Constitution has a require-ment to not split counties when drawing legislative districts. After the 2002 Stephen-son decision, the US Justice Department ap-proved of the Stephenson opinion and with-drew its 1981 objection to the rule, “Whole County Provision,” of the NC Constitution.

The NC Supreme Court described a step-by-step method that integrated the

Redistricting: Leaders to Weigh In on Future Districts

Whole County Provision with other rul-ings and laws when drawing state legisla-tive districts. First, the General Assembly is required to draw districts according to the Voting Rights Act. Second, it should take all the counties with the right population to be single-member districts and make them one-county single-member districts. Third, it should take all counties that have the right populations for one or more districts and divide those counties into compact single-member districts. Fourth, for the remaining counties it should group them into clusters of counties and divide the clusters into com-pact single-member districts, crossing coun-ty lines within the cluster as little as possible.

State legislative district results can vary in population and in practice by as much as plus or minus 5 percent over the ideal popu-lation. For example, if the ideal population is 100,000, two districts next to each other could have populations, after redistricting, of 95,000 and 105,000 respectively.

Congressional districts are drawn in a way to accommodate as many Majority/Minority districts (section 2 of VRA) as pos-sible and due to the supremacy of federal law, does not worry about county boundar-ies, and in practice, are as close to absolutely equal in population as possible.

For the first time since the start of our current way of redistricting, a Republican majority will have control of drawing district lines. Redistricting discussions are underway in the state Legislature. The maps on page 6 illustrate existing NC House, Senate and congressional redistricting plans with the de-viation above or below population required when new maps are drawn in 2011. w

For more information on redistricting, visit www.nccivitas.org.

Redistricting MapsContinued on Pg. 6

Nationwide, Perdue is not the only stand out Democrat governor using the veto pen, however, she is quickly becoming well known as “Governor No.” In what appears to be a battle between governing branches, could actually be her po-litical endeavor focused on restor-ing power to career politicians.

Her veto actions are gambling with the future of North Carolina. Not communicating with leader-ship could thwart a goal to approve the state’s spending plan by June 1, set by Republicans. North Carolina statute requires the state to operate under the budget plan by July 1, the official start of the fiscal year. Since 1985, the North Carolina Gen-eral Assembly and acting governor have had a budget plan in place by the start of the fiscal year only four times. w

3April 2011nccivitas.org


High-Speed Rail Could Bankrupt North Carolina BY BRIAN BALFOUR

House Bill 422, “No High-Speed Rail Money from Federal Government,” has been under attack by major media outlets, special interest groups, and big-spending politicians in Raleigh. True to its name, the bill would prevent North Carolina’s Department of Transporta-tion from spending federal grant money it receives designated for high-speed rail projects without approval of the General Assembly.

These attacks have helped to de-rail the bill, so to speak. The bill was pulled from the agenda of the House Trans-portation Committee, which had been scheduled to vote on it the week of April 8. This move is a likely indicator that the bill is dead.

The bill has been vehemently op-posed by those who view this federal high-speed rail money as some sort of “free lunch” bestowed upon us from D.C. that will “create jobs” without any nega-tive consequences whatsoever. In short, they claim the rail money is all benefit, no cost.

Those of us living in reality, however, know better.

Indeed, supporters of HB 422 recog-nize that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and accepting federal funds for high-speed rail will certainly come at a cost.

First, critics overlook the highly likely scenario that these rail projects will incur significant cost overruns. The latest such example comes from California, where a high-speed rail route was originally pro-jected to cost $33 billion. Less than a year later, cost estimates for the project already ballooned to $43 billion, and that’s before

the project has even broken ground. Sup-porters of HB 422 are concerned about North Carolinians being forced to fi-nance the inevitable cost overruns likely to occur in our state. And then there is the ongoing annual operating costs, as well as repair and replacement costs in the future. That’s one price we may have to pay for this “free lunch.”

But what about those jobs?Indeed, many North Carolinians are

out of work. But how do high-speed rail supporters know that the $152 million worth of rail projects in the Charlotte area, for instance, will “create” jobs in perfect concert with the nature of those unemployed in Mecklenburg County? Unemployed roofers, realtors and invest-ment bankers laid off due to the bursting of the real estate bubble won’t be of much use laying track.

Thoughtful analysis suggests that the jobs “created” by the high-speed rail projects across North Carolina won’t just absorb those who are currently un-employed, because those who are unem-ployed are very specific in nature regard-ing their location and skill set.

No, there is no free lunch, and these rail projects will divert labor and other resources away from other uses. This is known as the “crowd out” effect, where productive private investment is bid away toward politically chosen endeavors. Thus, there are no jobs “created” by these government-funded rail projects. There is merely a change in the mix of jobs in the economy. And because politically-select-ed projects create less value by nature than private sector investment, another cost to North Carolina will be slower economic and job growth. w

these highly motivated people across the State who have brought us all where we are today. Candidates have come to realize that this is an issue most cannot ignore and changing the law is important to those who elected them.”

Heath’s main mission is “to re-store the voice of the property owners when a city considers their property ripe for becoming part of the city.”

Heath has appeared on broadcast news reports across the state, as well as in newspapers. The Cary News recently wrote about her efforts with ongoing annexation reform and moratorium debate in the state Legislature.

“Heath, 58, a landscape design-er and homemaker, argues that the original intent of annexation – cities

CitizenCONTINUED FROM PG 1

House Bill 422 would require General Assembly approval before North Carolina Department of Transportation officials could appropriate federal funds on high-speed rail projects in the state. Photo: Jana Benscoter

providing urban services such as wa-ter and sewer to rural areas – has been replaced by an effort by cities to make money,” the newspaper reported.

Heath has also organized many rallying efforts across the state to shed light on details regarding state laws and city ordinances. Through this ef-fort, she has spearheaded a coalition to show the other side to the annexa-tion story.

“I was blessed with the time and resources to devote most of my time searching for information that ex-plained the law, helped others under-stand who and what organizations the people were up against, and supply people with the research that coun-tered the arguments for forced an-nexation,” Heath said. w

To find out more about StopNCAn-nexation go to www.stopncannexation.com.

Total Gasoline Tax Per State Continued from Page 1Source: American Petroleum Institute



How Much does Your Smart Start Administrator Make?BY ANDREW HENSON

A Civitas investigation reveals large compensation packages and salaries in the Smart Start organization, which account for a large portion of the re-ported administrative overhead of 11 percent of the program. High salaries are particularly pronounced in many of Smart Start key administrators’ com-pensation. For example, a recent Inter-nal Revenue Service (IRS) filing shows North Carolina Partnership for Chil-dren (NCPC) (Smart Start) President Stephanie Fanjul earning $173,814 in total compensation, including benefits. Large compensation packages extend throughout the Smart Start infrastruc-ture, as seen in the compensation fig-ures below.

These compensation packages divert critical resources from needy children to well-funded administra-tive salaries. As a reference point, the Secretary of Health and Human Ser-vices, who heads the agency through which the Smart Start funds flow and oversees a budget of $3.9 billion earns

a salary of $120,000 plus benefits. In contrast, NCPC President Fanjul over-sees a $188 million budget and earns $145,935 in salary alone. Fanjul’s sal-ary is more than Gov. Bev Perdue’s.

Below is a chart with the total compensation figures for top earning Smart Start administrators. Data for this chart was derived from public re-cords requests and the most up to date IRS 990 forms available (2008-09 and 2009-10 form depending on avail-ability). Total compensation includes salary plus the value of benefits, such as health insurance and retirement contributions. Civitas studied 65 of the existing 77 local partnerships, as well as the state organization known as NCPC. The cutoff for the below chart was derived from the average 2008-09 private sector compensation for North Carolina workers of approximately $55,000.

For a longer list of positions and payroll, see below. Note: Figures may not include total benefit amounts.

