Vajda: Eszter Vajda, Host
McCullen: Kelly McCullen, Legislative Week in Review
Henry: Johanna Henry, Legislative Week in Review
Easley: Governor Mike Easley
Edwards: Former U.S. Senator John Edwards
Lewis: Tierra Lewis, Minimum Wage Worker
Goodson: Ivan Goodson, Store Owner
Thompson: Greg Thompson, Director NFIB
Herron: Sarah Herron, Former Minimum Wage Worker
Gibson: Rep. Pryor Gibson, (D) Anson County
Hackney: Rep. Joe Hackney, (D) Majority Leader
Saunders: Rep. Drew Saunders, (D) Mecklenburg County
Blust: Rep. John Blust, (R) Guilford County
Sutton: Rep. Ron Sutton, (D) Robeson County
Capps: Rep. Russell Capps, (R) Wake County
Ross: Rep. Deborah Ross, (D) Wake County
Farmer: Judge Robert Farmer, Chairman, State Ethics Board
Rand: Senator Tony Rand, (D) Majority Leader
Allen: Rep. Bernard Allen (D) Wake County
Stam: Rep. Paul Stam, (R) Wake County
Spear: Rep. Timothy Spear, (D) Washington County
Morris: Doris Morris, No OLF
Bland: Sen. Pete Bland, (D) Craven County
Baker: Julian Baker, Potentially Affected Farmer
Baker: Nicole Baker, Grew up on Farm
Rhodes: Rep. John Rhodes, (R) Mecklenburg County
Shuler: Laura Shuler, Moms Against Mercury
Dornan: John Dornan, Public School Forum of NC
Pate: Rep. Louis Pate, (R) Wayne County
Murdock: David Murdock, Owner, CEO, Dole Food Co.
Bowles: Erskine Bowles, President, UNC System
Lancaster: Martin Lancaster, President, Community College System
Plavish: Jennifer Plavish, Anesthesiologist Assistant
Hicks: Jimmy Hicks, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist
Basnight: Sen. Marc Basnight, (D) President Pro Tempore
Berger: Sen. Phil Berger, (R) Minority Leader
O’Connor: Paul O’Connor, Winston-Salem Journal
Leslie: Laura Leslie, North Carolina Public Radio
Bonner: Lynn Bonner, News and Observer

Vajda: A political heavyweight wants a higher state minimum wage. The ethics debate and ethics bills reach the House floor while the governor offers his own ideas on reforming state government ethics rules. And the Senate discusses repealing mandatory eye exams for new school children. That and more next.

[INTRO MUSIC]

Voiceover: Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting UNC-TV.

[THEME MUSIC]

Vajda: Good evening everyone, I’m Eszter Vajda. Thanks so much for joining us.

McCullen: And I’m Kelly McCullen. We’ve got a big show for you tonight, folks. The debate on ethics reform heats up in the House. It happened earlier this week. We will take you to the House floor to hear some of the discussion pro and con. Also this week Governor Mike Easley outlined his ideas for ethics reform; we will see what those are. And new proposals for handling North Carolina’s lottery proceeds are introduced.

Vajda: But we begin tonight with the minimum wage.

MINIMUM WAGE

The State’s minimum wage is at $5.15 an hour. It has been that since Congress set the rate in 1997 but 20 other states’ minimum wages top the federal law.

McCullen: It is an issue here in North Carolina gaining steam. The governor, members of the General Assembly and some political heavy hitters from the national stage say they want a hike in the minimum wage. Johanna Henry joins us tonight with our top story. Johanna.

Henry: Eszter and Kelly, there are two proposals. Governor Easley is asking for an 85 cent increase, brining the minimum wage to $6.00 an hour. Several bills in the General Assembly call for a dollar increase.

Tierra Lewis earns minimum wage scooping ice cream at Baskin Robbins in Raleigh. She likes her job and she loves getting a paycheck.

Lewis: It is great. As a matter of fact we got paid today.

Henry: Her job is thanks to store owner Ivan Goodson who makes a habit of hiring teenagers.

Goodson: I like working with kids and they are eager to learn.

Henry: Goodson says not only does he end up with a young, teachable employee, the teens get some work experience in between school, sports, and socializing. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, the face of minimum wage looks more like Tierra’s than like someone working to support a family.

Thompson: But those single-parent families that are making minimum wage qualify for subsistence in all categories. So they are truly—they are being helped by other programs.

Henry: Greg Thompson is state director for the National Federation of Independent Business in North Carolina. He says raising the minimum wage would cost jobs.

Thompson: Potentially a loss of 35,000 to 70,000 jobs with a dollar increase in the minimum wage in North Carolina.

Henry: Thompson’s organization represents more than 15,000 small businesses. Almost all are against an increase in the minimum wage.

Thompson: In 2006 there have been—well Tennessee, Virginia, Georgia, all introduced increase in minimum wage bills and they all failed. They, so if North Carolina does increase, does pass a bill, it will be North Carolina and Florida in the southeast with the higher minimum wage. Now does that help or hurt business? We feel it hurts business.

Edwards: I think their concerns are legitimate, I don’t deny that for a second.

Henry: Former U.S. Senator and Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards knows about working for minimum wage.

Edwards: I think we just have to find ways to help these small business owners, the guy who runs the Baskin Robbins, so that they in fact are able to afford to continue to hire teenagers. I mean I worked when I was in school and it was really important to me. I know it is important to a lot of young people.

Henry: Edwards is throwing his weight behind increasing the minimum wage in North Carolina.

