Round two!

Johnk, what's your full name? I really wish everyone had to put their full names (not to belabor the point Ruby).

David, I work in a field where every potential employer googles your name to see what you've been up to. I am not hiding my identity (it's elsewhere on the site and Ruby and others know me), but I prefer using only my first name. I'm not Joan Siefert Rose from WUNC, and other than her, I'm the only Joan around here. I'm not ashamed of what I say here, just not interested in having it so easily found in irrelevant contexts (irrelevant to work I mean).

I'm glad to hear you are a Tar Heel true blue. I have lower section tickets for Tuesday's game--hurrah!

Well it should be an interesting 2 years. Congratulations Dan.

I don't know - I guess i just like to know who I'm talking to and it's not supposed to be an anonymous posting site. I don't work for the dept. of homeland security or the NSA. I swear. No biggie I guess. I'll stop letting it bother me. Good for you on the seats Joan. I'm always envious of anyone holding tix.

David, I'm in grad school and graduating this semester, so got the "senior" tickets. I'm certainly not connected or rich.

Congratulations to Dan! Congratulations to all the candidates! I thought what Randee did was an incredibly selfless act which reflects well on her character.

I have learned so much these past months! I am a better person for it, too.

My biggest lesson: The people of Carrboro are the smartest and most big-hearted in this state.

I honestly believe that If we replaced all of the Senate and House of Representatives with a diverse group of Carrboro citizens this country would be in much better shape than it is now.

It is fitting that my daughter is calling me right now. I have some quality time with her to make up.

Well I'm still envious Joan. Who cares if you aren't connected or rich. You have tix! :) John, methinks you're a friend of the incomparable Pat Day. Alright, this has been fun. Congrats to Dan Coleman!

Howdy, all. This evening I attended my first-ever Carrboro Board meeting. Stayed until the break, then came home and watched the rest on TV from a safe distance.

The Board of Alderman much more resembled a therapy group than an elected policy-making body.

You had two well-qualified finalists, either of whom would have acquitted themselves well on the Board. Both are liberal Democrats who fit well within the majority Carrboro ethos. Some aldermen thought long knowledge and experience within the town had a stronger weight, and some (like me) thought representation of the involuntarily annexed area, and of the LGBT community, had stronger weight. It's a point on which reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

So why all the gnashing of teeth and barely repressed anger and tears? (And what could explain, to take the most extreme case, Mr. Herrera's singularly uncalled-for calling out of Mr. Zaffron?) What sort of peculiar group dynamic is at work here in our supposedly respectful, consensus-oriented polity, where we can't seem to disagree without most everybody getting worked up about it, or where everyone (save in the end for Ms. Haven-O'Donnell) defined reaching consensus as "you giving in to my point of view"?

This was not an evening I was especially proud of Carrboro, or of the folks for whom I've voted. Mr. Coleman, congratulations and the best of luck; looks like you're gonna need it.

Peace,
Mark H.

It was very interesting to view this whole process in person tonight. I have a great deal of respect for Randee. You could tell it was an extremely difficult decision and it really impacted her emotionally. Bravo Randee. The one Alderman I was disappointed in was John. You folks did not catch it, but when Randee unselfishly switched her vote, John shouted what I think was "hallelujah" with this huge smile on his face. I think that was in very poor taste. I have always told my kids they need to be gracious in victory so that the party that did not win does not feel worse about it. I would hope that John would be a little more cautious in the future when a vote goes his way. I know John had a very trying day today, between illness and the emotional strain of his Charlotte trip. But I still felt bad for Randee and for Lydia because of John's reaction. I do want to commend the Mayor and the rest of the board members. I feel that I okay with the decision of the board. I thought Lydia did a very good job in her speech, and I know I was more supportive of her after she spoke. But I feel I can work with Dan. Let's make sure we now get lots of good folks from the annexation area on the critical advisory boards.

It was interesting to see Carrboro's BOA in action (or temporary "inaction?") over the last two days. I realized that I'd managed to attend most BOA meetings when Joal was out-of-town - so this was the first time I've seen the whole crew at work. An interesting melange.

Randee, as noted by Tom, acquited herself well for just a "junior member" of the BOA. A great and courageous start to her BOA career. I imagine she'll play the lead role in calming the waters.

