Merger Averted

Further information regarding :

> A district tax (suggested as an alternative strategy for achieving funding

> equity between the two school systems) can never generate the revenue

> that is does in the city because of land use policies.

Appendix S in the Merger Report by the county staff shows that the

taxbase per student in 2013-14 will be:

$1,088,573 CHCCS

$1,170,154 OCS

This shows the fallacy of the idea that there is some continuing

inequitable distribution of tax base against OCS residents.

So why does Moses' 'facts' differ from the County projections?

Hi Terri,

I don't think for a moment your reporting was out of date at all. I just think that the conflicting numbers show just how hard it is to even define some of the basics. A lot of the statistics being thrown around in these meetings are prepared to support a position, rather than being the result of an "agenda-free" analysis.

I will definitely try to get to the "source" so I can better understand the issues. There's a lot on the line here, and we need to understand the numbers more clearly to be able to make good decisions.

Terri I appreciate your always reasoned input.

Hi Terri,

I don't think for a moment your reporting was out of date at all. I just think that the conflicting numbers show just how hard it is to even define some of the basics. A lot of the statistics being thrown around in these meetings are prepared to support a position, rather than being the result of an "agenda-free" analysis.

I will definitely try to get to the "source" so I can better understand the issues. There's a lot on the line here, and we need to understand the numbers more clearly to be able to make good decisions.

Terri I appreciate your always reasoned input.

Regarding the race for Orange County School Board and School Merger. In the Sunday June 13th edition of the Chapel Hill Herald, pro-merger advocate Linda Dougherty of Chapel Hill gave a glowing endorsment of candidates Liz Brown, James Henninger, and Dennis Whitling.

Once again, another staunch pro-merger advocate is endorsing candidates who claim to be against merger yet have pro-merger affiliations.

Mark and Anita,

I've been out of town for the past two weeks and am still catching up. I don't really have answers to your questions but would encourage you to ask these questions at candidate forums. If indeed the information provided at the meeting I reported on was out of date, I'd like to hear the responses from Carey and Jacobs. All I was doing was reporting what was said.

Terri

Terri, that is a great summary. Thank you very much. There are a few things that I don't understand, though, maybe someone can help me.

***CH/CA is at 84% buildout, yet will see an increase of 43% in the school age population and a doubling of overall population in 10 years***

----how is that? Where are those people going to live if there's little land left to develop? Where are the kids coming from--larger families, denser development???

**the county will have to add .01 to the current tax rate to handle the 850 new children in the two districts*****

according to my research, the assessed tax value of all real property in Orange County is about 8 billion dollars. A one cent tax increase will raise about 800,000. This translates into over 9000.00 per student to integrate 850 students into the school districts. Clearly the meaning is that these students will need new bricks and mortar to incorporate them, but it's not clear to me that all these students are going to show up in the overcrowded school districts.

According to the Manager's report, it is anticipated that 127 new students will enter county schools and 277 in city schools, not the 850 discussed at the meeting, so I don't know where the 850 number came from--it's almost twice what's in the Manager's budget. .

I just don't understand where some of these numbers come from, and would appreciate some help in finding supporting documentation. I'm trying to understand this issue in more detail than I have previously and do my own research. .

The forthcoming excerpt from the Chapel Hill Herald (a letter to the editor) clearly portrays the level of devisiveness on the part of the pro-merger forces in the County. For some unknown reason, they believe that they can "change their tune" and no one will be the wiser. If people believe this year's election isn't a referendum on School Merger, they are kidding themselves.

Who are the Orange County pro-merger advocates? The list isn't very long, but worth noting since there are now staunch pro-merger advocates trying to pass themselves off as being anti-merger. How sad that they must resort to such a level of duplicity. To purpously mislead voters in order to get elected is worse than plagiarism.

Here are a few notables: OCSB Member Dana Thompson, OCSB Member Libbie Hough, OCSB Candidate Liz Brown, OCSB Candidate Jim Henninger, Jean Bolduc, Gayane Chambless, Kelly Porco, Rick Kennedy, Susan Houck, Ann Lutes, Kate Faherty, Jack Nestor, Debbie Piscatelli, Dave Gerlach (Husband of Dana Thompson), Arlene Furman

Since there is no direct link to this, I thought I would include the entire text:

*****************************

Brown has changed her tune

I read with great interest the letter to the editor praising Liz Brown for deciding to run for Orange County school board. While the writer listed Ms. Brown's volunteerism, she neglected to mention the most important thing Ms. Brown has attempted to do for our schools.

