|
Vajda: Eszter Vajda, Host
McCullen: Kelly McCullen, Legislative Week in Review
Henry: Johanna Henry, Legislative Week in Review
Black: Rep. Jim Black, (D) Speaker of the House
Garrou: Sen. Linda Garrou, Senate Appropriations Committee
Yongue: Rep. Doug Yongue, House Appropriations Conferee
Berger: Sen. Phil Berger, (R) Minority Leader
Adams: Rep. Alma Adams, (D) Guilford Co.
Barber: Rev. William J. Barber, II, Ph.D., President, NC NAACP
Nesbitt: Sen. Martin Nesbitt, (D) Buncombe Co.
Ross: Rep. Deborah Ross, (D) Wake Co.
Haugh: Sean Haugh, Libertarian Party of NC
Fitzgerald: Richard Fitzgerald, Raleigh Rescue Mission
Staples: Ben Staples, Exec. Dir., NAMI NC
Harrison: Sheriff Donnie Harrison, Sheriff, Wake Co.
Rapp: Rep. Ray Rapp, (D) Madison Co.
Vitaglione: Tom Vitaglione, Action for Children NC
Justice: Rep. Carolyn Justice, (R) Pender Co.
Albertson: Sen. Charlie Albertson, (D) Duplin Co.
Hardee: Dewitt Hardee, NC Dept. of Ag. & Consumer Services
Dollar: Rep. Nelson Dollar, (R) Wake Co.
Haire: Rep. Phil Haire, (D) Jackson Co.
Stam: Rep. Paul Stam, (R) Wake Co.
Jones: Rep. Earl Jones, (D) Guilford Co.
Cunningham: Rep. Pete Cunningham, (D) Mecklenburg Co.
Holmes: Rep. George Holmes, (R) Yadkin Co.
Rand: Sen. Tony Rand, (D) Majority Leader
Cowell: Sen. Janet Cowell, (D) Wake Co.
Hoyle: Sen. David Hoyle, (D) Co-Chair, Finance Comm.
Hackney: Rep. Joe Hackney, (D) Majority Leader
Stiller: Rep. Bonner Stiller, (R) Buncombe Co.
Durhams: Sharif Durhams, Charlotte Observer
Smith: Barry Smith, Freedom Newspapers
Ingram: David Ingram, Winston-Salem Journal
McCullen: The House and Senate burn midnight oil in hopes of reaching a state budget deal. A bill authorizing a possible eminent domain Constitutional amendment will not reach the House floor. And Johanna Henry examines North Carolina’s mental health funding 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: I’m Kelly McCullen. Tonight we are covering Constitutional amendment legislation restricting eminent domain.
Vajda: Some say lawmakers should proceed cautiously before changing the state constitution. We will also take a look at the state of mental healthcare in North Carolina. But our top story tonight is the state budget. House and Senate budget conferees reach an agreement on a state budget late Friday morning. The nearly $19 billion adjustment to the ’05-’06 fiscal year took a lot of give and take from both sides.
The sixth floor of the legislative office building was busy all week. Lobbyists, lawmakers,and media members eagerly waited for news on the budget. Once a compromise was reached Speaker Jim Black emerged content.
Black: I am very proud of this budget and I don’t know how anybody could explain not voting for this budget.
Vajda: But that was not the case earlier in the week when we spoke to both sides.
Garrou: These are all people who love North Carolina, who feel an obligation to support their community and support this state and do good things for our children and families. All of us feel that way and sometimes we just come at it from a little bit different perspective.
Yongue: We’ve, when you look at the total scope of things I think we are 98% there. And when you get down to the final things there are some, appear to be impasses and the way you get by impasses is of course each side is going to have to weigh their position carefully and be willing to give in and the bottom line is what is best for the people in the State of North Carolina.
Vajda: A number of items kept lawmakers behind closed doors. Perhaps the biggest sticking point between House and Senate conferees was Medicaid relief for counties. The House proposed about $27 million for the 100 state counties but the Senate had something else in mind. The two decided on the House’s proposal.
Another issue lawmakers wrangled over is state employee raises. The final figure is a 5.5% increase for state employees. There was also heavy discussion on landfills. Senate leader Marc Basnight wants a moratorium on new, large landfills. The provision is in the Senate’s version of the budget. But Speaker Jim Black has said he did not want any extra provisions to weigh down this budget. The moratorium is not in the bill.
Black: We have kept the policy provisions to a bare minimum and there is not any major policy change in this budget that I know of.
Vajda: In light of the proposed budget free of provisions, several bonds were expected to be introduced as separate bills, including funds for affordable housing, water and sewer projects, and conserving land. No bond bill appeared this week. In the end budget writers point out there are plenty of positive issues that have been resolved and put in the budget, including money for education by fully-funding student enrollment and giving teachers a raise. The budget writers say they also allocated plenty of money into Health and Human Services and Justice and Public Safety. The budget contains several tax cuts, one on the state sales tax.
Black: Sales tax kicks in in December, Christmas bonus.
Vajda: And the other for the state’s upper income earners. Many Republicans voted for the adjustments to the ’05-’06 budget but some say the state’s coffers will run dry because of overspending.
Berger: What we are looking at is a budget that is still going to spend too much. You know both the House and the Senate versions spent too much in my view. We’ve got a $2.4 billion surplus and we’ve got that money that was taken from the taxpayers over the past year. I think the taxpayers ought to get it back either in the form of a refund or in the form of significant tax relief. The budget will not have significant tax relief and there is clearly no refund.
