Talk talk talk

Terri,

I didn't run in November because I didn't have the time. I was just starting up the law practice. I was trying to find office space, getting sworn in, getting the right insurance in place, getting a web site up and running, networking, going to training at the Cary Bar Center, etc.

A lot of the time-consuming administrative stuff is now out of the way, which has given me a more predictable schedule.

I hope this answers your question.

John Marold

Will Carrboro have some type of forum for
candidates tomorrow? On TV? At what time? With all the candidates, what will its format be? When will the Board
make its decision?

Mary, Anita, and Ruby,

Having submitted to both processes, electoral and application, I must say the campaign process gives candidates a more thorough shake-down than does the application process in terms of public scrutiny.

The circumstances of this appointment, unlike an unforeseen vacancy, brought candidates who "lack the campaigning gene" out of the woodwork. The number of last minute surprises either indicates impulsive decision-making or an aversion of some other sort.

"The circumstances of this appointment, unlike an unforeseen vacancy, brought candidates who “lack the campaigning gene” out of the woodwork. The number of last minute surprises either indicates impulsive decision-making or an aversion of some other sort."

That's the problem though isn't it. Elected officials are responsible to the voters; they were selected based on any number of indefinable criteria, including their ability to communicate on issues of interest to multiple constituencies. Their "campaigning gene" was the basis upon which a decision was made--including their ability to let prior actions stand in place of public communication skills.

Who will this appointed official be responsible to--the electorate or the people who gave them a job?

Mark C. said in today's HS article that interviewing all 12 at one time might be too unwieldly. I imagine they'll need to break up the forum into two pieces to make a thorough go at it....

In fairness, Catherine, I think one can say no more than that "the number of last minute surprises might indicate impulsive decision-making or an aversion of some other sort." Surely there are other possible explanations than those two things, aren't there?

John Marold, for example, explained his reasoning above, and his reasons--if one believes them--reflected neither impulsiveness nor aversion.

I agree Eric. John M gave a credible explanation of why he wasn't in a position to run 4 months ago. I hope the other candidates will follow suit and provide an explanation.

Thanks John!

Who will this appointed official be responsible to–the electorate or the people who gave them a job?

While it's not a perfect world, the voters of Carrboro will have a chance to hold the new appointee accountable in the election for this seat, which is fall 2007, yes?

Tweaking Ruby's reply to Joe ...

Some questions remain (in my mind, at least) about the candidate interviews on the 19th. The event is described as a public forum, and I understand it's to be televised. How they'll accomodate twelve applicants, six interviewers, and a standing-room-only crowd in that little room remains to be seen.

We're told that the Board will announce its decision on the 31st. They haven't said they'll vote that evening.

Eric, you're right -- I should have said last minute surprises "might" indicate impulsiveness and/or aversion, and added a couple more sympathetic possibilities.

Campaigning takes time and money. Anyone who strongly desires to serve in public office, but lacks the time and money to campaign, certainly ought to take this opportunity.

I'm skeptical of the motives of any one candidate who offers to ascribe motives to her competitors. It's a curious observation, for example, to note that this particular opening was anticipated, then to suggest that those who have jumped into the ring on the final day might be doing so impulsively. In point of fact, those folks are the ones who had the opportunity to scope out the competition and give this the most thought before deciding to get in.

Congratulations to all who have offered themselves for this public service. Best of luck to each of you.

Jean-

I imagine that Mdm Devine was just saying that either the new applicants are impulsive (just not getting on the bandwagon), didn't have the time/resources/will/commitment to campaign, or think they will fare better with the powers-that-be in Carrboro than with an honest election.

Pleibiscites have been called over less. I still say they should have held a new election after the past board was negligent enough to let this situation happen. Get permission from the General Assembly if necessary. Without it, the best we can do is look at the three candidates who have recieved votes from the public.

On a side note, the past board was also negligent (assuming it wasn't on purpose, b/c I don't) to not annex their unwilling new citizens before the November election. So I'm not sure how I feel about the annexation area applicants, given they didn't have the same opportunity as past residents, but at the same time Katrina Ryan proved it wasn't impossible to run...

