Civitas Capitol Connection: Issue 6

Lawmakers Give Habitual DWI Offenders Drivers’ Licenses

Two Wake County House members, Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake) and Minority Speaker Paul Stam (R-Wake),

will chair a committee created as a result of an uproar caused by a prayer offered by Rev. Ron Ba-ity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem.

Baity was invited by the House clerk’s office to offer opening prayers for the North Carolina House of Representatives during the week of May 31, 2010. The clerk’s office invited Baity based on a recommendation from Rep. Larry Brown (R-Forsyth).

Baity, at the request of the clerk, submitted his prayer for review. After reading the prayer, the clerk explained to Baity that people of many

CAPITOL CONNECTIONCivitasAugust 2010

• BY JOHN EICK

• BY SUSAN MYRICK

CIV

ITAS

I N

S T

I T

U T

E

JOH

N W

.P

OP

E

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

n c c i v i t a s . o r g

During the long legislative session of 2009 that was defined by increased spending, in-creased taxes, and a statewide smoking ban, the General Assembly managed to make several other significant changes to the General Statutes. One such revision – largely made unnoticed and with little media attention or fanfare – would drastically alter current laws on the books by putting drunk drivers back on the roads.

House Bill 1185, sponsored primarily by Rep. Ronnie Sutton (D-Robeson), would allow habitual impaired drivers to petition to restore their driver’s license after 10 years provided that they have maintained a clean criminal record and are no longer users of drugs or alcohol. The state considers anyone who has four DWI convictions in fewer than 10 years a habitual

Fort Bragg Police Officers and emergency responders arrive on scene to help a drunk-driving victim. North Carolina ranked fifth in 2008 for drunk-driving fatalities. Photo by: MADD-NC

Opening prayer guidelines in the NC House are under review following a pastor’s attempt to reference Jesus. House Minority Leader Paul Stam (left) and Speaker of the House Joe Hackney (right) released a joint statement to create the committee to investigate prayer guidelines. Photo: Don Carrington of Carolina Journal

Is Jesus Banned from NC House?

faiths attended the session and asked him to drop his reference to Jesus. Baity’s response to her was, “I am a Christian, and as a Christian I too can be offended, and I am offended if I cannot pray in the name of Jesus.” Baity was allowed to pray once and was then informed his services were no longer needed.

As a result, Baity is demanding an apology.According to Bill Holmes, spokesman for

Joe Hackney, Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, Hackney organized the bi-partisan committee. Holmes said the House had no formal policy on opening prayers, and that guidelines were in place long before Hackney became Speaker.

Bipartisan Prayer CommitteeRepresentative District

Melanie Goodwin 66Grey Mills 95Garland Pierce 48Johnathan Rhyne 97Deborah Ross 38Paul Stam 37William Wainwright 12Laura Wiley 61

Strongly Agree 15% Somewhat Agree 12% Somewhat Disagree 14% Strongly Disagree 56% Not Sure 3%

Currently guest chaplains in the North Carolina House of Representatives are

forbidden from mentioning Jesus inthe prayer opening the session

each day. Do you agree ordisagree with this policy?

Civitas Poll July 2010

Chance continued on pg 5

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

1Jesus Banned in NC House

DWI Offenders Get Licenses Back

2Tax Breaks to MegacorporationsSubscribe to Capitol Connection

3Death Penalty Killed

4Top Paid Legislators

5US Senate Race in Numbers

State Budget Passes (Correction)

6Unemployment

7Conservative Ranking Released

Statewide District Polling

8-102010 Civitas Action Rankings

11Discussion of Charter School Cap

12From The Editor

ScandalDonate

For many years, the House has requested, but not required, that guest chaplains deliver nonsectarian prayers. The NC Senate employs a Senate Chaplain but also welcomes guest chaplains.

The fight over prayer is an old one. The Supreme Court, in 1962, ruled that official sponsorship or endorsement of prayer in schools is a violation of the First Amendment. Since then many schools have opted for a moment of silence. Perhaps Hackney’s committee will suggest that a moment of silence can take the place of prayer or maybe they will just hire a House Chaplain that will abide by the wishes of our elected representatives.

Hackney and Stam, in a joint statement, also said they want to make sure the House rules on prayers are constitutional. It is curious that the Constitution and freedom of religion are being used to argue in favor of building a mosque at Ground Zero in New York City and some people in North Carolina will use them to keep any reference to Jesus Christ out of the state House. w

impaired driver. At the time the bill was being considered, the law stipulated that anyone con-

victed of four DWIs would be forced to surrender their license for life, but now offenders could seek a

permit from the Department of Motor Vehicles.The purpose of such legislation, according to Sutton

was to give those convicted of DWI a second chance. “This is something to allow a person who has had real problems to

straighten their lives out and hopefully find themselves on the straight and narrow,” Sut-ton told the News & Observer in May 2009.

Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford), one of the bill’s supporters, mentioned the practicality of giving those convicted of habitual DWI another shot. “Particularly in rural North Carolina, it’s difficult to get around with an automobile, so this is just a chance to give them a second chance.”

Craig Lloyd, MADD-NC State Executive Director, as expected opposed the bill. “We sent a letter to the Governor requesting that she veto the legislation,” Lloyd said referring to HB 1185. Saying that North Carolina ranked fifth in the country in 2008 for drunk driving fatalities, Lloyd supported alternative legislation – House Bill 1489 – that he claimed would deter first time offenders from driving while intoxicated again. In

Do you approve or disapprove of allowing people who have been convicted ofdrunk driving four times to gettheir driver’s license back?

Civitas Poll October 2009

Strongly Approve 3%Somewhat Approve 4%Somewhat Disapprove 9%Strongly Disapprove 80%Not Sure 4%

2 August 2010 nccivitas.org

CAPITOL CONNECTIONCivitas

NAME

ADDRESS

CIT Y

STATE Z IP

PHONES

EMAIL

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

http://www.nccivitas.org/signup919-747-8052

SIGN UP FOR YOUR FREE subscription of

CIVITAS CAPITOL CONNECTION, your connection to the Raleigh beltline

without the traffic.


IN FAVOR OF TAX BREAKS TO MICROSOFT HB 1973

Senate Republicans (5)Bingham Brunstetter Clary Hartsell Stevens

Senate Democrats (26)Albertson Atwater Basnight Berger, D Blue BosemanClodfelter Dannelly Davis Dickson Dorsett ForiestGarrou Graham Hoyle Jenkins Jones McKissickNesbitt Purcell Queen Soles Stein SwindellVaughan Walters

House Republicans (23)Barnhart Brubaker Burris-Floyd Current Dockham FryeGuice Gulley Hilton Howard Iler JohnsonJustus Langdon McComas McGee Moore NeumannSetzer Starnes Steen Tillis West

House Democrats (49)Alexander, K Bell Bordsen Braxton Brisson BryantCarney Coates Cole Cotham Crawford EarleEngland Faison Fisher Gibson Glazier Goforth

Resigned 7/31/10

Goodwin Haire Heagarty Hill Holliman HughesJeffus Love Lucas Martin May McLawhornMichaux Mobley Owens Parfitt Pierce RappSpear Sutton Tarleton Tolson Tucker UnderhillWainwright Warren, R Whilden Wilkins Williams WombleWray

Roll Call Senate #1583 House #1769Legislator contact information can be found at www.carolinatransparency.com/legislators

AGAINST TAX BREAKS TO MICROSOFT HB 1973

Senate Republicans (14) Allran Apodaca Berger, P Blake Brock BrownEast Forrester Hunt Jacumin Preston RouzerRucho Tillman

Senate Democrats (3)Goss Kinnaird Snow

House Republicans (26)Avila Blackwell Blackwood Blust Boles BrownBurr Cleveland Dollar Folwell Gillespie GradyHolloway Hurley Ingle Justice Killian LewisMcCormick McElraft Mills Randleman Sager StamStevens Wiley

House Democrats (9)Farmer-Butterfield Floyd, E Gill Hall Insko Jackson

Luebke Parmon Weiss

NOT VOTINGSenate (1) Shaw (D)House (3) Hackney (D) Jones (D) Mackey (D)

ABSENTSenate (1) Goodall (R)House (8) Adams (D) Alexander, M (D) Daughtry (R) Ross (D)

Samuelson (R) Stewart (D) Warren, E (D) Yongue (D)

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 2010


Microsoft recently reported annual record income of more than $62 billion for last year – that’s nearly one-fifth the size of the state of North Carolina’s en-tire economy. So why, exactly, did state lawmakers in Raleigh give a tax break to the computer giant while continuing to levy the highest tax rates in the South-east on everyone else?

You heard that right. After approv-ing more than a billion dollars in new tax hikes last year, your elected leaders in Raleigh are close to sealing a deal to essentially bribe one of the world’s largest corpora-tions with special tax breaks aver-age working citizens will never enjoy.

