|
Vajda: Eszter Vajda, Host
McCullen: Kelly McCullen, Legislative Week in Review
Henry: Johanna Henry, Legislative Week in Review
Easley: Governor Mike Easley
Perdue: Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue
Pittenger: Sen. Robert Pittenger, (R) Mecklenburg Co.
Allran: Sen. Austin Allran, (R) Catawba Co.
Dannelly: Sen. Charlie Dannelly, (D) Mecklenburg Co.
Webster: Sen. Hugh Webster, (R) Alamance Co.
Nesbitt: Sen. Martin Nesbitt, (D) Buncombe Co.
Bingham: Sen. Stan Bingham, (R) Davidson Co.
Shotzberger: Jill Shotzberger, A.C.L.U.
Weiss: Rep. Jennifer Weiss, (D) Wake Co.
Goforth: Rep. Bruce Goforth, (D) Buncombe Co.
Sherrill: Rep. Wilma Sherrill, (R) Buncombe Co.
Stiller: Rep. Bonner Stiller, (R) Brunswick Co.
Ross: Rep. Deborah Ross, (D) Wake Co.
M: Unidentified Male Speaker
Hackney: Rep. Joe Hackney, (D) Majority Leader
Duke: Bill Duke, Southport Resident
Farmer: Robert Farmer, Chair, State Board of Ethics
Rand: Sen. Tony Rand, (D) Rules Chair
Chertoff: Sec. Michael Chertoff, U.S. Dept. Homeland Security
Homes: Dr. Mark Homes, V.P. N.C. Institute of Medicine
England: Rep. Bob England, (D) Rutherford Co.
Raynor: Dr. Max Raynor, Pres. N.C. State Optometric Society
Wallace: Dr. David Wallace, M.P.H., Assoc. Prof. Pediatric Opthalmology
Glazier: Rep. Rick Glazier, (D) Cumberland Co.
Preston: Rep. Jean Preston, (R) Carteret Co.
Cowell: Sen. Janet Cowell, (D) Wake Co.
Palmquist: Ian Palmquist, Equality North Carolina
Howard: Rep. Julia Howard, (R) Davie Co.
Schreiner: Mark Schreiner, Wilmington Star-News
Durhams: Sharif Durhams, Charlotte Observer
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS]
McCullen: Legislative ethics reformers focus on campaign cash. Johanna Henry explores mandatory eye exams for kindergartners. And video poker is dealt a losing hand. 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: Hello everyone, I’m Eszter Vajda. Thanks so much for joining us.
McCullen: And I’m Kelly McCullen. Well, tonight we will discuss ethics, campaign cash, and protecting local pharmacists.
Vajda: But we begin by following a debate on teenage drivers and cell phones. A bill to ban teens from talking on the phone while driving hit some bumps but finally passed in the Senate. The bill would ban kids under 18 from using any kind of device, even hands-free phones, while driving behind the wheel. During discussion on the floor two amendments passed, one would exempt kids calling parents or guardians in case of emergencies; another would allow parents to call kids. Here is part of that debate.
TEENAGE CELL PHONE USE
Pittenger: The intent of the amendment [Senate 1289] is to ensure that the parent, if they felt that there is a need in their judgment to be in touch with that child, the child will know who is calling by the nature of what comes on the screen of that phone.
Allran: Isn’t the bottom line of this that we don’t want the young people talking on the cell phones while they are driving? But that is not the same thing as having it turned on, on the seat and you can say you cannot talk on the cell phone while you are driving, but you would be able to check to see whether or not I called you.
Dannelly: The bill says that the cell phone should be cut off. It would almost kill the bill if the cell phone is on. The mother or the father will not be the only one calling that number to distract that teenager.
Webster: If that car gets hijacked, if your kid gets hijacked, and that cell phone is turned on, that cell phone is a tracking device. Did you know that? The police can find that cell phone and that car and that kid. Do you want it turned off?
Nesbitt: Now we are saying that fixing this little problem supersedes parents being able to keep up with their children when they are out away from home. And there is not one of us in here that doesn’t know if we could get more parental involvement and more control over children, that is a good thing. That is how you keep them out of trouble. And talking on the cell phone, in case we’ve forgotten because we’ve gotten so old, isn’t the only thing that can get a child in trouble. There are about 50 more out there that rank way above that.
Bingham: There is documented evidence that in, actually one here in Wake County, where a parent had called their child on the cell phone and he had a fatality because of the distraction. So this in effect would basically kill this bill.
Vajda: The amendments passed and so did the bills. The House takes up the measure next. If it passes, teens would be fined $25 and their graduated driver’s license would be extended by six months.
STATE BUDGET AND OTHER LEGISLATION
McCullen: The House ruled out its budget through subcommittees late this week. The Senate and governor offered their budget proposals last month but the Senate budget passed. The House Bill strips some provisions and adds funds for special projects. Some committees sent their budgets to the full panel with state employee pay raises and some tax cuts. There is a quarter penny cut in the sales tax and a break on the upper-income earners. The full budget is expected out Monday with a possible vote at the end of next week. The Senate is not expected to concur. A conference committee would meet to iron out House and Senate budget differences.
Vajda: Another piece of legislation dealing with sex offenders passes the House judiciary committee. It is House Bill 1896 and it gives county sheriffs more leeway in tracking local sex offenders [House 1896]. Sheriffs would be allowed to verify a sex offender’s address more often and also update offender’s photographs as needed. Sex offenders would be banned from living with a thousand feet of schools, child care centers and swimming pools. That point was debated but it didn’t stop the bill.