Lydia, I think, will forge forward with public service in Carrboro - and Carrboro will be the stronger for it...

David M. and David B. both got "the nod" to "keep on keeping on"... I hope they join with Lydia, James and the other interested applicants in running next round.

For all the crud thrown around about Katrina, what was said tonight was dead-on - she earned the support of some of Carrboro voters and the NTA petitioners. She deserves credit and acknowledgement for that. I hope she takes up Jacquie's challenge and creates some "creative tension" within Carrboro's Town Hall.

Alex stuck to his guns and his criteria in supporting Katrina - I respect a principled stand and hope he doesn't catch too much crap over it...

Cat, Alena, David M. and B., James, Robert, I know it was tough coming down and watching folk argue in the abstract over your qualifications. You showed up - tough as that was - a good endorsement for whatever you want to do next with Carrboro govt.

And, yep, Dan got what he wished for - maybe not always the best outcome ;-) . He's got 2 tough years to crank out the tunes, walk the talk, etc. - good luck to him and the rest of the BOA.

Mark Marcoplos stated,

"What a shame that the simple democratic solution of holding an election could not have happened and prevented all this mess."

And I agree with him 100%.

The "alderman mess" could have been avoided if Chilton had simply agreed to relinquish his board seat once he decided to run for Mayor--this would have given the voters the chance to fill the seat instead of allowing the aldermen to appoint someone of their choice. Other politicians at higher levels of government have done this in the interests of fairness to the voters and the democratic process.

Obviously the laws need to be changed so that those who choose to run for a higher office must relinquish their current seat to allow it to be filled through the voting process and not appointments. As I said, some politicians have done this as a matter of fairness--but some do not--so changing the law appears a necessary safeguard of the democratic process.

The "alderman mess" could also have been avoided if the aldermen had simply appointed the person with the next highest number of votes from the election--that would have been Katrina Ryan (whether the incumbents or those who didn't vote for her like her or not). This would not only have avoided the "mess" but would have given validation to the election process itself.

We frequently bemoan low voter turnout--why should people turn out to vote if their votes mean nothing and someone who doesn't even run can just be appointed?

The fact that Ryan scored the forth highest votes when the annexed people could not vote means that she did have support from people in Carrboro--not just those in the annexed area. Why should their votes and their voices count for nothing?

P.S. Why is there so much discussion on what people are wearing?

Oh, one more thing,

Although I feel the process was not democratic. . .I would still like to state that I look forward to Dan Coleman's participation on the BOA.

I'm sure I disagree with Mr. Coleman on many issues but I also know that I have wholeheartedly agreed with him on others.

For example, I feel he was correct on his denouncement of the passage of Amendment One and his criticism of UNC's Women Center for sidestepping the issue of abortion rights for women. I have also agreed with his past criticisms of UNC for becoming too corporate and moving away from the primary purpose of education.

One thing we can be assured of is that Mr. Coleman is not afraid of speaking out forcefully on many issues. Of course, this may be easier to do as a political outsider. . .time will tell.

Like Alena, I was appalled by John H's behavior last night. His statements about being sick of personal politics on the board and his challenges to Alex's leadership were among the most offensive public comments I have ever heard from a local politician. His 'hallelujuah' at the end was inexcusable. Joal and Alex should be commended for how (relatively) calmly they responded to his direct and indirect assaults on their integrity.

"Thank you" to the live bloggers and to this site for keeping those of us unable to attend the meeting and without cable posted on the progress!

I agree with Ruby.

I wasn't bothered by John's comments these past two nights. Maybe he was on to something.

John did some damage with his remarks last night. It's one thing to express frustration, but he had no right or reason to lash out at Alex the way he did.

Mark might have to rearrange the deck chairs.

Well congratulations and best wishes to Dan.

Mary,

I'm not as worried about the board's struggle as you are. I see it as part of that "creative tension" (as Jacquie Gist so eloquently called it) that makes democracy both effective and necessarily inefficient. I know: I'm sure this is not a position you would predict from one given the accolade of "most polite" (which I will one day proudly emblazon on a t-shirt and wear to future political meetings in place of a Duke sweatshirt!). :)

This was an early test of the new board and I am proud of their tenacity and the final result. I think this is going to be a good two years. (We can start, BTW, by showing some good fiscal sense and merging our two fire departments! But that's for another possible thread.)