Name Job Title Smart Start Organization

Total An-nual Com-pensation

Stephanie Fanjul President State $173,814

Eve Hansen Executive Director Cumberland $120,370

Pamela Dowdy Executive Director Wake $115,154

Ron Bradford Executive Director Buncombe $112,506

Leslie Karlsson Senior Dir. Finance and Operations State $110,000

Jane Myer Executive Director Mecklenburg $108,293

Heniretta Zalakind Executive Director Nash, Edgecombe $106,635

Pauline McKee Executive Director Randolph $103,420

Susan Perry-Manning Senior Dir. Policy and Pro-grams State $102,000

Connie Holton Finance Director State $98,981

Marie Clark Chief Financial Officer Cumberland $98,886

James Dodson Information Technology Director State $98,981

Victoria Byrd Executive Director Sampson $98,963

Linda Blanton Planning, Development, & Communications Director Cumberland $97,785

Magda Baligh Executive Director Halifax $97,145

Lynn Vick Child Care Resource & Referral Director Cumberland $96,609

Chuck Kraft Executive Director Forsyth $94,700

Cindy Watkins Executive Director Alamance $94,087

Keith Sylvester Executive Director Lenoir, Greene $94,069

Larry Kowalski Finance/Contracts Manager Buncombe $92,353

Jean Goodman Executive Director Guilford $91,663

Marta Koesling Executive Director Iredell $90,273

Linda Leonard Executive Director Davidson $89,052

Alvin Keller Information Technology Director Cumberland $88,944

Scott Lodder Systems Analyst State $88,820

Dwight Morris Executive Director Johnston $88,706

Janet Nelson Executive Director New Hanover $87,044

Ann Benfield Executive Director Cabarrus $86,799

Martha Brown Executive Director Richmond $84,565

Norma Boyd Executive Director Jones $84,101

Rose Powers Program Administrator Cumberland $82,207

Tina Newcomb Communications & Develop-ment Administrator Cumberland $82,183

Margaret Samuels Executive Director Orange $81,387

Tom Mitchell/Christine Bauer Financial Consultant State $80,672

Gary Carr Controller Wake $80,429

Marjorie Barroso Accounting & Contracting Manager State $80,224

Elizabeth Santana QEI/More At Four Director Wake $80,212

Cathy Taylor Executive Director Cleveland $80,173

Marie Lilly Controller Cumberland $79,600



Denauvo Robinson Executive Director Albemarle $78,749

Executive Director Stokes $78,493

Executive Director Franklin, Granville, Vance $78,257

Finance Director/Contracts Manager Iredell $78,215

Amy Barry Program Manager Buncombe $77,964

Shelia Orth Executive Director Martin, Pitt $77,275

Executive Director Dare $77,143

Anna Troutman Director Program Coordina-tion & Evaluation Wake $76,389

Elaine Scarborough Executive Director Anson $76,308

Executive Director Burke $76,212

Finance Manager Stokes $76,193

Dawn Rochelle Executive Director Onslow $75,265

Leslie Moss CCR&R Manager Buncombe $75,161

Lois Slade State Training & Support Manager State $74,278

Jeri Arledge Executive Director Caldwell $74,255

Director of Family Support Services Iredell $73,983

Sandra Roberts Finance Director Durham $72,900

Linda Gironda Executive Director Brunswick $72,747

Carrie Stone Program Director Alamance $72,554

Don Magoon Executive Director Wayne $72,131

Director of School Readiness Iredell $72,011

Program Manager Cabarrus $71,340

Lyn Hankins Executive Director Lee $71,209

Genevieve Megginson Executive Director Chatham $70,982

Executive Director Rutherford, Polk $70,964

Finance Director Johnston $70,848

Director of Quality Support Services Iredell $70,441

Steve Riley System Administrator Cumberland $70,373

Laura Benson Executive Director Durham $70,000

Catherine Etters Fiscal Officer Mecklenburg $70,000

Paul Bamford Human Resources Director State $69,921

Gary Yellin Executive Director Harnett $69,639

Laura Welborn Executive Director Wilkes $69,344

Program and Evaluation Director Durham $68,580

Ann Malatzke Family Services Manager Alamance $68,227

Tracy Zimmerman Communications Director State $68,000

Barbara Whitley Executive Director Stanly $67,967

Sherry Peel Executive Director Carteret $67,498

Michelle Malcom Finance Director Forsyth $67,300

Executive Director Lincoln, Gaston $67,292

Director of Child Care Solu-tions Iredell $66,120

Child Care Health Consultant Iredell $66,029

Program Manager Johnston $65,816

Executive Director Yadkin $65,656

Kay Overton Executive Director Tyrrell, Washington $65,457

Sandra Hudspeth Executive Director Caswell $65,339

Dana Walker Finance/HR Manager Alamance $65,203

Lisa Woolard Executive Director Beaufort, Hyde $64,797

Executive Director Montgomery $64,392

Kimberly Lyke Salyards Executive Director Catawba $64,300

Director of Programs Rutherford, Polk $64,126

CCR&R Program Coordinator Stokes $63,793

Arnita Davis More at Four Program Man-ager Cumberland $63,528

Carole Mangum Accounting Manager Cumberland $63,284

Melinda Schlesinger Evaluation Manager Wake $63,028

Program Manager Davidson $62,964

Early Childhood Specialist Alamance $62,950

Program Evaluator/More At Four Stokes $62,801

Executive Director Moore $62,748

Finance Manager Wilson $62,744

Andrea Tarantino Program Manager/Elv New Hanover $62,497

Rahel Gashaw Senior Accountant Mecklenburg $62,462

Executive Director McDowell $61,991





Joy Sotolongo Research & Evaluation Direc-tor State $61,958

Resource & Referral Director Moore $61,879

Susan Clark Monitoring Manager State $61,543

Jenny Whitley More At Four Director Forsyth $61,200

Debi Bartholemew More At Four Manager Wake $61,072

School Readiness Director Johnston $61,054

Krista Turner Manager - ECC/PPS/CCHC New Hanover $60,993

Executive Director Ashe $60,722

CCR&R Office Administrator Brunswick $60,691

Executive Director Wilson $60,426

Ann Ward Local Partnership Support Specialist State $59,708

Tom Mitchell/Christine Bauer Financial Consultant State $59,645

Cynthia Turner Health Specialist State $59,477

Joan Williams Executive Director Duplin $59,340

Don Stewart Program Compliance Man-ager Davidson $59,173

Debbie Harrell Finance Director New Hanover $59,123

More at Four Coordinator Buncombe $59,033

Brian Massie System Administrator State $59,000

Finance Manager Harnett $58,971

Executive Director Davie $58,949

Debbi Kennerson-Webb Childcare Services Manager Alamance $58,882

Cinda Amen Early Childhood Develop-ment Director Forsyth $58,800

Candy Tilley Vice President Albemarle $58,538

on the deadline date.The April 16 deadline, which Per-

due was made aware of on April 1, was set by the U.S. Department of Labor

ShutdownCONTINUED FROM PG 1



Barbara Rein Program Evaluator Mecklenburg $58,191

Fiscal Affairs Administrator Beaufort, Hyde $58,137

Pat Hansen Evaluation Specialist State $58,016

Finance Director Guilford $58,000

Louise Bannon Director of Communications Wake $58,000

Program Coordinator Wilson $57,826

Harry Stevens/Jackie McClain Financial Monitor State $57,799

Executive Director Scotland $57,299

Eunice Murray Staff Accountant Mecklenburg $57,200

Wilbur Smith Executive Director Columbus $57,124

Program & Evaluation Direc-tor Dare $57,073

Leslie English Financial Analyst State $57,008

Gwen Edwards Training Coordinator Buncombe $56,780

Denise Johnson Early Childhood Manager Cumberland $56,424

Gale Wilson Subsidy and Local Partnership Support Specialist State $56,380

Lillian Bryant Executive Director Bladen $56,282

Emmy Marshall Family Support Specialist State $56,255

Executive Director Person $56,253

Ted Whiteside Fund Development Specialist Durham $55,791

Flavia McKeithan Support Services Administra-tor New Hanover $55,123

More at Four Director Cleveland $55,053

More at Four Director Moore $55,053

Randall Hardgrove Assistant Manager - ECC/PPS New Hanover $55,031

Lee Henderson Senior Program Manager Mecklenburg $55,000

to conform to the Tax Relief, Unemployment In-surance Reauthorization and Jobs Creation Act of 2010. The US Department of Labor informed North Carolina that without a change in its funding formula for unemployed workers, roughly 37,000 recipients would see their benefits cut off.