Senate Bill 1171, entitled the “Keeping North Carolina Competitive Act” and sponsored by Sen. Daniel Clodfelter (D – Mecklenburg), will grant a number of special tax exemp-tions for specific industries – most nota-bly to Microsoft if they decide to locate a data storage center in North Carolina.

There has – to date – been no of-ficial announcement from the North Carolina Department of Commerce over which companies the new law is supposed to lure to the state, but many media accounts throughout the sum-mer identified Microsoft as considering building a facility in Mebane, located between Durham and Greensboro. If Microsoft were to build its new facility in the state, it would not have to pay sales taxes applied to machinery and electricity courtesy of this new law; a tax that small businesses across the state will continue to be forced to pay.

The bill was signed into law on July 11, and estimates by the General Assem-bly’s Fiscal Research Division suggest Microsoft could save tens of millions of dollars in taxes over the coming years.

The Microsoft deal comes on the heels of another bill that expanded the

State Lawmakers Give Tax Breaks To Megacorporations• BY BRIAN BALFOUR tax break granted to Hollywood movie

studios filming in North Carolina.Instead of handing out tax breaks

to massive, international corporations, shouldn’t North Carolina lawmakers try to lower tax rates for struggling small businesses?

While Microsoft and Hollywood big shots will be exempt from paying a big share of their taxes, North Carolina workers and small businesses con-tinue to face the highest tax rates in the region, and among the highest in the

nation. At 7.75 percent, North Carolina imposes the highest top income tax rate in the southeast and 11th highest in the nation. Most small businesses, because of their method of incorporating, file income taxes rather than corporate taxes, making North Carolina one of the most unfriendly business climates in the country.

Therefore, for every job supposedly “created” by these politically-motivated tax breaks to big businesses, other jobs are lost or never created because of the high taxes imposed on everybody else in the state.

So not only are these targeted tax breaks not fair, they are hurtful to North Carolina’s overall economic growth.

Voters across the Tar Heel state should take note of the emerging pat-tern of state lawmakers granting special favors to multi-billion dollar interna-tional corporations such as Microsoft and Hollywood production studios while ignoring the needs of average working citizens and small businesses during this economic downturn.

It seems that during these difficult times, our political class is showing its true colors. wDo you approve or disapprove of

granting millions of dollars in tax breaks to companies like Dell

to locate in North Carolina?

Civitas Poll October 2009

Strongly Approve 19%Somewhat Approve 26%Somewhat Disapprove 14%Strongly Disapprove 30%Don’t Know/Refused 11%

3August 2010nccivitas.org


Over 90 percent of convicted murderers on death row have filed to have their death sentences revoked under the misnamed “The Racial Justice Act” (RJA) or Senate Bill 461. The impact of the bill – passed by what some refer to as the “most liberal Legislature” in North Carolina history – is now being felt statewide.

North Carolina is the second state in the country to pass a RJA and the first to include statistics in the application and appeal of the death penalty. It is a process that will be so complex and time consuming that the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Fiscal Research Division of NC General Assembly respectively submitted “that they are unable to estimate the fiscal impact of this bill but believe that the impact would be substantial.”And “potential costs of SB 461 could be significant,

Legislature Kills Death Penalty in North Carolina• BY FRANCIS DE LUCA

but is not able to estimate the cost.” The potential costs to the state are so ill defined and large that they can’t even be estimated.

This Legislature not only passed billion-dollar tax increases to balance the budget in 2009, but also passed this social policy in 2010, effectively opening a door that one day may al-low convicted murderers back on the streets.

The RJA originally started out with bi-partisan support as it would have ended the four-year old death penalty moratorium. But by the time

the bill made its way through com-mittees and the floor, it turned into a completely partisan bill with only Democratic support. The bill did not get rid of the death penalty morato-rium, but may have effectively elimi-nated the use of the death penalty in North Carolina.

Public support in NC for the death penalty is very strong. An April 2010 Civitas poll had 70 percent supporting and 20 percent opposing, with 10 percent unsure when asked, “Do you support or oppose the death penalty for violent crimes,” by the NC Conference of District Attorneys. The Legislature chose to ignore the professionals charged with prosecuting crimes and support a liberal agenda to end the death penalty.

In North Carolina, as throughout the nation, the law is supposed to be blind. That is why the statue of justice wears a blindfold. Equal protection

IN FAVOR OF ADDING RACE AS A FACTOR SB 461

Senate Republicans (0)

Senate Democrats (28)Atwater Basnight Berger, D Blue Boseman ClodfelterDannelly Davis Dorsett Foriest Garrou GrahamHoyle Jenkins Jones Kinnaird McKissick NesbittPurcell Queen Rand

Resigned 12/31/09Shaw Snow Soles

Stein Swindell Vaughan Weinstein

House Republicans (0)

House Democrats (61)Adams Alexander, K Allen Bell Bordsen BraxtonBrisson Bryant Carney Coates Cole Cotham

Crawford DicksonResigned 1/21/10 Earle England Faison Farmer-

ButterfieldFisher Floyd, E Gibson Gill Glazier Goforth

Resigned 7/31/10

Goodwin Haire Hall Harrell Harrison HillHolliman Hughes Insko Jackson Jeffus JonesLove Lucas Luebke Mackey Martin McLawhornMichaux Mobley Owens Parmon Pierce RappRoss Stewart Tarleton Tolson Underhill WainwrightWarren, E Warren, R Weiss Wilkins Womble WrayYongue

AGAINST ADDING RACE AS A FACTOR SB 461

Senate Republicans (20)Allran Apodaca Berger, P Bingham Blake BrockBrown Brunstetter Clary East Forrester GoodallHartsell Hunt Jacumin Preston Rouzer RuchoStevens Tillman

Senate Democrats (1)Albertson

House Republicans (51)Avila Barnhart Blackwell Blackwood Blust BolesBrown Burr Burris-Floyd Cleveland Current DaughtryDockham Dollar Folwell Frye Gillespie GradyGuice Gulley Hilton Holloway Howard HurleyIler Ingle Johnson Justice Justus KillianLangdon Lewis McComas McCormick McElraft McGeeMills Moore Neumann Randleman Rhyne SagerSamuelson Setzer Stam Starnes Steen StevensTillis West Wiley

House Democrats (4)Spear Sutton Tucker Williams

ABSENTSenate (1) Goss (D)House (3) Alexander, M (D) Brubaker (R) Whilden (D)

NOT VOTINGHouse (1) Hackney (D)

Roll CallSenate #1094 House #986Legislator contact information can be found at www.carolinatransparency.com/legislators

The longest-standing convicted murderer in North Carolina is Wayne Laws. He has been in prison since Aug. 20, 1985. Photo: NC Department of Corrections

Henry Wallace was convicted in 1997 for the murder of nine women, rape, sexual assault and other crimes in Mecklenburg County, NC and in South Carolina. Photo: NC Department of Corrections

Death continued on pg 11

under the law has been the guiding

light that governs jurisprudence in the United States and over time we have improved the administration of

justice by mak-ing it color blind

and more transpar-ent. The facts of the case

were to be what is considered by a jury and not the age, race, or sex of a defendant. That has been true up until now. The recently passed RJA has, by statute, introduced race into the pros-ecution and punishment of a crime for the first time ever.

Defendants are now allowed to claim “statistically” that they were dis-criminated against in seeking or apply-ing the death penalty. Guilt is no lon-ger an issue. Race has been specifically brought into prosecutors and judges considerations. To statistically prove that race is involved the murderer can use four geographical areas from which

Do you approve or disapprove of allowing convicted murderers to challenge a death sentence by claiming race was a factor in sentencing?

Civitas PollOctober, 2009

Strongly Approve 9%Somewhat Approve 11%Somewhat Disapprove 9%Strongly Disapprove 62%Not Sure 9%



Do you agree or disagree that members of the General Assembly should earn more than the income earned bythe average North Carolinacitizen?