Vajda: The budget will be debated in both chambers next week. Now since the fiscal year ends on June 30th a continuing resolution had to be passed for a few items but state government can continue to operate since the two-year budget was already approved last year. As a matter of full disclosure, 45% of UNC-TV’s budget is funded by the General Assembly.
McCullen: One difference in issues between the House and Senate has been the minimum wage hike issue. The Senate raised the minimum wage in its budget version; the House passed a stand-alone bill [House 2174]; both raise the minimum wage up to $6.15 an hour but either the compromised budget bill must contain the hike or the Senate must pass the House’s stand-alone bill to see $6.15 an hour become reality.
Adams: Identical minimum wage bills must pass both chambers or an increase of $1 will not become a reality and it will not be implemented into law in North Carolina after this session shuts down.
Barber: This minimum wage increase is just crumbs. It is a step in the right direction but in comparison to the rest of the budget and in comparison to the real need for a living wage, it is just crumbs.
McCullen: Senator Basnight said Thursday that he is confident that the General Assembly will finish its work on this important issue before the legislative session ends.
Vajda: A Senate judiciary committee began discussing ethics and campaign finance reform bills passed by House members [House 1846]. Senators had several questions and concerns on a requirement for political campaign treasurers to take a training course and also about cash contributions that should be reported to the state. Some senators suggest that the threshold should be moved from the current House proposal of $50 to $100.
Nesbitt: You are creating an absolute paper nightmare and you are going to create campaign reports that are so lame people can’t hardly get through them over nothing and contributions under $50 have never been a problem, aren’t a problem, weren’t a problem, aren’t going to be a problem.
Vajda: No action was taken on any of the bills in committee but lawmakers say that because of the recent issues concerning Speaker Jim Black and campaign finances, reform needs to pass this session.
Berger: We will have a bill; I am confident it will address the major issues that have been talked about on and on since the last session.
Vajda: It is not clear yet whether the bills will make it to the floor of the Senate this session.
McCullen: House members continue discussions on ethics and campaign reform as well. A bill creating a pilot program for public financing of legislative elections is one of the last ones of nearly ten introduced [House 1851]. The State Board of Elections would select the districts; funding would be determined by taxpayers.
Ross: It is really about creating opportunity because there are a lot of people who want to run for the General Assembly who simply do not have access to large sums of money to be able to compete with incumbents or they don’t want to take money from special interests or more private sources. And so this is more of an opportunity for people to run.
McCullen: The pilot would begin in 2008. It applies to two seats in both the House and state Senate. The measure is similar to ones already used in the State Supreme Court and Court of Appeals races.
Vajda: A House judiciary committee has passed legislation that bans lobbyists from giving gifts to lawmakers. The lobbying reform bill is aimed at shedding light on the process [House 1849]. The ban includes legislators, the governor, members of the Council of State and their assistants. The measure does allow contributions to political campaigns. Other exemptions include food and drinks and small gifts less than $10. It also bars lawmakers from taking a job as lobbyists for a year after they leave office. The bill now heads to the full House for consideration.
And that brings us to last week’s question of the week: Should laws concerning lobbyists be stricter? Eighty-five percent of you say “yes,” while 8% say “no,” and 7% of you were not sure. Thanks so much to all of those who participated.
McCullen: A coalition of third political parties says current law hampers them from election participation, actually restricting their rights. The North Carolina Open Elections Coalition supports an unamended version of House Bill 88 [House 88]. That bill lowers how many petition signatures qualify political parties for ballot access. It also lowers the limit on votes parties can receive in elections and automatically remain on North Carolina ballots.
Haugh: That is really the whole goal that we are seeking here with everything that we are doing is to try and make it possible every voter in North Carolina no matter what their political persuasion is, has every opportunity to be able to fully participate in our elections.
McCullen: The coalition says North Carolina’s current laws are the nation’s third toughest on third parties. That is our question of the week this week.
QUESTION OF THE WEEK
Should it be easier for third parties to get on the state’s ballots? Log onto unctv.org/legweek. We will have responses next week.
Vajda: Now one of the biggest issues this session is funding for mental health. The budget allocated several million dollars to various programs and services.
McCullen: But as the Dorothea Dix Hospital is set to close soon more mental health patients are expected to need help. Johanna Henry joins us with our story tonight. Johanna?
MENTAL HEALTH
Henry: Eszter and Kelly, millions of dollars will soon be pumped into a mental health system that has had its budget cut in recent years. But advocates say it may not be enough.
Fitzgerald: We already don’t have enough beds. Folks are already—there are just not enough places.
Henry: Richard Fitzgerald is the resources coordinator at the Raleigh Rescue Mission. During our visit he proudly showed us recent improvements in the women’s wing of the mission. Many residents have moved from door rooms to their own room, all we saw were spotless. Fitzgerald and his staff here have their hearts and hands full with the homeless in Wake County. But they have now become the safety net for many with mental illness in the area. They have no other place to go.
Fitzgerald: I think everybody thinks that somebody else is doing it or taking care of it. But in the early 90’s the statistic came out that one out of three Americans have either direct or indirect dealing with mental health agencies of some kind.
Henry: Here are some numbers you probably didn’t know. According to mental health organizations, studies show 25% of the population has a mental illness; 1.6 million, that is the number of mentally ill in North Carolina. Four hundred thousand is the number living with a severe, persistent condition. More than $250 million, that is how much money mental health advocates say they need to fund a fix. And $90 million is how much money currently slated for mental health in the House and Senate budget.
