Ken Broun to lead new Carolina North committee

Thank you Linda for posting the letter. Linda told me that the discussions on the membership, rules for forming that membership and the goals of the membership are ongoing.

To date, Mr. Broun is the only member.

During my conversation with Linda I offered some solicited and unsolicited advice on constructing this board: Make the selection process timely and transparent. Consider soliciting members from the community instead of "cherry picking" from the same old usual suspects. However selected, get some folk that haven't been too enthused by the current plans - for instance pull from the CNC/NRG/VillageProject membership and the Mason Farm Rd./Larkspur/Elkins Hills communities - to improve the balance and provide some fertile give-n-take. Make sure the "rules of the road" are well established and well understood to calibrate expectations. Use the unc.edu/community website to timely and extensively document this process for the community.

Of course, I also brought up that a credible review of the HWCC proposals by Moeser (and folk) would be a good way to improve the general integrity of UNC's CN outreach.

Thanks again Linda, I look forward to seeing UNC's formative actions rollout in a public and timely fashion.

What do people think: http://www.newsobserver.com/125/story/387106.html

"The leader of a new advisory committee on the future Carolina North research campus plans to scrap close to $1 million and several years' worth of planning.
Forget about all of it, Ken Broun says, at least for now."

As I said many times before, I think that UNC wouldn't be happy with the outcome of their proposals. It's nice to see that all options are back on the table. I also think it's reasonable that a few (few, few ;-) ) elements from the original plan might creap back into the new plan.

I find it interesting how rapidly UNC is moving on this:

..the committee, which would have appointees from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, UNC-CH, Orange County and state government, can alleviate these and other worries.
....
Broun hopes the committee will begin meeting in February.

So far, no call for applicants on the UNC Community website.

Wonder who'll be asked?

According to the way I read the article, membership of the committee will be derived from elected officials. In other words, the Carrboro Board of Alderman will appoint their reps as will CH Town Council, the Commissioners and unknown elements within state govt.

Terri, when I spoke to Linda she said they're still working putting together a list of names. You've seen my suggestion - which Mark C. reiterated in the article.

Will,
Be patient with me (and don't throw me into Ruby's remedial reading class), but what are the implications of this new advisory commitee on the HWCC?

Would it help if WCHL arranged for an extended interview with Ken Broun (and perhaps the other key figures) to ask about the character and nature of this committee, as well as what good it might do as a mere advisory board?

Since this topic has such potential impact, I'd be happy to give it more time than the few minutes we normally can allocate to a given issue - it just helps to know if the community is in fact interested to getting at the heart of the matter.

daniel

Dan, would the conversation be among the "usual suspects" or would you invite some of the folk from NRG, CNC, Mason Farm Rd., Elkins, etc. ?

Dan, I think that the Ken Broun-led committee is a good
idea that dovetails well with the HWCC. The HWCC
advises the Town Council; the Broun committee advises
the Chancellor. I speculate that the
recommendations of the two committees will be quite similar.
I further speculate that substantial differences will arise in how the owners use the recommendations, for the owners face
different constraints on needs, desires and funding.

I just noticed that they're clear-cutting the stand of trees near the end of the Horace Williams airport runway. Does this mean the University has changed its mind and has decided to keep the airport where it is?

Steve,

Note Linda Convissor's paragraph third from the end :

Horace Williams Airport Improvements

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

Many of you live or travel near the Horace Williams airport and have followed the University's efforts to relocate the MedAir operations of the Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) to RDU. However, while the Airport remains open, the safety of its users and the surrounding neighborhoods and schools must be maintained.

To that end, we began a series of safety improvements in October 2005 to comply with Federal Aviation Administration rules. You may have received an email in October with the details of the safety improvements, which included repair of the runway lighting system and removal of trees that have grown too tall in the runway approach slope.

The first phase of the tree removal, which was on the west end of the runway, was recently completed. The final phase of the tree removal begins tomorrow.

The second phase of the tree cutting will involve about a one-acre swath of pine trees to the southeast of the runway that shields the airport parking lot from Estes Drive Extension. A smaller number are across Estes at the Giles Horney complex.