In CHN tradition, I would give John Herrera raspberries for losing control of his demeanor, for showing poor form, though maybe he can't be judged too harshly given the circumstances. This is hard to say because he's my friend; but I'm judging him as a public official, so I think it needs to be said.

Roses go to Mark Chilton for showing awesome leadership; to Randee for making a hard, principled decision; to Jacquie for eloquence and character; to Lydia for her remarkable intelligence, obvious empathy, and keen sense of community; to all the applicants for showing fantastic patience and poise; and, of course, to Dan, who will make us all proud, as time will tell.

My simple point on elections is that elections are how we choose our representatives in a true democracy. If this were a free country and a free state, an election could have been held. There is no better way to select a representative. It sure would have avoided some unnecessary rancor.

Alternatively, if Instant Runn-off Voting had been utilized in the general election, then the community's choice of runner-up would have been made clear. This would likely have bveen different from the "winner takes all" type of voting in which the 45th place finisher may not actually be the overall voters first choice.

Let's legalize freedom, as they say...

Well my instant runaway typing caused 45th when I meant 4th.

Here's a little background on "Resign to Run," laws.

They require an elected official to submit an irrevocable letter of resignation to take effect on the date of the swearing-in for the office being sought. The letter must be submitted to the election official prior to the date that qualification for election begins.

The office holder may continue to hold the current office while campaigning for the new seat. There is no lapse.

This permits individuals to file for the seat to be vacated and run during the same election cycle. It does mean that an office holder who seeks a different office runs the risk of losing the election and his or her seat. Some have commented that such a rule might prevent good candidates from seeking office, but that should be the case.

Here's why. A candidate who is elected to a four year term breaks his (her) contract with the voters when seeking a different seat. Would voters elect an alderman who said, "I want to run for office so I can run for mayor in two years and choose my successor"?

An alderman always has the option to complete an elected term and then choose to run for mayor rather than alderman at reelection time. The present system allows a seated alderman the opportunity to "go fishing" without any personal ramifications. However, the local voters lose what should be a right to directly elect their representatives.

By the way, Mayor Chilton says that the North Carolina Supreme Court declared the state's R-to-R law unconstitutional. Somebody should have appealed. The US Supreme Court has declared that they are constitutional.

Mark Marcopolis - damn straight I'm a model citizen of The People's Republic of Carrboro and proud of it. Also, I agree with your original post Mary: I don't think the board looked good. Everyone kept talking about how every candidate was so qualified, but only 2 people moved to one of the other 11 qualified candidates: Alex and Randee. To me the obvious flaw was only having each board member put forth one name. It effectively narrowed 12 applicants down to 2 much too quickly, which left no room for maneuvering and turned ten of us into "cosolation prizes" immediately, as Randee said, and pretty much eliminated any possibility of a consensus candidate.

Good points Elliot.

Mary - it is an interesting idea, esp. in Carrboro since there are seats open every 2 years, a long-time board member would only have to sit out for 2 years before jumping back in again and there aren't really any seniority issues.

Mary,

That's a great idea, and in the abstract it sounds great. The problem I see with it, however, is that you have that rara avis, the incumbent who is wildly popular, totally committed, and a true force of nature. Of course, I'm talking about Jacquie. When I was campaigning, going door-to-door, I got to talk to many folks who would tell me that though they did not agree with most of what Jacquie stood for that they were voting for her anyway. When I pressed them on why, they often said words to the effect that it was because Jacquie represented the kind of politician that doesn't exist anymore: the statesman, the person who votes on principles, not on politics. What a sad misfortune it would be to lose someone like that.

In hindsight, I cannot help but wonder if Carrboro would be the great place that it is today if it wasn't for this uber-incumbent.

Jacquie would only have to be off the board for 2 years. I would hope the town could survive that.

Elliot,

I don't know the case Mark C. is refering to, but assuming he's right, you couldn't appeal that kind of ruling to the US Supreme Court. Here, the NC Const is forbiding government from limiting access to the ballot in this way. It doesn't matter that the US Const would allow government to impose such a limit. The NC Constitution controls as long as we don't limit access more than the US Constitution would allow.

I think I'm right about this, but it has been a long day/week/month.

Mark K.

Welcome, Dan!