Edwards: Since we can’t get politicians in Washington to do what they are supposed to do, how about we do good stuff right here in the state of North Carolina? That is what this cause is about.

Henry: He says at the same time small businesses need help, too, like tax credits and money for employee health insurance. But Edwards says help for small business shouldn’t hold up help for minimum wage workers.

Edwards: It is a practical matter, small business owners are having a hard time to begin with. So then the question is what do you do about it? And my own view is you don’t solve their problems on the backs of our lowest-paid workers.

Henry: Edwards says even a dollar increase isn’t enough. It is more of a band aid on a bigger problem.

Edwards: If I thought we could pass a living wage and we could do it in a way that kept our small businesses operating, then I would be all for it, all for it. And I am more aggressive on this than most people; I will be really clear about that. But I think at a minimum we ought to be able to get this raise in the minimum wage passed.

Herron: Just barely could buy a loaf of bread good and a pack of bologna.

Henry: Sarah Herron and others in Raleigh outside the legislative building worked for minimum wage at one time. She hopes to never be that poor again.

Goodson: There are lots of people that want to work for the minimum wage. This is an entry level job and when they come in we discuss how they can make more money and if they want to make more they learn more skills and they make more.

Henry: And Ivan Goodson has the applications to prove it. But he says if the General Assembly raises the minimum wage he will be on a rocky road. He will be scooping ice cream instead of Tierra.

Goodson: They will be the ones that are going to suffer. They will be phased out. And as it is now we still can’t employ all the people that want jobs at the minimum wage.

Lewis: Okay. Seventeen dollars is your change. You have a great day. Thank you.

Henry: The National Federation of Independent Businesses estimates that an increase of 85 cents to the minimum wage would actually cost small business owners $1.15 with workmen’s comp, unemployment, and Social Security. So that is where the help for small businesses Edwards is talking about comes in. Back to you.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK

McCullen: Thanks Johanna. Several proposals to raise the minimum wage are on the table and that is our question of this week. What in your opinion should be done with the minimum wage? Should it be raised by 85 cents as the governor proposes, one dollar which is listed in some House bills, or not at all which is some business’ opinion? Log onto our website at UNCTV.org/LegWeek. We will read responses next week and later in this show we will have answers to last week’s question.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Vajda: A number of bills dealing with ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying are making their way through the General Assembly. A measure that monitors the conduct of the governor, the executive branch, and other statewide elected officials including the leaders of the UNC system and community colleges overwhelmingly passed in the House. It is now in the hands of the Senate.

But an ethics bill that regulates lawmakers was debated by members on the House floor on Wednesday. Here is a part of that discussion on the bill [House 1843] and some of the proposed amendments.

Gibson: It is about appearances. And there are folks that think that we are for sale. We all on this floor know that is not true and the folks in the gallery know that is not true. All we are doing with this legislation is saying we are going to show you in writing that we are not for sale.

Hackney: This bill is I think the most significant re-write of legislative ethics laws in many, many years. I believe the last re-write was in 1975 and we undertook to completely re-write it and modernize it and to try to bring you something that is workable.

Saunders: I think that the amendment makes it more reasonable. Even baby Jesus accepted gifts and I don’t believe it corrupted him.

Blust: We have serious problems. We have encountered serious problems. We need to do something about them. And I just don’t think there is the will to do it and I think this bill will be creating an impression in the public that we are acting when we are not because there is no practical enforcement against a large number of members of this body. This will be a bill that can be enforceable against the back bench of the minority party but not against every member.

Sutton: Folks, all we are doing here is overreacting. Overreacting and you are going to have many complaints filed against folks when they find out that this stuff exists and you are going to have the complaints filed against members and you are all going to be embarrassed.

Capps: I had high hopes for this bill. I think the way it was presented to you in the House today is the rate it should go. I think it shows to the public that we are willing to make the changes that need to be changed, that we are not willing to let business go on as usual. I think the amendment that you’ve got here takes away from the bill; I think it waters it down.

Ross: What this bill is going to do is make us more mindful about those ethics laws. And it is going to make us think about what we do and how we do them and talk to each other about ethical issues.

Vajda: Some of the amendments that were passed include allowing lawmakers to be able to appear on UNC-TV to raise funds for the Public Television Network. Another raises the gift amount from lobbyists to lawmakers from $200 to $1,000. The bill passed the House on Thursday and now is in the hands of the Senate.

McCullen: Governor Mike Easley and Senator Tony Rand proposed to unify the branches of government under a single ethics body. Those two leaders unveiled this bill this week.

Governor Mike Easley was flanked by Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand and Ethics Board Chairman Judge Robert Farmer in announcing joint recommendations reforming state government ethics and lobbying laws.

Easley: The bill is simple and it is direct and it is not the type of legislation that is going to get bogged down with court challenges for years on end. I think it is very important that we recognize we have to pass something that can be implemented immediately.

McCullen: The governor’s proposal unifies the executive branch, legislative branch, and the administrative offices of the courts but not judges under the North Carolina Board of Ethics. Judges would be referred to the Judicial Standards Commission. This unified state ethics board would investigate complaints and offer only opinions, sending those opinions to the appropriate branch ethics commission. The board would cover every executive branch department.

Farmer: First of all this board gives advisory opinions. For example, if a legislator had a concern about a matter, he can come and get an advisory opinion that would cover him. Secondly, all this board does is make recommendations. For example, if there is a complaint about say another legislator, then all we do is investigate and make a recommendation and that goes back to the legislature, primarily the ethics commission that they have set up.

McCullen: The ethics board would expand from three to seven members to handle the extra work.