Staples: The system has been under-funded for a long, long time. And the infrastructure has been impacted by the lack of appropriate funding. There was money dedicated to the Mental Health Trust Fund at some point and after Hurricane Floyd and with the flood that health trust fund was raided to support the budget.
Henry: Ben Staples is the executive director of NAMI, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. NAMI is a non-profit support network for the patients and families of those suffering from a mental disorder. Staples says he knows at budget time every organization, agency, and service is asking for a piece of the pie. This year it is a $19 billion pie. That is bigger than previous years but not big enough to fund everyone’s wish list.
Harrison: It is costing taxpayers either way.
Henry: Sheriff Donnie Harrison says every time a Wake County officer transports a patient to a mental health facility it takes that officer off the street, up to six hours at a time.
Harrison: Once that officer picks up that patient, if he has to take him to Jacksonville, Butner, Rocky Mount, Hickory, wherever he may have to take him, that is one less officer that I have answering calls here in Wake County. So what happens in the long-run it cuts back on my response time.
Henry: Sheriff Harrison says when Dorothea Dix, a mental health facility in Raleigh, closes its doors his transport hours will probably double. That is because his officers will have to travel longer distances to transport patients to other facilities in North Carolina. Harrison says under-funding mental health also has an impact on correction facilities.
Harrison: What I’m afraid of, these facilities are going to be full if we don’t have enough beds for them so they are going to wind up back in our society, causing some type problem—not intentionally but that is just the nature—and are liable to wind up in our jail.
Henry: Ben Staples says the breakdown in mental healthcare started several years ago when lawmakers decided that the system should be reformed. The patients don’t need to be committed to large state-run institutions but would do better, and the state would save money, if they were placed in smaller community and private facilities.
Staples: The premise of mental health reform was that there would be money channeled to the communities to build up facilities to anticipate closing of the beds. Unfortunately that hasn’t happened; the communities haven’t been, had money sent their way in order to build to capacity to anticipate the need. So if we are closing hospital beds and we don’t have the resources in the community, where do those individuals go? How are they treated?
Henry: So what happens now? Ninety million dollars in next year’s budget will help but mental health advocates say they have a long way to go.
Staples: People die. I mean this is serious business. The prisons will fill up. The homeless shelters will fill up and there will be more people in the streets with mental illness.
Fitzgerald: It is important that things would be looked at now to begin resolving some of these issues that could explode on us down the road. But they are exploding as we speak.
Henry: This is how much money NAMI says North Carolina spends on mental health per person each year. It is $50.26. Back to you.
Vajda: House Speaker Jim Black confirmed Friday morning that $80 to $90 million is set aside for mental health in this compromised budget.
OTHER LEGISLATION
Vajda: A House committee discusses identify theft legislation that expands law enforcement’s authority to take fingerprints. The bill would give police fingerprinting authority if a driver is pulled over and cannot produce a driver’s license or a learner’s permit [House 2881]. Failing to produce a driver’s license when police ask is currently a Class 2 misdemeanor but fingerprinting isn’t authorized. This bill takes effect December 1st if it passes.
McCullen: The importance of Memorial Day may soon become part of North Carolina public school curriculum. The House has concurred with a Senate bill requiring the State Board of Education to develop programs [House 836]. These programs would help students understand the meaning of Memorial Day celebrations. Sponsors say currently some western North Carolina schools do not observe Memorial Day. The aim of this bill is not to have another vacation day but rather to educate children about veterans.
Rapp: The idea is to give some flexibility to the school system but to have the State Board of Education mandate that an instructional program on the history and significance of Memorial Day be included in the curriculum and especially on the day of Memorial Day or a celebration of some kind, a recognition ceremony of some kind, go on in the schools so veterans can be recognized, so the children know the history and the sacrifices that our veterans have made.
McCullen: The governor must sign this bill for it to be law by next Memorial Day.
Vajda: A bill to ban kids from using cell phones while driving is on the fast track to the House floor. The bill would extend their graduated licenses if they are caught using a cell phone behind the wheel. This includes hand-free phones [Senate 1289]. Supporters say the bill saves lives while opponents say the bill does not go far enough and adults should be included as well.
A bill to remove dangerous carcinogens from school properties has also passed on the Senate floor. The bill would require the State Board of Education to eliminate arsenic-treated woods in classrooms and playgrounds over a period of time [House 1502]. It also addresses pesticide use and diesel exhaust from school busses plus it would remove mercury from classrooms. The state’s toxicologist and child advocates support this bill.
Vitaglione: The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, has declared for example arsenic which comes out of the treated wood to be a carcinogen at the rate of 1 in 10,000 children if they are consistently exposed by handling the playground equipment and then putting that, their hands in their mouths.
Vajda: The House will review the Senate’s action and consider concurring.
McCullen: Representative Paul Miller has officially resigned. He is facing fraud charges. The Durham County Democrat is accused of doctoring checks to make it appear he had paid off student loans. He was arrested by federal authorities and according to a letter he sent to Speaker Jim Black; Representative Miller will leave office July 7th. We called his office but did not receive a response.
Vajda: North Carolina hog farmers could soon see economic incentives to install new and cleaner hog waste systems. Representative Carolyn Justice sponsors legislation which would help pay hog farmers’ cost of installing new hog waste technology and an appointed task force would identify innovative treatment methods and approve helping farmers pay for those [House 2784]. It would examine ways of creating marketable products from hog waste.