Civitas Poll July 2010

Strongly Agree 9%Somewhat Agree 18%Somewhat Disagree 19%Strongly Disagree 46%Not Sure 8%

North Carolina’s Top Paid Legislators in 2009Name Salary Expense

AllowanceSubsis-tence

Travel Total

1 S Marc Basnight $38,151 $16,956 $25,272 $5,832 $86,211

2 H Joe Hackney $38,151 $16,956 $27,976 $1,705 $84,788

3 S Charlie Dannelly $21,739 $10,032 $23,959 $3,577 $59,307

4 H William Wainwright $21,739 $10,032 $21,424 $3,045 $56,240

5 H Hugh Holliman $17,048 $7,992 $24,065 $3,381 $52,486

6 S Martin Nesbitt Jr. $13,951 $6,708 $24,336 $6,420 $51,416

7 S John Snow $13,951 $10,621 $22,776 $7,198 $50,633

8 H Kelly Alexander Jr. $13,951 $6,708 $22,256 $3,714 $50,542

9 S Tony Rand $17,048 $7,992 $23,296 $2,005 $50,341

10 S David Hoyle $13,951 $6,708 $24,232 $5,046 $49,937

11 S Joe Sam Queen $13,951 $6,708 $22,568 $6,452 $49,679

12 H Pryor Gibson III $13,951 $6,708 $24,257 $3,507 $48,423

13 S Fletcher Hartsell Jr. $13,951 $6,708 $23,920 $3,680 $48,259

14 H Bruce Goforth $13,951 $6,708 $21,944 $5,220 $47,823

15 S Tom Apodaca $13,951 $6,708 $21,736 $5,423 $47,818

16 H Susan Fisher $13,951 $6,708 $22,026 $5,098 $47,783

17 S Phil Berger $17,048 $6,708 $20,800 $1,895 $47,735

18 S Austin Allran $13,951 $6,708 $22,984 $4,092 $47,735

19 H Ray Rapp $13,951 $6,708 $22,152 $4,891 $47,702

20 H Phil Haire $13,951 $6,708 $21,443 $5,457 $47,559

21 S Robert Rucho $13,951 $10,062 $20,384 $3,147 $47,543

22 H Carolyn Justus $13,951 $6,708 $21,424 $5,423 $47,506

23 S Steve Goss $13,951 $6,708 $22,568 $4,241 $47,468

24 H Bobby England $13,951 $6,708 $22,048 $4,721 $47,428

25 H Roger West $13,951 $6,708 $20,384 $6,264 $47,307

North Carolina’s Top Paid Legislators in 2010Disbursements as of August. Numbers are only a portion of yearly salary.

Name Salary ExpenseAllowance

Subsis-tence

Travel Total

1 S Marc Basnight $22,255 $9,891 $13,104 $4,879 $50,129

2 H Joe Hackney $22,255 $9,891 $15,600 $1,466 $49,212

3 S Charlie Dannelly $12,681 $5,852 $11,648 $2,546 $32,727

4 S Martin Nesbitt Jr. $9,945 $4,662 $13,728 $4,826 $33,160

5 H William Wainwright $12,681 $5,852 $10,088 $2,912 $31,533

6 S John Snow $8,138 $3,913 $11,232 $4,553 $27,836

7 S Fletcher Hartsell Jr. $8,138 $3,913 $11,856 $3,543 $27,450

8 H Hugh Holliman $9,945 $4,662 $10,192 $1,906 $26,705

9 H Susan Fisher $8,138 $3,913 $10,088 $3,915 $26,054

10 S David Hoyle $8,138 $3,913 $10,712 $3,111 $25,875

11 S Joe Sam Queen $8,138 $3,913 $9,880 $3,871 $25,803

12 H Ray Rapp $8,138 $3,913 $9,984 $3,552 $25,587

13 S Stan Bingham $8,138 $3,913 $11,440 $2,024 $25,516

14 S Phil Berger $9,945 $4,662 $6,968 $919 $22,493

15 H Bobby England $8,138 $3,913 $9,984 $3,228 $25,263

16 S Bill Purcell $8,138 $3,913 $11,128 $1,648 $24,827

17 S Steve Goss $8,138 $3,913 $9,880 $2,661 $24,592

18 S Daniel Clodfelter $8,138 $3,913 $9,880 $2,503 $24,434

19 H Cullie Tarleton $8,138 $3,913 $9,586 $2,812 $24,431

20 H Bill McGee $8,138 $3,913 $10,504 $1,835 $24,390

21 H Garland Pierce $8,138 $3,913 $10,504 $1,821 $24,376

22 S Jerry Tillman $8,138 $3,913 $10,192 $1,814 $24,057

23 S A.B. Swindell $8,138 $3,913 $10,296 $1,709 $24,056

24 S Katie Dorsett $8,138 $3,913 $10,088 $1,848 $23,987

25 H Pryor Gibson $8,138 $3,913 $10,088 $1,767 $23,906

S - Senate H - House - Democrat - Republican

Salary and Expense Allowance: Speaker of the House and Senate President Pro Tempore are paid $38,151 yearly, and given an expense allowance of $1,413 per month. Speaker Pro Tempore of the House and Deputy Senate President Pro Tempore are paid $21,739 yearly, and an expense allowance of $836 per month. Majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate are paid $17,048 yearly, and given an expense allowance of $666 per month. All other General Assembly members are paid $13,951 yearly, and given an expense allowance of $559 per month.

Travel: Weekly travel allowance is calculated by multiplying actual round-trip mileage from a member’s house to City of Raleigh by the per mile business rate set by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). A member is also paid when they travel in-or-out-of session as a representative of the General Assembly – or of its committees or com-missions – with the approval of the Legislative Services Commission.

Subsistence: Meals and lodging allowance is set at a daily rate equal to the maximum per diem rate for federal employees traveling to Raleigh, NC, or $26 a day for meals, plus actual lodging expenses when evidenced by a receipt satisfactory to the Legislative Services Officer and not exceeding the federal rate, while the General Assembly is in session. When not in session, legislators are paid when traveling as a representative of the General Assembly or of its committees or commission, or for a service of the State, if approved by Speaker of the House or Senate President Pro Tempore. When the General Assembly is not in session, no member shall be entitled to subsistence and travel allowance during that period, except under approved circumstances.

According to G.S. 120-3., G.S. 120-3.1

No Furloughs For Legislators• BY JANA BENSCOTER

While it may not come as a surprise that top-paid legislators in the state are those who hold the highest offices, it should be noted that among the top 25 compen-sated in 2009 are a majority of Democrats.

In North Carolina, legislative compensation is set forth by state statute. The highest a legislator can earn yearly is $38,151 and the least is $13,951. Yet salaries are not the only tax dollars our state legislative leaders collect. They also receive an expense allowance, subsistence spending for meals and lodging, and travel funds.

Compared to nationwide sala-ries, North Carolina ranks in the bottom half of the pack. Califor-nia is No. 1 and pays its legisla-tors, according to National Con-ference of State Legislatures 2009 Legislator’s Compensation data, $95,291 yearly. Following Califor-nia is Michigan at $79,650; New York at $79,500; and Pennsylva-nia at $78,314.66 respectively.

Each state deems varied pay rates for expenses. Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio and Rhode Island do not pay its legis-lators per diem.

In total, the state’s top-paid legislator falls nearly $9,000 short of a California legislator’s salary. Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight (D-Dare), who has held that position for 17 years, earned $86,211 in 2009.

Other states pay on a daily ba-sis, such as Utah, where legislators are paid $130 a day. Utah pays $90 a day for expenses and lodg-ing for each in-session calendar day, and $54 a day for meals.

New Mexico doesn’t pay its legislators, although provides a federal per diem rate in alignment to its constitution at $144 a day.

Considering the dire times the state is facing, it’s a wonder if any belt tightening could occur in this area of spending. Of the 25 top-paid legislators in 2009, six were Republicans. As of August 2010, four top-paid are Republican. w

...And The Bottom2009

Name Total

H Grier Martin $20,659

H Larry Hall $41,150

H Deborah Ross $41,171

S Doug Berger $41,204

S Neal Hunt $41,208

2010Name Total

H Grier Martin $6,886

H Darren Jackson $6,886

H Ric Killian $7,275

S Doug Berger $7,849

H Leo Daughtry $7,857

Legislator contact information can be found at www.carolinatransparency.com/disbursements



State Budget PassesSpending grows as unemployment remains high

Two years ago, Democratic candidate for US Senate, Kay Hagan, had more than seven times the amount of money in her fund-raising coffers than current Demo-cratic candidate Elaine Marshall. Despite maintaining her position as Secretary of State since 1996, and holding the position of state senator for one term in 1992, her 14 years in statewide office have not helped her to cultivate donors according to reports.

Federal Election Commission’s data reveals on June 30 that Burr had $6.2 million cash on hand while Marshall reported a total of $183,195 in the bank. Since Jan. 1, 2010, Burr received 4,178 contribu-tions from 3,058 contributors, and Marshall received 806 contributions from 603 individuals.

Burr’s reports show that his campaign committee received $6.2 million in contributions from individuals, party committees and political action committees since Jan. 1. Marshall, in the same time period, reported $1,022,504 from individuals, party committee and political action committees. Mar-shall’s report also reflected $71,500 in personal loans to her campaign.

At this time in her 2008 cam-paign for Senate against incumbent Elizabeth Dole, US Sen. Hagan had already raised more than $425,000 from political action committees. Marshall has raised only $27,000 from these sources thus far.

Voters will be going to the polls on Nov. 2, 2010, in less than 80 days. Marshall will count on state and national democratic committees for major assistance. This, however,

North Carolina’s US Senate Race In Numbers• BY SUSAN MYRICK

• BY BRIAN BALFOUR

is not 2008 and this year the nation-al and state party committees have to protect incumbents first. Marshall will then rely on outside groups such as Americans United for Change and Service Employees International Unions (SEIU), who are running anti-Burr ads now.