Shotzberger: We are saying if you have to pay this amount, if you have to live here, you are going to encourage people not to register. Whereas opposed we want to, you know, if there is increased registration then you have the monitoring that they are going for in this bill.
Weiss: At a certain point you’ve got to move forward but we really tried to keep in mind the views we’ve heard from law enforcement and from the public. It was just time to move forward.
Vajda: The committee will take up victims’ compensation next week.
McCullen: The full House passes eminent domain legislation to stop property seizures for private development but the bill preserves eminent domain for public projects or infrastructures serving the general public [House 1965]. Other states restricted eminent domain provisions after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut town’s seizure of private homes for a private development. Four hundred sixteen House members voted yes with no one voting no.
Goforth: House Bill 1965 will not allow eminent domain for use of economic development and will protect the private rights, the private property rights, for North Carolina.
Sherrill: But what section one of the bill does is repeal those local acts. If none of those projects are completed they—if they have not begun before this year, then those projects are repealed.
McCullen: The bill would take effect July 1st.
Vajda: Video poker machines will be banned in North Carolina by next year. The governor signed the bill [Senate 912] after the Senate gave its final approval earlier this week. The compromise legislation allows only two poker machines per location this fall. One poker machine per location becomes law on March 1st of 2007 with a complete ban next year. House Speaker Jim Black changed that as his position on video poker, saying the lottery could save jobs potentially lost by a video poker ban. The bill exempts Cherokee casinos.
McCullen: A House judiciary committee resumed campaign contribution and ethics reform debate this week. House Bills 1845 and 1846 are outlining rules for handling campaign cash.
House Bill 1846 would lower reporting thresholds for political candidates who accept cash or money order contributions. Contributions over $50 by cash or money order would require candidates to report the contributor’s name [House 1846]. Non-cash contributions from say checks or credit cards don’t apply because they are technically more trackable.
Stiller: The ethics rules need to be tightened up. The ethics rules are something that as you know this committee is working solely on this particular session.
McCullen: Candidates would report the names of all contributors giving $100 in total contributions during an election cycle regardless of cash or checks. These provisions are bipartisan.
Ross: After this week at least half of them will have been passed, maybe more. So that is pretty quick work.
McCullen: But five Representatives opposed House Bill 1846. They argue this law is vague and it is impossible to follow small cash contributions when groups or event organizers pass the proverbial hat and the crowd pitches in.
M: How do I identify people who drop money in the hat, cash, and you are talking about 200 to 300 people?
Hackney: Well, I hope you will redirect that question to Representative Ross but I believe the answer is that it is your duty to know when you go over $100 cumulatively for any one person. And however you can figure out to make sure that you know that is up to you, but you’ve got to know that.
McCullen: Another campaign cash bill, House Bill 1845, would prohibit candidates from shifting campaign contributions for personal uses outside official duties or campaigning. The only debate on this bill centers on whether or not to make it effective immediately.
Stiller: So there has not been any heated debate about it. There is some good debate on some of the amendments but you know I think the debate is making sure that we hash it out and that we come out with the proper language and not put ridiculous burdens or make it too loose.
Ross: I think that the judiciary one committee has been doing a fantastic job, again working across party lines and listening to each other and coming up with good resolutions.
McCullen: These bills are linked with campaign funding controversies surrounding House Speaker Jim Black.
Vajda: The State Board of Ethics dismissed a complaint against Governor Mike Easley that he gave preferential treatment to accompany wanting to lease the state-owned Southport Marina. The executive director of the board called the claims frivolous and unfounded. Residents of the seaside town say the governor received substantial contributions from the business that was awarded the lease.
Duke: This governor has seen fit to throw up obstacles in our way of trying to maintain this as a public property available to anybody that wants to use it at any time. And that is what we are trying to do.
Farmer: They accused the governor of making the Council of State vote a certain way. You know the governor and nobody else is going to take a statewide person who has been elected statewide and force them to vote a certain way. No Council of State is going to force anybody else in that body to do so. And they knew that.
Vajda: Despite the ruling the residents say they will not give up their fight. Meanwhile Governor Easley says he was confident that the complaint would be tossed out.
McCullen: Driving while under the influence kills thousands of people each and every year. A comprehensive bill [House 1048] aims at putting more teeth into the state’s DWI laws and gives law enforcement officials tools to catch violators. This measure includes requiring a permit be obtained when malt beverage kegs are transported and expands the definition of substance abuse to include illegal drugs. It also mandates that check points be located randomly instead of in the same location.
Rand: Rightfully so, the public is concerned about people they might meet on the highway that are impaired that might take their lives or those they love. And so we want to make sure that there is some certainty as to the law.
McCullen: The bill is being discussed in a Senate judiciary committee. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff met with Governor Mike Easley this week about the upcoming hurricane season. Their conversation focused on storm preparation. The governor says emergency management officials are conducting these table top drills to see how quickly evacuations and relief shipments could flow. Secretary Chertoff believes North Carolina is about as prepared as it could be for the next hurricane.
Easley: It is what you do prior to the event that is much more important than what you do afterwards.
Chertoff: A major hurricane is going to inflict a lot of damage. I do think you’ve done about much as you can do in advance to get ready and now we are going to hope for the best but as I say, if we need to we are going to be ready for the worst.
McCullen: The governor calls the state’s relationship with FEMA strong.