Perdue told the Raleigh News & Observer, “The General Assembly’s leadership needs to quickly send me a bill that will aid our fellow North Carolinians, free of these antics, and I

will sign it.”Lack of communication between

the Executive and Legislative could be a strategic move by Perdue to under-mine Republicans in upcoming budget negotiations. Conversely, her endeavor to publicly discredit leadership could backfire.

“This is another prime example of government incompetence,”

Berger said. “If the gov-ernor wants to extend

u n e m p l o y m e n t benefits, she’ll sign this bill. If she wants to shut down the govern-ment, she won’t.

We’ve seen the un-certainty last-second

budget negotiations bring to public employees,

small businesses, and those who rely on government services. We won’t al-low that to happen here. We’re getting it off the table.”

A state government shutdown in North Carolina is now not only off the table, but is a real possibility. Perdue has shown she is more than willing to use her veto pen on any bill she does not like. w

Civitas Polling EventsInterested in being the first to hear analysis and

commentary on pre-released Civitas polling?

Join us on the last Wednesday of every month for apoll presentation event with guest commentary from

some of North Carolina’s top political strategists.

For more information, visit:www.nccivitas.org/events

or call (919) 834-2099

Should Governor Perdue sign or veto the bill that would both extend federal unemployment benefits and prevent the shutdown of state government?

Civitas Poll April 2011

Sign the Bill 53%Veto the Bill 31%Not sure 15%

SUPPORT EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITSHB 383 - SB 343

House Republicans (65)Avila Barnhart Blackwell Blust Boles BradleyBrawley Brown, L Brown, R Brubaker Burr ClevelandCook Current Daughtry Dixon Dockham DollarFaricloth Folwell Frye Gillespie Guice HagerHastings Hollo Holloway Horn Howard HurleyIler Ingle Johnson Jones Jordan JusticeKillian Langdon LaRoque Lewis McComas McCormickMcElraft McGee McGrady Mills Moffitt Moore, TMurry Pridgen Randleman Rhyne Sager SamuelsonSanderson Setzer Shepard Stam Starnes SteenStevens Stone Torbett Warren, H West

House Democrats (1)Hill

Senate Republicans (30)Allran Apodaca Berger, P Bingham Blake BrockBrown Brunstetter Clary Daniel Davis EastForrester Goolsby Gunn Harrington Hartsell HiseHunt Jackson Meredith Newton Pate RabonRouzer Rucho Soucek Stevens Tillman Tucker

AGAINST EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

House Democrats (49)Adams Alexander, K Alexander, M Bell Bordsen BrandonBrisson Bryant Carney Cotham Crawford EarleFaison Fisher Floyd Gill Glazier GoodmanGraham Hackney Haire Hall Hamilton HarrisonInsko Jackson Jeffus Keever Lucas LuebkeMartin McGuirt McLawhorn Michaux Mobley Moore, ROwens Parfitt Parmon Pierce Rapp RossSpear Tolson Wainwright Weiss Wilkins WombleWray

Senate Democrats (17)Atwater Berger, D Blue Clodfelter Garrou GrahamJones Kinnaird Mansfield McKissick Nesbitt PurcellRobinson Stein Vaughan Walters White

NOT VOTING ABSENT

House Tillis (R) Collins (R) Farmer-Butterfield (D)

Senate Dannelly (D) Jenkins (D)

Preston (R)

Roll CallHouse #292 Senate #186



Legislative and Congressional Districts – 2010 Census ImpactBY SUSAN MYRICK

These three maps for the existing NC House, NC Senate and congressional redistricting plans show the deviation above or below what will be required when they draw the new maps in 2011.

The districts with negative percentages will have to grow larger in size while those with positive percentages will shrink to reach the optimum population for the re-spective district. They have been color coded for quick visual reference to see where deviations in populations are clustered. The map shows by color if districts are above or below the ideal population, blue coloring shows a district is smaller than the ideal district while red shows the district is larger than it needs to be. The darker the color the further away from the ideal population the district.

NC Congressional Districts 2010 % Deviation from Ideal

NC Senate Districts 2010 % Deviation from Ideal

NC House Districts 2010 % Deviation from Ideal

NC Congressional Districts2010 Percent Deviation from Ideal

3

1

7

5

2

8

11

610

4

13

9

6

12

% Deviation from Ideal-9.0 to -13.3

-5.0 to -8.9

0.0 to -4.9

0.1 to 8.0

8.1 to 16.2

1

4

8

2

7

50

3

610

47

45

25

30

5

1913

22

2912

46

18

44 11

2624

48

23

3442

35

9

41

3349

36

17

43

14

20

3821

15

31

28

40

32

16

39

27

37


-5.1 to -10.49

-5.0 to 5.0

5.1 to 15.7

15.71 to 30.6

NC Senate Districts2010 Percent Deviation from Ideal

2

5 1

6

4

3

13

8

7

20

27

22

16

120

84

119

66

54

69

94

17

28

9350

10

23

21

46

91

92 49

32

85

52

90

67

118

48

78

113

55

9

15

51

12

25

112

79

1153

47

65

2680

6486

89

97

87 88

14

70

83

7776

6845

110

58

39

3781

19

9596

117

40

115

62

111

59

11424

7374

98

31

116

82

42

63

18

75

4160

61

109108 99

107

36

103

7230

38

56293335

71

43

57

10544

106


-4.9 to -15.29

-5.0 - to 5.0

5.1 to 33.5

33.51 to 76.3

NC House Districts2010 Percent Deviation from Ideal

The Right Population2001 2011

State Senator 160,986 190,710

State Representative 67,078 79,462

US Congress 619,178 733,499



Unemployment Rates Rise Yet Again in JanuaryBY ANDREW BLACKBURN

The latest report by the North Carolina Employment Security Com-mission (NCESC) has little to say in terms of good news for North Caro-lina workers. While employers added 4,500 jobs in January, mostly in retail, the unemployment rate rose to 9.9 percent, up from 9.8 percent in De-cember 2010. This compares to the national unemployment rate of 8.8 percent, a full 1.1 percent less than North Carolina.

In all, unemployment rates in-

creased in 99 out of 100 counties, with only Washington County remaining the same; and no counties reducing their unemployment rate. Orange County had the lowest unemploy-ment rate at 6.5 percent, while Gra-ham County had the highest, at 19.4 percent. Dare County showed the greatest fluctuation, with unemploy-ment rising to 17.8 percent from 14.2 percent in December, a 3.6 percent swing in a month. Furthermore, un-employment increased in all of North Carolina’s 14 metropolitan areas.

These are not isolated incidents; only 37 counties were at or below the state’s unemployment rate. Statewide, another 34,000 people filed for un-employment, bringing the total to 463,492. Most of the jobs lost were in construction, a trend that has been ongoing since the beginning of the recession. In January 2011, 104,707 Regular Unemployment Insurance (UI) claims were filed, up more than 15,000 persons since December. Since February of last year, the state has cu-mulatively spent over $5.3 billion on

County Unemployment Rates, January 2011Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

unemployment benefits, a staggering sum adding to the state’s crisis of deal-ing with a looming $2.4 billion bud-get deficit this fiscal year.