For all the talk against money in politics, money in campaigns trans-lates into support. Senate candidates’ next report is due Oct. 15, 2010. The contents of Marshall’s report will probably be a more accurate reflection of the outcome of this race than any poll commissioned at the same time.

In the July Civitas Poll, voters were asked; “if the election for Unit-ed States Senate were held today, would you be voting for Republican Richard Burr, Democrat Elaine Mar-shall, or Libertarian Mike Beitler?”

Burr led Marshall by 4 points (32 percent to 28 percent). Burr’s lead increased to 6 points if respon-dents who were not sure who they would vote for, but were leaning toward a candidate were included.

While this gap is not insur-mountable for Marshall, the num-bers coming out of the Federal Elec-tion Commission from her campaign finance reports may be difficult to overcome. Burr has held the US Sen-ate seat since 2005 and served as 5th District Congressman from 1994 to 2004. w

2008, law enforcement made almost 74,000 DWI arrests. Of those, 35 to 40 percent of DWI arrests are repeat offenders.

Sponsored by Rep. Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) and former Rep. Ty Harrell (D-Wake), HB 1489 would re-quire first time DWI offenders to have an ignition interlock system installed on every car that they may drive. An igni-tion interlock system is a sophisticated sensor that a driver must blow into to test for alcohol on their breath.

The vehicle cannot be started if the driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is above a preset level.

“This legislation not only focuses on habitual offenders, but we would hope that it also would deter any first time offenders from driving while intoxicated again,” Lloyd said. “The interlock has been mandated for several years, but this legislation would require it for first time offenders.”

The House of Representatives ini-tially took action on HB 1185 in April of 2009 and were promptly followed by the Senate. Gov. Bev Perdue signed the legislation into law last July. The new policy was implemented on December 1, 2009 and, due to a sunset provision, is set to expire on December 1, 2014. w

The 2010-11 state budget was passed in July, in the middle of the “Great Recession,” with a 10.3 percent unemployment rate. State lawmakers still increased the budget more than half a billion dollars.

The spending plan increases actual spending over the current fis-cal year, adds 864 full-time positions to the state payroll and raids lottery funds.

This story was first published in the Civitas Capitol Connection July Special Budget Edition. Along with the story ran a vote box. In that vote box, Rep. Pearl Burris-Floyd (R-Gas-ton) was not included in the vote. Burris-Floyd voted against the $20.6 billion 2010 spending plan.

The budget includes appropria-tions totaling $18.96 billion, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. The $18.96 billion does not count $1.04 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) – the federal stimulus act – funds already embedded as cuts via last year’s two-year spending plan. That is money counted as a “cut” in the state bud-get, but backfilled by federal dollars.

All told, total spending on state programs including the federal fund-ing comes to about $20.6 billion in the state budget.

Due to a revenue shortfall, the recently completed 2009-10 budget year will likely total about $20 bil-lion (including federal funds). Thus, this year’s budget marks an increase of about $600 million in year-over-year spending, or about 3 percent. w

ChanceCONTINUED FROM PG 1

North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (right) defeated Cal Cunningham in the run-off primary race for US Senate Democratic candidate. She will square off with incumbent Republican US Sen. Richard Burr (R) (left), who has millions in his coffer for his 2010 campaign for US Senate, come November. Burr has served one-term in the US Senate.

UPDATED VOTE TALLYIN FAVOR OF $20.6 BILLION SPENDING PLAN SB 897

Senate Republicans (2)Bingham Stevens

Senate Democrats (28)Albertson Atwater Basnight Berger, D Blue ClodfelterDannelly Davis Dorsett Foriest Garrou GossGraham Hoyle Jenkins Jones Kinnaird McKissickNesbitt Purcell Queen Shaw Snow SolesStein Swindell Vaughan Walters

House Republicans (1)West

House Democrats (65)Adams Alexander, K Alexander, M Bell Bordsen BraxtonBrisson Bryant Carney Coates Cole Cotham

Crawford Earle England Faison Farmer-Butterfield Fisher

Floyd, E Gibson Gill Glazier Goforth Resigned 7/31/10 Goodwin

Hackney Haire Hall Harrison Heagarty HillHolliman Hughes Insko Jackson Jeffus LoveLucas Luebke Martin May McLawhorn MichauxMobley Owens Parfitt Parmon Pierce RappRoss Spear Stewart Sutton Tarleton TolsonTucker Underhill Wainwright Warren, E Warren, R WeissWhilden Wilkins Williams Womble Wray

AGAINST $20.6 BILLION SPENDING PLAN SB 897

Senate Republicans (17)Allran Apodaca Berger, P Brock Brown BrunstetterClary East Forrester Goodall Hartsell HuntJacumin Preston Rouzer Rucho Tillman

Senate Democrats (0)

House Republicans (51)Avila Barnhart Blackwell Blackwood Blust BolesBrown Brubaker Burr Burris-Floyd Cleveland CurrentDaughtry Dockham Dollar Folwell Frye GillespieGrady Guice Gulley Hilton Holloway HowardHurley Iler Ingle Johnson Justice JustusKillian Langdon Lewis McComas McCormick McElraftMcGee Mills Moore Neumann Randleman RhyneSager Samuelson Setzer Stam Starnes SteenStevens Tillis Wiley

House Democrats (1)Jones

NOT VOTINGSenate (1) Blake (R)House (2) Brown (R) Mackey (D)

ABSENTSenate (4) Boseman (D) Dickson (D) Goodall (R) Shaw (D)House (2) Killian (R) Young (D)


Due to editor’s error, Rep. Pearl Burris-Floyd was omitted from the July vote box as having opposed SB 897



T he June report from the North Carolina Employ-ment Security Commis-sion (NCESC) shows

the state is still facing increas-ing double-digit unemployment rates. The statewide unemploy-ment rate was recorded at 10.1 percent, marking an increase from the revised 10.0 percent recorded in the previous month. The NC-ESC’s July 16 report with headline “North Carolina’s Unemployment Rate Falls for Fourth Consecutive Month” remains the top story on the site, while the July 23 county report with ambiguous headline

North Carolina Continues to Struggle with High Unemployment in June• BY MARIANNE SUAREZ “June County Unemployment Rates

Show Mixed Results Across North Carolina” tucks away the details of the actual increase in the unemploy-ment rate based on revised May figures buried on page 6.

More counties across the state are reporting higher unemployment rates than lower. Unemployment rates decreased in 35 counties but increased in 45 counties, while 20 counties reported no change in their unemployment rates. This pattern is more clearly highlighted in what the NCESC qualifies as the state’s 14 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, where nine reported an increase in the unemployment rate. Only one

of those areas reported a decrease in the unemployment rate and four reported no change from the previous month.

The state’s lowest unemploy-ment rate was reported by Curri-tuck County at 4.8 percent, while the highest unemployment rate was reported in Scotland County at 16.3 percent. The state paid out a total of $164.6 million in unemployment insurance benefits.

There are some striking trends to note when comparing North Carolina’s unemployment statis-tics to the federal statistics. Since December of 2007, the official start of the current recession,

North Carolina’s labor force has de-creased 0.2 percent, which is double the total decrease in the nation. The total number of employed people in the state has decreased 5.5 percent compared to 4.8 percent nationally. Since June 2009 the largest growth in jobs has been in government. Government added 40,200 jobs, 5.7 percent; state and local government also reported job gains of 20,200 and 10,200 respec-tively.