Vajda: Over 1.3 million people in North Carolina do not have health insurance [House 1895]. According to the Institute of Medicine it is a problem that affects even those who do have coverage. Now the General Assembly is considering creating a high-risk pool to identify people with pre-existing health problems that do not have health insurance. Eligibility would include being denied insurance or being a dependent.
Homes: If they can’t receive the care that they need, then they are less likely to be able to go to work; if it is children then they can’t get to school, they can’t learn effectively. So it has effects beyond just our pocketbook in that it affects all of society.
Vajda: The cost of the program would run $70 million $140 million depending on participants. Federal grants are available to offset some of that cost.
McCullen: The Senate approves licensing a new medical job out there. It is called anesthesiologist assistant. Its supporters say it alleviates a nurse anesthetist shortage but some say out there that there is no shortage [House 1330]. Anesthesiologists’ assistants are required to work under an anesthesiologist’s supervision. Their opponents say this really amounts to a professional turf war in getting them licensed in North Carolina. Anesthesiologist assistants say they are just as effective and safe as nurse anesthetists. The bill sits in the rules calendar and operation of the House committee.
Vajda: Legislation dealing with Medicaid moved through the House health committee. The measure would create a study committee on how federal Medicaid changes would affect North Carolina pharmacies and their customers [House 2853]. The issue involves paying drugstores to fill Medicaid generic drug prescriptions. The State Department of Health and Human Services would determine how last year’s federal budget impacts the prescription reimbursement rates. Pharmacies would be surveyed to learn the cost of filling Medicaid patients’ generic drug prescriptions.
England: Under the Federal Deficit Reduction Act there will probably be a significant reduction in reimbursement for the cost of drugs. Once we leave here we can’t change that and we want to do something to protect our community pharmacists.
Vajda: The House Appropriations Committee hears it next. Lawmakers are considering repealing the mandatory eye exam law for kindergartners. House Speaker Jim Black placed that provision in last year’s budget. The speaker, as you may remember, is an optometrist who received campaign contributions from fellow doctors.
McCullen: This debate has raged for months now. Some say these eye exams really are necessary for pre-kindergartners. Others say they really aren’t. Johanna Henry hears both sides tonight. Johanna?
EYE EXAMS FOR KINDERGARTNERS
Henry: Eszter and Kelly, to understand this issue, it is important to understand the difference between two words, an eye screening and an eye exam. Now North Carolina children are already screened for eye problems in school or daycare. But an eye exam is performed in the office of an eye doctor and it is much more involved. The debate centers around which one North Carolina children need.
Raynor: Can you see anything now?
Henry: Seven-year-old Meredith Wilson has pretty blue eyes. Her mom says before Meredith got glasses she had terrible headaches. After two years and several trips to the pediatrician, including eye screenings, Dr. Max Raynor discovered Meredith was nearsighted.
Raynor: All I can say is that in our present system there are kids falling through the cracks and we are just looking for ways to make that better.
Henry: Dr. Raynor is president of the North Carolina State Optometric Society. He says family doctors, school nurses and trained screeners are doing a better job at detecting eye problems than ever before. But Dr. Raynor and the Optometric Society point to a study by the National Eye Institute that says one in every ten children have an eye problem but not all of them are picked up during a screening.
Raynor: They say that two-thirds of these are picked up by our current system. That means that one-third are not, which means that there are 1 in 30 kids that have a vision problem that might not be detected and that equates, by my calculations, to about three or four thousand kids that enter school every year.
Wallace: When you look at a combination of a screening test year after year, or multiple screening exams over time, very, very few children are going to be missed.
Henry: Dr. David Wallace is an associate professor of pediatric ophthalmology at Duke University. An ophthalmologist is similar to an optometrist and can perform surgery. Dr. Wallace also has a master’s degree in public health. He says the study doesn’t present a clear picture because even though an eye problem may go undetected in one screening, it will probably be caught later. Most children are screened each year. The most common problems that go undetected can be corrected if it is caught in time.
Raynor: The biggest percentage of those children have amblyopia, which is a problem where if one eye or both eyes are not being used to their capacity the connection between the eye and the seeing part of the brain doesn’t develop.
Wallace: We used to think, “Oh if you don’t pick this up by age 7 or 8 there is nothing that can be done.” And recent clinical trial data has changed our mind about that.
Henry: Here is a closer look at the differences between an eye screening and an eye exam. A screening is done by a pediatrician, school nurse, or lay screener. It usually includes a visual acuity test of each eye, that is reading the chart, looks for ocular alignment and any eye tumors. It might include a photograph to test for near or farsightedness and a depth perception test. It takes about five minutes and costs from $1 to $15. A comprehensive eye exam is done by an optometrist or an ophthalmologist in an exam room. It includes similar tests done in a screening and a complete vision and medical history, an exam of the external eye, pupils, peripheral vision, ocular alignment, and eye movement, a split-lamp examination, eye pressure, and color vision test. The patient’s pupils are then dilated and a doctor examines the inside of the eye. The eye exam takes up to 90 minutes and costs parents about $100.
Raynor: I actually absolutely am amazed that anybody would be against this.
Henry: But in fact the mandate has many eye and health care professionals seeing red.
Wallace: We actually as ophthalmologists have a financial incentive to do more exams, more children are in the clinic and we make more money. But we don’t see it as a good use of limited and precious healthcare dollars.
Henry: Along with the North Carolina Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons, the North Carolina Pediatric Society, North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Ophthalmology, and others oppose the mandate. They say not only is it a logistical nightmare, many counties don’t even have enough eye care providers to give the exams. It forces parents to pay $100 for an exam that 90% of children don’t need.