As grim as this may sound, there is a silver lining to this very dark cloud; unemployment is down 1.5 percent from January of 2010, an indicator that the economy is slowly righting itself and out of work North Carolin-ians can look forward to new jobs to be filled. w

Dare17.8

Hyde13

Carteret9.8

Wake8

Pitt10.1

Pender11.2

Duplin9.5

Bladen12.5

Bertie12.3

Onslow9

Wilkes12.8

Beaufort11

Moore9.9

Union9.7

Craven10.1

Halifax13.1

Robeson12.7

Nash12

Brunswick12.2

Surry11.5

Sampson9.2

Tyrrell13.3Iredell

11.5Burke12.9

Johnston9.6

Anson14

Guilford10.3

Ashe13.8

Randolph11.3

Harnett11.3

Wayne8.9

Chatham7.2Rowan

12

Hoke9.7

Stokes10.8

Stanly11.8

Buncombe8.4

Warren13.2

Person11.3

Forsyth9.8

Caswell11.3

Yadkin10.9

Columbus13.1

Swain18.3

Jones10.2

Macon13.1

Martin11.3

Pamlico10.2

Lenoir10.7

Franklin10.3

Granville10.2

Davidson11.7

Jackson10.6

Lee12.7

Haywood10.8

Currituck9.1

Gates7.6

Caldwell13.4

Wilson12.5

Polk8.8

Cumberland9.7

Orange6.5

Rutherford15.5

Madison11.7

Gaston11.8

Clay12.1

Cherokee14.9

Richmond13.5

Cleveland12.5

Catawba12.6

Davie10.5

Rockingham13.2

McDowell13.1

Hertford10.1

Alamance10.8

Vance13

Avery12.5

Lincoln12.1

Yancey14.5

Mecklenburg10.3

Northampton12.1

Edgecombe15.3

Montgomery12.9

Cabarrus11

Durham7.7

Graham19.4

Scotland16.4

Washington11.6

Camden9.3

Greene10

Watauga8.6

Henderson8.5

Transylvania10.4

Mitchell13.2

Chowan11.3

Perquimans10

Alexander12.4

Pasquotank10.4

New Hanover9.7

Alleghany14.2

January 20116.5 - 9.0

9.01 - 11.5

11.51 - 14.9

14.91 - 16.5

16.51 - 19.4

10.5%

7.6% 8.3%

8.9% 8.9% 9.0% 9.7%

10.1% 10.1% 10.6% 10.8% 10.9% 11.1%

12.8% 13.1%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

North

Carolina

Durha

m/Chapell Hill

Raleigh/Cary

Asheville

Golds

boro

Jackso

nville

FayeLe

ville

Greenville

Winston

-‐Salem

Wilming

ton

Burlin

gton

Greensboro/

High P

oint

CharloL

e/Gast

onia/Rock Hill NC/SC

Hickory/

Lenoir/Morg

anton

Rocky

Mount

Unemployment by Metropolitan Area, January 2011Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics



BY KAREN DUQUETTE

BY MATT WILLOUGHBY

BY KAREN DUQUETTE

State representatives have introduced legislation recognizing when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and her un-born child is injured or killed, the state will identify both the woman and the child as victims. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA), or “Ethen’s Law” (HB 215), passed the House 74-35 on March 24, 2011. The UVVA is modeled closely after the federal UVVA, signed into law April 1, 2004 shortly after the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner.

Under the state legislation, the kill-ing of an unborn child at any stage of development will be defined as murder, a Class A felony. The act must be made

One word could describe the ap-proach to annexation reform during this session of the General Assembly and that is “shotgun.” After a series of draft bills, discussions and an on-going effort to es-tablish an annexation moratorium, there is yet another version of annexation re-form being debated in the state Legisla-ture – House Bill 845, “Reform Annexa-tion Laws,” – that could go through even more changes.

Currently cities and towns can an-nex areas in counties with no input from property owners in those areas. The county commissioners also have no say. At the same time, there is no timeline re-quirement for cities to install services in annexed communities.

Activists for reform of involuntary annexation procedures say the latest bill would still come up short of what they were after. At the same time, a morato-rium on annexations lies dormant in House Rules Committee. A previous ver-sion, HB531, “Involuntary Annexation Reform,” went a long way toward giving property owners a say in whether an in-voluntary annexation could proceed, but it quickly disappeared.

In that one, property owners could file a petition for a referendum to block an annexation with the signatures of 5 percent of the owners or at least 500 peo-ple. It would have also required a public

Three states that have already imple-mented health benefit exchanges, or an insurance marketplace, aren’t reaping healthy results for taxpayers. Massachu-setts and Utah both enacted health ben-efit exchanges prior to the adoption of the federal Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obam-acare, and California enacted a health benefit exchange after Obamacare was approved by Congress in 2010.

Ideally, under an exchange, individu-al insurance buyers can select from insur-

Unborn Victims Recognized in General Assembly

Meaningful Annexation Reform Lacking

Health Benefit Exchanges are Not One Size Fits All

willfully and maliciously with the in-tent to cause death of an unborn child. Punishment for this crime would be im-prisonment for life without parole. The UVVA also includes provisions for acts in which the unborn child is harmed dur-ing the commission of a crime against the mother. This bill would be the first time North Carolina officially defined life as beginning at the moment of conception.

Currently, 35 states have similar laws with complete or partial coverage for unborn victims. If the NC Legisla-ture passes this legislation without major modification, North Carolina will be the 26th state to include complete coverage. The UVVA bill will now go to the state Senate for debate. w

hearing and approval by county commis-sioners. Cities would have been required to have services installed in a certain amount of time.

Property owners, under HB531, could appeal if new services were not ready in three years and force the city to stop collecting taxes in that area until water and sewer lines were installed. In the latest version, HB845, county com-missioners wouldn’t have a say and nei-ther would property owners. The owners could file a petition but it would only de-lay the annexation. But cities would have to pay the full cost of installing water and sewer lines.

There is also an annexation bill in the Senate but it also doesn’t allow for a voter referendum.

A source who has been closely watch-ing lawmakers says Senate Republicans are all for a straight up moratorium. Re-publican House Speaker Thom Tillis, on the other hand, wants strong reform of annexation laws. The League of Munici-palities would rather see reform but it still has concerns about cost and all the other annexation measures floating around.

Several annexations around the state could be put on hold or repealed by sin-gle local bills. Another bill in the Senate would exempt farms from being annexed, something the new version of reform does not include. w

ance plans within the exchange including coverage from health maintenance or-ganizations (HMO), preferred provider organizations (PPO), and fee-for-service plans. All plans would be administered by private insurance companies but must meet mandated requirements by the state and federal government. North Carolina currently does not have a health benefit exchange.

The Massachusetts exchange was de-signed to have businesses carry healthcare cost burdens. However, smaller business-es, which make up the majority of Massa-

chusetts employers, can’t afford costs asso-ciated with offering their own healthcare plans. As a result, Massachusetts small businesses are terminating their employee insurance plans and instead depending on the state-run healthcare system and exchange, the Commonwealth Connec-tor, to take care of their employees.

The Bay State penalizes businesses for dropping employee coverage. The cost in Massachusetts is only $295 annually per employee, which is far less of an ex-pense when compared to contributing to employee insurance premiums. Because these penalties are far less than providing employer-based health coverage, employ-ees must enter the state exchange where much of the costs are passed on to Mas-sachusetts taxpayers. Instead of assisting Massachusetts small businesses, the plan created under former Massachusetts Re-publican Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney-care,” has only driven up state healthcare costs through excessive regulations and mandates, bringing Massachusetts one step closer to economic turmoil rather than towards prosperity.

The Utah Health Exchange is more consumer-friendly, avoiding heavier regulatory aspects found in the Massa-chusetts exchange. Utah’s exchange is a government-operated marketplace where small businesses and employees can com-parison shop for health coverage and, in theory, leverage their combined buying power to obtain more affordable premi-ums. However, so far it has not attracted a significant amount of users and some businesses have found that the exchange

offers plans with much higher insurance premiums than those available outside of the exchange.

