Ken Broun to lead new Carolina North committee

Why are the University's community relations people so tight-lipped about their new Carolina North committee? The town's Horace Williams Citizens Committee (HWCC) first learned about it in the paper in October. But at our last several meetings we have asked our University representative, Linda Convissor (UNC Director of Local Relations) for any news and she had none. When I ran into Jonathan Howes (UNC Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Local Affairs) he asked me why we keep hounding Linda for information.

Perhaps it's because we can't collaborate with a partner that doesn't share critical information? It's also because "UNC news" is a standing item on the HWCC's agenda, and we can't do much of anything without it.

The chairman of a new "leadership advisory committee" being set up by UNC to get input on Carolina North planning will be Kenneth Broun, a former mayor of Chapel Hill and former dean of the UNC School of Law.

UNC Chancellor James Moeser notified officials from Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County this week that Broun had agreed to serve in that role for the new committee. Moeser said the committee will "review major issues concerning Carolina North to develop principles that reflect our commitment to sustainability. These principles would then be used by the university to develop a master plan for Carolina North."

The idea is for the advisory committee to address issues such as fiscal equity, housing, transportation and zoning, and to include representatives from the university, the local communities and the state, Moeser stated, adding that all the meetings would be public.

A Town Council-appointed group -- the Horace Williams Citizens Committee -- already has spent more than a year crafting a set of principles that could guide Carolina North, and the council has adopted a modified version of that committee's recommendations as its own position.
- Chapel Hill Herald, 12/30/05: Broun to head Carolina North committee

Issues: 

Comments

Chris,

The militarism of our society is corrupting every aspect of our culture and society, not to mention killing thousands of innocent people on an ongoing basis. It supports a network of corporations run for the aggrandizement of a few. It has next-to-nothing to do with "freedom" or "defense". If you are not against them, you are with them and, in addition to being a pawn, have blood on your hands.

The huge amount of funding for military projects is a trap designed to expand the network of organizations and institutions who have a vested interest in U.S. imperialistic policy. It's fascist heroin and hard to kick.

I hope that we in this region have not become so infected with mediocrity that we no longer have the creativity to devote our energy and resources toward expansion of human health, happiness, and hope.

Uncle Sam (in his new fascist guise) wants you, Chris. It appears that he may have you now. I hope you follow the many threads and really think this stuff out. The quality of your life depends upon your ability to think critically.

Mark,

I wasn't making a value judgment one way or the other. I'm just curious about the type and scope of residents' concerns -- nothing more, nothing less.

Mark-

I think maybe you're mistaking North Carolina's military tradition for supporting "Fascism." There is absolutely nothing wrong with support for a strong military. It is the shield that protects us from our enemies, much like our competitiveness in the global marketplace is the sword that carves out a halfway decent living for both Americans and our business partners abroad.

Now, I'm not saying that our country isn't sliding into mediocrity (which you pointed out), but that's a cultural shift that's really at the root of the new "culture wars" and has little to do with who's in the White House or in Congress. I personally agree with those that think we need to be strong and go back to our beginnings of the hardy, self-reliant pioneers instead of the decadence we see around even our own communities.

Chris,

You are right - the military is the sword that carves out a halfway decent living for both Americans and our business partners abroad. Alarmingly frank of you to say it. A creative culture could think of many alternative ways to accomplish this same goal without causing so much death and misery. One of the great victories by those relative few who enrich themselves through this murderous, wasteful stratgey is that they so easily can convince people like yourself that a) it is the only viable option and b) it can be defended ethically and religiously.

Whoa there. I said the military was our shield, not our sword.

People always cast us as empire-builders when we're really just the merchant princes of the world. We're on top because we can make ourselves and others richer. Nothing wrong with that.

My personal alarm is that we're gonna lose that to the Chinese and Indians if we're not careful. After all, we're bogged down with unions and protectionism that just end up beggaring everyone but special interests while other nations are starting to produce white collar services cheaper than we choose to.

Mark and Chris, would you both agree that we don't want a high risk bio-defense facility located at Carolina North?