Last May, UNC pledged to keep the airport open until site work for Carolina North begins, likely in 2008. Obviously, it is frustrating to have to cut mature trees for what may seem like a short period of operations for the airport. However, safety precautions for those in the air and those on the ground have to be paramount and we are making these safety improvements in recognition of that.

If you'd like to read the University's news release from last October which includes more detailed information and a map of the affected locations, you can find it at http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct05/airporttrees101405.htm.

Please share this email with your friends and neighbors and my apologies if you receive duplicate copies.

Best,

Linda

Steve Allred of the provost's office told me that the tree cutting at the end of the runway indicates nothing more than that the FAA requires it. I wouldn't take it as an indication of anything about future plans for the airport.

Thanks for the info, Fred. BTW, does anyone know what Bowles' stnad on Carolina North is?

According to today's HS, UNC has adopted a methodology for selecting membership:

The university is asking Chapel Hill and Carrboro officials to select three people each for the committee, and it says members don't have to be elected officials. The Orange County Commissioners will be able to name two people, while UNC will select three administrators.

While I'm happy to see the fruits of my election-cycle stance ;-) , it continues to be interesting to see how many times Broun reiterates:

He wants the committee members and others who offer input to consider the previous draft plans for Carolina North "off the table," at least for the time being. It will be up to the university to decide whether to keep those plans, revise or trash them once the committee is done, he said.

Ken broun was in front of council to talk about this committee. He as greeted warmly. His committee plan was greeted with skepticisim. No suprise there. After hearing council concerns frankly I'm a little more skeptical then I was before; and I was more pesimistic then optimistic when I posted to this thread on 4 Jan '06. I don't know if any of you were there so I'll let you know what I heard.

The council was happy to hear that after more then a year that UNC will present a response to the citizens committee report. Ken made it sound like it could come out today, surely by the end of the week. Perhaps I ought to wait to see it before I judge it. ummm.... I'll stick to that thought.

Ken didn't seem to have a good handle on what the mandate of the committee is; only what he wanted it to be. "Dialog" is a little vauge a word. The council didn't seem at ease with that. Add to that that to groop is university brain child... am I using the word skepticism too often?

Kevin and then Sally had a lot of questions about the usefullness of the groop. Both pointed out it would be a hugely time consuming agenda; for the council memebers on the committe, for citizen participents as well as the university it's self. If the ultimate outcome for UNC to reject the towns zoning authority that time would have been wasted. What would be the point of proceding whthout UNC making that recognition a priori?

Bill had some questions about the lack of a presence on the committee from the UNC board of governers. Any agreement between the town and UNC would have to be signed off on by the BOG. He could remember two instances where such agreements have been reached and at the last second vetoed by the BOG. One involved a special zoning deal and one a land use plan for the Mason Farm Road area. I don't remember either but I don't doubt his word. If UNC isn't in a position to make a deal, why deal?

There were some issues relating to transportation. Before planning can go forward a transportation study will have to be finished. That study will take a long time and hasn't really started yet. For instance I haven't heard anything lately about plans for widening Estes Drive Extention. Can the plan procede without a plan for Carolina North? Can either plan procede independently? Obviously UNC and NC DOT need to finish the relevent studies before any committee can discuss transportation intelegently. If you can't discuss that is there anything you can discuss?

Cam, who had been silent throughout, had the last word. It was something like "Let's wait to see UNC's responce to the citzens report and then decide how to procede". He sometimes has a knack for understatement.

my bad Ruby. I just read that in the hearld.

Ruby wrote, "Bill asked for Ken Broun to put his request for town participation in writing."

What I observed was Bill asking for a formal letter to the town that clearly spells out the charge, makeup and other aspects of the committee because Bill thought "that there seems like there's a lot of shifting sands here."

Ken responded that he disagreed with Bill and that he felt he'd described much of his thinking to the council on what the committee would seek to do. He added that he would try to meet Strom's request.

Isn't the Town on record saying that no staff time will be devoted to CN until the airport issue is resolved?

What airport issue? Isn't that case closed?