After reading the above, I realize I may have come off as somewhat of a negative nelly.

I don't think that all the new applicants are impulsive, lazy, or looking to subvert the electorate. Just that those are three of the possible explanations.

I stand by the statement that the previous board was negligent in preparing for this election, though.

http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-688995.html

"After Mayor Mark Chilton polled his fellow board members, he is suggesting the following process:

The board will convene for an applicants' forum Jan. 19 at 7 p.m., half an hour earlier than usual, to allow more time for each candidate to speak.

The 12 applicants will respond to questions in groups of four, so they may be seated across from the board and be seen on camera. Each member of the board will ask only one question to each of the candidates.

Discussion after the question-and-answer period will be at the discretion of the board.

On Thursday, Alderman Alex Zaffron suggested a modification to Chilton's plan. Zaffron asked the board to consider splitting the forum into two nights, with six candidates speaking each evening."

Personally, I think doing 12 interviews in one night is too much. Seems like everyone will be bored and tired by the end. Also, the final candidates interviewed have the advantage of a more relaxed atmosphere, but the disadvantage of having little to say that hasn't been said already.

If they put a 1-minute time cap on each answer, the meeting could easily run under three hours, allowing for choreography and procedural elements. One minute is plenty of time to get a message across in this format. A one-minute rule was enforced in the autumn candidate forums broadcast by WCHL.

Quoted in this morning's N&O, Mark indicates that each alderman will pose the same question to all twelve applicants. "We each will formulate our question and reveal it that night."

Wow. one question and twelve responses. That sounds like a drag. Perhaps they'll use a soundproof booth?!

Chris, I can't say for sure, but I believe it's correct that the previous board could not take action that would bind on this board for purposes of filling this seat.

You know, it's almost too bad that with 12 candidates, you couldn't give each on a month as a guest star on the board -- to share the burden and keep the fresh air flowing.

Jean that is a great and too funny idea!!!!

Ruby-
I've lived in Orange County for more than 21 years and in Chapel Hill for three and a half. I have the benefit of being born and raised here. A johnny come lately I am not.

Jean-
I've never heard anyone say that the previous board *couldn't* do anything, just that the board said they didn't think it was their place.

Not to spam, but I forgot to add the link to our editorial on the issue:

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/43c7366f59418

This sounds too easy...

Though it will be terribly monotonous to listen to 12 people in a row answer the same question, I think you have to reveal one question at a time and rotate the order in which applicants answer. Otherwise, you give the final four the distinct advantage of having lots of time to formulate good answers.

See, Terri, this is why I don't like scoring rubrics. You miss something big in an attempt to be completely equitable. Obviously, the BOA is bending over backwards to be fair to the point of giving us a forum that sounds like it is going to be artificial, sterile, and really monotonous. It sounds like it will provide for the minimal opportunity for true engagement between questioner and applicant. But, alas, you get to see and hear it all... I think the candidates should all create audition videos at home and we should all go to the Century Center and watch...

This is really not a criticism of the BOA, but a criticism of the times in which we live...

With this many candidates they should split the meeting into two sessions scheduled as close together as possible. All twelve should attend each night (a modified Alex plan) so that there's no advantage to knowing the questions.

To keep it "fresh", the BOA might consider asking two questions for two sets of randomly chosen applicants covering the same area - say zoning - each question with a slightly different nuance and required background understanding. This way you'll know if the applicant has internalized the material beforehand (of course, that doesn't seem to be a requirement in the general election, so....).

Cat, David and Kat have the advantage of recent practice shaving their answers down to 1 minute - a frustrutating exercise for anyone, practiced or not, especially when you're trying to answer a substantive question with some "truth and justice". I've rarely heard the BOA spend less than a minute discussing anything - a two night round up would allow at least 120 seconds for a reasonable answer.

Of course, maybe these guys deserve a leg up because of their "near incumbency" (a bit of a reward for actually running).

Dan and James should be fairly prepared because of their service to the community - and I know they're both good on their feet - so maybe their reflexive knowledge of Carrboro will amelioriate that advantage.

It'll be interesting to see if the applicants that are posters and lurkers on OP or Squeeze have the slight advantage of being educated on some recent "hotspot" issues.