Justice: This session I sponsored legislation that would help put clean technology on the ground. It is purely a voluntary, incentive-based program for those entrepreneurial farmers ready and wiling to be innovators.
Vajda: The bill authorizes a $10 million fund to help hog farmers adopt new waste technology. Representative Justice says she’d like the task force to be appointed soon so they can start ahead of next year’s session.
McCullen: Some senators hope to increase North Carolina’s energy independence. The Senate Appropriations Committee is reviewing their six-point legislative plan [Senate 2051]. The proposal promotes energy, water and utilities conservation in public buildings. It backs alternative fuels for state-owned vehicles; help low-income earners pay bills, and offers tax incentives while authorizing a strategic plan for developing a North Carolina-based biofuels industry.
Albertson: And what helps us move forward towards being more efficient with our energy, our water, our electricity, we send $15 billion out of this state every year to purchase energy; 98% of our energy is brought in from out-of-state. And the best way to save money on energy is to reduce the use of it.
McCullen: Buildings receiving state funding would establish energy and water reduction goals.
Vajda: State agencies and the North Carolina Dairy Industry says that it needs price supports [Senate 1156]. The bill would establish a price floor for milk that would guarantee that state dairy farmers could cover production costs when market prices are so low that they lose money. A fund would be established and supported by legislative appropriations and any available private money or grants. Lawmakers were told North Carolina does not produce enough milk for its population.
Hardee: If you look at North Carolina as a whole as far as its population and take in the fact not just fluid milk, cheeses and other things, we have an approximate need of about five billion pounds of milk; we only produce around a billion pounds.
Vajda: The USDA says North Carolina has lost two-thirds of its dairy farms since 1985.
McCullen: Many Republican and Democratic House members hope that a constitutional amendment bill restricting eminent domain would reach the House floor this week. It didn’t happen. They are asking why while other say changing our state constitution is a tremendous responsibility. A bill authorizing a state constitutional amendment referendum banning eminent domain for private developer benefits seems stalled. A House Judiciary Committee by a 7:3 party-line vote sent it to the rules committee rather than to the House floor for consideration. Some say the bill has gray areas and the rules committee could investigate it. Others say it is a move to kill the bill.
Dollar: The 88 members who singed on realized they were signing on to a constitutional amendment and I think appreciate the weight that carries when they sign onto that. And again I think that there is—we have had discussion on the substance of the issue. I think if it goes to rules it is going there to die.
Haire: When you propose a constitutional amendment it is not something that you come in and change the next session or two sessions down the road. We are talking about a long-range effect for many, many years and generations as to the effect of the constitutional amendment.
McCullen: Wake County Representative Paul Stam is a primary sponsor of the eminent domain amendment bill. He believes an amendment would best protect property rights but other say it is possible that legislation short of a constitutional amendment could work.
Stam: This is the Tennessee Two Step. Basically by this method—at least they put the committee on record. And we know now who on the committee does not want reform.
Jones: I think I can probably say that every member of this committee supports doing something regarding the eminent domain and the private taking of private property. The issue again boils down to whether you want to change the constitution.
McCullen: Representative Pete Cunningham said the eminent domain amendment bill combines major legislative proposals, eminent domain restrictions and the notion of changing North Carolina’s constitution which some believe may not be necessary. But amendment supporters ask why action shouldn’t be taken now?
Stam: If the leadership has never told us what is wrong wit this bill. This is a bipartisan bill; a majority of the Democrats are co-sponsors and all but one Republican. This is not something that they should be afraid of but for some reason they are.
Cunningham: We’ve got two major bills in one, changing the constitution and eminent domain. Those are two issues that are of major importance and people come down on different sides of that.
Holmes: This is an important issue that is before the people of this state and I, from what I can gather from my constituents, they want this issue passed by January 7th.
McCullen: You’ve seen the heart of the debate. Some newspaper reports are out saying this bill is indeed dead this session.
Well there will be alcohol possibly sold on University of North Carolina golf courses really soon. It is a bill right now in Senate Finance Committee [Senate 2035]. It covers golf courses owned or leased by UNC constituent campuses which are open to the public. Bill sponsor and Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand says the bill helps UNC golf courses match amenities offered by competing golf courses.
Rand: Most golf courses in North Carolina have this service and I saw no reason why Finley should not also.
McCullen: The bill becomes law immediately if it is passed.
Vajda: The Senate Finance Committee approved a cable television deregulation bill. It now heads to the Senate floor. The committee discussed temporarily requiring cities to handle cable TV customer complaints despite the state assuming the franchising role from local government. It revived debate on how the cable television market should be treated when compared with other service industries like plumbing, for instance.
Cowell: I do think it needs a higher standard than plumbing. I think entertainment news, education that people get over these and Senator Clodfelter and I disagree on this, but I do think that this is a critical service and for a transition period to have some of these nets for consumers to make sure they are not negatively, significantly negatively adversely effected if that makes sense, is a good idea.
Hoyle: This would encourage and promote filings of complaints, whether they may or may not be legitimate.
Vajda: Some committee leaders worry that amendments would force the bill to committees, not to the Senate floor. Concerns were that the session would adjourn without the full session considering this bill.
McCullen: Ethics campaign and lobbying reform are hot topics this session. Eszter meets with Majority Leader Joe Hackney and Representative Bonner Stiller to discuss lobbying changes. Because of budgeting negotiations it has been quite a week for lawmakers so Eszter met with them separately.