Two years in the making and after a little on-air prompting we have UNC's initial response to the HWCC 2004 report.

I'll be commenting on the response and HWA in general in the near future at my own site (which is under drastic reconstruction). Until then, you can retrieve a PDF copy of UNC's letter here.

Catherine, anything but. The State Legislature is supposed to covene a Study Group to review the issue and report back to both chambers who will decide if they will let UNC close HWA. It has not been appointed yet and the Legislature is not is session. UNC has indicated that if they get the approval, HWA won't be relocated until the new site is ready and they begin construction at HWA.

Fred, what are you and your coalition, Citizens Concerned about Carolina North Planning, doing now that UNC is moving forward with a new plan of action? Will your group be formulating a new position based on Broun's comments?

Thanks.

The immediate concern the study group. Sometimes, these groups never actually get appointed. What happens this spring in the Legislature will drive the next steps.

I did not hear Ken Broun say anything that actually was related to the HWA issue. UNC-CH is still committed to closing HWA. Clearly, the uncertainity of if and when HWA closes will drive some of the recommendations of the Broun Committee.

Can't disagree with your statement Ruby, but if the goal is as you state, aren't they asking the wrong person for simple assurances?

I agree with Fred. It seems to me that, until the University announces a specific date for the airport's closure, everyone is just spinning their wheels.

Right on. I think the airport should definitely be SHUT DOWN before the town council or any committees devote substantial time to the CN development process. Otherwise, the spectre of its possible reopening will always be with us. Let's not forget the previous plans UNC-CH presented, showing the airport as a vital part of Carolina North plan.

Will,
Thanks for providing the link to the Univeristy's response. You can also find it on the Community web site www.unc.edu/community under Carolina North.
Linda

"Know that there are powerful interests working hard..." That sounds pretty ominous, Fred. Who are they? And what is it they're doing to keep it open?

I find it odd that Chancellor Moeser mentions "the unsettled questions about the airport's future" as the reason for the delay in responding to the HWCC report. But he fails to tell us how it has been resolved. Does anyone out there know how the airport issue has finally been "settled?"

Steve. as I wrote above, it has not been resolved yet. The Legislature voted to convene a study group to bring back recommendations on if and when UNC-CH can close HWA. It has yet to be convened, and it probably won't be until the spring. What the Legislature decides to do is anyone's guess.

Know that there are powerful interests working hard to keep HWA an active airport.

Influential pilots and the national lobbying group AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) have worked hard to persuade state legislators that an active airport within Carolina North would be the desirable option for the Area Health Education Centers program, the university, the community, and private plane owners.

This link from Aug 05 is interesting:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050815nc.html

And from July:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/region/2005/050715nc.html

And this from June shows a lobbying group doing what I call "working hard!"

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050609nc.html

The AOPA website also mentions that HWA provides a substantial contribution to the local economy. Does anyone know what companies do business out of there?

Will Raymond shares some of his thought about the new committee in today's DTH

Couple of observations: Will writes, "Already UNC has made a few, I hope forgivable, missteps.

"Starting with Moeser's initial "leaking" and retraction of the committee idea."

Where/when was the idea leaked and then retracted?

Will continues: "Ill-prepared, Broun was a bit testy during his first appearance before the council when he couldn't answer some very straightforward and reasonable questions - including the council's request for a written proposal laying out the whys and wherefores of the committee."

I heard one Council member ask for something written. Did the Council turn this into a Council request? As I wrote elsewhere, wasn't the Council member really asking the wrong person?

If there is no "plan" on the table so how do we know that Carolina North will expand "to the size of modern Hillsborough." Ifwe talking population, I don't think that's really knowable at this stage.

I just read Mr. Raymond's letter in today's Tarheel. I find it hard to understand how someone who criticizes UNC's past efforts so soundly and completely could ever expect to be treated objectively as a member of a leadership committee like the one recently announced for Carolina North.

Indeed, a position like that requires civility and tact as much as passion and fervor. Unfortunately, judging from Mr. Raymond's defensive and accusatory tone, I doubt he could contribute very much in helping to move the CN project forward in a positive way.