Rand: This is a very simple way to go about this. And I think working together we’ve come up with an ethics plan for North Carolina that will provide certainty and will also assure the people of North Carolina that what we do is in their best interest and not in the interest of special interest.

McCullen: Other measures would ban all lobbyists’ gifts and force attorneys to report all lobbying activity before the executive branch.

Easley: So these measures I think will help ensure the public trust, that we have the highest ethical standards that people should and do expect in North Carolina.

McCullen: House bills are already filed or expected addressing ethics concerns. Governor Easley says he expects changes to his proposals and awaits the results of legislative debate.

Vajda: The ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying reform bills from the governor, Senate and the House have similarities but they also have many differences. Now it is up to the chambers to hammer out the discrepancies. These proposals are popping up this year after two people connected to House Speaker Jim Black were investigated for alleged lobbying law violations from last year’s lottery bill debate. One of them is Kevin Geddings who was indicted by a federal jury this week. Geddings was appointed as a member of the lottery commission but stepped aside after revelations that he was connected to Scientific Games which is a company that was vying for the lottery contract. Now a statement released from Speaker Jim Black’s office says, “Just like everyone else, he was surprised to learn about the depth of Kevin Geddings’ ongoing business relationship with Scientific Games.” It goes on to say, “Had the speaker known the details and exact timing of his relationship with the lottery company, he would never have appointed him to the new lottery commission.”

McCullen: Two bills were introduced to ensure that lottery funds go toward state education. One measure [House 1991] would allocate the state income tax collected from winnings for community college equipment. A part of that money would be used to buy computers. Right now the income tax on winnings boost the general fund.

Another measure [House 2212] would set up a lottery oversight committee which would ensure lottery proceeds fund public education. This nine-person committee would have access to all lottery commission financial records.

Allen: You are talking about $400 to $450 million dollars and it is my intent and the intent of my colleagues that this money goes for education, to ensure the classrooms’ needs are met. That is the purpose of the bill. It is not a witch hunting.

McCullen: But some Republican lawmakers argue that legislators should not serve on the oversight commission. They also say using money for college equipment is a worthy cause but the state should not rely on lottery proceeds to pay for schools and education.

Stam: The lottery we hope will be non-recurring, that is we are going to try to kill it as soon as we can in the first place. And in the second place, it doesn’t grow with the economy; it is a variable revenue source.

McCullen: Several other bills have been filed to ensure that lottery money does not supplant state money going to programs that already exist.

Vajda: House Speaker Jim Black helped put a provision in the state budget last session that requires children entering kindergarten to get eye exams [Senate 1210]. Now a bill that repeals the practice is making its way through the Senate. The speaker is an optometrist who received campaign contributions from fellow doctors. Under the measure children would not be allowed to attend kindergarten unless they receive an examination. New Hannover Democratic Senator Julia Boseman says the requirement places an unfair and expensive burden on North Carolina. The bill is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

McCullen: Some eastern North Carolina leaders and citizens are fighting the U.S. Navy’s choice of location for a proposed outlying landing field that would be in Washington County. Opponents rallied in Raleigh this week to maintain the public exposure. They are recruiting state leaders in hopes they will use the bully pulpit to change the Navy’s mind about the proposed building site. The group North Carolinians Opposed to the Outlying Landing Field took their argument to Raleigh and the state capitol lawn Tuesday morning. They are supporting the Navy’s plans to build a landing strip, known as an OLF, but they oppose the Navy’s choice of location.

Spear: We are not opposed to an OLF in general; it is the location that we have a problem with. We don’t feel like the site, the Washington/Beaufort County site, is the appropriate site for an OLF.

McCullen: The U.S. Navy’s proposed outlying landing field mimics an aircraft carrier deck for jet takeoffs and landings. But the group No OLF wants the Washington County proposed site scrapped. They say other local sites would boost the economy and protect a nearby wildlife refuge.

Morris: The location that the U.S. Navy has chosen, there will be no revenue whatsoever for any of the five counties that are chosen. We are not opposed to an OLF site; we are requesting that they look at other additional sites, Open Grounds Farm near Cherry Point, which would help give revenue to the State of North Carolina and make North Carolina a better state.

McCullen: Open Grounds Farm sits in Carteret County. We asked the Navy about its potential as a location. Ted Brown, a spokesman for the U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk says quote, “The Carteret County site we looked at very early in the process. We rejected it on primarily operational considerations. The operations of an outlying landing field would impinge on the operations of the adjacent bombing range” end quote. The Navy is considering five different potential OLF sites in eastern North Carolina; they have already considered and eliminated several others. Washington County is their prime choice but opponents say neighboring counties are willing to accept an OLF and consider it an economic benefit. Craven County hosts one of the five finalists’ locations.

Bland: Always in Craven County we have been in support of the OLF, always. With Cherry Point Marine base on the eastern end of Craven County, certainly we are going to do whatever we can to support that base.

McCullen: Farm family Julian and Nicole Baker’s farmland sits within one of the Navy’s five possible location sites. They are affected if the site known as Site A which covers parts of Perquimans County is selected.

Baker, J.: It will take that, it takes my farm, it not only takes my job, it takes my retirement and also it takes my father’s farm which is my inheritance. And therefore my—and my children lose their inheritance also.

Baker, N.: If there is an area that is more suited where you are not uprooting families and farms and homes and churches then that would be more suitable.

McCullen: This debate is drawing some bipartisan interest on philosophical grounds.

Rhodes: It is the principle of the issue of government taking land for government use and if it happens there it can happen out west in Mecklenburg County and this certainly is happening in an urban area such as that where government is abusing its powers of imminent domain.