Although since filing for Orange County school board she has been singing a different tune, let us not forget that Ms. Brown has been the leading advocate for merging our two school systems. She spoke at public hearings, did interviews and was one of those responsible for distributing the erroneous, political and highly inappropriate FFICS report to our schoolchildren.

Now, Ms. Brown is saying that she never thought merger was the answer and is advocating for a countywide levy. Now she wants all of Orange County to pay a countywide schools tax. Of course, the approval of that tax and its amount would be set by the overwhelming number of voters who live in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district.

Not only is Ms. Brown completely misrepresenting her past involvement in the merger debate, she continues to try to pull the wool over the eyes of voters by using political double talk like "fair funding" and "levy."

School board candidates, you owe it to the children of Orange County to represent yourselves truthfully.

Terri,

Thanks for the summary. I was out of town and it was nice to know what happened.

> Jacobs is clearly undecided about whether merger would be good or bad,

> but feels we definitely need more answers about funding equity.

It's definitely an election year!

> Marshall emphasized the need to use future projections to make

> decisions that will sustain both populations of students now and

> in the future.

I agree. Folks in the city district need to be concerned with high school #3 and the next middle school given the lack of capacity shown on page 3 of http://www.co.orange.nc.us/OCCLERKS/040602Gordon.pdf

SAPFO certification is way past the deadline (see item 5f at http://www.co.orange.nc.us/OCCLERKS/040602.htm ) and I don't know if it was certified on June 2nd because it takes so long for the minutes to be publicly available - April 1st is the most recent set of minutes).

> If I understood her correctly, she believes that in the

> next 10 years or so, having separate districts will be more

> beneficial to county residents than to town residents.

Interesting. So does this make her against merger?

> Moses Carey ... He feels the current funding strategy is not fair to

> county residents, but the commissioner's are somewhat limited

> in what they can do because of state statutes.

How so? There is an arbitrary funding percentage imposed by the commissioners, which is driving the current difference in funding.

I would really like to know exactly what state statutes limit further expenditure without merger.

> Merger is a means to an end, with the end being equal funding.

This makes no sense to me. If the end is more appropriate funding, then why not just change the funding? Seems like you would start with the problems at hand and work to a solution instead of the other way around.

> He also feels that county residents are willing to pay higher tax rates to

> support education, but that no one is sure that raising taxes would

> actual solve the problem without penalizing us all.

This is very circular logic. Merger will raise taxes in the OCS district by 25%, yet the commissioners won't raise taxes without a merger? Is there a problem being created here intentionally to force a merger? Perpetuate the funding disparity and create excess capacity that needs to be mitigated? Or, do the commissioners really just want to get rid of 1 district so they don't have to deal with 2?

> A district tax (suggested as an alternative strategy for achieving funding

> equity between the two school systems) can never generate the revenue

> that is does in the city because of land use policies.

This is yet another fallacy that has been repeated quite often. Ten years ago, this was true, but now a penny of tax generates almost the same per pupil revenue in both districts and the long term trend has the OCS district at a slight potential advantage. See http://www.4schools.us/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=2&categories=Tax+Issues and look at the county merger reports on this topic.

> In essence, the social justice bottom line for Mr Carey is that

> county students are paying the price for environmental quality.

Again, this is simply not true, per the previous item.

> I asked why we've had to wait 18 years for the 1986 school merger report to be acted upon.

> I was told that the council changed 3 times in the 1990s

And it is time for it to change again.

> One of the other audience members pointed out that in Durham,

> the merger issue was postponed and postponed until one system

> was in such bad shape that action had to be taken. As a result, the

> newly formed merged district will always be based on a negative start.

> Could that happen to us?

Or the opposite could be true. Rick Martinez, a columnist with the N&O on Wednesday March 24, stated that Wake clearly needs multiple districts and that the trend is that smaller is better.

Thanks,

Mark

Attendance at today's Community Church forum was disappointing. But I'm sure the other 6 people there learned as much as I did. There were 3 panelists, all of whom were commissioners back in 1986 when the school merger report was submitted. Two of the 3, Barry Jacobs and Shirley Marshall, focused their statements on issues of land use. Jacobs started off by asking the question, does equal opportunity = equal funding? There are at least 3 studies currently under way to address this question. First the 2 districts are conducting fiscal/operational efficiency reviews. How do the costs of operating the two districts compare? Second, staff is conducting a review of the district tax plan. Third, UNC is co-sponsoring an educational excellence review to determine if students in both districts are receiving roughly equivalent educational experiences.

Both Barry and Shirley provided a lot of information on tax values, building trends, and growth trends through 2010. For example,

--the county will have to add .01 cent onto this year's tax rate to handle the 850 new students entering the 2 districts this fall.