INTERVIEW WITH REPRESENTATIVE JOE HACKNEY
Vajda: Representative Hackney thanks so much for being here during this very busy week.
Hackney: It is nice to be here with you.
Vajda: Why is it important to pass lobbying reform this session? Why do you think it is important?
Hackney: Well we’ve had a rather long-term effort on lobby reform. The secretary of state started this off a year or two back, there were some recommendations. Senator Rand and I introduced bills which resulted in the passage of Senate Bill 612 in the last session. A lot of work was done. We closed the so-called goodwill loophole and called for, passed the bill calling for increased reporting. But a lot of people felt there was more to be done and that bill needed further work. And so there was a study before this session began and the study commission made recommendations for better reporting, stronger bans, total ban on lobbyists’ gifts to legislators other than on just a diminimus basis. And so that is what we are bringing out of the Judiciary 1 Committee, a good strong bill.
Vajda: Under this bill what is a definition of a lobbyist?
Hackney: A lobbyist is someone who gets paid to come down here and advocate at the General Assembly or in the executive branch. There are, that is the basic, simple explanation. There are various exclusions and additions and it becomes very complicated but basically it is somebody who gets paid to come here and do what any citizen can do for free.
Vajda: There was some concern that it would deter everyday citizens from coming down here. What provisions are in there not to deter this?
Hackney: We’ve made sure that first of all if you are not getting paid to do it you are not, you don’t have to register under any circumstances. And even if it is a part of your job to come here occasionally, unless you have more than I think it is five hours of direct communication in a calendar quarter you still don’t have to register. So we are trying to pick out those people who really are here a lot and are paid to be here and paid to take part in the legislative process, make sure they are regulated. We make sure we know the money they are spending. Make sure that they are not giving gifts to legislators and that they are reporting various parts of their enterprise.
Vajda: What kind of recording and reporting is there under this measure?
Hackney: Well they have to report their pay and their expenditures for lobbying.
Vajda: Now one of the provisions in this bill bans lobbyists from giving gifts but it allows the $10, it has a $10 threshold. Why was that important, why do you think that was important?
Hackney: Well there is a so-called; there is a $10 diminimus just to take care of situations of trinkets and promotional or advertising materials, things like that. It is not anticipated that there will be a lot of $10 gifts.
Vajda: What about political action committees? Why weren’t they included in this?
Hackney: Well political action committees are separately regulated. Every contribution to and every expense from a political action committee is reported now to the State Board of Elections and is there for everybody to see. And so that system is in place.
Vajda: Lobbying reform is one of the many bills that are going through the General Assembly. Do you think that these bills will change what some call business as usual in Raleigh?
Hackney: Well I do think it has already changed as a result of the bills. I think it will change more after January 1. The combination of the—and the executive branch as well—the combination of the executive ethics bill, the legislative ethics bill, and the lobbying bill, those three fit together, in that it is unlawful for a covered member of the executive branch or a legislator to accept a gift or a meal or whatever and it is illegal for the lobbyist to give that same meal or gift. And so it all fits together, it amounts to a virtual complete ban on lobbyists’ gifts. And beyond that in the ethics bills non-lobbyists gifts also have to be reported above a certain amount. So it is a change in how we do business here.
Vajda: Do you expect the Senate to make many changes on these bills
Hackney: Well it has been interesting to watch the Senate, they didn’t have the benefit of the study that we did so a lot of these, a lot of this legislation is new to them. They are digging in; they are working hard at it. They are asking good questions, the same ones we did by and large, and I believe those will emerge in strong form from the state Senate.
Vajda: All right Representative Joe Hackney thanks so much for being here.
Hackney: Thank you very much.
INTEREVIEW WITH REPRESENTATIVE BONNER STILLER
Vajda: Representative Stiller thanks so much for being here.
Stiller: Thank you Eszter for inviting me. I am glad to be here.
Vajda: Under the lobbying reform bill, what is the definition of a lobbyist?
Stiller: Well that is something that we have been struggling with to be quite honest with you. A lobbyist is someone that you and I would think of as a person that comes or usually works and stays right here in Raleigh that comes and sees the legislators, that works for a particular group of persons or an entity, and they bring to us the issues that pertain to their clients. However, with the lobbying bill that we have been working on, you know the crafting of the legislation and the wording, some of the concerns are that even persons that come up—let’s say the persons that work in the company—let’s say your county commissioners come up to see you, the people that are on the electric co-op boards that come up and spend a day here, are they lobbying? Do they have to register as a lobbyist? And that is not the intent of the lobbying bill but that is how careful that we’ve had to be with getting the wording exactly correct in the lobbying bill.
So it does include what we traditionally think of as a lobbyist and it also goes beyond that a little bit further in that if a person let’s say the president of a particular company is making a number of trips to Raleigh, he is having a number of appointments with the different legislators, then yes that can become lobbying. So what we have done is look at potentially putting in a time element, in other words if you actually have more than for instance 18 or 24 hours of actual face-to-face discussions with legislators accumulatively then that could constitute lobbying and then you may have to register. But a person that is engaged in the business of lobbying has to register with the secretary of state.
Vajda: Now they also have to register and account for the gifts. And this bill basically bans gifts from lobbyists. Why was that important?