Wallace: I don’t think we have good figures to tell us how many it would cost, but it would be millions and millions of dollars, way more than the $2 million that was originally allocated for one year through the legislature for this program.
Henry: So a few days ago the State Optometric Society voted to try and fix the problem.
Raynor: But we have just begun the process of starting a foundation to be able to cover the cost of eye exams and be able to provide those eye exams for those people that have no other means and have uninsured or whatever, for whatever reason are unable to fulfill that requirement of the eye exam.
Henry: But how and if that would work remains to be seen. In the meantime parents, educators, doctors and eye care professionals are keeping a close eye on the entire situation. One more note, a few years ago the legislature set up a task force to study this very issue and the committee’s recommendation: No mandate is necessary. Back to you.
Vajda: The bill to repeal the provision has been on the center calendar several times but never taken up for a vote. It is scheduled again for next week.
QUESTION OF THE WEEK
McCullen: That brings us to our question of the week. Should children get mandatory eye examinations before entering kindergarten? We want to know what you think about this one. You can do so by taking our poll over on the website, unctv.org/legweek, it is at the bottom of your screen. We will read your responses and the poll results next week.
Vajda: Last week’s question of the week was “Should math and science teachers be paid more than others? Many of you responded, including 33% of you who said “yes” while 66.7% say “no.” J.C. from Supply said, “I feel all teaching degrees should be paid equally at the entry level and salary progression allowed in areas of teaching based on competency of individual teachers.”
But supporters of a paid difference say that in a global economy where high tech companies are competing to get math and science graduates, the state needs to retain them by paying more. The Senate’s version of the budget has a pay difference while the House did not. Thanks so much to all who wrote in.
VARIOUS BILLS
McCullen: House Bill 1908 passed the House this week effectively rewriting special education laws. Supporters say it is substantial work [House 1908]. The bill guarantees disabled children age 3 to 21 a public education deemed appropriate for their needs. Local education agencies would be tracked for compliance or non-compliance; parents would be involved in meetings and have access to all of their children’s records.
Glazier: This is the largest rewrite of the special ed laws in this state in 30 years and one of the largest rewrites of any state law nationally.
Preston: I believe that this is probably some of the best legislation in the country. North Carolina I am sure will be a model for how well we have aligned our state guidelines with the federal guidelines.
McCullen: If everything progresses this bill could become law in three weeks.
Vajda: The House education committee endorses legislation expanding North Carolina’s virtual public school. A bill [House 2417] offers $5 million to expand the virtual school which was launched back in 2005. Supporters say the money would develop online courses, hire teachers to teach online, train them, and expand the number of courses. Almost 10,000 North Carolina high school students will take virtual public school courses this fall. Middle schoolers would be online by next year.
Perdue: Right now we have 3,000 kids who have already signed off on this thing that hadn’t even been funded yet by the General Assembly to take the SAT and the PSAT and the ACT, trying to bring North Carolina’s scores up. This offers great hope for all of us.
Vajda: The bill is now in the House appropriations committee. Another bill [Senate 1030] to recycle electronics that had momentum in the beginning of the week was suddenly pulled. Bill’s sponsor Senator Janet Cowell says that most people’s electronics just sit in their home but they could be put in other places to better use. The measure would create jobs and drop-off facilities in all state counties. Electronics tossed in the trash are hazardous to the environment.
Cowell: This would put it under a system where you know that these are being taken care of, they are being recycled, they are being reused and that is a huge advantage not only because of the jobs created but also because schools can benefit from using the computers. Right now a lot of the folks who are willing to retro-fit these in non-profits, they just can’t get their hands on them.
Vajda: Several companies such as IBM and Panasonic do support this bill but opponents have questions about the tax increase that retailers would have t put on products to pay for this program. Senator Cowell says the bill is not dead yet. She plans to bring it back next session.
McCullen: A House bill [House 2113] is out that could raise National Guardsmen retirement pensions. The House pension and retirement committee began deliberation on Wednesday morning. It is called House Bill 2113—it would raise a North Carolina National Guardsman’s monthly pension from $75 up to $112.50 if you have 20 years of honorable service. The revised pension would also give $11.25 a month extra for every service year beyond 20 years. Guardsmen must serve at least 15 years of state guard duty within a 20 year or longer military career.
About 1,000 mental health advocates lobbied lawmakers for more money this week. They want to boost programs helping developmentally disabled substance abusers and mental health patients. The group says the state should take better care of the mentally ill. Both the governor’s budget proposal and the Senate budget increase mental health funding.
Vajda: While a ban on gay marriage is being discussed on the federal level, local groups are fighting two states bill that would do the same. Members of Equality North Carolina gathered in Raleigh to oppose bills that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They say the bills would discriminate against gays, lesbians, transsexuals, and others. Chamber leaders say there is little chance the defense of marriage bills will make it to the floor but organizers say raising awareness is important.
Palmquist: This is very much a political issue. It is designed to turn out the far right in elections. And we believe that most North Carolinians don’t support this kind of bigotry and discrimination in our constitution.
Vajda: The group is also asking lawmakers to appropriate more money for AIDS prevention and care.
McCullen: Ethics reform and campaign finance are big topics this session. Eszter discusses the issue with House Select Ethic Committee Vice-Chair Representative Julia Howard and member Representative Deborah Ross.