A big trend for universities looking federal bio dollars is to dip into the vast caldron of bucks ($6 billion so far) set aside for bio-defense. In the rush to get these bucks facilities are being sited in unsuitable locations. Unfortunate recent examples are Boston University's urban laboratory's tularemia outbreak and Galveston 's UTMB's loose monkey episode, which demonstrates that the lure Homeland Security dollars can outweigh good sense.

Considering the shrinking pie of general re search NIH grants (key to UNC's recent plans for paying for CN), the temptation to site a BSL4 at Carolina North will surely increase as the dollars for Homeland Security programs become one of the dominant new sources of new funding for bio-tech.

A disturbing bit of history: Several years ago Joyce Brown led an effort by the Town Council to get UNC to divulge the type and quantity of "bio-weapons" being stored on campus - a reasonable request considering that the town would inevitably be involved in an accident. The Town was turned down. Not even "secure" dislosure to local emergency management.

Yeah! Let's all get REALLY paranoid. I hear one of the first things they'll be developing at CN is a human cloning center.

Charles, we're not talking pod people here, but UNC's OIC has put anti-terrorism dollars on the table and CN is going to need $$$.

UNC is already doing research in this area but not to the extent that would fund a wing, lets say, at CN. This issue came up more to demonstrate some parameters that haven't been widely talked about (or accounted for in our zoning ordinances) that could have a dramatic impact on the safety of CN. Another one, that Fred and others have shone a light on, is the potential dangers to surrounding neighborhoods of hosting an airport and CN on the same property.

WillR is right to wonder what plans UNC might have for bioterrorism-related research at CN. Although I wouldn't expect them to propose a BSL4 facility (the highest level of containment; requires pressurized suits and negative pressure containment facilities as well as extraordinary precautions regarding animal escape) I would expect them to consider doing work at the BSL3 (this can include anthrax) level and below. Biodefense is the only portion of the NIH budget that has continued to increase in spite of federal cutbacks in the overall NIH budget. Thus there is a great deal of pressure for university investigators to move their research into biodefense in order to capture some of those dwindling NIH dollars.

WillR -

Regarding your comment above, anyone in our community with any sense at all should scream bloody murder if UNC makes any overture to begin CN construction while the airport is still operational. There are factions that would like nothing more than to see a bustling jetport at HWA that could support various business/research ventures that CN will attract.

Does anyone know what criteria the CH town council will use in selecting the town's three representatives for the Carolina North Committee?

Steve, the discussion on the town's representation is a bit premature as there are many questions left unanswered - for instance the overlap with HWCC's work. Initially, UNC made a point that the community representatives most definitely don't have to be their elected representatives. Recent statements lead me to believe they've recanted a bit from that - suggesting at least on elected official.

If the towns decide to join with UNC on this effort, I hope they consider the following:

1) Increasing Chapel Hill's representation to be more in line with UNC's 8 and more representative of the impact CN will have on this community.

2) Since UNC has already selected affordable housing and business advocates, to select folk representing other NPOs involved in direct service/support, non-Chamber business folk, the broader grassroots community, etc.

3) Go beyond the "usual suspects" - select folk that aren't former elected officials (don't we have enough Mayors involved already?), etc. - and appoint knowledgable citizens that might disagree with both UNC's and the Town's positions.

4) Chose folk that have already shown an interest in CN, have done their homework, that have a developed POV and are ready to hit the ground running...

Oh, and only folk that can earn the Fred B./Steve S. seals of leadership approval ;-) !

UNC needs to give the towns some time to mull this over. The response to Mayor Foy's letter leaves many procedural questions unanswered. The timetable seems rather hurried as outside events already begin to perturb the discussion.

I'd hate to see this effort quashed by UNC's haste...

One thing many people don't understand is when a municipality takes time of its employees e.g. town manager, planning director etc... and puts them on a committee the taxpayers foot the bill.