--Chapel Hill/Carrboro is roughly at 84% build out.

--the CH/Carrboro population is expected to roughly double by 2010—with most of the growth in Carrboro and the unincorporated areas of the CHCCS district. During that time the number of school age children is expected to increase around 43%. My age group (45-59) will more than double and the +70 group will increase by around 30%.

--the impact fee that goes toward supporting education from new construction is around $5,000 but anyone who moves into an existing structure does not have to pay this impact fee.

Of course these are all projections based on mathematical models so they shouldn't be taken as fact.

Jacobs is clearly undecided about whether merger would be good or bad, but feels we definitely need more answers about funding equity. Marshall emphasized the need to use future projections to make decisions that will sustain both populations of students now and in the future. If I understood her correctly, she believes that in the next 10 years or so, having separate districts will be more beneficial to county residents than to town residents.

Moses Carey directed his remarks at issues of social justice. He started off by stating that changes in the population demographics of Orange Co over the past 10-15 years have created a county profile that is very similar to the urban profile. As a result, county parents, who are more educated by in the past, are expecting the same services and resources for their children as are available in the city district. He feels the current funding strategy is not fair to county residents, but the commissioner's are somewhat limited in what they can do because of state statutes. Merger is a means to an end, with the end being equal funding. He also feels that county residents are willing to pay higher tax rates to support education, but that no one is sure that raising taxes would actual solve the problem without penalizing us all.

To support that claim he discussed two social justice issues: 1) land use policies and 2) economic development policies. Current land use policies have been developed with the intent of protecting open spaces, water quality, and farmland. As such the tax rate on much of the land in the county is lower so as to protect open spaces and farmland from development and to protect water quality for everyone in this county as well as those downstream from us.

A district tax (suggested as an alternative strategy for achieving funding equity between the two school systems) can never generate the revenue that is does in the city because of land use policies. Since urban residents benefit from these land use policies, it does not seem equitable to base county educational opportunities on tax revenues alone. Many county dwellers do not take direct advantage of some of these land use policy benefits, such as county water, because of the price of hook ups (distance), etc.

Given the rural nature of the county, development has been encouraged to locate close to municipal services, which in turn, raises the property values in and close to town. Development brings more revenue-generating opportunities, such as shopping, into the city tax coffers since rural dwellers and people from outside of the county come to town to shop, again raising revenues for the city school district.

In essence, the social justice bottom line for Mr Carey is that county students are paying the price for environmental quality.

I asked why we've had to wait 18 years for the 1986 school merger report to be acted upon. I was told that the council changed 3 times in the 1990s and the group as a whole has not been interested in pursuing a funding equalization strategy (the recommendation of the report). I was also told that for us to know more about what a merged system would look like at least 3 council members would have to support further pursuit of merger. There are not currently 3 votes to make that happen. In response to what might happen as a result of the upcoming election, I was told that this whole issue could once again be pushed aside due to lack of commissioner support. We all doubt that the county parents will allow that to happen, which could mean that our community stays in turmoil indefinitely.

One of the other audience members pointed out that in Durham, the merger issue was postponed and postponed until one system was in such bad shape that action had to be taken. As a result, the newly formed merged district will always be based on a negative start. Could that happen to us?

I don't promise these notes are complete and there may be places where I misunderstood—so please feel free to correct me.

Oy. People have been talking about this merger for 20 years--literally. In times past it was the COUNTY residents who opposed it--vehemently and vociferously. I think that, as the demographics in the county have changed, there is more support out in the county...but that is just hearsay and rumor--I have no data to back it up.

Melanie

Terri -

I hope I am not boring you.

First as far as the petition -- I mentioned not pursuing merger until it has the full support including "elected officials" which I meant as school boards. The reason I was thinking of this is historically school merger was the domain of the school boards not the commissioners. In fact the commmissioners had no legal authority to initiate merger pre 1992ish. if 2 school boards both approached the commissioners with a merger plan that was one legal historical way to initiate merger and these are the groups I meant for "elected officials". I don't think it is a stretch to say for certain that you would be hard pressed to say school merger would pass either ONE of the school boards let alone both.

So in a historical context what the commissioners are doing is very new and (in my opinion an end around that has only been used a tiny percentage of times). I always get the sense they are infringing on the school boards in spirit if not technically - and the commissioners are openly hostile to the town school board if you have ever attended any joint meetings in person.

The last part of the petition urges a referendum on merger before any pursuit of it.

This has gone backand forth - at one point Carey even talking about doing it last year -- with the county attorney's "OPINION" that it should not be done. ( a judge in the end determines the law not "opinions")

Some in the legal profession have said in their "opinions" there is nothing that prevents a non-binding referendum from going on the ballot (the commissioners are the only ones to determine what goes on countywide ballots). I think all attorneys have opinions as a layperson I don't know what an "opinion" means.