ETHICS REFORM AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE
Vajda: Representative Julia Howard, Representative Ross, thanks so much for being here. Representative Ross, let me ask you the first question. There have been several bills this session that have been introduced concerning ethics and campaign reform and some political observers say that it is because of the alleged mishandling of campaign contributions by Speaker Jim Black. What is your opinion on that?
Ross: Well, I think that we have had several ethics issues that have come up over the last several years and many of the bills deal with issues that had nothing to do with the speaker. But the times right now, both in politics and outside of politics, really dictate that it is time to look at how we take care of ethics here at the General Assembly and it is also time to look at how companies take care of ethics and how we conduct ourselves.
Vajda: Representative Julia Howard, some have said that the so-called 527s are also violating some campaign and ethics rules. You have had a personal experience with this. Can you expand on that?
Howard: Well, I certainly think that it is something that we need to look at. Blatantly we can’t use corporate dollars to fund campaigns and I do believe if you track backwards you are going to find that there were corporate dollars that were put into this 527. And yes, ma’am, we had a real heated primary up in my district and it was basically funded by Art Pope and the 527, which is a funky name—House Republican Majority Committee, which is actually Art Pope and Representative John Blust was the secretary of record at the secretary of state’s office. At which time he resigned in the middle of the campaign season because a question was brought forward that each one of the mail pieces had a disclaimer that said this was not authorized by any candidate, at which time Representative Blust is a candidate for reelection to office. So that is a question that also needs to be addressed. But he did step out and allow someone else to be of record.
But when, if it is informational that is one thing that is permitted under the 527. But when there is directive, and many of the pieces that were dropped against me were very directive, “Take her out. Time to shut her down.” You know, that type of language. That is a direction of giving that type of information to constituents. And they were very, very demeaning and very—had no message, it was just slanderous.
Vajda: Representative Ross, let me talk about some of the other bills and some of the specifics. And one of them is creating a legislative ethics commission, putting more teeth into the commission. Why is that important?
Ross: Well, it is very important for North Carolina actually to do two things, one of which is even more of a change and that is that we now have an executive ethics act. We are one of only a handful of states in the country that doesn’t have a complete set of laws governing how the executive ethics are played out and how each agency has to comply. We have done this by executive order but everybody hasn’t been covered. So that is actually the bigger change than what we are doing with legislative ethics.
What we are doing with legislative ethics is mirroring the rules that are in the executive ethics act that we are, we have now passed in the House. And also setting up more rules of the game and ways of enforcing those rules for the legislative ethics committee.
Vajda: The governor, Representative Howard, and Judge Farmer recommended that all three branches be under one umbrella, under one ethics board. What do you think of that?
Howard: Well, I really don’t have a problem with that because we do need to be consistent of what we are doing. But as we had discussed earlier the center or discipline measures that are rendered to the members, that is, constitutionally that is, must be done by the seated members.
Ross: And there is another aspect, too. While it is very important that things are consistent if we are going to have the same kind of law for executive members and appointees that we do for legislators that we have a consistent way of enforcing them. But there is something else that is important about preserving legislative ethics committees. Not for all the functions but for some of the functions. And that is that if you have everything turned over to an outside group, including trainings, then what you do is you just have an enforcement mentality for the members as opposed to responsibility for teaching each other responsibility for working together and consulting with each other. And I think you need both things. You need the outside enforcer but you also need to promote a culture of ethics from within the organization. And if you don’t have people who are serving on an ethics committee, who people can come to, who participate in the trainings, then members won’t see this as something where it is their colleagues, where this is an expectation of behavior among ourselves. It will just be seen a something from the outside. So I think we need a combination.
Vajda: And I was just going to say, how do you combine those two aspects and get voters involved?
Ross: Well, you can have the outside organization make sure that our rules are regularized so that the executive branch doesn’t have a different set of rules than the legislative branch so that we understand what the conflicts of interest are so that there is a broad variety of people who have input on that. But what you have to have day-to-day in the General Assembly is you have to have a group of people who are on an ethics committee who have a responsibility for monitoring those conflicts of interest every day, in the committees.
You know we see—there is this wonderful story about Representative McCombs who is no longer with us. But he was in a committee meeting when I was a freshman and there was a freshman member who had a bill. And the bill clearly was a conflict of interest for this freshman member. And I remember Representative McCombs asking for that bill to be displaced and taking the freshman member out of the room. And having a conversation with him about why he should not be pushing that bill. And having that member then understand that that shouldn’t be happening. We should be having those conversations among ourselves. We should be teaching each other; Representative Howard has been a mentor to a lot of people on ethics issues because she has been involved in it for so long. So we need to have both things otherwise you are not going to have a culture of ethics within the organization; it is just going to be about, “Oh if I do something bad these people on the outside are going to do something to me.” You need to have both.
Vajda: Representative Howard, talking about contributions and there have certainly been some changes in ethics but some have said that by lowering the contributions to candidates that would shut out people from running, in other words because they can’t afford it. What is your opinion on that?
Howard: I am going to tell you that the elections have become very, very expensive. Our campaigns have been, you know—the first time that I ran I spent less than $5,000. And this last primary election I am ashamed to say that I was forced to spend over $90,000, close to $100,000. And that is—I am really apologetic that we are at that point in our lives. But if you pay for all of the things that are required in order to be successful in a campaign then you are spending a lot of time raising money. Now I don’t have any $4,000 contributors; well I’ll take that back, I do have some that are, have been very, very close friends of mine for many, many years. But normally you don’t see that. It is the $100, $250, $500—people that believe in who you are and they want to help you be successful in your race. Any legislator will tell you that you had much rather have people than dollars because that is what is important, people helping you, speaking to other people. But we are forced into being where we are.