McCullen: The Navy is preparing another environmental impact statement for release this coming fall. They are under a court order and federal legislation to review why they prefer Washington County over other eastern North Carolina locations. Navy Spokesman Ted Brown also tells me reasons why the Open Grounds Farm location was rejected will be publicly outlined. The Navy is releasing a supplemental environmental impact statement later this fall.

Vajda: A group of mothers, fathers, and children gathered in Raleigh to ask lawmakers to ban a mercury-containing preservative from children’s and women’s vaccines [House 1364]. A group called Moms Against Mercury say that thimerosal leads to autism. House Bill 1364 would also require the Department of Health and Human Services to inform the public on the possible dangers and provide non-thimerosal containing shots.

Shuler: They warn us not to eat tuna because of the mercury but yet they inject it into our children through the vaccines. And I am here to stop the mercury today.

Vajda: Research for and against the link between thimerosal and autism is mixed. The Autism Society of North Carolina has not taken a position on thimerosal in vaccines.

A delegation made up of state lawmakers, educators, and business policymakers took a trip to India in January to find out what North Carolina can learn from the country. The trip was sponsored by the Public School Forum of North Carolina and the UNC Center for International Understanding. Economists say India is emerging as an economic superpower partly due to its educational system. During an education committee meeting this week the group presented their findings and suggestions for new legislation. One of the recommendations is to give math and science teachers higher pay than others.

Dornan: When we look at supply and demand right now, teaching is not a very attractive profession for people majoring in math and science to enter. The grass is greener not only economically but working conditions and status. I think we are really going to have to do a lot of things, including financial incentives, to attract more young people into education.

Pate: We are going to have to find a way to increase math and science teaching in the schools. And if it comes to the place where differential salary is necessary then we will have to face that issue, quite frankly.

Vajda: Other advice to lawmakers includes teaching more foreign languages and scholarships for students wanting to go into the math, science, and technology fields.

McCullen: The owner of Dole Foods wants lawmakers to help fund a new Kannapolis-based research campus. David Murdock was joined by Community College President Martin Lancaster and University of North Carolina President Erskine Bowles before the Joint Education Appropriations Committee. Murdock, the university system, and the community college system are joining to create this campus. It will feature a girls’ school for junior and senior high school students, a wellness center and state-of-the-art research labs.

Murdock: It will be the largest core lab in the world, and a core lab is simply a laboratory that has every kind and every piece of equipment that can be used for scientific research. So we will be doing many studies of fruits and vegetables.

Bowles: What Mr. Murdock is doing at this North Carolina research campus is truly extraordinary. Yes it will create 30,000 jobs but more importantly he is also putting $100 million venture capital fund there that will attract new businesses and other new opportunities.

Lancaster: We are excited to have this opportunity to collaborate once again with the university and with the business community to create good paying jobs that will transform that region.

McCullen: The first part of the joint venture is scheduled to open in about 18 months. The North Carolina Society of Anesthesiologists lobbied lawmakers with an idea to alleviate what they call a personnel shortage in the anesthesia field [House 1330]. The organization supports the licensing of anesthesiologist assistants. These medical providers cannot work in North Carolina correctly but legislation in committee would license them. Right now certified registered nurse anesthetists help anesthesiologists and some say that is adequate.

Plavish: North Carolina is now, has 150 job openings basically for anesthetists in North Carolina and the certified registered nurse anesthetists schools only put about 90 students a year into the workforce.

Hicks: H.B. 1330 would allow the Board of Medicine to license anesthesiologists’ assistants. This anesthesiologist society and the Board of Medicine claim that this will alleviate a shortage or providers in North Carolina. The fact is there is not shortage of anesthesia providers in North Carolina.

McCullen: The Senate Finance Committee handles the bill next.

Vajda: A bill to ban video poker machines in the state passed in the Senate again this week [House 458]. Senators already gave the measure a nod last week but the bill was put back on the floor for an amendment, this after some concern that the bill would allow some types of gambling on the Cherokee Indian Reservation. This is the fifth time the Senate passed the ban. In the past House Speaker Jim Black has blocked attempts to consider it on the floor.

And that brings us to last week’s question of the week, should video poker machines be banned in North Carolina? Seventy-one percent of you said yes to the ban on poker machines and 29% were against it; one viewer wrote in, “I am 100% in favor of totally banning video poker. We should have known better in the first place after South Carolina banned them.” We appreciate everyone who has written in but many others who want to keep the video poker machines in North Carolina say the industry brings jobs to the state.

INTERVIEW WITH SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMP MARC BASNIGHT

McCullen: Earlier this month Eszter talked with Senate President Pro Temp Marc Basnight and Minority Leader Senator Phil Berger to find out their priorities for the short session.

Vajda: Senator Basnight thanks so much for being here. We’ve got lots of topics to cover. Let’s start out with the budget. There have been a number of figures being thrown around; one is a billion dollars surplus for this budget. Where do you think that money should be spent?

Basnight: Well education, economic development, mental health programs, employee salaries, teachers and state employees, repairs and renovations, the upkeep of our buildings, reserve for unforeseen emergencies that may occur or disasters—hurricanes, we seem to get our share of those. So there are places to invest this money for North Carolina.

Vajda: There is the half-cent sales tax, the so-called temporary half-cent sales tax, do you see this session as the time that it will be repealed?