The main functions of the Califor-nia exchange, the first state to enact an exchange on its insurance market in re-sponse to Obamacare, include regulating insurance options, controlling benefits, enrolling individuals in Medi-Cal (Cali-fornia’s version of Medicaid) in addition to administering government subsidies for public health. In many ways, it is simi-lar to the Massachusetts Connector plan. Under California law, the exchange board mandates health care benefits, medical treatments, and procedures benefits even beyond those required by the federal gov-ernment, imposing unnecessary costs on taxpayers.

It is extremely difficult for state ex-changes to thrive while also providing an adequate health insurance market for resi-dents. However, under Obamacare, states will have even more regulatory hoops to jump through as the federal law imposes a single, uniform, national standard on states with very different health market needs and financial assets. Should North Carolina have to comply with creating an exchange, the state should be allowed to meet its specific demographic, regulatory and budgetary needs. States should not be confined to a “One Size Fits All” pro-gram that negates the uniqueness of each individual state. w

To read more about health benefit ex-changes, go to www.nccivitas.org/2011/when-it-comes-to-health-benefit-exchanges-one-size-does-not-fit-all/

IN FAVOR OF RECOGNIZING UNBORN VICTIM RIGHTSHB 215

House Republicans (62)Avila Blackwell Blust Boles Bradley BrawleyBrown, L Brown, R Brubaker Burr Cleveland CollinsDaughtry Dixon Dockham Dollar Faircloth FolwellFrye Gillespie Guice Hager Hastings HiltonHollo Holloway Horn Howard Hurley IlerIngle Johnson Jones Jordan Justice KillianLangdon LaRoque Lewis McComas McCormick McElraftMcGee McGrady Mills Moffitt Moore, T MurryPridgen Randleman Sager Samuelson Sanderson SetzerShepard Stam Starnes Steen Stevens StoneTorbett West

House Democrats (13)Crawford Faison Floyd Glazier Goodman GrahamHill Owens Pierce Rapp Spear WilkinsWray

AGAINST RECOGNIZING UNBORN VICTIM RIGHTS

House Republicans (0)

House Democrats (34)Adams Alexander, K Alexander, M Bell Brandon Bryant

Carney Cotham Earle Farmer-Butterfield Fisher Hackney

Haire Hall Hamilton Harrison Insko JacksonJeffus Keever Lucas Luebke Martin McGuirtMcLawhorn Michaux Mobley Moore, R Parfitt ParmonRoss Tolson Wainwright Weiss

NOT VOTING (4) ABSENT (7)House Barnhart (R) Brisson (D) Bordsen (D) Cook (R)

Tillis (R) Warren, H (R) Current (R) Gill (D)

Rhyne (R) Warren, E (D)

Sponsors Womble (D)

Folwell (R) Hilton (R) Starnes (R) Steen (R) Roll Call House #150*As of print, HB 215 passed the second reading in the House.



BY MATT WILLOUGHBY

Rep. George Cleveland (R-On-slow) wants to repeal a law, Senate Bill 3, “Promote Renewable Energy/Baseload Generation” from the 2007 legislative session. That bill required power companies to buy renewable energy sources for over 12 percent of their energy portfolio. Electric co-ops and cities have to rely on renew-able energy for 10 percent of their sources. That 2007 bill phased out a tax on electricity and natural gas sold to manufacturing facilities and farmers.

If the entire bill is repealed those taxes would reappear. At the same time, a tax credit for contributing to a nonprofit organization for the use of renewable energy would go away.

The 2007 law approved a spe-cial annual add-on rate to cover the cost of utility companies purchas-ing renewable energy. That special

Global Warming Equals Higher Energy Billsrider was capped at $10 for residential customers this year. But it climbs to a cap of $12 for the next two years and then to $34 in 2015. An industrial cus-tomer could pay up to $500 but that goes up to $1,000 in 2015. Cleveland’s proposal, House Bill 431, “Repeal Senate Bill 3 of the 2007 Ses-sion,” was sent to the House Com-mittee on Public Utilities.

Now other bills have been in-troduced adding even more costs to the consumer and retailer. One, House Bill 495, “The Solar Jobs Bill,” would double the amount of solar power utility companies would have to use. The sponsors are Reps. Tom Murry (R-Wake), Tim Moffitt (R-Buncombe) and Ruth Samuelson

(R-Mecklenburg). Senator Tom Apodaca (R-Henderson)

is sponsoring a similar bill. They all have solar projects in their districts. The bills would limit the amount of solar power those utilities could pur-chase from outside the state. Scott Sutton, a spokesperson with Progress Energy, said it is already somewhat difficult to find new solar power projects in state. He said Progress Energy has already canceled agree-ments with some companies because

they couldn’t complete the terms of the contract.

Then there is House Bill 135, “Efficient and Affordable Energy Rates,” which would establish a new “Energy Efficiency Public Ben-efit Loan Fund.” The fund would be used to loan consumers money to invest in energy efficiency or re-newable energy projects to lower their electricity consumption. They would pay back their loans with an additional cost in their utility bill. It’s sponsored by Reps. Patsy Keever (D-Buncombe), Diane Parfitt (D-Cumberland) and Rodney Moore (D-Mecklenburg). To finance the fund the sponsors would impose a 5 percent excise tax on retailers that sell inefficient products. That would be passed on to the customer but the sponsors say it would discourage the use of those products. w

BY JANA BENSCOTER

The first commercial-scale wind farm in North Carolina, and possi-bly the largest in the nation, could be constructed in Pasquotank and Perquimans counties in 2011. Or-egon-based Iberdrola Renewables claims the $600 million “Desert Wind Power Project” will bring as many as 400 construction jobs to Northeastern North Carolina, and create 10 to 20 permanent jobs after it’s completed.

Iberdrola is a private company, and has yet to release any scientific proof or data that construction of the wind farm is viable for com-munity residents. Any local, state or federal subsidies to fund the proj-ect have also not been made public through Freedom of Information Act requests to both Pasquotank and Perquimans counties.

Pasquotank County Attorney Mike Cox said, “We don’t have any scientific proof. I really don’t have anything other than talking points.” Cox added, “I was asked to not copy their attorneys on the email” ask-ing for a year-long wind study con-ducted in 2010. He emphasized the county has been compliant to state laws that govern the information re-quests presented to them.

In a November 2010 Pilot On-line interview, Craig Poff, senior business developer for Iberdrola, did not disclose the exact wind data from meteorological towers gathered from the study. He told the online news source the numbers are “good enough” for Iberdrola to move for-ward with the project. As of publi-cation, Iberdrola has not returned phone calls regarding the project.

The green energy company cal-culated between 55,000 to 70,000 “average” North Carolina houses will benefit from the use of wind turbines, according to US Depart-ment of Energy statistics. Based on

Wind Farm Hearings Scheduled for Summer MonthsScientific Data Not Disclosed

Iberdrola’s projections, the wind tur-bines are estimated to generate 300 megawatts of “clean, homegrown electricity” from 150 wind turbines built on 20,000 acres of private land known as the “Desert.”

In an email dated April 4, Poff wrote to Pasquotank County Com-missioners, “The evidentiary hearing scheduled for tomorrow in Raleigh has been cancelled. Therefore, Iber-drola Renewables will not be pro-viding in-person testimony to the NCUC (North Carolina Utilities Commission).” The reason Iberdro-la decided not to testify was due to “favorable recommendations by the public staff ” and “favorable public comments” during a public hearing held in Elizabeth City in March.

At a Pasquotank County Com-missioners meeting in January 2011, one person voiced his concern over the amount of noise that would be generated from the wind turbines.

Pasquotank County Planning Direc-tor Shelley Cox said during a trip she made to Somerset, PA, to observe a wind farm constructed by Iberdrola there, the noise was “pretty minimal considering the size of the turbines.”