Many people think that this is not a good idea but personally I’ve talked to a lot of folks over the years. I think that we should—all legislators should serve for a four-year term. Now that requires a constitutional amendment and a vote of the people and all of the things and over the years folks have not supported that with a public vote. But I believe that we have probably come to the time that if we spent the time to educate folks instead of being on a two-year cycle, if we were on four-year cycle. You would not spend nearly as much time focusing on trying to raise money and trying to run these campaigns, you could truly do your job more consistently. Not everybody agrees with me on that. But I truly think we are where we should be to bring that back out.
But I think just reducing the dollars, like I said very few people have $4,000 campaign contributions except from Art Pope. And I don’t fit into that category.
Vajda: Representative Ross, the lobbying bill is sort of in limbo because of contributions made by lobbyists and packs. Can you explain where that bill stands?
Ross: Well, the lobbying bill is actually one of the more difficult bills to put together and I really think that a lot of good work has gone into it so far. But because it is making large changes in the way that lobbying is regulated, we need to be careful about how it is done. So the lobbying bill has a couple of things that we are trying to work to get right.
One of them is who is a lobbyist? And a lot of the changes that are, were in the draft bill that we looked at, the one that was introduced, made vast numbers of people lobbyists who really aren’t the people who we traditionally think of as lobbyists. And the lobbyist is generally somebody who is paid money to affect legislation or affect a rule. And so because the definition is very, very broad in the bill that was introduced, we need to think about exactly who is a lobbyist and who isn’t. We don’t want to turn ordinary citizens who just come in contact with government for redress of their grievances, which they are allowed to do under the First Amendment, into somebody who has to register and file a report every month and all the rest.
But by the same token if somebody is getting paid to come down and get a law changed, we need to know about that. So just dealing with that has taken a whole committee meeting so that we get the balance right and ordinary citizens can do what they need to do but people who are getting paid to change legislation or change rules are regulated. Another—
Vajda: What about contributions by lobbyists?
Ross: Yes, the other thing that is in the current bill is that no lobbyist can give a contribution to anybody who is running at any time. And our staff has told us that has been struck down as unconstitutional and so there is a chance, especially given the courts in, that we go to, our federal courts, that there is a pretty good chance that would be struck down as unconstitutional here. So we are trying to find a balance where lobbyists can not give as much money as they have been giving in the past and that we restrict it down—and there are about three different ways that different people have been looking at and so I am confident that we will have lobbyists greatly restricted in what they can do but having an outright ban like I said has raised some Constitutional issues so we need to be careful about how we do that. So that is taking a little bit of time as well.
Vajda: Final question to both of you, Bob Paul of Democracy North Carolina says, and we all know this, that money is the bulk of the problem in politics. How do you change the culture and will these bills change what some call business as usual in Raleigh? Representative Howard?
Howard: I am not sure that I agree with that. I think that maybe I just think on a different plain but I am sure that is part of the problem. I also think that power and having the gavel and control is also an influence on what happens over the years. Our rules speak to the leadership in both the House and the Senate. Personally I think that it would probably behoove all of us if we had a four-year speakership, two years out or four years out, and back up. But when you don’t have that type of change, then I think that is part of the problem. And it also would give the younger, very talented members such as my cohort here today, the opportunity to be in that position where when you have the—with no disrespect to any leadership position as we see it today—but when you see leadership remaining in place 20 years, 22, 24, you know it—change is good.
Vajda: Representative Ross?
Ross: I would say of course money has a lot of impact on politics. I think the changes that we are going to see with these bills are that we are looking afresh at what ethics means today. And I would hope that we do it every ten years or so. And update our laws and update our policies to look at where we are.
But the fact of the matter is there is more money in politics today, not just because of power, but because we have much more competitive elections, both in the primaries and in the general election. We have a two-party state. And what used to be a one-party state where the same folks would almost always be there or you would have somebody who was a local person and they would be, you know, pretty much picked and they would go forward that way and people really didn’t have to raise a lot of money to keep their seats. It is wide open now. A lot of people say that some of the seats aren’t competitive enough but we’ve seen from some of the primaries that what used to be maybe two party now is getting into the primaries and when you have competition, competition costs money. And so what we need to do is make sure that we are fair in how we compete and that the public has confidence in how we do our jobs. And these bills I think will go a long way to doing that.
Vajda: Thank you both for a fantastic discussion.
McCullen: We tried to contact Art Pope several times for a comment but were unable to get that comment by the time we produced this program for broadcast. We will keep trying.
Vajda: For more analysis on this week’s happenings, Kelly sits down with members of the Capitol Press Corps.
ANALYSIS SEGMENT
McCullen: Joining me tonight is Mark Schreiner of the Star-News, and Sharif Durhams of the Charlotte Observer. Gentlemen thanks for joining us here on Legislative Week in Review. There are a few topics here on the sheet to run down. Let’s begin with the House budget. Mark, what is the status on the budget right now as far as deliberation, negotiation, and all of that?
Schreiner: According to Representative Edd Nye of Bladen County we are finished. He said on Wednesday and Thursday, or Thursday and Friday, that everything had come together and they were ready for votes this coming week.
McCullen: Sharif what are you hearing out of the west with the Charlotte crowd?