I don't think there is much interest from most of the current commissioners in trying to explore just what legally can be done to have a direct referendum.

someone can jump in ...but if the school boards presented a merger plan first they could have stipulated a referendum passing for it to take effect.

it's all politics, social engineering, and fear of dreaded property tax hikes that is driving the current direction. not that the social engineering is bad per se.

Your end question is a very good one -- what is educational equality. If it is SAT scores maybe princeton or kaplan SAT review private classes that are very expensive would more equalize college opportunity than equal funding for the schools.

If it is graduation rate maybe vocational classes might be of more interest to some and keep them in school longer.

I think the whole focus on $$$=equality is too simplistic and presents an easy target to be latched onto. It seems it would alleviate the commissioners from having to hear people complain about differential funding and would make their jobs easier.

If a bussing plan includes socioeconomics and the R word I can imagine scenarios with equal funding that may not be as beneficial to the kids as a tax with more flexibility like a county tax that could be of better educational benefit and restrict bussing zones.

someone above mentioned the district tax allows the commissioners to levy anywhere from 0-35 cents in the town district so the taxation level can be adjusted based on what is wanted/needed. I think that is a neat tool to have.

Jay--your petition calls for a referendum vote on the merger issue. I don't see how it provides evidence in support of Mark Peter's claim to have a consensus against merger.

My questions for you, teacher/mom, Mark and others is: Should there be educational equity between the two districts? If so, how is educational equity measured--by per student expenditure (total) or might there be other measures that more adequately reflect the urban/rural split in our community?

Terri

Terri-

the one thing that I may not have made entirely clear is that because of the demographic differences between town and county --- while the property value of an equivalent structure is higher in town than county --- the taxes with or without merger will be of a very similar nature. (there are lots of kids per acre in town - but lots of land in the county that generates taxes but no kids and lots of retirees).

this will be paid for by taxes one way or another.

I would argue that the environment and land use would benefit more from separate school bussing zones and trying to build schools on chapel hill transit bus routes and in walking proximity than one very large possible bussing district.

which brings me to...

you can't really know exactly what will happen in a merged system until the commissioners spell out their bussing plan/criteria/philosophy.

Also, remember what has happened in Mebane and Chatham. The 1986 joint planning agreement from my understanding doesn't prevent someone from using septic lagoons or other advance septic technology to build homes where previously it was not possible. this to some extent will be happening in Chatham.

Also remember that if the two systems merge, the tax rate for OCS residents will go up at least 20% to equal that of CHCCS. If there is an OCS district tax, the commissioners can choose a rate much lower. Funding won't be equal but there could be a significant increase in the OCS budget without hurting the residents as much. Alice Gordon has proposed this several ltimes but was shot down.

Ruby -

as far as gauging opinion - I know this is flawed but

www.petitiononline.com/27599

has over 1100 signatures which for only a local county issue (with people from Efland to Carrboro signing it) it seems like a lot to me.

I am not aware of comparisons with other local online petitions (which assume people know about the site and have internet access) but it seems like a decent amount to me.

Teacher/mom,

Raising taxes is certainly another option and one that I believe is going to be discussed at the Community Church forum tomorrow. I know you must realize that the tax base in Orange Co is not as affluent as the tax base in Chapel Hill. The long-term consequences of adding an equivalent school supplement tax *may* not be palatable to everyone--changing home ownership patterns, decreasing the amount of farm land, moving the Chapel Hill growth out into the rural areas. Let's all listen and think this through so that we don't damage our children's future unnecessarily. What's the old adage--don't throw out the baby with the bath water??

Terri, To answer one of your questions...I cannot speak for NOmerger.com but in dealing wth the funding inequity, one of the things proposed would be a district tax on the Orange County School residents like the one in Chapel Hill to close the funding gap. Please remember that the inequity is a direct result of the fact that the CHCCS residents pay an extra 20% property tax to fund their schools. Orange county residents could do the same or something on a smaller scale (so as not to burden the residents) and put more money in to the schools. Many CH residents would also be agreeable to a county wide supplememtal tax to fund both districts. Just put it on the ballot and we'll vote it in!

A statistically valid poll is a five-figure expense, a price that's simply prohibitive for a newspaper the size of the Chapel Hill Herald or our parent, The Herald-Sun. There are cheaper options like Internet polls, but they're not statistically valid and are thus worthless at any price. We'd rather things were otherwise, but there it is.