It would be a complete waste of taxpayer money to put 20 town of chapel hill staff on a committee when it seems obvious that UNC is looking for policy guidance and not necessarily analysis of LUMO.

sure there could be some use for a planning or budget person (e.g. fiscal equity) but putting 10 town employees somewhere as a show of force is dumb because 1. it costs taxpayer money and 2. most likely all of them aren't needed and bigger committees accomplish less per person than smaller ones.

If they need council representation there are several that served on the Horace Williams citizens committee and are well aware of what the community fears.

From tonight's meeting via the Town's information office (I assume Catherine Lazorko)

- Discussion of Letter from Chancellor Moeser
The Council discussed a Feb. 7 letter from UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser on the
University's plan to create a Leadership Advisory Committee “to produce principles that will guide the
University in preparing plans for submission to the local governing bodies as part of the regulatory
process” for the proposed Carolina North development. The Council appointed Mayor pro tem Bill
Strom and Council Member Cam Hill to the committee, and will consider citizen appointments from the
Planning Board and the Horace Williams Citizens Committee at its next business meeting. A Feb. 1
letter to the University from Mayor Kevin Foy requested clarification on the committee's charge and
its work schedule, the Town's zoning authority, long-range transit plan, fiscal equity model, open
space conservation and plans for Horace Williams Airport. The committee is expected to hold its
first meeting in February and meet monthly for the next year.

As this article from the DTH clarifies, two additional members (making 4 for Chapel Hill) will be added to the CN committee.

With the OK from Chancellor James Moeser and Broun, the Town Council decided to send four - council members Bill Strom and Cam Hill and one representative from both the Horace Williams citizens' committee and the town planning board. The board representatives will be decided after Foy consults with the groups' respective leaders. Council members agreed that the town representatives should serve to remind and re-enforce the principles laid out in the Horace Williams committee report that was adopted by the council two years ago. Several noted that the committee's makeup would give the town representatives little sway. "Calling it a community input committee seems odd given the way the committee is weighted," Hill said. "It is the University's committee, they can weigh it any way they want," he added, noting that the town representatives can at least offer its report. Other concerns were that the full council would not be represented in the discussions and that council member representatives might have to recuse themselves from any discussion about zoning or development applicants. But bearing these things in mind, the council ultimately agreed that it was critical to have its voice represented in the body.

Hmmm... Will, Ruby, Dan, all on the Broun Committee? We should know soon. Two weeks and February is over.

"Hmmm… Will, Ruby, Dan, all on the Broun Committee? "

I sure hope not. If the towns of Chapel Hill and Carborro have any sense at all, they'll send at least a few representatives with the semblance of an open mind. Loading the committee with opponents to the very concept of Carolina North will only drive a bigger wedge between the community and UNC.

There are committee candidates out there who could make an objective, informed contribution to the process without automatically trying to throw a wrench in the works. Let's hope the towns have enough wisdom to make a few right choices.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a schism develop that becomes so wide the university will claim it has no choice but to seek a way around the town's unfairly demanding zoning authority.

Charles, I'm not an opponent of the "very concept of Carolina North", I am a critic of the both the former plans (now "off the table") for Carolina North and the various approaches the University used in dealing with the community (waiting two years to respond to the HWCC report, for instance).

I, and many others, suggested the plans weren't worthy of our fine University and wonderful towns. Further, we counseled that a new approach, rethinking the initial parameters, tapping into the University's own talent pool, working in an open and collaborative fashion, would benefit both the community and the University.

The University agreed and has moved prior plans and approaches, in Mr. Broun's words, "off the table".

It seems like we're poised for a win-win on CN for the University, the local community and the State as a whole.

Buck up Charles, there's no need to be so sour.

“One” of the significant issues with Carolina North as Clark alludes to is tax equity (which the University promised it would address this year). Everyone can rally round the Village Project concept but keep in mind that housing 8,000 new residents, who would not under current conditions pay property taxes and who haven't been included in any of the towns projections for basic infrastructure, including water and sewer, has EXTREME implications for both towns and the county.