Durhams: Well, at least there is a little bit of money for the kind of projects that he wants Charlotte to want. There is supposed to be money for Johnson and Wills University, which is a school that we lured down with the help of leadership a few years ago—there is supposed to be $1 million in the budget for that. There is also money for getting a UNC-Charlotte campus in the uptown area; the main campus of UNC-Charlotte is on the outskirts of town. And to lure that uptown business crowd into getting degrees, they are going to try and build a campus in the uptown area.
McCullen: I was going to ask you about that. What Senate provisions are hanging in there in the House budget or is it stripped clean and they’ve gone back and placed the wrong priorities on there?
Durhams: No it is similar in a lot of ways. There are tax cuts in both budgets, a quarter percentage point on sales tax and in the House budget there is a one-eighth of one percent cut in—I am trying to—in the upper income tax bracket. This is a big deal if you are making over $100,000 a year in North Carolina. The Senate budget has a quarter percentage point. Now all three of these taxes went up a half a point in 2001 and the idea is the Democratic leadership wants to start scaling them back down.
McCullen: A few weeks ago in one of your columns you had broken out the calculator and deduced what a one-quarter of one cent sales tax reduction meant. Have you tried to cut into one-eighth of one cent on the upper income bracket?
Durhams: Well, you know as much money as those newspaper people make, it doesn’t exactly apply to us. I haven’t been able to figure that one out.
McCullen: Mark what is hanging in with the House provisions different from the Senate budget provisions as far as Eastern North Carolina is concerned?
Schreiner: Well, the one thing I am watching is to see whether it is a non-money provision; it has to do with the moratorium on new landfill permits for the east. The Senate tried to make it sort of a centerpiece in the sense that, you know, these were very controversial projects, they are across the coast, and there is some word I guess that the House may not put that in which of course throws it into the conference and as we all know, who knows what will come out of that?
McCullen: You know a lot of people go to the beach no matter where they live. Why is this a big deal for those counties down southeast and up through—
Schreiner: Well, you know it is sometimes referred to as the Atlantic Wall. The East Coast of, or the coast of North Carolina, is a booming place. But if you come in 30, 40, 50, 60 miles from the coast, it is still rural, relatively poor North Carolina. And that is where these projects are. And there is a disparity there between sort of the booming, condo coast and the old tobacco road. And so these projects are seen on the one hand as helping the economy of eastern North Carolina. On the other hand, they are seen as threats to the new coast. And so I think the legislature is trying to intervene and trying to show that they are coming down on the side of caution.
McCullen: Sharif, what provisions of the budget are standing out, are popular with both House and Senate members? Apparently tax cuts to some degree. Anything else in that budget?
Durhams: Yes there are definitely tax cuts. There is an attempt to give some help to struggling students in school; both the House and Senate budget have money for disadvantaged counties, counties that cannot raise a lot of tax money, helping those school systems out. That is something that was essentially demanded by the Leandro Schools lawsuit that has been going on for a decade.
Now these House and Senate budgets also don’t have money that follows poor students around that would help bigger counties like Mecklenburg. The governor wants that money in the budget so that could end up being a fight but the House and Senate agree that they can’t afford it.
McCullen: When you say a fight, how much of a fight do you expect? We can bridge this gap, right? It seems like tax cuts were on both chambers’ minds going into this.
Durhams: I think they will be able to work out the tax cuts but there are just different priorities in terms of spending and where the money is going to go. And so the question is what is going to happen in conference this year? Things have gone very quickly in terms of passing House—er, passing a Senate budget. And the question is are they willing to stay, stick around for several weeks and fight it out in conference or do they just want to go home and get out of town?
McCullen: Yeah how do you assess the speed at which we are conducting state business this summer?
Schreiner: Well, the lawmakers particularly in the Senate and I think we are going to hear it again in the House, want to make it clear to everybody that things are moving quickly. I think they feel this plays with the voters; it is an election year. But like with any process there are going to be problems to work out. And Sharif is right, are they going to take the time to work out every single issue or will some issues be deferred to the future? And right now the freight train is moving, there are supposed to be votes in the House this coming week—Wednesday and Thursday—which means would they immediately go into conference? Would there be votes before the, within the week after that? Who knows?
McCullen: What would history suggest, Sharif?
Durhams: History would suggest that it takes a while to work out these things in conference. They are usually willing to stick around, get their pet projects in, or they are willing to stand and just make a big fight over differences and—say the cigarette tax last year. They stuck around for a little while over a ten cent difference in the cigarette tax.
McCullen: Which means you get to be on standby for hours on end waiting for the—
Schreiner: Will there be inevitably some issue that it will come down to that will not be resolved easily.
McCullen: What issue could that be, Sharif?
Durhams: I don’t—who knows what it is going to be. It could be taxes. I’d look a lot in the education budget because the governor has some bones to pick in that as well on some programs that he wanted—I believe tutors for middle school or something like that that weren’t included in the House budget. So yeah, three different bodies that might be willing to fight over what happens in education.
McCullen: One fight that is over, Mark, is video poker. The bill has been signed. Now that it is over what are the provisions? What happens?
Schreiner: Well, it is a staged end to video poker. Right now stores that have video poker machines can have three—this will go down to two later this year, and then one, and then supposedly by next summer no machines at all. And that is supposed to be the end of video poker in North Carolina.
McCullen: Is debate over on the video poker side of this equation? Is it a done deal now or do we see challenges?