The data came from an analysis of the speakers at the public hearings. The written transcripts are available on the county website. Given that state law prohibits a referendum and that local "news" organizations have not stepped up to funding a poll, it is the best that we have to go on.

Since the analysis is based on 10 hours of public hearing comments, it is more independent than the analogy to the Bush administration, which has not taken any public input as far as I can tell. In fact, the Bush administration does not even take input from its own cabinet. Thus, I think that is an unfair comparison.

The data came from an analysis of the speakers at the public hearings. The written transcripts are available on the county website. Given that state law prohibits a referendum and that local "news" organizations have not stepped up to funding a poll, it is the best that we have to go on.

Since the analysis is based on 10 hours of public hearing comments, it is more independent than the analogy to the Bush administration, which has not taken any public input as far as I can tell. In fact, the Bush administration does not even take input from its own cabinet. Thus, I think that is an unfair comparison.

Mark--I looked at the analysis page on the NoMerger website and don't see an explanation of where the data came from. Clearly you have a majority of individuals against the merger--from whatever data source you were using. BUT....according the 2002 census data Orange Co has a population of 120,458 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37135.html) and your spreadsheet represents a sample of 326 individuals, some of whom are listed twice. Since you haven't controlled your sample by residency, race, or economic status, I don't think you can claim consensus.

Since there isn't a group taking an oppositional stance to NoMerger, I doubt we will ever know whether or not there is general agreement.

Jay,

In defense of Carey (I don't see Brown as much of a force behind this issue), I think the 1986 task force report that recommended the eventual merger of the two districts provides guidance. I have no idea why it's taken 15+ years for the commissioners to pursue those recommendations, but merger as a means to equalizing educational funding isn't an idea that was just pulled out of a hat. As for policy making guided by public opinion, I've been to a couple of the comissioner's forums and saw only white middle class residents, mostly from CHCCS, in attendance. Somehow we need to make the discussion more inclusive--maybe tomorrow will do so. If not, I hope others venues are pursued to bring in the less vocal, but equally impacted, members of the community. Like you, I believe policy should be guided by public opinion, not just the minority who vote.

Based on the hearing analysis posted at NoMerger.org, there is consensus-level opposition to merger.

I expect my representatives to act based on the consensus of his or her constituency. The 1986 report makes a number of other recommendations which have not been followed, but one could argue that what has been done is the will of the people in each local area.

Let's be clear on the PAC issue. The guidelines state that 2 or more people who support or oppose a candidate must register as a PAC. So if my neighbor and I take out an ad in the paper, we are required to be a PAC. NoMerger.org is doing the above board thing by registering as a PAC. Once we had done the paperwork just to be able to endorse a candidate, even without spending money, we had done 99% of the groundwork to take contributions. So, we are now taking contributions.

M

Did I misunderstand this statement? "Based on the hearing analysis posted at NoMerger.org, there is consensus-level opposition to merger. I expect my representatives to act based on the consensus of his or her constituency."

That's like saying, "Based on the Republican Party website, there is nationwide consensus that the President is doing a great job. I expect every member of congress to vote with him."

I hope my elected representatives don't act based on that type of reasoning!

Oh yes -

one last thing Terri. I do NOT have strong feelings about Carey or Brown (they may be great people) but I do have strong feelings abouts public policy decisions that are made by publicly elected officials that have permanent and long lasting consequences. Particularly if the PROCESS seems to be less than transparent, with less guidance than I'd like and less than reflective of public opinion as gauged through public hearings.

I have no idea what the "task force" is supposed to achieve particularly if they are not looking at alternative solutions.

Elected officials have tough jobs, do the Lords work, and don't get paid enough -- but I do think they owe residents full disclosure, transparency, and guidance and hopefully can be in concordance with the people (and not necessarily only the 5-10% that will vote).

Part of me doesn't mind enforcing the social engineering aspect onto others but part of me does believe in representation of the people by elected officials whether or not they vote or contribute to campaigns.

If we move forward from the social engineering aspects and say we are going to raise taxes to pay for it and are honest about it (as I think we have not been -- the social justice argument has been used to its absolute fullest -- lets do it in a way that will maintain as many environmental controls as possible and personally I think smaller school districts are better than a bigger one anyway. Having defined bussing zones whereby there is no possibility bussing people across the rural buffer is a good thing that is lost as a protection in a merged system.

Other funding issues have not been given as much exposure and if we want to believe our commissioners care about the environment I'm not sure why. I hope merger is not being used as a scare/motivational tactic to drive some other unstated means to an end. If this is a sincere attempt to merge - I don't think they have thought through all the issues and in fact one commissioner has stated "we don't need all the answers".

the whole idea of equivalency of funding - penny for penny -- is also not something I'm sure needs to be the exact goal. It would seem to me if you would stipulate that the cost of living is higher in chapel hill or carrboro (e.g. higher town taxes , rent etc....) being unemotional one might suggest to get and retain the same quality employee would cost more in town??