June was the most recent NCESC report to date when this newspaper went to print. w

North Carolina Unemployment Rates by County June 2010

`

Dare6.9

Hyde6.3

Pitt9.9

Carteret7.4

Wake8.2

Pender10.1

Bladen11.8

Duplin8.5

Bertie10.6

Onslow8

Wilkes12.8

Moore9.1

Beaufort10.7

Craven9.7

Union9.4

Halifax12.5

Robeson12

Nash12

Sampson8.4

Brunswick10.2

Surry11.3

Iredell11.6

Tyrrell9.4

Columbus11.8

Burke12.8

Johnston9.2

Wayne8.7

Ashe10.9

Anson13.4

Harnett10.7

Randolph9.9

Guilford10.9

Chatham6.9

Macon9.2

Jones9.9Hoke

8.7

Rowan11.7

Stokes9.8

Stanly11.5 Lenoir

10.6

Warren11.6

Buncombe8.2

Person10.5

Caldwell13.4

Caswell11.7

Wilson12.6

Polk8

Forsyth9.5

Gaston11.6

Yadkin9.1

Davie10.2

Rockingham12.1

Swain9.7

Martin10.3

Pamlico9.8

Lee12.3

Franklin9.9

Davidson12

Granville10.3

Haywood8.9

Gates7.6

Jackson8.6

Currituck4.8

Orange6.5

Cumberland9

Madison10

Rutherford14.7

Clay9.9

Cherokee13.2

Catawba12.9

Cleveland13.1

Richmond12.8

McDowell12.2

Vance12.2

Alamance11.1

Hertford9.6

Yancey10.6

Avery8

Edgecombe15

Mecklenburg10.6

Northampton11.1

Lincoln12.2 Montgomery

12.3Cabarrus

10.8Graham

12.6

Durham7.6

Camden7.1

Greene10.3

Scotland16.3

Watauga7.5

Washington11.2

Henderson8.1

Transylvania8.5

Chowan10.2Mitchell

10.4Perquimans

8.5Alexander

13.1

New Hanover9.2

Pasquotank9.4

Alleghany9.9

Data Not Seasonally Adjusted Source: Employment Security Commission of North Carolina

June 2010Unemployment

4.8 - 7.6

7.7 - 9.5

9.6 - 11.3

11.4 - 13.4

13.5 - 16.3

10.1%

7.5% 8.0% 8.4% 8.4% 8.7% 8.9% 9.6% 9.6% 10.0% 10.8% 11.1% 11.1%

13.0% 13.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0% Nor

th Car

olina

Durh

am/C

hape

ll Hill

Jack

sonv

ille

Ashe

ville

Raleigh/

Cary

Goldsb

oro

Faye

tteville

Wilm

ington

Winston

-‐Salem

Gree

nville

Gree

nsbo

ro/H

igh Po

int

Burlington

Char

lotte

/Gas

tonia/

Rock

Hill N

C/SC

Rock

y Mou

nt

Hicko

ry/L

enoir/

Mor

gant

on



Annual Legislator Conservative Ranking Released

Statewide Polling: Competitive Senate DistrictsOver the past five years, the Ci-

vitas Institute has produced month-ly statewide polls of voters in North Carolina, detailing their thoughts and opinions on critical issues in North Carolina. In 2010, with the balance of power in the NC House and Senate up for grabs and vi-tally important redistricting on the horizon, Civitas decided to expand its polling this year to produce a look into competitive legislative races around the state. Through this polling and data, it is hoped to give citizens greater insight and awareness into the key races that will decide which party controls the General Assembly in 2011.

For more information visit www.nccivitas.org/media/press_releases

• BY CHRIS HAYES

The Civitas Action Conserva-tive Effectiveness Rankings are in for 2010. Each year, Civitas Action compiles a list of votes that can clearly be defined as conservative or liberal and scores legislators accord-ingly. Legislators with the highest score are considered to be the most conservative by the Civitas Action metric.

This year, the list includes 20 votes in diverse policy areas includ-ing fiscal items, incentives pack-ages, gun rights and regulation.

• BY JASON SUTTON Both the North Carolina Senate and House were scored on separate lists although a number of the bills overlap.

With a score of 95, Rep. George Cleveland (R-Onslow) was ranked as the most conservative member of the House in 2010. Finishing a close second, with a score of 92.3, was Rep. Ric Killian (R-Mecklenburg). Cleveland was the only member of the House to cast a conservative vote on SB829, a bill to regulate appraisal management companies. Bringing up the rear in 2010 with a

score of 0 are House Speaker Rep. Joe Hackney (D-Chatham), and Reps. Ray Warren (D-Alexander), Melanie Goodwin (D-Richmond) and Douglas Yongue (D-Scotland).

The North Carolina Senate’s most conservative member for the third year in a row was Sen. Andrew Brock (R-Davie) with a score of 80. Brock set himself apart by voting against increased fees on athletic trainers and mortgage servicers. Sens. Tom Apodaca (R-Henderson), Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), and Bob Rucho (R-Mecklenburg) all

scored 70 or higher. Sens. Larry Shaw (D-Cumberland), Margaret Dickson (D-Cumberland), Floyd McKissick (D-Durham) and Dan Blue (D-Wake) all scored a zero on the metric, ranking them as the most liberal Senators in North Caro-lina. w

For a description of bills, and legislators’ rankings, read pages 8 and 9.

For more information visit www.civitasaction.org



LEGEND: 2R – Second reading 3R – Third reading A# - Amendment

and the corresponding number of the amendment MC – Motion to concur

ACR – Adopt conference report MSR – Motion to Suspend the Rules

Senate Votes 20101. SB 829 – Regulation of Appraisal Management Companies (MC)This bill would create a new licensing and regulation process for individuals and firms engaging in real estate appraisal management

2. SB 897 – Appropriations Act of 2010 (ACR2)This vote adopted the final compromise budget that, among other things, increases spending over the current fiscal year, adds 864 full-time positions to the state pay-roll, and offers a misguided package of targeted tax breaks intended to help small business growth. Perhaps most egregious is that lawmakers refused to address the roughly $3 billion structural gap looming for next year’s budget.

3. SB 1015 – Homeowner and Homebuyer Protection Act (MC)This bill creates excessive regulations in the buying and selling of real estate by severely restricting foreclosure rescue transactions. Furthermore, certain financial institutions and state agencies are exempt from the new regulation.

4. SB 1114 – Local Energy Efficiency/Renewable (MC)This bill exempts Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Asheville from competitive bidding requirements for any pilot program aimed at increasing energy efficiency. 5. SB 1171 – Keeping NC Competitive Act (MC2)This bill grants specific tax incentives to businesses that manufacture paper-from-pulp and turbines. With its passage, this bill also carves out new incentives for internet datacenters.

6. SB 1210 – Increase Licensure Fees/Athletic Trainers (2R)This bill doubles the fee for obtaining a license to be an athletic trainer and increas-es the fee renewing a license by 50%.

7. SB 1215 – Economic Incentives Alignment & Changes (3R)This bill grants tax incentives to various economic entities, including air carriers, solar energy companies, and NASCAR teams.

8. SB 1216 – Extend Emergency Foreclosure Program (MC3)This bill creates a State Home Foreclosure Prevention Fund and assesses a $75 fee on mortgage servicer when they file for foreclosure. This fee will likely be passed along to the consumer, meaning that it would become more expensive to obtain a mortgage.

9. SB 1378 – Build North Carolina’s Future Act (2R)This bill would authorize the issuance of over $450 million in new state debt in order to finance the renovation and construction of engineering buildings at North Carolina State University and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University.

10. SB 1378 – Build North Carolina’s Future Act (A4)This vote is to appeal the ruling of the Senate President who ruled that an amend-ment putting the issuance of these bonds on the ballot for voters to decide was out of order.

11. HB 120 – Chapel Hill Public Campaigns (2R)This bill would authorize Chapel Hill to continue its public financing program for municipal elections.

12. HB 589 – Insurance & State Health Plan Cover/Hearing Aids (ACR)This bill requires all health benefit plans in the state to cover hearing aids for every-one under the age of 22.

13. HB 748 – Citizens United Response (3R)This bill increases the regulation of electioneering by requiring the disclosure of individual expenditures for electioneering and political advertisements.

14. HB 1035 – Performance & Payment Bond Modification (2R) This bill raises the minimum for state departments, state agencies and the UNC System with regards to performance and payment bonds. State entities are now subject to bonding requirements when contracts reach $500,000 while the private sector threshold is $300,000.

15. HB 1260 – Conform State Law/Firearm Disentitlement (ACR)This bill allows non-violent felons to petition for the reinstatement of their firearms rights.

16. HB 1707 – State Health Plan/Age Out Dependents; Tobacco Use Testing (2R) This bill allows dependents to remain on the State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees until age 26 costing the state as much as $3.6 million this year.

17. HB 1726 – Improve Child Care Nutrition/Activity Standards (3R)This bill requires the adoption of nutrition standards for child care facilities and recommends certain guidelines for acceptance.

18. HB 1726 – Improve Child Care Nutrition/Activity Standards (A2) This amendment creates an exception to the junk food ban by allowing child care fa-cilities to offer food that does not meet nutrition standards at the request of a parent.

19. HB 1829 – Renewable Energy Incentives (ACR) This bill extends tax credits 35% for investing in renewable energy facilities and property. 20. HB 1973 – Various Economic Incentives (ACR)This bill creates and establishes tax credits for eco-parks, expands tax credits for film production companies and digital media companies and provides a sales tax exemp-tion for wood chippers

House Votes 20101. HB 589 - Insurance & State Health Plan Cover/Hearing Aids (ACR)This bill requires all health benefit plans in the state to cover hearing aids for every-one under the age of 22.

2. HB 748 - Citizens United Response (MC)This bill increases the regulation of electioneering by requiring the disclosure of individual expenditures for electioneering and political advertisements.