She said the ordinance for the wind farm will be written so the noise cannot exceed 55 decibels. In addition, she said another concern is the decommissioning, “and the ordi-nance provides that if no electricity is generated for a period of twelve months, the facility has to be re-moved and the site has to be restored to its previous condition.” She did not say who pays to remove the facil-ity, the company or residents.

The next step is to again discuss construction of the project with area residents. The proposed conditional use permit (CUP) public hearing is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, June 7. Pasquotank County Com-missioners have a meeting scheduled for Monday, July 11, when they will most likely take a vote on the CUP.

Wind turbines, similar to the ones built on Jennette’s Pier in the Outer Banks, could be built in Northeastern North Carolina by year’s end. The 150 wind turbinefarm could be the first constructed in the state and the largest nationwide. Photo: Jana Benscoter

Know someone who’sMade A Difference?

The Civitas Citizen of the Month is an award given to recognize a person who has had an impact on state or local policy debate,

provided information to the public, or otherwise had a noteworthy accomplishment. The Citizen of the Month will be recognized at

our monthly poll luncheons and honored with a gift.

If you know someone who fits the definition and has given of their time for a constitutional, free-market society based on liberty,

please email [email protected].

Would you be willing to pay higher state taxes,

utility bills, and gas prices to fight global warming?

Civitas Poll June 2008

Yes 42%No 54%Not sure 4%

A CUP is a special use permit for a project that is considered essential to that community typically granted through a public hearing process.

According to Iberdrola’s Web site, they have been “working with the communities, landowners, mul-tiple state and federal agencies, and conducting various studies on the potential project since 2009.” The company submitted a permit appli-cation with the NCUC in January 2011. The filing “represents the first step of many regulatory reviews that must be completed before Iberdrola Renewables makes a final decision on the project, which could begin construction as early as late 2011,” the Web site states.

There is a vast amount of vari-ables missing in the discussion, something that residents concerned with what is going to be in their backyard should know before a deci-sion is rendered. w

10April 2011 nccivitas.org

CAPITOL CONNECTIONCivitas10

1 Camden, Currituck, Pasquotank, Tyrrell Bill Owens (D)Rm. 611, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

2 Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Washington Timothy L. Spear (D)Rm. 402, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

3 Craven, Pamlico Norman W. Sanderson (R)Rm. 306A2, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

4 Duplin, Onslow Jimmy Dixon (R)Rm. 1002, 16 West Jones [email protected]

5 Bertie, Gates, Hertford, Perquimans Annie W. Mobley (D)Rm. 501, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

6 Beaufort, Pitt Bill Cook (R)Rm. 1303, 16 West Jones [email protected]

7 Halifax, Nash Angela R. Bryant (D)Rm. 542, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

8 Martin, Pitt Edith D. Warren (D)Rm. 1323, 16 West Jones [email protected]

9 Pitt Marian N. McLawhorn (D)Rm. 1217, 16 West Jones [email protected]

10 Greene, Lenoir, Wayne Stephen A. LaRoque (R)Rm. 635, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

11 Wayne Efton M. Sager (R)Rm. 416B, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

12 Craven, Lenoir William L. Wainwright (D)Rm. 613, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

13 Carteret, Jones Pat McElraft (R)Rm. 637, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

14 Onslow George G. Cleveland (R)Rm. 417A, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

15 Onslow Phil R. Shepard (R)Rm. 301N, 300 N. Salisbury St.919-715-9644Phil. [email protected]

16 New Hanover, Pender Carolyn H. Justice (R)Rm. 420, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

17 Brunswick Frank Iler (R)Rm. 632, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

18 New Hanover, Pender Susi H. Hamilton (D)Rm. 1319, 16 West Jones [email protected]

19 New Hanover Daniel F. McComas (R)Rm. 506, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

20 Brunswick, Columbus Dewey L. Hill (D)Rm. 1309, 16 West Jones [email protected]

21 Sampson, Wayne Larry M. Bell (D)Rm. 606, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

22 Bladen, Cumberland William D. Brisson (D)Rm. 1325, 16 West Jones [email protected]

23 Edgecombe, Wilson Joe P. Tolson (D)Rm. 608, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

24 Edgecombe, Wilson Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D)Rm. 631D, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

25 Nash Jeff Collins (R)Rm. 1006, 16 West Jones [email protected]

26 Johnston N. Leo Daughtry (R)Rm. 2207, 16 West Jones [email protected]

27 Northhampton, Vance, Warren Michael H. Wray (D)Rm. 502, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

28 Johnston, Sampson James H. Langdon, Jr. (R)Rm. 417B, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

29 Durham Larry D. Hall (D)Rm. 1015, 16 West Jones [email protected]

30 Durham Paul Luebke (D)Rm. 513, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

31 Durham Henry M. Michaux, Jr. (D)Rm. 1220, 16 West Jones [email protected]

32 Granville, Vance James W. Crawford, Jr. (D)Rm. 1321, 16 West Jones [email protected]

33 Wake Rosa U. Gill (D)Rm. 1305, 16 West Jones [email protected]

34 Wake Grier Martin (D)Rm. 1219, 16 West Jones [email protected]

35 Wake Jennifer Weiss (D)Rm. 1109, 16 West Jones [email protected]

36 Wake Nelson Dollar (R)Rm. 307B1, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

37 Wake Paul Stam (R)Rm. 2301, 16 West Jones [email protected]

38 Wake Deborah K. Ross (D)Rm. 1023, 16 West Jones [email protected]

39 Wake Darren G. Jackson (D)Rm. 1019, 16 West Jones [email protected]

40 Wake Marilyn Avila (R)Rm. 2217, 16 West Jones [email protected]

41 Wake Tom Murry (R)Rm. 2121, 16 West Jones [email protected]

42 Cumberland Marvin W. Lucas (D)Rm. 607, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

43 Cumberland Elmer Floyd (D)Rm. 1311, 16 West Jones [email protected]

44 Cumberland Diane Parfitt (D)Rm. 1017, 16 West Jones [email protected]

45 Cumberland Rick Glazier (D)Rm. 1021, 16 West Jones [email protected]

46 Hoke, Robeson, Scotland G.L. Pridgen (R)Rm. 2223, 16 West Jones [email protected]

47 Robeson Charles Graham (D)Rm. 1315, 16 West Jones [email protected]

48 Hoke, Robeson, Scotland Garland E. Pierce (D)Rm. 1204, 16 West Jones [email protected]

49 Franklin, Halifax, Nash Glen Bradley (R)Rm. 536, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

50 Caswell, Orange Bill Faison (D)Rm. 405, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

51 Harnett, Lee Mike C. Stone (R)Rm. 1008, 16 West Jones [email protected]

52 Moore James L. Boles, Jr. (R)Rm. 503, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

53 Harnett David R. Lewis (R)Rm. 534, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

54 Chatham, Moore, Orange Joe Hackney (D)Rm. 612, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

55 Durham, Person W. A. (Winkie) Wilkins (D)Rm. 1301, 16 West Jones [email protected]

56 Orange Verla Insko (D)Rm. 603, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

57 Guilford Pricey Harrison (D)Rm. 1218, 16 West Jones [email protected]

58 Guilford Alma Adams (D)Rm. 604, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

59 Guilford Maggie Jeffus (D)Rm. 1307, 16 West Jones [email protected]

60 Guilford Marcus Brandon (D)Rm. 1209, 16 West Jones [email protected]

61 Guilford John Faircloth (R)Rm. 306A3, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

62 Guilford John M. Blust (R)Rm. 1229, 16 West Jones [email protected]

63 Alamance Alice L. Bordsen (D)Rm. 602, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

64 Alamance Dan W. Ingle (R)Rm. 530, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

65 Rockingham Bert Jones (U)Rm. 306A1, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

66 Montgomery, Richmond Ken Goodman (D)Rm. 1111, 16 West Jones [email protected]

67 Montgomery, Stanly, Union Justin P. Burr (R)Rm. 538, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

68 Union D. Craig Horn (R)Rm. 1010, 16 West Jones [email protected]

69 Anson, Union Frank McGuirt (D)Rm. 1015, 16 West Jones [email protected]

70 Randolph Pat B. Hurley (R)Rm. 532, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

71 Forsyth Larry Womble (D)Rm. 510, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

72 Forsyth Earline W. Parmon (D)Rm. 509, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

73 Davidson, Forsyth Larry R. Brown (R)Rm. 303, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

74 Forsyth Dale R. Folwell (R)Rm. 301F, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

75 Forsyth Wm. C. “Bill” McGee (R)Rm. 634, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

76 Rowan Fred F. Steen, II (R)Rm. 305, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

77 Rowan Harry Warren (R)Rm. 533, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

How do I Contact My Legislator?House

For additional infor-mation on finding your legislator by county or to see how they vote, please visit civitasaction.org

WHY WE GIVE PARTY AFFILIATIONS:The Legislature is managed as a partisan institution. Lawmakers segregate themselves by party in matters from daily meetings to electing leaders. They have separate and taxpayer-financed staffs. As such, gaining a full understanding of the vote of an individ-ual lawmaker requires knowing his or her partisan affiliation.