Stiller: Well it is important in that the perception to the general public number one is that if you are accepting gifts from a lobbyist or if you are accepting this or this or this, that you may be persuaded to vote in favor of something that they are working on just because they have done something for you. And the perception is important because we have to have the integrity of the institution.
So we want to make sure that we keep that as open as possible, therefore there are a variety of things that take place Eszter. When somebody, a lobbyist, is working with a legislator or ten legislators or however many and if they purchase anything they have to record that, they have to put that on their expenditures. It is recorded, it is looked at every quarter, it has who you spent any money on and for what particular items were purchased or what particular thing. And they have to record who it is that they are working for at the time. So it is important that we have that documentation.
The banning of gifts is an idea of anything under $10 would not be included but things of $10 or more would be included. Now currently that is not the law but that is the proposal of—
Vajda: So drinks, food, that type of thing is included?
Stiller: Yes, that would be included too. I understand that the Senate may be making some changes to the proposed legislation but the bill as it has gone through the House and through our “J” committee is currently, includes foods and these things.
Vajda: What about PACs, Political Action Committees?
Stiller: The political action committees traditionally, you know PACs oftentimes have their own lobbyist that they are under. I mean whether it is the PAC for let’s say educators. They have a lobbyist that is here full time. So a lot of the PACs do. Now there are other PACs that—what I was going to say was it is amazing how many PACs that there are, I just had a shock at that when it came up. I was telling my dad, I said, “I think there are some for even glassblowers.” I mean it is amazing, you know? But one lobbyist may represent one particular company, like a large pharmaceutical company. Another lobbyist may represent 10, 15, 20 different people. So you know they do work in conjunction. There are some PACs I am sure that do not have a particular lobbyist that they work for and they generally of course are a group of people or professionals that belong to an organization like I said dentistry, that or anesthesiologists. Now they by the way as far I recall do have lobbyists however they contribute “X” amount of money to their society, to their group. That money is collected and then it is used to help with legislation or to help to go towards campaigns for candidates that really subscribe to their way of thinking.
Vajda: Also one of the provisions bars lawmakers after they retire or resign of becoming lobbyists within a year. Why was that important?
Stiller: Well I think that is important that, like you are here to day and of course you have a lot of contacts, all of your friends here that you’ve made acquaintances with, with the other 119 members of the House. So the thought is I believe that it was six months, and it has been expanded to a year. However the thought there is a time of cleansing if you will so that they lose a little bit of again the perception that I am going to step out of this role, run over here and represent this company, come back through and cash-in on some kind of you know, favor that you owe me because I voted for your legislation when I was here. So there is that cooling-off period is really a good way of looking at it.
Vajda: Let me go back for a second about the contributions between lobbyists and lawmakers and there was an issue earlier on in the process about campaign contributions from lobbyists to lawmakers, there was a constitutional issue. Could you expand on that?
Stiller: Well there is a constitutional issue in that it is one the constitution tries, lays out that you have to be extremely careful in treating one class of people different than another class of people. So a person that is a lobbyist is one class of person. And if they want to contribute money to a candidate’s campaign then as a person they certainly can do that. As a business person, as a lobbyist in their professional goal, job, there comes the mixture of this isn’t for myself as the person but this is on behalf of the organizations that I represent.
Vajda: How confident are you that this bill along with the campaign reform and some of the ethics bills will change what is, or deter what some call business as usual in Raleigh?
Stiller: I would say on behalf of the members and the way business as usual, that you know I’ve always felt and many others do as well, if you come over—a lobbyist’s job is to be able to have the opportunity to share with you what it is that their constituent or their client has as a very important matter to them. So they come by your office and speak to you. And the good lobbyists, which most of them are very professional, do an excellent job for their clients is they will also tell you the other side: “This is what I’d like, want to share with you, what is on our client’s mind but I also want to tell you what the opposition will say.” And give you both sides of the story. And you know we deal with so many issues you cannot have all the knowledge that you need from healthcare to criminal law to science and on and on so it can be very beneficial.
And on behalf of the members I would say if you are here as a representative or a senator and you have dinner with a lobbyist or you know something of that nature or go to a baseball game or something, and if that persuades you to vote for the people that you represent back home, you don’t need to be here. You need to have higher morals, higher ground, and a backbone and be able to sit and chat with you and then be able to say, “I’m sorry but I cannot support that whenever you come by. Some things I can work with you on, some things I can’t.” And so that is the kind of representatives that we need too.
Vajda: All right Representative Stiller. Thanks so much for being here.
Stiller: Thank you, Eszter, I appreciate it.
McCullen: Lobbying reform has passed the House Judiciary Committee but has not reached the House floor yet. The Senate has not begun discussing lobbying reform but a spokesperson for Senator Marc Basnight says they do expect to take it up this session.
Vajda: It has been a busy week for many lawmakers and reporters. Kelly talks with three members of the Capital Press Corps about the budget process, cable deregulation, and third-party ballots.
ANALYSIS SEGMENT
McCullen: Joining us right now for analysis of the legislative events of this week Sharif Durhams with the Charlotte Observer, Barry Smith with the Freedom Newspapers and David Ingram with the Winston-Salem Journal. Gentlemen good to have you on the set here tonight. It has been a busy week. Let’s talk about the House budget process. They’ve proclaimed it will a sunshine session. How much sun has shown in these halls this session, Sharif, and this week?