3. HB 1035: Performance & Payment Bond Modification (MC)This bill raises the minimum for state departments, state agencies and the UNC System with regards to performance and payment bonds. State entities are now subject to bonding requirements when contracts reach $500,000 while the private sector threshold is $300,000

4. HB 1260 - Conform State Law/Firearm Disentitlement (ACR2)Allows under certain conditions for non-violent felons to petition for their firearms rights.

5. HB 1707 - State Health Plan/Age Out Dependents; Tobacco Use Testing (2R) This bill allows dependents to remain on the State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees until age 26 costing the state as much as $3.6 million this year. 6. HB 1726 - Improve Child Care Nutrition/Activity Standards (3R)This bill requires the adoption of nutrition standards for child care facilities and recommends certain guidelines for acceptance.

7. HB 1659 - Eminent Domain (3R) This bill would send forth a constitutional amendment for statewide voter refer-endum reinforcing the states eminent domain protections and define public use as not including economic development.

8. HB 1829 - Renewable Energy Incentives (2R) This bill extends tax credits 35% for investing in renewable energy facilities and property.

9. HB 1973 - Various Economic Incentives (R2)This bill creates and establishes tax credits for eco-parks, expands tax credits for film production companies and digital media companies and provides a sales tax exemp-tion for wood chippers.

10. A3 to Appropriations Act of 2010 (S897)This amendment would dissolve the North Carolina Mobility Fund after the completion of the Yadkin River Bridge.

11. A18 to Appropriations Act of 2010 (S897)This amendment would reduce or eliminate a number of projects to be paid for through special indebtedness.

12. A27 to Appropriations Act of 2010 (S897)This amendment would implement zero-based budgeting for every fiscal year thus eliminating the biennium budgetary system.

13. SB 829 - Regulation of Appraisal Management Companies (3R)This bill would create a new licensing and regulation process for individuals and firms engaging in real estate appraisal management.

14. SB 897 - Appropriations Act of 2010 (ACR)This vote adopted the final compromise budget that, among other things, increases spending over the current fiscal year, adds 864 full-time positions to the state pay-roll, and offers a misguided package of targeted tax breaks intended to help small business growth. Perhaps most egregious is that lawmakers refused to address the roughly $3 billion structural gap looming for next year’s budget.

15. SB 1015 - Homeowner and Homebuyer Protection Act (3R) This bill creates excessive regulations in the buying and selling of real estate by severely restricting foreclosure rescue transactions. Furthermore, certain financial institutions and state agencies are exempt from the new regulation.

16. SB 1114 - Local Energy Efficiency/Renewable (3R) This bill exempts Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Asheville from competitive bidding requirements for any pilot program aimed at increasing energy efficiency.

17. SB 1171 – Keeping NC Competitive Act (3R) This bill grants specific tax incentives to businesses that manufacture paper-from-pulp and turbines. With its passage, this bill also carves out new incentives for internet datacenters.

18. SB 1210 - Increase Licensure Fees/Athletic Trainers (3R) This bill doubles the fee for obtaining a license to be an athletic trainer and increas-es the fee renewing a license by 50%.

19. SB 1215 - Economic Incentives Alignment & Changes (3R) This bill grants tax incentives to various economic entities, including air carriers, solar energy companies, and NASCAR teams.

20. SB 1216 - Extend Emergency Foreclosure Program (3R)This bill creates a State Home Foreclosure Prevention Fund and assesses a $75 fee on mortgage servicer when they file for foreclosure. This fee will likely be passed along to the consumer, meaning that it would become more expensive to obtain a mortgage.



2010 Civitas Action RankingsNorth Carolina Senate

SB 829(MC)

SB 897 (ACR2)

SB 1015 (MC)

SB 1114 (MC2)

SB 1171 (MC2)

SB 1210 (2R)

SB 1215 (3R)

SB 1216 (MC3)

SB 1378 (2R)

SB 1378 (A4)

HB 120 (2R)

HB 589 (ACR)

HB 748 (3R)

HB 1035 (2R)

HB 1260 (ACR)

HB 1707 (2R)

HB 1726 (3R)

HB 1726 (A2)

HB 1829 (ACR)

HB 1973 (ACR)

2010 Score

1 Brock - + + - + + + + + + + - + + + + + + - + 80.02 Apodaca - + + - - + + - + + + A + + + + + + - + 73.73 Berger, P - + + - - + + - + + + - + + + + + + - + 70.03 Rucho - + + - + - - + + + + - + + + + + + - + 70.05 East - + + - + - - - + + + - + + + + + + - + 65.05 Forrester - + + - - + + - + + + - + + + + - + - + 65.05 Hunt - + + - + - - - + + + - + + + + + + - + 65.08 Rouzer - + + A - A - - + + + - + + + + - + - + 61.19 Tillman - + + - - - - - + + + - + + + + + + - + 60.010 Goodall A + + - + - - + + + A - A - A + + + - A 60.011 Clary - + + - - A - - + + + - + + + + + + - - 57.911 Jacumin - + + - - - - - + + + - A + + + + + - + 57.913 Blake NV A + - + - A - + + NV - + + NV + + + - + 55.614 Brown - + - - - + - - + + + - + + + - + + - + 55.014 Brunstetter - + - - - + - - + + + - + + + - + + - - 55.016 Allran - + + - - - - - - + + - + + + + - - - + 45.017 Preston - + - - - - - - + + - - + + + - - + - + 40.018 Bingham - - + - - - - - - + - - + + + + - + - - 35.018 Goss - - - - - + - - - - + - - + + + - + - + 35.018 Hartsell - + + - - - - - - + - - + - + + - + - - 35.021 Snow - - - - - - - - + - + - - - + + - + - + 30.022 Stevens - - - - - - - - - + - - + - + + - + - - 25.023 Kinnaird - - - - + - + - - A - - - - - - - - - + 15.824 Berger, D. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - + - - 10.024 Clodfelter - - - - - - EV - - - - - - - + - - + - - 10.024 Davis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - + - - 10.027 Boseman A - - - - A - - A A A - - - A A - + - - 7.728 Hoyle - - A - - - - A - - - - - A + - A A - - 6.729 Dorsett - - - - - A - - - - - A - - + - - - - - 5.630 Albertson - - - - - - - - - A - - - - + - - - - - 5.330 Garrou - - - - - - - - - A - - - - + - - - - - 5.330 Graham - - - - - - - - - A - - NV - + - - - - - 5.333 Atwater - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Basnight - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Dannelly - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Foriest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Jenkins - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Jones - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Nesbitt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Purcell - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Queen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Soles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Stein - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Swindell - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Vaughan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.033 Walters - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - 5.047 Blue - - - - NV - - - - - - A - - A - - - NV - 0.047 Dickson A - - - - - - - - - A - - - A - - - - - 0.047 McKissick NV - - - - - - - - NV - - - - NV - - - - - 0.047 Shaw - NV A A - - - A - - A A NV A A - A A - NV 0.0

North Carolina House of RepresentativesHB 589 (ACR)

HB 748 (MC)

HB 1035 (MC)

HB 1260 (ACR2)

HB 1707 (2R)

HB 1726 (3R)

HB 1659 (3R)

HB 1829 (2R)

HB 1973 (R2)

SB 829 (3R)

SB 897 (ACR)

SB 897 (A3)

SB 897 (A18)

SB 897 (A27)

SB 1015 (3R)

SB 1114 (3R)

SB 1171 (3R)

SB 1210 (3R)

SB 1215 (3R)

SB 1216 (3R)

2010 Score

1 Cleveland - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 95.02 Killian - + + A + A A + + A A + + + + A + + + A 92.33 Holloway - + + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + - + 85.03 Ingle - + + + + + + + + - + + + + + - + + - + 80.05 Stevens - + + + A + + - + - + + + + + + + + - + 78.96 Blackwood - + + - + + + + + - + + + + - + + + - + 75.06 Blust - + + - + + + + + - + + + + + + + - - + 75.06 Burr - + + + + + + + + - + + + + + - + - - + 75.06 Folwell - + + + + + + - + - + - + + + - + + + + 75.06 Hurley - + + + + + + - + - + + - + - + + + + + 75.06 Wiley - + + + + + + - + - + + + + + - + + - + 75.012 Mills A + + + - + + - + - + + + + + - + + - + 73.713 McCormick - + A - + + + - + - + + + + + + A + - + 72.214 Avila - + - + + - + + + - + + + + + - + + - + 70.014 Blackwell - + + + - + + + + - + + + + + + + - - - 70.014 Boles - + + + + + + - + - + + + + + - + + - - 70.014 Randleman - + + - + + + + + - + + + + + - + + - - 70.014 Sager - + + + - + + - + - + + + + + - + + - + 70.019 Brown - + + + A - + + + - NV + + + - - + + + + 68.420 McElraft - + + + + + + - + - + + + + + - + - - - 65.020 Stam - + + + - + + + + - + - + + + - + - - + 65.022 Starnes - A + - + + + - - - + + + + + - + + - + 63.223 Daughtry NV A A + - + + A A - + + + + + - A - - + 60.023 Justice - + + - + + + - + - + + + + - - + + - - 60.023 Lewis - + + + + - + - + - + + + + - - + - - + 60.026 Samuelson - A + + + - + A A - + + + + + - - - - + 58.827 Current A + + + + + + - - - + A + + - - - - - + 55.628 Burris-Floyd - + + + - + + - - - + + + + + - - + - - 55.0