This legislative directory provides legislative phone number and legisla-tive address. Jones St. zip code is 27601. The Salisbury St. zip code is 27603.



78 Randolph Harold J. Brubaker (R)Rm. 302, 16 West Jones [email protected]

79 Davie, Iredell Julia C. Howard (R)Rm. 1106, 16 West Jones [email protected]

80 Davidson Jerry C. Dockham (R)Rm. 2204, 16 West Jones [email protected]

81 Davidson Rayne Brown (R)Rm. 638, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

82 Cabarrus Jeff Barnhart (R)Rm. 304, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

83 Cabarrus Linda P. Johnson (R)Rm. 301D, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

84 Avery, Caldwell, Mitchell, Yancey Phillip Frye (R)Rm. 639, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

85 Burke, McDowell Mitch Gillespie (R)Rm. 307B2, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

86 Burke Hugh Blackwell (R)Rm. 541, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

87 Caldwell Edgar V. Starnes (R)Rm. 419A, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

88 Alexander, Catawba Mark W. Hollo (R)Rm. 633, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

89 Catawba, Iredell Mitchell S. Setzer (R)Rm. 1206, 16 West Jones [email protected]

90 Alleghany, Surry Sarah Stevens (R)Rm. 416A, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

91 Rockingham, Stokes Bryan R. Holloway (R)Rm. 529, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

92 Iredell, Surry, Yadkin Darrell G. McCormick (R)Rm. 2119, 16 West Jones [email protected]

93 Ashe, Watauga Jonathan C. Jordan (R)Rm. 418C, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

94 Wilkes Shirley B. Randleman (R)Rm. 531, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

95 Iredell Grey Mills (R)Rm. 2221, 16 West Jones [email protected]

96 Catawba Mark K. Hilton (R)Rm. 1227, 16 West Jones [email protected]

97 Lincoln Johnathan Rhyne, Jr. (R)Rm. 2208, 16 West Jones [email protected]

98 Mecklenburg Thom Tillis (R)Rm. 2304, 16 West Jones [email protected]

99 Mecklenburg Rodney W. Moore (D)Rm. 1211, 16 West Jones [email protected]

100 Mecklenburg Tricia Ann Cotham (D)Rm. 403, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

101 Mecklenburg Beverly M. Earle (D)Rm. 610, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

102 Mecklenburg Becky Carney (D)Rm. 1221, 16 West Jones [email protected]

103 Mecklenburg William Brawley (R)Rm. 1313, 16 West Jones [email protected]

104 Mecklenburg Ruth Samuelson (R)Rm. 419B, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

105 Mecklenburg Ric Killian (R)Rm. 2219, 16 West Jones [email protected]

106 Mecklenburg Martha B. Alexander (D)Rm. 1213, 16 West Jones [email protected]

107 Mecklenburg Kelly M. Alexander, Jr. (D)Rm. 404, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

108 Gaston John A. Torbett (R)Rm. 537, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

109 Gaston William A. Current, Sr. (R)Rm. 418B, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

110 Cleveland, Gaston Kelly E. Hastings (R)Rm. 2123, 16 West Jones [email protected]

111 Cleveland Tim Moore (R)Rm. 1326, 16 West Jones [email protected]

112 Cleveland, Rutherford Mike Hager (R)Rm. 306C, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

113 Henderson, Polk, Transylvania W. David Guice (R)Rm. 528, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

114 Buncombe Susan C. Fisher (D)Rm. 504, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

115 Buncombe Patsy Keever (D)Rm. 1317, 16 West Jones [email protected]

116 Buncombe Tim D. Moffitt (R)Rm. 1025, 16 West Jones [email protected]

117 Henderson Chuck McGrady (R)Rm. 418A, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

118 Haywood, Madison, Yancey Ray Rapp (D)Rm. 1013, 16 West Jones [email protected]

119 Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain R. Phillip Haire (D)Rm. 609, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

120 Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon Roger West (R)Rm. 1004, 16 West Jones [email protected]

Senate1 Beaufort, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Tyrrell, Washington Stan White (D) Rm. 1121, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-8293 [email protected]

2 Carteret, Craven, Pamlico Jean R. Preston (R) Rm. 629, 300 N. Salisbury St. [email protected]

3 Edgecombe, Martin, Pitt S. Clark Jenkins (D) Rm. 621, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3040 [email protected]

4 Bertie, Chowan, Gates, Halifax, Hertford, Northampton, PerquimansW. Edward Jones (D) Rm. 518, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3032 [email protected]

5 Greene, Pitt, Wayne Louis Pate (R) Rm. 406, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5621 [email protected]

6 Jones, Onslow Harry Brown (R) Rm. 300B, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3034 [email protected]

7 Franklin, Granville, Vance, Warren Doug Berger (D) Rm. 516, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-8363 [email protected]

8 Brunswick, Columbus, Pender Bill Rabon (R) Rm. 2108, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5963 [email protected]

9 New Hanover Thom Goolsby (R) Rm. 2115, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-2525 [email protected]

10 Duplin, Lenoir, Sampson Brent Jackson (R) Rm. 525, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5705 [email protected]

11 Nash, Wilson E.S. Newton (R) Rm. 410, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3030 [email protected]

12 Johnston, Wayne David Rouzer (R) Rm. 523, 300 N. Salisbury St. [email protected]

13 Robeson, HokeMichael Walters (D) Rm. 1118, 16 West Jones [email protected]

14 Wake Daniel T. Blue, Jr. (D) Rm. 1117, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5752 [email protected]

15 Wake Neal Hunt (R) Rm. 308, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5850 [email protected]

16 Wake Joshua H. Stein (D) Rm. 1113, 16 West Jones St. [email protected]

17 Wake Richard Y. Stevens (R) Rm. 309, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5653 [email protected]

18Chatham, Durham, Lee Robert Atwater (D) Rm. 519, 300 N. Salisbury St.919-715-3036 [email protected]

19 Bladen, Cumberland Wesley Meredith (R)Rm. 2106, 16 West Jones [email protected]

20 Durham Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. (D) Rm. 520, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-4599 [email protected]

21 Cumberland Eric Mansfield (R) Rm. 1119, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-9349 [email protected]

22 Harnett, Moore Harris Blake (R) Rm. 408, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-4809 [email protected]

23 Orange, Person Eleanor Kinnaird (D) Rm. 628, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5804 [email protected]

24 Alamance, Caswell Rick Gunn (R) Rm. 312, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-301-1446 [email protected]

25 Anson, Richmond, Scotland, Stanly William R. Purcell (D) Rm. 517, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5953 [email protected]

26 Guilford, Rockingham Philip Edward Berger (R) Rm. 2008, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5708 [email protected]

27 Guilford Don Vaughan (D) Rm. 515, 300 N. Salisbury St. [email protected] 28 Guilford Gladys A. Robinson (D) Rm. 1120, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-3042 [email protected]