County wide supplementals need much more investigation in my opinion. focusing on penny for penny issues is simplistic and may not in the end achieve the best education for all kids anyway.

Mark and Jay,

I understand that you are both against merger and have strong feelings about Carey and Brown. I wish more neutral speakers had been recruited too. But the real topic we need to stay focused on is educational equity within a single county. That may, as Jay says, be social engineering but so what? We all know that our future rests with our children and their educational preparation so why not just acknowledge the social engineering and get on with finding a solution.

According to the research student performance is not tied to school funding. So should we strive for funding equity? I happen to think we should but it's a discussion the community should be involved in without the emotionality tied to the one proposed solution of merger. If taxes are raised, will we lose more farm land in North Orange? would that lessen some of the sprawl around CH? will home ownership go down among lower income folks? will we lose even more cultural diversity within our community? should people on limited incomes have to contribute at the same rate as everyone else?

Educational equity--and how we deal with it as a community--seems to be (IMHO) the key to the entire sustainability conversation WCHL sponsored on Wednesday. What do we want our community to look like in the future? Can we collectively discuss a controversial subject without perpetuating the social riffs that are emerging around the merger solution? I really hope so. I also hope there are representatives from the NAACP, local Hispanic organizations, and local farmers at this or future meetings.

Terri -

the county manager has the reports on merger plans and how to pay for it by various phase in plans.

What is striking is that the tax increase required in the county will be very very close to the "extra" tax we in town have placed on ourselves via a voted on referendum. I would speculate that the taxes would be even more equal than his prediction.

Personally, I do not buy the social justice argument because in the end it comes down to comparable taxation. The large number of retirees and low number of kids per acre in the county offset the larger tax base in town. In the end it comes down to social engineering and making people who may not want to pay more taxes for education pay more. (note I favor heavy taxation for education particularly if voted on by the people)

In the end it comes down to taxes because by law the commissioners must distribute equal funds from the county wide tax per student regardless of district.

A county wide supplemental tax would be the best way in my humble opinion to prop up taxes if the commissioners think a county non-town tax would fail on a ballot. Certainly has bussing and environmental protections that don't exist in a merged system.

I think it would be great to focus on how to pay for it without centralizing the school district and opening up the prospect of long distance bussing. Those ideas to some extent are already out there but the commissioners don't seem to care about other options for some reason.

I am also in favor of letting the southermost county residents agree to pay the district tax and be incorporated into the town school district (which they can by law) but this too has not been given much attention. Maybe the would rather have the longer bus rides than taxes?

Hi Terri,

While the discussion may turn out to be more practical, why Carey and Jacobs? Why not some of the other candidates? One cannot ignore the choice of participants and the timing of this event, nor the words chosen to bill the event. I have contacted Shirley and raised these concerns. With such short notice, I did not ask to have NoMerger representation. It seemed too impolite to "invite myself" or someone else and I, myself, had prior commitments. Had an offer been extended once I raised the concern, then I might have sought representation by a NoMerger.org member or asked for the invitation to be extended to other candidates.

I cannot speak for NoMerger.org on the matter of funding, but it is my observation that NoMerger.org members favor small school systems with local control (which Wake and Durham would kill for now).

Thanks,

Mark

Mark,

WhenI read the flyer for Saturday's session, it sounds more focused on how school funding issues would influence other aspects of the community rather than on merger/no-merger. As I've said in other posts, merger is only one possible solution to solving the inequitable funding situation between the 2 school districts in our community. Seems to me all those who are against merger would be happy to have the community church sponsor this kind of session. Have you considered contacting the individual sponsoring this workshop and asking if someone from your group could be added to the panel? I would love to hear how (or if) NoMerger proposes we deal with funding equity--which is after all the issue on the table.

Terri

Terri

The Community Church of Chapel Hill is having a public forum this Saturday morning called "Exploring the Complexities of Raising Taxes but Trying to Find a Way to Hide and get political cover --School Merger".

The following Saturday will be 2 forums - "Now What - the day after merger when there is no costs savings but just long distance bussing spewing out diesel fumes." and "How utilizing school capacity in low population centers is not creating walkable sustainable schools".

The follwoing Saturday "Planning for 2010 - unprecedented building in the county leads to school overcapacity faster than we thought".

If Moses Carey had raised property taxes one penny a year for the 20 consecutive years he has been steering the ship as Captain Social Justice there would already be equivalent funding.