Basnight: No I don’t, not with the needs that we presently have. There are responsibilities that we as a state have for its people. You can repeal it but then you also will repeal any of the initiatives that create jobs and opportunities in this state. You have to invest it well, spend it wisely—not waste any of it. But the salary component of our responsibility as a people in this state to provide for these employees so that you have a good host of people working in our state. And we have to do that. And also the cost of medicine and the cost of energy has driven up our prices as a government as well as it has for families.

Vajda: Some critics of the budget process have said that there is always some component in there that really doesn’t have anything to do with the budget. What is your opinion about adding such provisions into the budget?

Basnight: Well they are very important; they make North Carolina the better place to live. The clean water management trust fund for an example came in through that process. Smart Start, the early childhood development initiative that was started by Governor Hunt and now is proceeding under Governor Easley to get these kids up and running at a very early stage so that they prepare themselves for society by being educated. Knowledge will drive our economy better than any other component of anything that we can do, so a great education is very, very important in North Carolina, this country and this world. So those are some of the initiatives that were started in that process. People still vote on it; it is not something that is not voted on.

You have an opportunity to remove it if you like but normally people really like this. The salary increase that the governor initiated for teachers last year of $80 million, that was something that we put in the budget at the very end because we felt like the money was there, we felt like the need was certainly there—that had been well demonstrated. So public school teachers got $80 million that they would not have gotten if that process had not been available.

Vajda: Let’s move on to other topics. The minimum wage last session passed the House now it sits in a Senate Finance Committee. Do you think it will, or would you like it to get onto the Senate floor?

Basnight: Well I would, I mean I personally would like to see that. There is a lot of opposition to that. I own a little restaurant and our minimum wage is about $7.50 dollars. I mean that is the starting salary for anybody coming in, out of high school or in high school, to wash dishes. So we are at that end to where we realize that that is awfully low, even at $7.50 when you deal with where I live on the Outer Banks it is kind of hard to buy a house, provide for anything. And when you support the income as a high school student of your family, or provide for yourself and your future education, that is valuable. But then you have places in North Carolina where you can’t get anybody to work, even for $5.25. So there is an argument not to pass that but I believe the vote will occur in the Senate. I am not sure where it will go.

Vajda: Let’s move on to the environment. You have been a key supporter and you have developed, you have formed a global warming study committee. What do you hope comes out of that committee and why do you think it is important for lawmakers to act on the environment this session?

Basnight: Well global warming, I believe all the scientists are pretty close to being united now that it is occurring. There were arguments a few years ago and I would have probably been in that group of saying I don’t believe this, I don’t believe that the water is rising; I don’t believe that the globe is warming—not where I live. But if you look at those statistics that is not so. There are species of plant life, there are species of marine life, that are moving up the ladder to ladder in American and around the globe and growing where they’ve never grown before. The warming of the waters is actual. It is true, the melting of the ice caps is occurring—no one is arguing that. And carbon does trap these gases and if you use fossil fuels at the level that we do, it is certainly going to create even more warming. And I think those arguments are in place, I think they are solid, and I believe in those. I am still ready to learn and listen to opposition but I do believe that we need a different form of energy than what we are presently using in America, in North Carolina, and we have to do our part as individuals not just a state.

So if we have the full understanding of what is occurring, we have that knowledge, and then we invest in this future energy source—which has other benefits as well. We should not be so reliant on the Middle East in a very unstable part of the world on our energy so why not use wind? Why not use solar? Why not use bio-fuels? We are building a plant in Aurora that will start in about six months. There are conversations of two other ethanol plants in North Carolina that are occurring now. But we can do things as individuals to conserve energy and not be so reliant again on fossil fuels that do create problems for the environment, where we live, and it could change our landscape forever, ever more.

Vajda: And finally your colleague Speaker Jim Black. You have said many times that he is a good friend of yours and he will continue working with you, but do you think the current investigations into your campaign contributions will take away from this session, will take away some of the work that could be done this session?

Basnight: Well if there is an indictment it has not been forthcoming. I am not sure that there is. The speaker says there will not be one. I have no reason to doubt the speaker; he has always been truthful to me. I have never found him to be a person of dishonesty in all my relationships with him. And he is the person that is elected by the House. I am a person elected by the Senate and I am going to work with him as long as we have that kind of relationship and that will not change for me nor should it change for me. We have a system of justice in America that is well founded and one that gives that person the opportunity for any kind of court challenge if it is to occur. And I can’t speak to that. This is a man that I have a good relationship with, as I do all people, and I will continue to foster that kind of belief in other people.

Vajda: Senator Marc Basnight thanks so much for being here.

Basnight: It is great to be here. Thank you very much.

INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR PHIL BERGER

Vajda: Senator Phil Berger thanks so much for being here.

Berger: Thanks for having me.

Vajda: What are some of your legislative priorities?

Berger: Well being as this is a short session and the primary purpose of the short session is to deal with budgetary matters; our first priority is going to be to get a budget passed. Hopefully we will get it passed in short order. Once we get that done hopefully we will be able to go home. And within the budget what I’d like to see is some spending restraint. I’d like to see the surplus that we apparently have, I’ve seen estimates as high as $1.4 billion, and some estimates that that might even go higher than that. I’d like to see some consideration given to tax relief. You know we’ve been promising the people of North Carolina since 2001, or at least the legislature has been promising since 2001 when taxes were temporarily, so-called temporarily raised, that those were temporary taxes. And I’d like to see us keep those promises.

Vajda: And you talk about a tax break—talk to be a little bit about the gas tax and what do you think should happen with that?

Berger: Well what I would like to see is serious consideration given to at least capping the variable portion of the gas tax. People are really struggling with the high cost of fuel and part of that high cost is the high taxes that we have on fuel. And so I’d like to see us look at capping or reducing the variable portion of the gas tax.