Excellent suggestions Will.

Well done, Mark. Simply typing in "Aldermen" in the OP search field would have brough Chris to the "Re-arranging Deck Chairs" thread in chich this issue was thoroughly explored. You posted there, I posted there (and I had suggested that the previous board simply vote on October 1 on a procedure) It was "Joan" who pointed out that the previous board cannot commit this board to a procedure. She's quite right, as you have reinforced, and this is perfectly logical.

Of course Chris posted there as well, so I guess the issue is memory loss ... or maybe Chris isn't bound by pre-election posts?

On the one question, 12 answers thing --- they should draw the questions out of a hat and answer them that way. More fun.

Having both managed and participated in
many candidates' forums, I would advise against asking
any one question to twelve candidates, regardless of how many
evenings are allocated. I've seen this attempted; it doesn't
work and it isn't fair to either the candidates or the evaluators.
The candidates who reply later have to rack their brains
to say something original, and the results can be downright
comical, though irrelvant.

A twelve-candidate forum can be run in 2.5 hours with good
results, provided that each question is answered by three
candidates chosen at random. What it does require however
is a lot of good questions, created but not revealed in advance.
The oft-stated criticism of this technique is that a candidate
may not get asked a question that he/she is particularly strong
in. This is OK, for a skilled politician can answer any question he wants, even when asked a different question.
Q: What color is the sky?
A: It's 4:30.

Mayor Chilton-

1. I never said that NC has plebiscites -- excuse my earlier spelling, I didn't realize that my argument would be judged by the number of typos. I just said that an election or referendum among citizens (that being what a plebiscite is) would be the ideal way to settle it.

2. This was not an unforseen problem. You're telling me that no one could have pestered the GA before the 11th hour? When did filing close, the beginning of August? The GA was still in session into September if my memory's not starting to go at an early age. No one even tried to approach them about any modifications to the November election or holding another election for the new vacancy at a later date.

Of course it's too late to hold an election in a timely manner if we just get on it *now*. But there easily could have been some kind of clause to have settled the open spot (or even a separate race) on the ballot in Novemeber unless there's some law you can dig up that would have prevented it. No... y'all got lazy. I'm not saying there's not plenty of blame for us over here on the media side, too, b/c we didn't exactly jump up and down screaming about it as early as we should have.

3. Pardon my phrasing, b/c this is purely a professional dispute and not a personal one, but I call bullsh*t. You're telling me that there's no way that the BOA *could* have found a democratic solution to this situation? You're telling me that the BOA could not have had a separate spot on the ballot with for the anticipated vacancy? That it could not have declared that it would follow the previous example of appointing the top loser before the election took place? That it could not have gone to the GA for any permission needed after it became clear what would happen?

It is the job of elected officials to solve problems they are in a position to address. With all the past successes and creative solutions Carrboro has traditionally enjoyed, I find it hard to believe that the past BOA was just not good enough to come up wtih a solid policy to deal with this. And if nothing else comes out of this, the town needs to establish a regular solution instead of this ad hoc approach of at least giving the impression of picking the top loser when we like them, but taking applications when we don't.

But I'll admit that like any human being I may be missing something. Exactly what legal impediments would have prevented the above? I recognize that just b/c they may not be easy to find doesn't mean they don't exist, but it would certainly strengthen your argument.

Jean-

I'm looking at Joan's posts on that thread, and unless I'm missing something, she never maintains that the past BOA cannot do anything. She says "how on earth could it have been their place to decide on this seat?" That's a philisophical argument and not a legal one. There are plenty of policies that are continuous between new BOAs. Otherwise we'd have new ordinances from scratch every two years.

The local bill deadline is usually in June or so (time past which the legislature will not consider bills affecting only one area of North Carolina). The cross-over deadline is in July or so (time past which a bill must have passed one side of the legislature in order to be considered by the other). The filing deadline was first week of August. So, no, I don't think the law could have been changed in time to make a difference. [Gerry, please correct me.]

And we are explicitly prohibitted by NC law from adding extraneous and/or non-binding questions to the ballot. So, no we could not have added space to the ballot to resolve this question.