I guess this forum is sort of the Fox (Faux) news version of "Fair and Balanced".

Issues based campaigns do not need to be registered.

Have you heard of MoveOn.org??

Only mentioning of names for or against need to be registered.

something some long time local groups have not always understood.

i'm pretty sure it is not okay to use non-profit religious tax exempt status to hold political forums, endorsements and fundraisers.

I don't remember exactly what happened but al sharpton has to be very careful of what he does in a church regarding politics.

also, I'm sure there will not be any violations as egregious as ones by established well like groups in the past that were overlooked.

NoMerger.org has 10 days by NC law to file as a PAC once it takes in money or chooses to endorse candidates. To date, the group has been issues-based and has talked about candidates' position on merger, but has not endorsed anyone.

As of this week, NoMerger.org has appointed a treasurer, opened an account, obtained an EIN, and is in the process of filing the "County PAC" paperwork.

This is all spelled out in http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/Manual2004/OtherPoliticalCommitteesPACs.pdf which we are following.

The key difference here is that NoMerger.org clearly does not claim to be neutral on the issue of merger. It is my understanding from NPR (this morning, how timely!) that churches who endorse candidates will lose their non-profit status. Even more reason for a church to act in a more balanced manner this close to a primary election.

If this were a situation of an individual merely using church space to sponsor an event, then I would not be bringing this particular issue to light. However, it is my understanding from Shirley that this is an event sponsored by the church.

It is also important to note that I have identified myself in this conversation and goose has not.

Thanks,

Mark

Well, Mark, how about www.nomerger.org?

As far as I can tell, this organization is a Political Action Committee or possibly an independent expenditure campaign. Has it registered with the proper authorities? I don't think so.

State law has very detailed requirements for reporting fundraising and expenditures for these types of organizations to protect the integrity of elections. Could you comment on whether nomerger.org is registered? Nomerger has definitely been sending out highly partisan propaganda and has endorsed candidates already.

thought I'd post the results of speakers about merger at the county commissioner public hearings. Whether the speaker was for, against or neutral to merger.

Total Speakers:  133 

For merger:         36   27%

Against Merger:   78   58%

Neutral:               19   14%

Who is going to run for County Commissioner, and will these candidates be pro-merger or anti-merger?

Hopefully all of the candidates running will be clear on their merger position going into the election, and hopefully there will be some choice for the electorate in terms of candidates and diversity of opinion.

The prominence of the merger issue may result in fewer candidates. While we face a future in which issues relating to carrying capacity and sustainability are a critical priority, we may be forced to watch a political "greased-pig" contest as murky merger-mania sucks up political energy.

Mark

Absolutely agree. There are a few minor details the Commissioners need to deal with as a priority...(1) the local economy, (2) smart growth, (3) diversifying the local tax base, (4) a growing senior population, (5) transportation/buses/light rail...?

The Community Church of Chapel Hill is having a public forum this Saturday morning called "Exploring the Complexities of School District Merger." More info is available at

http://www.carrboro.com/htmls/schooldistrictmerger.html

(This is apparently available on the carrboro.com web site somwhere, although I can't find it directly from the home page. Nevertheless, www.carrboro.com is a very cool site!)

Let's call this what it appears to be: The Community Church of Chapel Hill endorsing Carey and Jacobs.

The writeup states that "'A free and responsible search for truth and meaning' is an affirmed principle of Unitarian Universalist congregations", but there are no speakers with opposing views on merger. Is that free and responsible?

I have not attended this church, but have corresponded with Shirley Marshall and have been told that the church is sponsoring this event but "does not endorse candidates".

Is it "responsible" for a church which does not endorse candidates to sponsor a "forum" without representing other candidates who are running against Carey and Jacobs since it is two months before the primary? I could see if this were a partisan organization, but certainly not for a church.

This concludes my $0.02

Mark Peters

Patrick,

You are right about the relatively little attention the commissioners get.

And - all you posters & lurkers out there in cyberland - you should drop by Patrick's booth at the Farmer's Market and get some Republican vegetables.

Mark

Patrick,

Actually we need a no-party system. Why should county elections be partisan? There is nothing in the Democratic or Republican Party platforms that provide solutions to our local community problems. The towns and school boards have non-partisan elections and so should the county.

The main reason the counties have partisan elections is to artificially provide a "grassroots" for the Dems & Reps.

If there were non-partisan elections, there wouldn't be a skewing of the results by ignorant straight-party voting. People would vote on the issues and those who didn't know anything about the candidates might not vote.