While some may characterize the process just completed last night as messy, that's OK! Having an open, and robust discussion about the public's business in the public eye is often so. In an effective democratic process, it is of paramount importance, in my view, that the interests, positions and rationale of those making public decisions be laid bare for the review of not only the public, but that those in a decision-making position fully understand the interests of their peers. In my view, while not a model of precision, this discussion took place in a frank, open, transparent, and (with two notable exceptions), civil manner, and Mark is to be commended for that.

Was the outcome the one I thought best for this time, and this environment? No. But I wish to stress that there were, in my view, no bad truly choices, and that Dan's record of advocacy and involvement speaks for itself, and of a good lot, Dan is one of the best. As Dan said, over many years, we have worked together on a number of issues, and, as well, disagreed from time to time, but never disagreeably.

As Will has reported above, however, I tried to approach this enterprise as dispassionately as possible within the context of the environment in which we find ourselves, and developed the rationale that I will post below (full text of my opening remarks—Typos and usage errors included).

The only truly sore point in all of this, were John's remarks, attempting to personalize the matter: Often, the most revealing windows into one's own motivations are those that one first ascribes to others. Other than that, All I can offer, again, in response to that, is a rationale and criteria to which I disciplined myself to adhering —And in doing so, arrived at conclusions in which frankly, I surprised myself, but found inescapable, and increasingly compelling upon reexamination (Here's the full text):

"As it is, with many of us, we begin a process like this by thinking about what we would like in a candidate:

Acknowledging that all of the candidates have demonstrated a genuine interest and commitment to the community in a variety of roles, and expertise in a variety of areas,

Would I like working with someone who reflects my general views? Of Course.

Would I like working with someone who I think is a ‘good fit' with the rest of the Board, whose style is complementary to my own and my colleagues? Sure.

Would I like working with someone who help further my agendas---who would be a partner in advancing the goals and projects I think are most important? Damn Skippy.

Then, many will go through a process of evaluating who would be pleased or displeased by an appointment and the political considerations that would entail.

Under many circumstances, It may be that these considerations would suffice in arriving at a selection.

In this place, at this time, however, I would strongly suggest that there are other considerations that transcend what we, as individual board members would like, and any immediate political considerations that would further our own beliefs, or those of a majority of this sitting body. These considerations are driven by a series of facts which are unique to our time and circumstances:

Fact 1. There is a growing divide in our community, whether you define it as geographic, political or philosophical, manifested by a substantial segment of our community who feel that their voices are not heard, and perspective not represented. Many of these folks have become citizens of Carrboro today. Moreover, there is a perception among these folks that the ‘power structure' of Carrboro, such as it is, is becoming more insular, contractive, and dare I say, incestuous, in which decisions are made, not at this table, but at other tables and other rooms. Do I believe this perception is true? No. But the perception is there, and it is palpable, and if we are to progress as a healthy community, it must be addressed.

Fact 2. An election just took place. In this election, candidates who reflected the general tenor of the board were elected. The top place finisher behind, was a candidate who unreservedly expressed the concerns of those who I've just outlined. Some have argued that had a fourth seat been open, that the result would have been different. An interesting notion, but no one has thus far advanced any theory to explain why this should be so. As such, I can only view it as unsupported speculation. One might just as easily advance the idea that jackie's top-vote-getter status was the result of her being everybody's third choice. Again, an interesting notion but utterly insupportable.

As I said above, In other times, under other circumstances, many of the candidates, evaluated as I've described above, would fit the bill. But here, and now, I believe we face a new challenge.---A willingness to have our ideas and assumptions challenged by a new and different perspective.

No matter how many different iterations, and filters through which I try to view this appointment, I reach the same conclusions: That Our professions of inclusivity can only be met by appointing a candidate who:

a. Has demonstrated a willingness to represent and advocate for those who have expressed concerns about the range of views on this board.
b. Has demonstrated a base of support for his or her views among the citizens.
c. Has demonstrated a willingness and ability to learn about how the Town functions as a government, and the board as the citizens' agents.
d. Has demonstrated commitment and effort in the service of the above.

In my view, One person has demonstrated these elements---Katrina Ryan.