10August 2010 nccivitas.org

CAPITOL CONNECTIONCivitasHB 589 (ACR)

HB 748 (MC)

HB 1035 (MC)

HB 1260 (ACR2)

HB 1707 (2R)

HB 1726 (3R)

HB 1659 (3R)

HB 1829 (2R)

HB 1973 (R2)

SB 829 (3R)

SB 897 (ACR)

SB 897 (A3)

SB 897 (A18)

SB 897 (A27)

SB 1015 (3R)

SB 1114 (3R)

SB 1171 (3R)

SB 1210 (3R)

SB 1215 (3R)

SB 1216 (3R)

2010 Score

28 Dollar - + + + - + + - + - + - + + + - - + - - 55.028 Hilton - + + + + + + - - - = + + + - - - + - - 55.028 Langdon - + + + + + + - - - + - + + + - - - - + 55.028 Steen - + + + + + + - - - + - + + - + - + - - 55.033 Gillespie - + + + - + + - + - + - + + - - - + - - 50.033 McGee - NV + + - + A - - - + + + + A + - A - A 50.033 Neumann - + + + - + + - - - + - + + + - - + - - 50.033 Rhyne - + A + + + + - EV - + + + + - - A - - - 50.033 Tillis - + + - + A + - - A + + + + + - - - - - 50.038 Dockham - + + + - + + - - - + + + + - - - - - - 45.038 Guice - + + - + + + - - - + - + + - - - - - + 45.038 Gulley - + - + + - + - - - + + + + - - + - - - 45.041 Grady - A - - + + + - + - + + + + - - - - - - 42.142 Frye - + + + - + + - - - + A A A - - - + - - 41.243 Howard - + + - + + + - - - + - + + - - - - - - 40.043 Iler - + + - + + + - - - + - - + - - - + - - 40.043 Justus - + + + + + + - - - + - - + - - - - - - 40.043 Moore - + + - - + + - - - + - - + - + - + - - 40.043 Setzer - + + - + + + - - - + - + + - - - - - - 40.048 Brubaker - + + - + + + - - - + - - + - - - - - - 35.048 Johnson - + - + - + + - - - + - + + - - - - - - 35.048 West - + - + + + + - - - - - + + - - - - - - 35.051 McComas NV + + - - + + - - - + - - + - - - - - - 30.052 Barnhart - + - + - NV A - - NV + - + + - - - - - A 27.853 Cole - - + + - - + - - - - - - + - - - - - + 25.0

53 Farmer-Butter-field - - - + - - + - + - - A A A - - + - A - 25.0

55 Crawford NV - + + - NV + - - - - - - - - - - - - + 20.055 Jackson - NV + + - - - - + - - - - - - - + - - - 20.055 Jones - NV NV + - - + NV NV - + - - - - NV NV + - - 20.058 Alexander, M - A A + - - + A A - - - - - A - A A A - 16.759 Braxton - - - + A - + - - - - - - - - - - - - + 15.859 Floyd, E A - - + - - + - + - - - - - - - - - - - 15.861 Coates - - - + - - + - - - - - - + - - - - - - 15.061 Earle - NV + + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.061 Gill - - - + - - + - + - - - - - - - - - - - 15.061 Haire - - - + - - + - + - - - - - - - - - - - 15.061 Love - - - + - + + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.061 Luebke - - - + - - - - + - - - - - - - + - - - 15.061 May - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - 15.061 Owens - - + + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15.061 Parmon - - - - - - + - + - + - - - - - - - - 15.061 Weiss - - - - - - + - + - - - - - - - + - - - 15.061 Wilkins - - + + - - + - - - - - - - - + - - - - 15.072 Adams A NV + + A - + A A - - - - - - - A - - - 14.373 Sutton - A + + A - + - - - - - - - - - A - A - 13.374 Cotham - A + + - - + - - - - - - - A - - A - - 11.874 Lucas - - + + - - + - - - - - - - - - A - A - 11.876 Parfitt - - + + - A + - - A - - - - - - - - - - 11.176 Stewart - - + + - - + A A - - - - - - - - - - - 11.176 Warren, E - - + + - - + A A - - - - - - - - - - - 11.179 Mackey - NV NV NV A - + NV NV - NV + - NV - NV NV NV NV - 10.579 Tucker - A - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.579 Underhill A - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.579 Womble A - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.579 Wray - - - + - - + - - - - A - - - - - - - - 10.584 Bell - - + - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 England - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Faison - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Gibson NV - + + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Glazier - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Goforth - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Hagarty - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Hall - - - + - - + - EV - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Harrison - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - + - - - 10.084 Hill - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Holliman - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Hughes NV - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Inskko - - - - - - - - + - - - NV - - - + - - - 10.084 Jeffus - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Martin - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 McLawhorn - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Pierce - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Rapp - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Spear - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Tarleton - - - + - - + NV - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Tolson - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Wainwright - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Whilden - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.084 Williams - - - + - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0108 Ross - - - + - - - A A - - - - - - - - - - - 5.6109 Alexander, K - - - + - - - - - NV - - - - - - - - - - 5.0109 Bordsen - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0109 Brisson - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0109 Bryant - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - NV - - - - 5.0109 Carney - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0109 Fisher - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0109 Michaux NV - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0109 Mobley - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0109 Warren, R - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.0118 Goodwin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.0118 Hackney NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV - NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV 0.0118 Yongue - A A A - A A A A A A - - - A A A A A A 0.0



DeathCONTINUED FROM PG 3

Over 90 percent of convicted murderers on death row have filed to have their death sentences revoked under the Racial Justice Act. Christina Walters was convicted in 2000 of abducting and murdering Tracy Rose Lambert and Susan Raye Moore as part of an initiation into the Crips gang in 1998. She also shot and left for dead another woman.Photo: NC Department of Correction

to get statistics: the entire state, if that does not work; the Judicial Division, which is how Superior Court Judges are assigned, if that does not work; the Prosecutorial District, which is from where District Attorneys are elected, if that does not work they can then use the county. They get these four different statistical attempts to stop a death penalty on top of the already 40 defense and safety mechanisms now built into the system for death penalty cases. Wake County District Attorney Colin Willoughby (D-Wake) com-menting on the potential effect of the bill said, “This bill will create witnesses

out of statistics.”The current group of murderers

appealing to have their death sentences overturned is a great group. Not one is arguing innocence. Not one is men-tioning the victims of their criminal acts. That includes people convicted of multiple murders like Henry Wal-lace convicted of killing nine young women, most of them raped and strangled.

While we read of people being wrongly convicted for crimes, there has been no case in the modern era where it has been shown that an in-nocent person was put to death. The NC Legislature, at least the legislators who voted for the RJA want the death penalty to go away. They should be honest and vote to do away with the death penalty, not try to kill it by cost-ing the taxpayers millions and prevent-ing justice from being carried out in an expeditious and fair manner. w

For more information visit www.nccivitas.org

IN FAVOR OF STATE-CONTROLLED CHARTERS SB 704

Senate Republicans (0)

Senate Democrats (24)Albertson Atwater Basnight Blue Clodfelter DannellyDickson Foriest Garrou Graham Hoyle JenkinsJones Kinnaird McKissick Nesbitt Purcell QueenShaw Soles Stein Swindell Vaughan Walters

House Republicans (7)Brubaker Dollar Grady Howard Justice LewisMcComas

House Democrats (63)Alexander, K Alexander, M Bell Bordsen Brisson BryantCarney Coates Cole Cotham Crawford Earle

England Faison Farmer-Butterfield Fisher Floyd, E Gibson

Gill Glazier GoforthResigned 7/31/10 Goodwin Haire Hall

Harrison Heagarty Hill Holliman Hughes InskoJackson Jeffus Jones Love Lucas LuebkeMartin May McLawhorn Michaux Mobley OwensParfitt Parmon Pierce Rapp Ross SpearStewart Tarleton Tolson Tucker Underhill WainwrightWarren, E Warren, R Weiss Whilden Wilkins WilliamsWomble Wray Yongue

AGAINST STATE-CONTROLLED CHARTERS SB 704

Senate Republicans (18)Allran Berger, P Bingham Blake Brock BrownBrunstetter Clary East Forrester Goodall HartsellHunt Preston Rouzer Rucho Stevens Tilman

Senate Democrats (4)Berger, D Davis Goss Snow

House Republicans (43)Avila Barnhart Blackwell Blackwood Blust BolesBurr Burris-Floyd Cleveland Current Daughtry DockhamFolwell Frye Gillespie Guice Gulley HiltonHolloway Hurley Iler Ingle Johnson JustusKillian Langdon McCormick McElraft McGee MillsMoore Neumann Randleman Rhyne Sager SamuelsonSetzer Stam Starnes Steen Tillis WestWiley

House Democrats (0)

ABSENTSenate (4) Apodaca (R) Boseman (D) Dorsett (D) Jacumin (R)House (6) Adams (D) Braxton (D) Brown (R) Mackey (D)

Stevens (R) Sutton (D)

NOT VOTINGHouse (1) Hackney (D)


O ver the past year, the Legislature and state government have approved numerous

measures to limit the growth and independence of North Carolina charter schools. Most recently, state officials in July announced North Carolina as a finalist state for the latest round of federal “Race-to-the-Top Funds,” the $4.3 billion Obama administration program to spur state and local reforms in pub-lic education. The mad, money-grab however doesn’t mean state leaders have changed their longstanding views on charter schools.