Terri, putting the water/sewer question aside for a moment, I don't think the tax equity issue is inherently unsolvable. I've mentioned this before, but I never envisioned the University owning all the property/buildings at CN. In fact, I struggle to think of how they would build the whole thing without opportunities for homeonwership in the development.

I envision multiple types of mixed-use buildings on this site. Some would be university/retail/residential and others would be office/retail/residential or office/residential. The last two categories of buildings could be built to support condominium ownership of the structures, and put the buildings back on the tax rolls, even if the land remained in UNC's possession.

Obviously, in a place like Carolina North, "fee simple" homeownership that is most commonly associated with single-family housing on one lot development is not going to be the default ownership type.

I believe that the towns and UNC should begin hammering our opportunities for "fee complex" ownership scenarios that would help solve the fiscal equity/impact issue.

Now back to water/sewer. The county has set up a TDR task force (transfer of development rights) and one of the items under discussion is identifying "sending areas" (where development rights can be transferred away from) and "receiving areas" (where development rights may be transferred TO) for development. If we move some growth from large-lot rural sprawl into Carolina North, it is very possible to make some or all of the water/sewer impact neutral.

Second, since serving compact development with water/sewer tends to be cheaper on a per-acre basis than sprawl on the basis of pipe length and maintenance, there is even the possibility of net REDUCTION of impact on water/sewer construction costs if TDR were implemented in conjunction with the permitting of CN housing.

I hope some of these ideas get discussed in the Committee.

Seriously, "Charles P?" I'll thank you not to do what you are accusing me of doing - making up your mind before you have all the information. It's likely that I know a lot more about this issue than you do, but I can't tell because I don't know who you are. Care to share your full name?

I have said repeatly for years that I am personally very excited about the potential for Carolina North to take Chapel Hill into the 21st century with well-planned, visionary development leading the way toward environmental sustainability, transit-friendliness, and great jobs. This is all stuff that Chapel Hill cannot do on it's own, we have to work with the University to make this place together.

Anything of this magnitude located in the center of our community is poised to have a huge impact on all of us. The question is simply what the nature of that impact will be.

Patrick,

I'm not sure where/when I wrote the passage you quoted above, but I agree with your assessment that the fiscal equity can be resolved. While I used water and sewer as an example, the larger point I was trying to make is with infrastructure. 8,000 residents who don't pay full property taxes will have a major impact on all infrastructure services including schools, transportation, and public safety. They will add to our air pollution problems and our waste disposal issues. Growth comes with costs and those costs need to be fully understood at the conceptual planning phase of this project.

The Stormwater Utility Chapel Hill added a couple of years ago is an example of my caution as is the imbalance in residential and commercial development. We didn't anticipate the environment or management costs of stormwater and we didn't anticipate the regressive impact development would have on affordability.

I don't expect anyone can anticipate all future public costs, but my hope is that the new committee, in conjunction with the towns and UNC, will undertake a planning process that attempts such forward thinking. This new committee makes me feel optimistic. Keeping the discussions at the concept level will be the challenge.

Terri

I really don't think Ruby, Dan, Will, or anyone with similar views on CN are very far off from the mainstream. How is cautious optimism the same thing as closed mindedness?

It seems to me that not just the town in general, but the informed student body as well, sees Carolina North with the same stance - we want this to be the best project it can possibly be, not a half-hearted RTP lookalike. The Environmental Affairs Committee of student government on campus held an environmental issues forum on campus last night for our two Student Body President candidates, and though they each had differing views on what small policy changes might be most feasible and have the most impact, one particular point came through from both: The importance of holding the University administration accountable for their actions in regards to issues of growth.

I love my University. Part of that love means holding it to the highest possible standard, and I stand behind anyone willing to do the same.

I think what Charles P. is trying to say is that the rhetoric Will/Dan/Ruby/Bill/Cam have used in the past is viewed by many in the University community as unproductive.