And in any case, your whole premise seems to be that the present situation is totally unacceptable. I agree that there could be more democratic resolutions of this type of problem, but the present circumstance is not some bizarre turn of events leading to an unusual circumstance. It is the default position of North Carolina law. The General Assembly has set up this procedure to apply in every town, city and village in North Carolina (except where some local bill provides otherwise).

Okay. I'll stop. Like Ruby sais, "Zzzzzzzz."

Well, Mark and Ruby's snoring woke me just enough to smash the alarm clock, but Chris ... dear Chris ... I didn't suggest that Joan said the previous board "couldn't do anything." Instead, I said that Joan said that the previous board could not commit the current board do a given procedure ... meaning, of course, among the procedures available by law, which would not include any of the things you suggested (new space on the ballot or other referendum-type solution). Those options were quite clearly spelled out in that thread.

Elected boards have to appoint replacements. It's no big deal and it's only two years. Don't forget, they can usually remove members, too. For the love of God, we still have three years of Bush to live through. Let's keep our eyes on the ball (progress).

I still think the guest star solution is worth considering. You might get Elizabeth Edwards one month!
Now Good Night!

Mary R wrote: "See, Terri, this is why I don't like scoring rubrics. You miss something big in an attempt to be completely equitable. Obviously, the BOA is bending over backwards to be fair to the point of giving us a forum that sounds like it is going to be artificial, sterile, and really monotonous."

Scoring rubrics don't have anything to do with the format of a public forum, Mary. They facilitate transparency in decision making. A good rubic would outline for the public what criteria the BOA membership considers to be the most important characteristics, knowledge, and skills for an appointee to possess and then provides a numerical assignment from each reviewer to quantify their perception of how well each individual meets those criteria. It's not a foolproof decision making strategy, but it's good enough for the Olympics, college admissions offices, and many other organizations that have to rate individuals against one another.

JohnK, based on many independent reports, like Consumer's Union, foreign cars (unfortunately for US) do have much higher reliability, lower costs of repair, higher lifetimes and better gas mileage. There are many functions that staff perform, including the police, that don't require supercharged vehicles like Mustangs or SUVs. Rightsizing (fitting the vehicle to the job) Carrboro's fleet with the best bang for the buck sounds quite tax efficient.

Who was this buffoon?

I'd say Consumer Reports is slightly different than Car & Road but....

Automotive Engineering did award the Toyota Prius Best Engineered Vehicle 2004.

I'll have better numbers for Chapel Hill by Summer. I hope, on reliability, gas usage, etc. I'm going to do some hands on analysis to help kickstart our "green fleet" initiative (and hopefully save us a few bucks in the process).

I finished reading the applications/questionaires and am very impressed with the quality and experience of the applicants. But one thing is bothering me...a lot. There isn't a single African American applicant. What's happening in this community? There wasn't an African-American candidate in Carrboro during the election and I got the impression that Bill Thorpe was running, not through burning desire, but in response to the lack of African-American candidates in Chapel Hill.

We seem to be making great strides in bringing our Hispanic citizens into the political community, and we should be proud of that. And I think the Chamber's Minority Business project is a worthy undertaking. But given the African-American out-migration in Carrboro, I think we need to do something now to more effectively engage that community in governance activities.

I would like to make a recommendation that the candidates that are not up at the panel for the questioning, be put into a room where they have no access to hearing the questions. This would help in two ways per the discussion stream above. First, it tests how good people are on their feet. If someone has been hearing questions repeated, it gives them the opportunity to rehearse a response. Alderman need to be able to assimilate quickly what they hear and provide thoughtful responses. And second, if there is a key question an alderman wants to ask, they don't have to be as concerned since it is duplicated "four" times and not "12" times.

Having just gone through the interview process, I believe it was fair and certainly thorough enough.

I think the BofA should have an understanding of who would be a good match for the position once everyone has been questioned tonight.

To me, some of the questions were tough, yet fair. I had a difficult time with one of them (maybe more than one).

Anyway, I'm glad I joined the board. Hope to visit again in the near future.

John, I agree with you that the process was very fair, even if I was stuck in that conference room til the last panel!