You know I was listening to the radio the other day and an interesting statistic was represented on the radio and the statistic had to do with the amount of oil company profits as compared to the amount of taxes that are collected. And the number that was given was that the oil company profits were very high but the amount of taxes that come out of the individual consumer’s pocketbook for taxes, for state and federal gasoline taxes, was almost double the oil company profit. So if we’ve got a real concern about oil companies profiting from the high cost of gas, I have some real concern about government profiting from the high cost of gas. And that is clearly something we can do something about in state government. And I’d like to see us look at that.

Vajda: Now you talk about the billion plus projected in the budget. There is also some money coming out from the lottery; this is the first time the lottery has been up and running and there is some money that will be available for the legislators. How can you ensure that that money does not supplant prior programs and will go towards education?

Berger: That is going to be a very difficult thing for us to do because the governor has indicated that a portion of lottery proceeds are going to go towards the More-at-Four and the reduced class size programs that are already in place, already funded by the general fund. What I’d like to see us do is go back and look at the lottery legislation and seriously consider designating all of the lottery proceeds to help our counties and build schools. If we sent all of the lottery money to the counties for school construction and did it on a per capita, per pupil basis, as opposed to some formula where some counties do better than others based on how high their tax rates are, I think that would be a much better use of the lottery proceeds than what we see in the current legislation.

Vajda: Now it seems to be that another big topic this session will be the minimum wage. Last session the House passed it, failed in the Senate; what do you think will happen to the minimum wage, proposed increase in the minimum wage, this session?

Berger: Well of course it never even came up in the Senate. I don’t recall us having a vote on it. Now we may have, a lot of things came down on the very last day but I don’t recall us having a vote. But I have seen some of the polling information about the minimum wage; I have studied the issue in terms of the economic impact. I am concerned about whether or not what we are doing is pushing something forward that ultimately has no real benefit to the economy.

You know I just did a little survey before I came down here; I had one of my staff people make a call around to some fast food restaurants here in Raleigh to ask what their starting salary was, or starting hourly wage was for people with no experience. And my experience is the minimum wage, federal minimum wage, is $5.15 an hour. We found no one that was offering minimum wage at fast food restaurants in this area, at least based on an admittedly un-scientific survey.

So I don’t know how much real impact that is going to have. I do know that there are a lot of people in small business who feel like that there is going to be a ripple effect of increase in the minimum wage so that if they’ve got someone who is not making minimum wage presently but would be at or close to what the new state minimum wage would be but they will be forced to bump the salary of those people, may end up having to lay people off. I do think that the proposal is one that has a good deal of support, apparently has a lot of public support, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see a bill passed that dealt with that issue. What I’d like to see us do is if we are going to do that, let’s give our small businesses some kind of a break and let’s give our people something that is really tangible. And I’d like to see us couple any increase in the minimum wage with some kind of tax credit that would help small businesses provide insurance for their employees so that we can encourage these small businesses not just to pay their employees a little bit more but also encourage them and give them some real incentive to provide them with something tangible that will be of help to them and that is healthcare. Which I talk to more people every day that have some real concerns about what is happening in the field of healthcare and whether or not they are going to have healthcare as time goes on.

Vajda: Your colleague House Speaker Jim Black has been under a bit of scrutiny, he has been under investigation by the Board of Elections, possible federal investigations. He has been called by some to step aside. What is your opinion on what is going on with Speaker Jim Black?

Berger: Well you know I serve in the Senate and there is a certain institutional separation between the House and the Senate and so I had clearly no role in the selection of Representative Black as the speaker. And certainly, there is certainly some reluctance on the part of what one body to try to delve into the leadership on the other. But having said that, no there is a lot that has been written about and talked about and the perception has been out there but there are really some problems that need to be dealt with. And we have investigations that are ongoing at the state level. Apparently there is something going on with the Federal Grand Jury. I just think that it probably would be best for the state of North Carolina at this point for him to step aside, not necessarily resign altogether but step aside. It has gotten to be a serious distraction. I have some real concerns about whether or not it is going to cause us to be here for a longer period of time than necessary this summer. And so I think it would be better—you know his own colleagues and his own party in the House, a number of them have suggested that he do that. And so I think for the good of the state it would be a right thing to do at this point.

Vajda: Senator Phil Berger, thanks so much for being here.

Berger: Thank you.

McCullen: Senate Appropriations Committee members say they expect to roll out their version of the budget next week.

Vajda: For more analysis on this week’s happenings, Kelly sits down with three members of the Capitol Press Corps.

ANALYSIS SEGMENT

McCullen: Joining me now is Paul O’Connor with the Winston-Salem Journal, Laura Leslie, North Carolina Public Radio, and Lynn Bonner with the News and Observer. Paul O’Connor as the senior member let’s get right to the Kevin—

O’Connor: Is the old guy.

McCullen: Not quite yet—but the Geddings indictment were handed down this week. How do you think it affects the upcoming debates on the ethics bills that are still in the pipe?

O’Connor: It is a boost for it. Any time that these folks down here who are pretty much oblivious to how all of their wining and dining and influence buying and influence selling that goes on in this building, any time they can be reminded that this is not the way things are supposed to be, that has got to help ethics reform. So I think it gives it a big boost, also creates pressure on the speaker and leadership team.