Now, before you all go accusing me of closed-mindedness myself, these aren't my own impressions. I've had important University officials flat-out tell me they hate working with Ruby, Bill and Cam because they're "unreasonable." Say what you will, but I still get the distinct impression that the University is as "cautiously optimistic," to use Jason's term, about the town as the townsfolk in this thread are cautiously optimistic about Carolina North.

That doesn't mean people can't work together, though.

Chris, there are many people in town who would say the same about working with the Chancellor, Nancy Suttenfield, Bruce Runberg, Jonathan Howes, etc. That doesn't mean we get to walk away from the table just because we don't agree with them. We're all trying hard to collaborate because we know it's best for all of our interests.

As a friend of mine points out, the people who have been getting elected to the Town Council in the last several years have been vocal critics of unchecked growth at UNC. Theirs is not an extreme view, it's one that has been repeatedly endorsed by the voters of Chapel Hill. Jason is right that this is a pretty mainstream view of things here.

"Now, before you all go accusing me of closed-mindedness myself, these aren't my own impressions. I've had important University officials flat-out tell me they hate working with Ruby, Bill and Cam because they're 'unreasonable.' "

Chris -

Thanks for pointing this out. That's all I was trying to say. Sorry if I offended you, Rudy and Will. It wasn't intended.

Ruby: I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. Really, I'm not. The only reason I made that post was to provide context for something somebody else had said.

I, like you, Will, and Jason, only want the best for the University and the town. I think it's in everyone's best interest that people, even if they disagree, get to the table and work out something good.

I think Chris and Charles may have a point, above. It's as much about perception as it is about what's really so. If the towns select only committee members who are perceived to be "unreasonable," it sends a negative message about our motives before discussions even begin. And I don't mean any disrespect to Ruby, Will, Dan, Bill or Cam. Really.

I'm pleased to see the Town Council take action on appointing its reps to the committee. I hope Orange County and Carrboro move forward as soon as possible so that the committee can get rolling.

Well "Steve S," do you think the Town should be able to raise similar objections to the University's choice of representatives? What kind of message does it send that there are tons of UNC and state officials on the panel that could overrule all the town reps put together?

To be clear, I am not objecting in any way to UNC's composition of the committee - it's their's to do with what they want. I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of objecting to Chapel Hill participating on it's own terms.

"Charles P", Chris Coletta etc.,

I think UNC should be interested in engaging critics (as distinguished from opponents) of Carolina North. Ya'll sound just like certain folks in Washington, DC with the "either you are fer us or yer agin us" approach to this issue.

And although it will not be easy to come up with principles/plans that are agreeable to both UNC and its neighbors, this is nonetheless exactly what is needed and exactly what Dean Broun's goal is. Your rhetoric is not the least bit helpful.

Chris, you in particular should be ashamed of your post. Either tell us who said that or acknowledge that you were told that comment off the record. And assuming that it was the latter, then why don't you show some respect for your sources and leave such comments off the record? Otherwise we will be left to question what /your/ real motivations are.

"Charles P", do you really think it would be more helpful to appoint people to the committee who are perceived as being more closely aligned with UNC? Should the committee have no representation from local governments? Sure would make for a more agreeable committee, but I am not sure what credibility such a committee could possibly have.

If UNC wants to have this committee result in meaningful discussion, then the committee HAS to have participation and buy-in from Carolina North's critics. What would be the point of the committee without that?

And one last thing, quite contrary to Chris Coletta's post, I have heard nothing but positive response from UNC regarding Chapel Hill's decision to appoint Strom and Hill. And I will site my source: Ken Broun.

Mark:

Mine were private conversations -- outside the context of the DTH. So there was no "on the record" or "off the record" to speak of.

Why is it so hard to understand/believe that there's no "rhetoric" involved in what I post? Why is it so hard to believe that I have no agenda? I'm just telling you what I've heard from people who work on campus in my four years here -- as an interested citizen, not as a reporter. (I don't cover local government outside the context of my J-school reporting class.) If that contradicts what you've heard from Ken Broun, well, good -- so far as I can tell, that means both town and gown look willing to look past their previous arguments and have a substantive discussion at the table.