Durhams: This week it has been a little bit cloudy. They did a good job of letting us into more meetings than they have in the past in terms of when they are negotiating between the House and the Senate budget writers on finalizing the budget. But they only let us in meetings when both sides were there together. A lot of the negotiation went on when one side would go into its camp and the House would try to firm up its position or the Senate would do the same. And reporters weren’t allowed in during that time, so. Not that much sunshine.
McCullen: Partly cloudy, mostly cloudy, overcast.
Durhams: A little overcast.
McCullen: What are the expectations, Barry, that this environment of more open negotiation will continue into the future sessions?
Smith: I think it will continue as long as it is convenient. If it comes to a point next year that it is not convenient to do that they want to do it behind closed doors, they will do that. There has been a lot of stuff going on with ethics and with—if I can get the word out right—with reform and with the process. The process has been something that has been criticized and so they’ve tried to be a bit more above-board this session, which is a good thing.
McCullen: What do you think David?
Ingram: Well I think toward the end especially it got you might say even more cloudy. They tried those experiments at the beginning of this past week of having these open meetings and toward the end they really gave up and got into these camps as Sharif was describing where they were passing proposals back and forth.
Durhams: In fact on the really tough stuff the budget writers really wanted Senator Basnight and Speaker Black to deal with some of the issues for them. That is what those two leaders did in the past is that the really tough stuff they just dealt with themselves. And so they weren’t able to do that early in the week this time. There have been some rumors that they might have had discussions later in the week but that is part of the problem, the really tough issues if you only have two people talking you can’t have everyone else in the room, including reporters, while they are trying to negotiate those issues.
McCullen: Well now I would think you guys being newspaper reporters would drive a pretty hard bargain on the definition of open government, I mean really Barry.
Smith: Well we do want to drive a hard bargain. The thing is there is an old variation of the golden rule that says he who has the gold makes the rule. Well they are the ones in charge. They can go into closed session under the state law and they have done it.
Durhams: Since they make the law.
Smith: Yeah. They write the laws and they exempt themselves from it. Now every county commissioner in the state has got to go by that law but they exempted themselves from it, their conference committees are exempt.
Ingram: And it is not like that in every state necessarily. In some states we will talk to other reporters and they will tell us that they are shocked to hear that our conference committees are closed because there it is a more open process and I would like to see how it actually gets done because it seems less efficient but you have to balance efficiency with openness.
McCullen: Have any of you guys learned something by being able to be part of what was normally a closed-off process?
Smith: You get a little bit more knowledge of what the real hang-ups are. You can usually get that from talking to people. They will tell you because they want their way. But you get some ideas of what the real hang-ups are. And some of them were even surprised; some senators were even surprised to hear that we had learned some of the aspects that had been going on behind closed doors. And that is because of one of the, another senator had told us.
McCullen: And Barry you made a comment about it being convenient that when it is no longer convenient they may not let you back in there. Explain that sentiment of convenience in the legislative budget process.
Smith: Well you know, you want to look good. A lot that goes on here in addition—there is substantive stuff but then there is image that goes on—and there is this image of we want to look like we are being open, that we are getting something done. This has been supposedly the ethics session and what kind of meaningful legislation is going to get out is still yet to be determined but it looks good if we are being open, if we are not being open then there is this sense that there is something secretive going on. Well if the spotlight is no longer shining on ethics on this place then it won’t be as important to them to go behind closed doors.
McCullen: Sharif what does it mean when the conferees do want to bring in the top leadership and they say no, you are going to handle this negotiation yourself. What does it do to the dynamic?
Durhams: That means a big headache because you know these people are sent in there, either the House or the Senate, to defend a position of the House or the Senate. So if someone is going to concede and back off on that, you’d want the top leader signing off on that. In fact if you, people’s personal districts are tied up in something that is being negotiated away, you want the top leader signing off on that so that you have some pressure for everyone to go along with it.
McCullen: With the media being allowed into some of this negotiating process what are you hearing as you walk the halls from an atmosphere, ambiance standpoint when you ask other House, rank-and-file members of the House and Senate what is happening with the budget? What can they tell you? Do they know anything more than usual?
Ingram: No, not usually. This process is still very much centralized and very few people—and that is by design. The House had about eight folks, eight of its members negotiating; the Senate about five. And most rank-and-file legislators are sort of waiting to see how most things turn out. Some of them will be interested in specific projects; either back home or policy issues and they might be following those. But otherwise it is, there are only a few people focused on all the issues.
McCullen: And folks that watch this show, read your articles, they wonder how do you learn all of this stuff? Has it been a help this session, Sharif? Has it made your job easier for them to be more open? Have you been able to get better stories, better coverage, or?
Durhams: It has been slightly more insightful. You see some more of the specifics of what is hanging things up as Barry said. But other than that I don’t know that it has revealed a lot more to readers other than how their legislature works. I mean they send these people up here so it is good for them to know how it works and what they do.
McCullen: Of course Barry this is all Democrats and all Republicans working this budget deal out. We had some third parties from all spectrums come in this week to cry foul basically. Why were they upset or what were they calling for out of the legislature?
Smith: They are calling for what has become known as ballot access laws, more open ballot access laws. Basically when you go to vote this November there are only going to be two parties on the ballot, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party. A lot of years in the past we’ve had the Libertarian Party, they have been a staple as the other third party in North Carolina. And there have been others, the Green Party; the Reform Party has been on. It is hard to get on the ballot and it is hard to stay on the ballot. You have to get seems like it is 60 to 70,000 signatures, legitimate signatures which they say in order to make sure that you have a legitimate signature you have to make sure you have 100,000 and some people in there because some of these people may not be registered voters. You have to get a lot of signatures to get on the ballot and then you have to get I believe it is 10% of the vote in a gubernatorial election or a presidential election to stay on the ballot. And these third political parties are saying that is an impossible task to do and as long as we are spending our time and efforts getting on and staying on the ballot we are not spending our time and our money getting our message out and trying to convince people to at least take a look at what our philosophy is.