Leslie: You know I don’t think you have to look much further than the debate on the floor last week in terms of getting a clue about how insular it really is here. There were, some of the comments that were made during the debates on legislative ethics, the reporting requirements for gifts over $200, it was very clear I think to outside observers listening to that debate that there are a lot of people on the floor of the House who really don’t understand just how bad that debate sounded and just how bad it looks to the outside world.

O’Connor: There is a real sense of entitlement with legislators that they are entitled after they come down here to free meals and to free golf tournaments and to free trips, even though the free trips tend to go to the higher-ups. That in that they are entitled to this as part of being a big shot. And it just doesn’t get through to them that they should be held accountable; they don’t want to be held accountable. And so they want to be able to take expensive gifts from people who are not lobbyists. They want to take them from the lobbyists but they want to take expensive gifts and they don’t want anybody to know.

McCullen: In the news room, especially one as large as the News and Observer, how does the late break on the Geddings story, how does that play into getting things printed, to get the story out there on top of all of the state ethics debate?

Bonner: Well I think the Geddings news of course is first and foremost but it is going to be interesting down the road seeing how this mixes with the ethics debate that is taking place in the building, whether it gives some extra juice to the idea that there should be an outside group, an independent group, looking over the legislature and the big question whether the legislature can police itself when examining ethics questions. I think this raises, puts to the forefront whether they can actually do that.

O’Connor: Well that debate that we had on the amendment, whether the folks would report their gifts of $200, and all they have to do is report them, they—it is not that they can’t take the gifts.

Leslie: Right, it is not a ban.

O’Connor: It is not a ban on gifts. That was just classic testimony that these people could not watch over themselves. In the end the Constitution says only they can take action against their own members. Only the House can affect the House members, only the Senate can affect the Senate members. That is fine but prior to that their needs to be an independent organization overlooking them; they demonstrated that.

McCullen: But the governor says that this should pass Constitutional muster by setting up an ethics board through which I think Judge Farmer said, “Filter the complaints through with recommendations.”

Leslie: Right and I mean it would have the advantage of having a body of people whose job is solely to do that, to look into these, to investigation and throw out the ones that are, you know, baseless. And to refer the ones that are not baseless. But in the end again because of that Constitutional provision you just referred to, because the House has to, it is going to have to police themselves, that board can’t really do anything. All it can do is hand those complaints back. So again you end up with a question of political will. Even if you’ve got the ethics board investigating independently, is the body itself going to do anything about a complaint that comes out of the ethics board?

O’Connor: They will do something about those complaints if we know about them, if the press can get a hold of this information—first of all that a complaint has been made, what evidence has been found, and we can run stories about it then there will be pressure just as there is pressure this week to pass ethics legislation to deal with these things. Why if they can buy this stuff they will bury it.

McCullen: Have there been comparisons, Lynn, to what the House has already passed dealing with what Easley brought up and Senator Rand brought up earlier this week?

Bonner: Yes there have been comparisons and I think—it is going to be an interesting debate when they get together and try to settle their differences. But I think there is going to be something coming out this session. I don’t see at this point how they can avoid it.

O’Connor: I found that the governor’s proposal was absolutely anemic. First of all it is a week-and-a-half late—the session started a week-and-a-half ago—and he doesn’t want to go after the gifts that lobbyists’ employers—he doesn’t want to ban those gifts. That I don’t understand because the lobbyists who are basically guys who are making a nice upper-middle class salary. But the money that they pass on and the big meals that they give and the trips that they are handing out down here, that is coming from their employers.

Leslie: I have to add to that, too, the Coalition for Lobbying Reform doesn’t much like the legislative anti-lobbying bill either for one main reason, it doesn’t seem to affect fund raising. And that, you know they will tell you that is the biggest concern about the lobbyists, it is not the cup of coffee, it is not the campaign contribution—which is, you are right, it is Constitutional to support the candidate of your choice—it is their ability to go to these people to whom they are connected and bring in a whole lot of cash for legislators. Bob Phillips from Common Cause was talking to me about this the other day and he said it is not that—nobody wants to use the word beholding but it is hard to ignore the idea that somebody can walk into your office with $10,000 under their arm and you are not going to listen carefully to what they are going to say to you.

McCullen: Assess for us and explain for us the schools of thought on the ethics debate, because there have been varying opinions out there ranging from very strict to let’s be practical.

Bonner: Well I think there is the, there are a majority of people who think that they don’t need it.

Leslie: The baby Jesus.

Bonner: Yes, exactly. The baby Jesus took gifts. And I think that is a fairly widespread thought among legislators because I don’t think that they see themselves as being influenced by, as they say, “Nobody can buy me with a cup of coffee or a dinner. You know, we are not for sale.” But I don’t think there is an appreciation for how it looks to the people who call us after they read the stories and say, “What are they doing? Why are these people able to do this, that, and the other thing and we don’t know about it? Why are they able to go to games for free that a regular person can’t go to? Why do they get tournament tickets? Why do they go to the Super Bowl? Why do they play golf for free?” So that I think is a widespread thought and I think that is the disconnect between a majority of legislators and the general public. And I think that what is happening is just pressure from polling and from what they are hearing and from the elections coming in November to appear to be addressing it.

Leslie: I don’t know how much pressure there really is, though because after the redistricting there are so many safe seats, you know, at this point. I think a lot of legislators, especially the old timers, feel like they are untouchable.

Bonner: But there are swing districts where there are—and that is what is going to determine the election. And the Democrats and Republicans are going to be talking about who voted how, you know.

O’Connor: And they are, they are hearing it. In Pennsylvania this week you had an enormous upset of incumbent Republican legislators, state legislators, and it was in large part it is the same debate we have here between the conservative and the moderate wings of the Republican Party. But another part of it was this feeling among Republican voters in their primary that the Pennsylvania legislators are too beholding to lobbyists. I think that it is out there and I think people understand it in North Carolina, too.