If you'd asked me six months ago, whether I would have supported Katrina for this position, I probably would have come back with a measured and thoughtful response something like ‘Are you on Crack?' But in observing and interacting with Katrina, I've observed an evolution from one who came a cross as simply a critic, to one with a far greater appreciation of who our community is, and what we're ‘all about'. Do we still have broad areas of disagreement? Absolutely. But I also find someone willing to discuss those issues openly and robustly, and a willingness to hear, as well as be heard.

As a final note, During campaign season, we talk a lot about ‘sharing' as a core value. History tells us that the one thing we are more reticent to share than gold, is power. In this instance, we have a unique challenge translate that value to action. To, again, allow our ideas and perspectives to be challenged, and allow those who would bring this perspective to accept the same challenge at this table. Who knows---We might just learn a thing or two from ‘them', and ‘them' from us, and through this process, we may just create a new ‘Us'. And that's why I support the appointment of Katrina Ryan to the vacant position on the Carrboro Board of Aldermen."

This is but one perspective, shared to a greater or lesser degree by some but not all. Was it the prevailing perpective? No---And that's OK, too: That's why there are (thankfully, once again) seven of us around this table. In the mean, I believe that Dan and I share many of the same core values, and that while our own perspectives may occasionally conflict, I hope, and believe that they will more often converge, and I welcome those perspectives in my old friend, and new colleage. Welcome, Dan.

Cheers,
Alex

Hey David B
Rule number 3 please.I'm not the enemy.
"Sweetly" Jacquie
DAvid M,
Thanks for the kind words
JAcquie

Maybe someone who gets the print edition of the Herald (I read it online, I'm a broke college kid) can answer this for me: Who's writing columns in Dan's stead?

Alex, I agree with your thoughts on the process being messy and simultaneously healthy for a sound democracy.

Chris, as a librarian-in-training who is, at this very moment, working at the reference desk at the UL, I feel obliged to tell you the Herald Sun, the Chapel Hill Herald, and zillions of other papers and news magazines are available to you through UNC Library databases, free of charge. UNC Libraries subscribe to the Chapel Hill Herald and the Durham Herald Sun, and you can get content online, on or off campus, without paying a thing. Ask a librarian if you need help getting this stuff (we even have IM):
http://www.lib.unc.edu/ask_menu.html

Indeed, anyone who is a library patron in North Carolina (that's right, potentially every NC citizen) can get this content through their local libraries online, from home. You just need to get in touch with your local library to learn the password. NC Live (www.nclive.org) is a consortium of all the libraries in the state whose mission is to provide just this sort of content.

Aren't libraries great?

Hmm - I'm too frazzled to guess what rules number 1 and 2 are... I admire how long all of you elected officials have done this. I've found this relatively minor entre of seeking an appt to be exhilerating and challenging and exhausting. Certainly thought provoking in the extreme for me. Also, I didn't say anything about Jacquie's public service or Alex's, though I can see the implication. I think both have done things I agree with and disagree with. All I'm saying is I think the town is strong enough to survive anyone taking a 2 year leave on the board. I'm generally opposed to term limits, b/c they are a false limit on the public's right to choose but since it would only be two years in this case and the town wouldn't lose any seniority (as it would if NC adopted congressional term limits, for instance) I think it might be something to consider. Really not a big deal either way to me. Good to see the heavy weights back in here. Onward Ho!

Sorry David B-I meant Guideline Number 3
Jacquie

OP's guidline #3
jmg

David,

I hope you will stick around here on OP now that the appointment process is over. I like your ideas, your thoughtfulness and civility, and your sense of humor--as well as your brevity.

Yes, Mark K, you are exactly right that the issue could not be appealed to the US Supreme Court because it is a matte rof the NC Constitution (not the US Constitution).

North Carolina does not (as far as I am aware) allow a person to run for two offices at once.

In addition to the Liebrerman example cited above by Jason, if I recall correctly, Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) ran for re-election to the US Senate in 1988 and for Vice-President of the United States at the same time. He won overwhelmingly in the Senate bid in Texas and lost overwhelmingly in the Vice-Presiential bid in Texas - on the same ballot, on the same day.

John Edwards did not run for re-election to his Senate seat when he was the VP candidate.

I did a little internet digging regarding North Carolina's constitution and it apparently DOES permit a candidate to RUN for two offices at the same time.

It merely prohibits an individual from HOLDING two offices at the same time. The NC Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean that the prohibition from holding two offices does not mean that you cannot run for two.

Maybe it's time for a constitutional convention.