In August of 2009, the StateBoard of Education approved rules to close a charter school if the school failed to meet expected growth and composite score require-ments in any two of three years. Interestingly, the performance rule applies only to charter schools and not to traditional public schools.

Terry Stoops, education ana-

• BY BOB LUEBKE

lyst at the John Locke Foundation has shown that if the same rule were applied retroactively to traditional public and charter schools in North Carolina, 168 traditional public schools would be forced to close along with only six public charter schools.

Hoping to improve the state’s chances of winning federal funds, on May 21 the Legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation (S.B. 704, “Reform Low-Performing Schools”) that asks the General As-sembly to convert as many as 135 low-performing schools to charter schools – as long as the charter schools are controlled by school boards.

Supporters say the bill may help to expand the number of charter schools. Critics however say the law changes the fundamental nature of charter schools by requiring local school boards – not private boards of directors – to administer the schools.

The competition for federal funds also gave state lawmakers an opportunity to correct the funding disparity between North Carolina public schools and charter schools

State statute requires local school districts to equitably appro-priate per-pupil funding between public and charter schools. Many districts however, have not followed the law.

In a recent court ruling in Sugar Creek School District v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District (CMS), the North Carolina Court of Ap-peals ruled that the Charlotte Meck-lenburg Board of Education violated state statute requiring local school districts to equally distribute the

per-pupil share of the money from current expense fund to all schools in the district – including charter schools.

The Court ordered CMS to payout $5.5 million to 10 charter schools in Union County.

Instead of working to support the Court’s decision, lawmakers passed provisions that undermined the Sugar Creek court decision. The new budget provision allows local systems more flexibility in defining the current expense funds, thereby minimizing its payout to charter schools. A second budget provision gives local systems up to three years to repay charter schools for violations of the equal funding provision.

One of the biggest finance issues for charter schools is the lack of capital funding. While the statutes don’t speak to the issue of capital funding for charter schools, Attorney General Roy Cooper has ruled charter schools do not have the same rights to compete for capital funding as public schools. Historically, charter schools have

spent between 20 to 30 per-cent of operating budgets

on facility costs.Charter school

supporters thought the problem might finally be corrected when a budget amendment, which

made charter schools eligible for up to $50

million in capital funds, was approved in June by

the House. Unfortunately, after consultation with representatives from education lobbying groups, lawmakers decided to remove the provision from the final version of the state budget.

The North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law recently filed a suit alleging that the current law prohibiting counties and local school administrative units from providing funds from the capital outlay fund to charter schools vio-lates the state’s requirement estab-lishing a “uniform system of public education.” The case is expected to be heard shortly.

While North Carolina con-tinues its quest to secure Race to the Top funds, sadly the actions of lawmakers undermine these efforts and deny thousands of children the opportunity to attend better schools. w

Discussion of Charter School Cap Continues

Favor 56%Oppose 24%Not Sure 20%

North Carolina caps the number of charter schools in the state at 100. Do you favor or oppose lifting the cap?

Civitas Poll January 2010



BY JANA BENSCOTER

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

State Board of Elections Chairman Larry Leake finds himself at the center of an investigation following recent allegations that he may have mishandled an investigation of the Bev Perdue Campaign for Gover-nor. Photo: Don Carrington of Carolina Journal

Voting Means More than a Color

• S C A N D A L •

Investigation Turns Table on Board of Elections

Two months before the November elections, Board of Elections (BOE) Chairman Larry Leake finds himself engulfed in a developing scandal.

At issue is whether Leake derailed a Board of Elections investigation into financial irregularities of the Perdue for Governor Campaign. Leake, a registered Democrat has served on the Board of Elections since 1993. He was appointed by former Democratic governors Jim Hunt and Mike Easley, and current Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue. Leake’s main problems involve his interactions with Board of Elections investiga-tor Kim Strach. Strach, registered as unaffiliated, helped uncover campaign finance violations against former Gov. Easley and former Speaker of the House Jim Black (D).

Earlier this year, Strach found then candidate-Perdue accepted about $28,000 in campaign flights – 42 in all. The flights were never reported as campaign donations.

A review of the records shows numerous incidents where Leake sought to control access or redirect the course of BOE investigations. When Strach sought to follow up on leads with Gov. Perdue’s former Chief of Staff Zach Ambrose, Strach was told he was on vacation and wouldn’t be available.

Records show that Leake and Board of Elections Director Gary Bartlett deter-mined who from the Perdue campaign Strach was permitted to interview and when. Interestingly, Strach’s report men-tioned who she was able to interview and who she was not. However, Leake and Bartlett edited out Strach’s comments about which Perdue staffers she was not able to question from the final report.

In order to be present when Strach questioned key Perdue supporter Tra-wick “Buzzy” Stubbs, Leake chartered a private plane to make the trip from Asheville to Raleigh. Cost to taxpayers: $1,564.

Leake has also been criticized for presiding over the investigation of Easley while at the same time admitting he helped raise funds for the Easley cam-paign.

Leake’s actions have set off calls for an investigation and even his resignation. Adding to the drama is the early August revelation that the New Bern Company, Printelect which prints voter ballots for 85 of the state’s 100 counties is owned by Owen Andrews, a prominent contribu-tor to Democratic candidates. Andrews, and his wife, have contributed $50,000 to Democratic candidates. Approximate-ly half the money was designated for the Perdue campaign. The News & Observer reports Printelect frequently charges twice as much for its products as the next available seller.

Leake supervised a flawed investiga-tion that gave Perdue a slap on the wrist for bad recordkeeping and cleared the

• BY BOB LUEBKE

The largest midterm voter turnout between the years 1974 and 2006 on record for North Carolina was in 1990. Of the 3.3 million registered voters, 2 million showed up at the polls – 62 percent.

At that time it was incumbent Republican Jessie Helms versus Demo-cratic candidate Harvey Gantt for US Senate, which brought voters out in droves.

Helms was known for his stalwart positions and not giving in to special interest groups. North Carolinians voted to send Helms back to Washington by a slim margin in hopes of keeping Republican President Ronald Reagan’s agenda alive. Helms won with 52.5 percent of the vote.

Looking at the most recent midterm election, only 37 percent of voters cast their ballot in 2006. A July Civitas Poll reveals that after voters were asked, “in general, would you say you are more or less interested in the up-coming 2010 elections than you were in the 2008 Presidential Election,” 32 percent of voters said yes. That is just short of the 44 percent who answered they are just as interested in this election as they were in 2008. And of those polled, when asked, “how likely are you to vote in the 2010 election for national and state offices,” 63 percent said definitely voting, 26 percent said very likely and 10 percent said somewhat likely to vote.

Nearing the two months mark before the general election, it is becoming strikingly apparent that North Carolinians want a change greater than what was promised to them by the Obama and Perdue administrations.

As more and more residents in North Carolina register to vote in mid-term elections, unaffiliated voters have emerged as the first choice. Red states and blue states might start to witness a trend that defies politics as usual.

Since January of this year, Democrats decreased by 4,725 voters, Republicans increased by 1,368 voters, Libertarians increased by 1,770 and Unaffilated increased by 57,684 voters. Are you registered to vote? Are you going to be part of the majority or minority? To view a breakdown of Civitas polling, go to www.nccivitas.org/media/poll-results/.

Mid-Term Year – Voter Turnout

1974 – 45 % 1978 – 47 % 1982 – 50 % 1986 – 52 %1990 – 62 % 1994 – 42 % 1998 – 43 % 2002 – 47 %2006 – 37 %

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

campaign from wrongdoing. The Chairman’s actions raise legitimate questions about whether his actions overstepped his authority and about his ability to conduct an impar-tial investigation. w

The Civitas Institute offers training 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 Luebke at 919-834-2099, Ext. 145.

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

Documents

Civitas Capitol Connection: Issue 6