29 Montgomery, Randolph Jerry W. Tillman (R) Rm. 627, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5870 [email protected]

30 Alleghany, Stokes, Surry, Yadkin Don W. East (R) Rm. 522, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5743 [email protected]

31 Forsyth Peter S. Brunstetter (R) Rm. 2022, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-7850 [email protected]

32 Forsyth Linda Garrou (D) Rm. 620, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5620 [email protected]

33 Davidson, Guilford Stan Bingham (R) Rm. 2117, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5665 [email protected]

34 Davie, Rowan Andrew C. Brock (R) Rm. 623, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-0690 [email protected]

35 Mecklenburg, Union Tommy Tucker (R) Rm. 311, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-7659 [email protected]

36 Cabarrus, Iredell Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr. (R) Rm. 300C, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-7223 [email protected]

37 Mecklenburg Daniel G. Clodfelter (D) Rm. 526, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-8331 [email protected]

38 Mecklenburg Charlie Smith Dannelly (D) Rm. 1127, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5955 [email protected]

39 Mecklenburg Bob Rucho (R) Rm. 300A, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5655 [email protected]

40 Mecklenburg Malcolm Graham (D) Rm. 622, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5650 [email protected]

41 Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln James Forrester (R) Rm. 2108, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-3050 [email protected]

42 Catawba, Iredell Austin M. Allran (R) Rm. 625, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5876 [email protected]

43 Gaston Kathy Harrington (R) Rm. 2113, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5734 [email protected]

44 Burke, Caldwell Warren Daniel (R) Rm. 411, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-7823 [email protected]

45 Alexander, Ashe, Watauga, Wilkes Dan Soucek (R) Rm. 310, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5742 [email protected]

46 Cleveland, Rutherford Debbie A. Clary (R) Rm. 314, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3038 [email protected]

47 Avery, Haywood, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Yancey Ralph Hise (R) Rm. 1026, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-3460 [email protected]

48 Buncombe, Henderson, Polk Tom M. Apodaca (R) Rm. 2010, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5745 [email protected]

49 Buncombe Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr. (D) Rm. 1129, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-3001 [email protected]

50 Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain, Transylvania Jim Davis (R) Rm. 2111, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5875 [email protected]

This legislative directory provides legislative phone number and legisla-tive address. Jones St. zip code is 27601. The Salisbury St. zip code is 27603.

For additional infor-mation on finding your legislator by county or to see how they vote, please visit civitasaction.org


CAPITOL CONNECTIONCivitas12

Advance Education’s $10 million building in suburban Atlanta. The new world headquarters opened in 2010. Photo: PRWeb

• S C A N D A L •

Accrediting Schools: Not What You ThinkIn the aftermath of bitter battles

in Burke and Wake Counties, new information about school accredit-ing giant Advance Education Inc. (AdvancED) has generated more questions about the accreditation process and its value.

About 70 percent of North Carolina public schools are accred-ited by AdvancED. While the tra-ditional focus of accreditation has been primarily on academics, in recent years AdvancED has shifted its focus to school governance and leadership. The changes have dilut-ed the impact of local elections and run counter to state law.

In Burke County, school board governance, board disunity and school board member qualifications were key elements in AdvancED’s decision to place county schools on accreditation probation. Similarly, an examination of AdvancED’s in-formation and interview requests for the Wake County Schools re-view makes it difficult to view such efforts as related to accreditation. In fact, they seem to be little more than passing judgment on the school board’s decision to dismantle the school assignment policy – the cen-tral issue in the 2008 Wake County School Board election that resulted in the election of four new school board members, all of whom cam-paigned against the school’s policy of community – based student as-signment plans.

AdvancED’s focus on preserving executive and administrative leader-ship (Standard 2.2 ) runs counter to North Carolina General Stat-utes which speak clearly to the role and power of the school board. The statutes state: “All powers and du-ties conferred and imposed by law respecting public schools, which are not expressly conferred and im-posed upon some other official, are conferred and imposed upon local boards of education” (G.S. 115-C36).

In addition to questions of pro-cess, AdvancED reviews have also raised concerns about reliability. While AdvancED claims to be com-mitted to the relentless pursuit of excellence, an examination of ac-credited schools says otherwise. In 2009-10, the North Carolina De-partment of Public Instruction iden-tified 16 schools as “low perform-ing, as measured on results of the ABC test results.” Low performing is where fewer than 50 percent of stu-dents make expected growth. Of the 16 low-performing schools, 13 were accredited by AdvancED.

In March 2009, Judge Howard Manning wrote the State Board of Education complaining about the “complete breakdown of academics in Halifax County Public Schools.” Manning called the situation there “academic genocide” that “must be stopped.”

Interestingly, all the schools in Halifax County have accredita-tion from AdvancED. Many of the schools have been accredited since the 1980s.

The battles and revelations have left many parents and educators wondering if AdvancED is the best means for ensuring the quality of our schools.

AdvancED is the largest accred-iting agency in the world and fees the company charges reflect that reality. Specific costs are tied to the type of accreditation. AdvancED of-fers district and individual school ac-creditation.

According to the AdvancED Web site, 53 out of the 115 school districts in North Carolina hold AdvancED accreditation. In addi-tion, 1,727 North Carolina public schools (elementary, middle and high schools) are accredited by the organization. Schools pay between $550 and $625 per year for ac-creditation – the lower number is a discounted fee to schools from dis-tricts that hold AdvancED accredi-

BY BOB LUEBKE

Pass The Torch Donate⃤ My check made payable to The Civitas Institute is enclosed.⃤ Please charge my: ⃤ American Express ⃤ Master Card ⃤ Discover ⃤ Visa

Name___________________________________________________________

Address _________________________________________________________

City ____________________________ State _______ Zip ______________

Phone _________________________ Email ___________________________

Card No. ⃤⃤⃤⃤ ⃤⃤⃤⃤ ⃤⃤⃤⃤ ⃤⃤⃤⃤

Amount: $____________ Expiration: ___ ___ / ___ ___ CVV ___________

Signature: ________________________________________________________

All contributions are tax deductible

If you prefer to make your contribution over the phone, please call Marianne Suarez at (919) 834-2099.

$5 = 20 new readers $25 = 100 new readers $100 = 400 new readers $1000 = 4000 new readers

Mail to: Civitas Institute 100 S. Harrington St. Raleigh, NC 27603

Donate online atwww.nccivitas.org/donate

tation. Thus, the average school in a non-accredited district would pay $3,125 in dues and another ap-proximately $2,500 in costs for the site review accreditation team. Over five years – the length of accredita-tion – schools would pay $5,625 in accreditation costs. This does not in clude the costs of professional ser-vices, which schools may purchase from AdvancED to improve areas highlighted by the accreditation re-view. Multiplied over 1,700 school districts, the costs add up quickly.

In March, Reps. Hugh Black-well (R-Burke County) and Skip Stam (R-Wake County) introduced House Bill 342,”High School Ac-creditation” in hopes of improving the current process. The legislation addresses parent concerns by prohib-iting any University of North Caroli-na institution or community college from asking for information about the accreditation status of an ap-plicant’s high school for admission, loan or college scholarship decisions. In addition, HB 342 also gives the State Board of Education the ability to accredit schools. So – if schools choose – they will not have to use a

private agency for accreditation. Up until 2005, the State Board of Edu-cation was accrediting local schools.

HB 342 is now under consider-ation by the House Appropriations Committee. w

The Civitas Institute offers train-ing in investigative journalism and exposing government corruption. We hold monthly meetings for those who want to learn more and connect with others to combat public corruption. For more information contact Bob Lu-ebke at 919-834-2099, Ext. 135.

Scandal is a regular column in Capitonl Connection that will explore public corruption in NC Government. Have a local corruption story? Email us at : [email protected]. or call 919-834-2099.

Documents

April Civitas Capitol Connection