McCullen: You’ve been following recent history of this issue; it kind of bubbles up pretty much every year. How does that argument mesh with the facts of what third parties are up against in North Carolina? Is it that high of a hurdle?
Ingram: Yes, it is. North Carolina is considered to have among the most, among the toughest laws in the country for trying to get on the ballot of any state in the country that is. And there is a reason for that and that is that the two major parties would like to see less competition, that is in their interest. And there has been discussion usually every year particularly during election years of opening up the process, of lowering the number of signatures that candidates for third parties need, and the legislation just doesn’t usually move. We’ve seen the courts step in a little bit. Ralph Nader tried to get on the ballot in North Carolina in ’04 and didn’t get very far. And there is little sign that will change.
McCullen: Well they were here. I saw Sharif the Constitutional Party, which is a conservative party all the way to the Green Party, I was going to say, Libertarians were here. How realistic Sharif is it, again well this session is almost over but is this bill going to go anywhere any time soon to help these third parties?
Durhams: I am afraid not. There have always been a few people in the room who, you know, are either Democrats or Republicans who have really been trying to defend the idea that other parties should be included but I mean frankly, look back 25 years ago, there was only one party in this state really in terms of state politics which was the Democratic Party. I think some Democrats aren’t used to the idea of having two parties in this state much less more than that.
McCullen: Barry you are working on cable deregulation. That is a big bill. How is it going to work, where are we standing right now?
Smith: Well it is looking better for basically telephone companies to be able to provide an alternative to your cable TV. The House has passed a bill and I think a bill has gotten out of the Senate Finance Committee about allowing those telephone companies to do that. And it is looking better for them. I think it is a popular idea across the state. It hasn’t happened yet but I expect to see that come to fruition this session.
McCullen: What do you expect just from your experience down here on cable deregulation?
Ingram: There is a lot of movement on that bill. Both the Senate and the House have been working putting a lot of hours on that bill. I think one of the companies involved has hired 13 lobbyists to work on it. I think there is still some debate about how it will finally end up but it is an issue that means a lot to a lot of people and has some interesting sociological dynamics to it, too, so.
McCullen: I was in the Finance Committee hearing and you saw this big effort to beat back any and all amendments, Sharif, to keep this bill in its original language. Why would it be important to bill supporters to not allow amendments at this point?
Durhams; Because this thing is so tightly negotiated. I mean basically what you are telling cable companies is that you have to let go of your franchise and somewhat your exclusivity. What the state or government has got in exchange for that was a lot of benefits. These cable companies had to go everywhere and provide service to everyone. And they also had to give local people access, you know, like cable access channels to get out different opinions. What they are trying to do is negotiate ways so that if other companies come in that they have to do some of those things. So that is why they don’t want to amend it because each amendment could either chip away at that trade off that the cable companies have to make and other companies should have to come in and make as well.
McCullen: One thing I’ve been hearing is the attorney general handling your cable TV complaints instead of you calling city hall on the deregulation. What is the effort on that? How do they go about addressing that legislatively?
Smith: Well I think the attorney general’s office will be more involved in handling discrimination complaints, that sort of thing. When we talk about discrimination we talk about are you not going into a certain neighborhood because of certain dynamics? And I think the, you know, if you don’t’ like your service you are still going to call I guess the telephone company, that sort of thing. I have satellite TV; I don’t call the cable company, I call the satellite company, that sort of thing. If you don’t like your service you are going to do that. If they are discrimination complaints then they would go to the attorney general’s office.
McCullen: Explain the argument if you followed David of Senator Clodfelter has made this argument that cable TV deserves no more scrutiny than other service industries that we count on, that they shouldn’t be treated specially or any more harsh I should say. How well does that argument stand up against those who support heavy regulation of a monopoly situation?
Ingram: Well there is a serious tension there in terms of what the state should expect from a utility, from a cable operator. I mean the reason why as Sharif mentioned this initially has been so regulated is because they are using public land and public services. They are using public utility poles that are on public land. And if they are going to do that there has been an understanding that the state could get something back in return, the city should get something back in return. And so that tension is really being tested now.
McCullen: Yes?
Smith: I think too there is a sense kind of from the other angle on that that cable TV; that is not really a necessity, it is not like we have to have electricity in order to keep our house warm. I know a lot of people who chose not to spend their money on getting cable television. And why do you really need to regulate an agency that is going to want to be attractive to customers and is going to want to make friends and this is going to help, competition should help the companies do a better job at pleasing the customers. So won’t that take care of itself? I mean hey, if I have a choice between the company who is wanting to give me good service, customer service, and a company that isn’t, I may even pay a little extra money to go for the company who wants to give me good service so why do you really need the state to step in and spend its time and efforts? I mean maybe the state should be providing for public schools and fighting crime rather than trying to mediate a cable disagreement.
McCullen: Gentlemen thank you so much for joining us tonight.
Vajda: That is going to do it for our show tonight. Thanks so much for joining us. I am Eszter Vajda.
McCullen: I am Kelly McCullen. Enjoy your Fourth!
[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.
|