Durhams: The debate is probably over for now. The question is one, are you going to be able to enforce this? Because yes, you are legally allowed to have three machines. The thing is that the police say there have been back rooms in a lot of these video poker places where there have been three more. So does this bill actually help the police be able to find these illegal machines? We don’t know. Also House Speaker Jim Black says that there has to be a potential lawsuit in the works because the video poker bill carved out an exception for the eastern band of Cherokee that have casinos. And so Black surmises that people are going to sue and say, “Hey you are treating the Cherokee differently that you are treating everyone else. You can’t do that in law.” That is a question; who knows if someone is going to sue over that?
Schreiner: Right and Sharif is exactly right. The estimates, the numbers that have been talked about over the last couple of years is about 10,000 legal machines and perhaps as many as 20,000 illegal machines in this state. So an illegal machine remains an illegal machine and it will be a question whether the sheriff’s can ferret them out.
McCullen: So the illegal machines are what must go?
Schreiner: Right; in theory, right.
McCullen: The ethics complaint that was lodged against Governor Mike Easley, comes out of southeastern North Carolina and it is fairly complicated for most everyday people, including myself. What is it all about?
Schreiner: Well, a couple of fellows in Southport said that the governor was a crook and filed a letter with the Board of Ethics. It has to do with the way that a lease on a state-owned marina in Southport was renegotiated last winter. And there was a hearing in Raleigh this week which followed on about a six-week look into things; I didn’t want to use the word “investigation” but they talked to a lot of people. And they came back and Judge Farmer, who is the chairman of the Board of Ethics, said that the claim, the complaint, was beyond frivolous. And that was pretty much it. And the two fellows from Southport said they would accept the ruling of the ethics board.
McCullen: Yeah, how easy is it for someone to file a complaint against an elected official?
Durhams: Well, it is even easier than filing a lawsuit in this country. You basically make the complaint. And it was interesting in that the guy that was supposedly doing the dirty deal with Easley had been a donor to Easley; he is a Wilmington developer, but as the governor pointed out in a press conference earlier this week, the guy who supposedly did all this stuff didn’t get the deal. So you have to wonder how effective buying lobbying would be if you don’t get what you are trying to get out of it.
McCullen: The Ethics Board dismissed this claim outright just for clarity’s sake. Let’s talk about the cell phone ban. It has been a loud debate and a lot of talk, no pun intended. What makes it such a hot issue, Sharif?
Durhams: Well, it is funny. The idea of banning cell phones for adults was literally laughed at in a committee last year. But this year they are talking about banning them for teenagers, you know from age 16 to 18. And there was a very serious debate and it passed the Senate. There are House members that are seriously pushing for it. And the idea is that it would be able to save lives; these teens are just learning to drive and they have a higher rate of death due to accidents than other drivers. And so the idea is to have them turn their cell phones off with the exception of if mom and dad are calling the teen or the teen is calling mom and dad.
McCullen: Objectively how enforceable would a provision like that, Mark, how enforceable would this bill be with that?
Schreiner: Well, I think it is difficult to tell. And this is not only a hot issue in North Carolina, it has been across the country as anybody knows, especially anybody who has visited a place like the State of New York where they have a very—where they call the concept distracted driving. And but I believe up there in terms of enforcement it is sort of an after-the-fact, you’ve had an accident, how did it start? And so the idea I think is that if a person knows that they can have serious consequences for distracted driving that maybe they won’t use that phone when they are driving.
Durhams: The idea is not necessarily to punish people. It is like the seatbelt law or even the graduated driver’s license law. If you have a law that makes something illegal a lot of people are going to obey it, whether the cops are going to catch you or not. And so the idea is that it would save lives because people would actually hang up the phone if they are teenagers.
McCullen: You’ve written a little bit about campaign cash reform. What happened this week in the House? Some bills rolling through there I am familiar with.
Schreiner: Right. And this is the rolling out of bills from an interim commission that looked at all these different issues. And what we are looking at now is money moving through campaigns and whether they can be reported. And one of the big debates was the limit. Right now you have to give more than $100 before your name shows up on a campaign finance disclosure form. Now they are talking about moving it down to $50, that threshold to $50, which would draw in a larger group of small contributors and so there is obviously a lot of feeling that this would generate a lot of paperwork and it also would reveal a lot more about the base of campaigns.
McCullen: Cash contributions?
Schreiner: Yes, we are talking about cash contributions.
McCullen: Or money orders or—
Schreiner: Checks.
McCullen: As a way of tracking. They are arguing this thing isn’t practical, the opponents, the five opponents to this bill in the House voted. What is, how does that balance out? The practicality of it versus the need to have “sunshine” is a popular word or you know, like accountability to the public?
Durhams: Well, that was one of the funnier parts of the debate. I think some people who voted for it still had a lot of problems with it because they say, well say you pass a hat in the church and people put money in there, am I supposed to have all of their names? The person who was pushing the bill through, Representative Deborah Ross, repeatedly pointed out that that is illegal now—you have to be able to tell whether your contributors are giving you more than $100, whether they are giving it to you in cash or pennies or whatever it is and so you’d want those names even if you are passing the hat around a church. So there is a lot of clarity that needs to be brought to some of these laws.
McCullen: Sharif Durhams, the Charlotte Observer, Mark Schreiner, Wilmington Star-News of Wilmington, gentlemen always nice to have you on the air to hit on these issues and next week should be a hot one with the budget possibly coming out. Thank you very much.
Vajda: If you have any questions or comments on our show, e-mail us at LegWeek at UNC-TV.org or call us at (919) 549-7830. That does it for our show. Thanks so much for joining us. I am Eszter Vajda.
McCullen: I am Kelly McCullen. 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.
|