Charles, as I said in the editorial, I'm putting aside the well-documented problematic past and approaching the new CN process in a positive manner.

Sure, I pointed out a few problems, at least by my analysis, with the composition of the advisory board, but that's an effort to build a stronger outcome.

And as I noted, UNC has co-opted my campaign's call for a "reset" of the parameters for CN - something that's very encouraging and personally gratifying.

Will,

I wouldn't take ALL the credit for UNC's "reset" of its plans for Carolina North. Frankly, after all the flak they caught last time, I think everyone would agree they would have been nuts not to announce a whole new approach.

Will, your campaign call for a "reset" and their internal decision making just don't match up on any timeline.

Do you plan to clear up the points that I raised above?

Charles, I'd never try to take full credit - my efforts were another nudge in a long chain of nudges.... If you followed my campaign, you'd know I made the boldest and broadest suggestions on where the CN process should go...

Fred, when, I think Strom, asked for something in writing, Broun refered him to his column in the Jan. 11th CHH, not quite the game plan I expect our Council is interested in. Did the Council make a formal request? Good question. They asked Broun for more detail - I don't know if that's "official" enough (in other words, is it only "official" if the Town Manager, Mayor and Council fires off a letter?).

As far as "leaking" the formation of the group, use the OP wayback machine and look here for discussion on that topic.

In fact, Fred, you dear insider, you made the following comment on the off-handed nature of the non-announcement

I was at the meeting when this happened so let me try to put it in the actual context. As we were wrapping up, one of the co-chairs asked if all were satisfied with the upcoming meetings as scheduled . Someone suggested switching the Nov and Jan topics. UNC was on for Nov so Chancellor Moeser indicated that he hadn't had the chance to inform his entire board yet, but before the Nov meeting, he would announce the formation of some committees on Carolina North, and they would have citizen participation and an outside chair. He indicated that more info would come with the announcement and even though he couldn't go into specifics at this point, this would be a good thing to talk about at the Nov meeting.

BTW Fred, what's the Citizens Concerned about Carolina North Planning take on all this?

Will, we have different ideas of what a "leak" and retraction is then. No leak, no retraction.

I answered your other question in a post above (Comment at 9:25am 1/25/2006) and nothing has changed.

PS: Your sarcasm adds what?

For those interested, Mayor Foy, on behalf of the Chapel Hill Town Council, had a four page letter delivered to Chancellor Moeser on 1 February. It offers comments and raises questions about the new committee. I believe all Council members have a copy.

Fred, I've written a quick evaluation of the letter (and posted the letter) here.

The DTH has just broken the news on who UNC has chosen for the Broun comm.

The 14-member group includes:

- David King, deputy secretary of transit for the N.C. Department of Transportation;

- David T. McCoy, director of the N.C. State Budget Office;

- Etta Pisano, professor in the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering at UNC;

- Holden Thorp, professor and chairman of the University chemistry department;

-Douglas J. Crawford-Brown, UNC professor of environmental sciences and engineering and director of Carolina Environmental Program;

- Lisa Stuckey, chairwoman of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education;

- Anita Badrock, vice president of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce;

- Delores Bailey, executive director of Empowerment Inc.;

- Nancy Suttenfield, vice chancellor for finance and administration;

- Tony Waldrop, vice chancellor for research and economic development;

- Mark Crowell, associate vice chancellor for economic development and technology transfer;

- Roger Perry, member of the Board of Trustees;
- Bob Winston, member of the Board of Trustees.

That leaves 8 folks to be appointed, 2 by Orange County, 3 each by Carrboro and Chapel Hill.

A new aspect of the Carolina North issue appears in today's Chapel Hill News.

http://www.chapelhillnews.com/opinion/story/2889199p-9344841c.html

Will we be hosting a node for military research? Troubling and something we need much more information on.

Mark,

What is particularly troubling about CN hosting "a node for military research"? What sort of negative effects do you think it would have on Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County? Or is this simply a desire for the community to not be engaged in military research given your antipathy toward the current administration's use of force?