Leslie: You know we talk about that they don’t get it but I think they do get it to a point because—

O’Connor: You just don’t want to—

Leslie: They don’t want to hear it. Because there was one mention on the floor by Nelson Cole saying can you imagine your campaign opponent using this against you, that the church buys so-and-so’s clothes? So it is like this oblique sort of intentional, selective blindness to public opinion.

O’Connor: I know you want to move on but I want to throw out one other thing—you know it is just not the clothes. I mean there are some very important people in this state who are not lobbyists and they are not lobbyist employers or what we call the lobbyists principals, they are important political people but they don’t have to register in the lobbying registration thing. They don’t want—I don’t think legislators want the public to know at all the amount of good will—

Leslie: Largesse.

O’Connor: Largesse that is passed along to them. It is nothing that is illegal but I think it is politically unsavory that the people we elect can be so well taken care of by people they didn’t know before they were in office.

McCullen: As a writer covering these stories, are you hearing feedback on issues such as this that can by cryptic if you dive into these bills?

Bonner: Oh I think people, yes, we do get feedback and I think people understand the basics, especially since we are in Raleigh and so many of our readers are in some way connected to politics or the government to follow it—yes, we do get feedback.

McCullen: What do you think of all of the hypotheticals, Paul that were thrown out on the House floor? As if I did this, would this happen? It has happened in committee right on up.

O’Connor: It is, just the best example, the best testimony of how these people don’t understand a very simple principle about life and that is that you don’t get anything for nothing. And these people are buying you dinner, they are giving you a transmission, whatever—they are not doing it because they like you. I mean maybe your neighbor is but you know that, that stuff about the firewood that if the tree falls down he cuts up the tree for you, he lets you take the firewood, that is bologna. And Ronnie Sutton is smart enough to know that, Representative from down there in Pembroke. These guys just don’t want to give this stuff up. And I will say in their defense that when you are making $13,000 a year to come down here and work, the next thing they ought to do is they ought to go and they ought to have the guts to raise their own salary up to something that is some way reflective of the amount of time they spend down here.

McCullen: Lynn, we have video poker, minimum wage is out there—John Edwards was in the legislative building promoting it. Do you think the ethics issue from what you are getting feedback on, is it that dominant of an issue or is this something the media is just interested in?

Bonner: No it is not just us, I mean I think there are a lot of people interested in ethics. For example, a long-term legislator here was defeated in his primary and one of the factors may have been people trying in his district to connect him to Jim Black. So voters hear that. Yes, there is a sense that things aren’t quite right.

McCullen: And Paul you have written about how quiet the Republicans have been. Where do they—what are you hearing about what they are doing this session because you are right, they have not been out there holding a lot of press conferences and you have noticed.

O’Conner: Well I did notice that, that—I think that what the Republicans are trying to do, and this is in broader than just the ethics issue because they have been and were on the floor very vocal, for the most part much stronger than the Democrats. I haven’t counted the votes but at least what they are saying they are most—but let me get back to your question. I think that the Republicans right now, especially in the House, are just trying to find their comfort level. They have been through years of going back to ’97 that they have been at each other’s throats with very sharp knives. They have been through two bruising primaries in a row, two years ago and then just a couple of weeks ago. I think that they are just trying to find out if they can get along and they are trying to—the leadership I think if they came out of this session convinced that the people who are going to be here in January and February can get along they would consider this a good session for them.

McCullen: What do you hear?

Leslie: I would simply say, I mean you’ve got to look at the national picture, too. In the national picture ethics is huge and in that case fairly or unfairly it tends to be associated with the Republicans. So the Republicans I think can’t really afford to be too loud on this issue at this point. I mean frankly the Democrats seem to be doing a very good job of shooting themselves in both feet. And the Republicans don’t seem to need to help after this last session.

O’Connor: I thought that Representatives Stam and Blust had some of the best things to say—

Leslie: They did.

O’Connor: In the debate—what was that, Wednesday afternoon or was it Tuesday afternoon?

Leslie: And in debate—Wednesday afternoon. In debate they did but I mean I think that is why you are not seeing a lot of press conferences about ethics. You know you are hearing a lot of muttering and “good debate,” for example on the floor but I don’t think—I think both sides are kind of hamstrung on the ethics issue and the upcoming elections. I don’t think anybody is going to want to go too close to that, at least this November.

McCullen: Lots of attention on the ethics debate. Lynn, are we still climbing to reach the peak of the attention on it as far as coverage, as far as the bills and debate on the House and Senate floor?

Bonner: I think we are going to see a mix of—I don’t think coverage of this is over, definitely not. I think it is going to be a huge issue until the end of the session or they finish passing all the bills they are considering. But now we have the overlay of an indictment and what that all means.

Leslie: And that may not be the last indictment, either. I mean there were people who were not named in that 42-page indictment and according to Frank Whitney when people aren’t named in indictments it sometimes means that there are unindicted co-conspirators. So there could be more coming out. And if there is, that could certainly move things along, too.

McCullen: Thank you so much for joining us here today.

Vajda: If you have any questions or comments about our show please feel free to call us at (919) 549-7380 or email us at LegWeek at UNC-TV.org. Thanks so much for watching everyone. I’m Eszter Vadja.

McCullen: And I’m Kelly McCullen. That’s it. Have a great weekend.

[THEME MUSIC]

Voiceover: Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting UNC-TV.