Mark

Mark

We can agree to disagree on partisan election for Commissioners. School merger and district representation in the commissioners race will happen before non-partisan election.

I would love to see straight-party voting done away with in this State. Back when I ran for Commissioner in 1996 there were just under 15,500 straight demcrat ballots cast compared to 6090 straight republican ballots cast. If those 21,600 voters had to vote in each race what would the outcome be? I bet there would be a number of blanks on the ballot including the county commissioners race.

It is my opinion that the bulk of those who live in towns and cities across this state only care what the commissioners are doing maybe 2 times a year. That being when the commissioners are deciding the tax rate for the coming year and if they have children in the school sytem then the budget for the schools. The town or city they live are providing the services that effect them the most.

First the facts, I moved to Orange Couinty in 1984 when I married my wife who is a life long resident. She was educated in both the Chapel Hill and Orange County School systems.

We have 3 children in the County School System and we are opposed to merger.

When you compare the local dollars from the commissioners to the school systems with the the other 99 counties in NC. Orange County is the second highest funding county in the State. This does not include the special tax in the CHCSS. These figures are from the NC County Commissioner Assoc. website "http://www.ncacc.org" tax survey section.

In addition last year the commissioners cut the the county school request by 1.2 million dollars and the the county schools had to deal with 400,000 thousand dollars less from the State. Did someone or a program go on the chopping block? No our school system found the 1.6 million dollars laying around within certain accounts.

So I welcome the task force the commissioners are setting up with the understanding that if a certain objective is not met then the report of this task force will collect dust on a shelf somewhere. I say this because I know how the game is played. Oh how we need a two party system in this County.

Is it all right for certain school members to believe that a counselor's push for a child to community college instead of a 4 year college is a problem with a partnership with the child and the parent? Maybe the counselor's parents made the mistake? Is this school member always going to blame the student? Would he blame the student if the student was from Meadowmont? the Oaks? Hogan Farms? Highly unlikely. Blame the messenger, such a Bushian idea.

As always, I am concerned with people getting their facts straight, as in what Joseph K. has inaccurately posted above. Joseph is the second person in less than a month claiming I supported some candidate in the Fall elections. Who would that candidate be that you refer to? The first person stated that I supported Diane Bachman - - - I don't even know Ms. Bachman and have not supported her politically or in any other way - - - not that it is your business, but I did not even vote for her; maybe I

should have. More importantly, what does one's political affiliation have to do with the merits of School Merger, and what's the point of attacking my views by throwing out such a claim?

In terms of my "parent" comment, I did not say that people should not have input on the School Merger question if they do not have kids in the schools. I do believe, however, that the Commissioners (all without kids in schools) are not adequately representative, or in touch with the needs of the broad Orange Co. or City they are to serve. Additionally, folks like Joseph who speak so authoritatively, might not have the complete perspective on the real effect such decisions have on families, whether it be busing, taxation, redistricting or school system sprawl, if they do not have children in the systems.

By the way, Joseph K., you never answered the question...kids in Orange Co. or CHC public school or not? Did you go to private or public schools?

A friend of mine wrote:

> as if the CH News editorial isn't bad enough, at least admits that the goal is to sweep merger under the rug until after the next election, the cartoon of the merger bus is offensive to all, and does a real disservice to those working to have a dialogue based on facts, not stereotypes. any thoughts?

>

To which I replied:

I laughed hysterically myself. Wish I could afford to walk in the door at Al Julian's place!

But if someone has any artistic talent, or a child with same, we need an editorial drawing showing some Lilliputians trying to raise a levee of educational excellence higher around each of 2 towns (CH/Cboro and Hboro) to protect against a flood of raging sprawl, gas stations, and unsustainable building patterns, shown being orchestrated by the wand of a certain editor/real-estate-ad-salesman. We can champion the development of individual towns/school systems as protecting the environment for generations to come. Intensive development within meaningful boundaries.

School merger does not resolve the main issue promoted by those arguing in favor of merger - - - economics. There is significant and substantial information to this effect which has been shared by many. The fundamental question is...do County/Town residents want to pay more for the support of the school systems -that's who will have to pay, not developers. I actually would personally support a rationale plan to equally fund the two systems (although many would rightly oppose increased taxation), but I would not support merger - - - where is the focus of our County leadership on getting the economic part of the issue resolved, rather that pushing for merger?

Oh, yes, as a point of reference, I would like to know from those posting messages in favor of merger, how many of you actually have a "dog in this fight?" Specifically, how many of you ACTUALLY CURRENTLY HAVE CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS OF ORANGE COUNTY OR CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO? Take note, NONE of the current County Commissioners have kids in the public school system. I have 3 children in the CHCC school system.