In my original posts, I wasn't saying I agreed with the people who had talked to me. I wasn't saying I agree with you and Ruby, for that matter. I was simply trying -- again, as a citizen with a bit of interesting knowledge -- to add to the conversation, and there's no reason for anyone to jump down my throat.

From the initial comment of this thread, there has been a lot of what I would call unhelpful negativity about the whole idea. I would have thought that most would have welcomed a broader and more comprehensive approach to developing the concept for Carolina North. Now that we know a little more, I don't see this committee voting issues and such based on their formal positions that got them appointed. Rather, I think it will be like a generator of ideas for the UNC folks to consider as they put together their next plan.

What is there to overrule if your goal is to bring smart, dedicated people together to produce ideas. I suspect that they can report multiple perspectives on things if there are multiple perspectives. That model has worked in other Town-gown circumstances and should work here too.

"Chapel Hill participating on their own terms" is an interesting perspective. I think that the Mayor last night tried to get away from that very approach and showed that he saw cooperation as the best route for everybody. I hope that the Carrboro and Orange County leaders will think similarly.

Earlier it was said that there needed to be representatives from the UNC Board of Trustees on the committee for it to be effective. Then a Councilman says that maybe council members shouldn't participate because it might be a conflict when the project comes back for approval. Will not the BOT have to approve whatever UNC proposes for Carolina North? Is BOT participation then a conflict? I don't think so. Thankfully, the Council members will participate along with two other citizens..

Another perspective we hear frequently is that "UNC has not sufficiently demonstrated a need to build Carolina North." Is this the standard the Town applies to all who propose projects? If it isn't, then we need to move away from that rhetoric and deal with the real issues that are before us.

I would hope that all of the representatives from the towns and the County are motivated to work with the other members of the committee to produce ideas that will one day be put into action to ensure that Carolina North is a great place, enhancing UNC, our towns, the County and North Carolina overall. I also wish Ken Broun well as he goes about facilitating this process. Since nobody can possibly live closer to Carolina North than my wife and I do, we have more than just a passing interest.

The Carrboro Board of Aldermen appointed James Carnahan, Randee Haven-O'Donnell, Dan Coleman and me.

James, Randee, Mark and Dan - quite a smorgasboard of talent.

James will bring an interesting background from both the Village Project and his advisory work. Dan, of course, spent a year (or was it more?) helping hammer out the zoning for CN. We know Randee can both make tough decisions and work to bridge divisions.

Mark, hmmm, now that's a poser. You bring your experience, your desire for affordable housing, etc. but, guy, your Mayor now ;-).

...you're Mayor...

Mark,
Who came in 5th?
;-)

Carolina North: Inciting grammatical mistakes since 12:09 a.m. 2/15/2006.

;)

Actually we did apoint an alternater, Eric. It is Allen Spalt.

But we are having three special meetings next week about who to appoint as the second alternate. ;)

Mark-

I think your choices for the committee are excellent. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have both made great choices.

When will the additional reps from Chapel Hill be finalized?

2-27 Town Council meeting

Has the first meeting of the committee been scheduled yet?

Just in case anyone from UNC is reading, things like the CN committee meeting schedule would be a great addition to your community website.

"Steve S." your questions should be directed to UNC. It's their committee.

And by the way, are you going to come of out the closet and use your full name?

Looks like Ruby is up for the job

Foy plans to talk to Ruby Sinreich, the chairwoman of the Planning Board, and Julie McClintock, the chairwoman of the Horace Williams group, to see if they were willing to be the ones who serve on the new committee. The council also plans to identify a couple of alternates from those two groups.

- Today's HS (thanks Ray again for explaining how to bypass the Herald Sun's pay archive!).

I'll be happy to join if Julie defers ;-)

Jason, the committee has not yet scheduled its first meeting or put together a calendar because the various munis have not all nominated their reps to the committee. My understanding is that once the committee composition is finalized, we'll have a first meeting asap and get to work. Orange county still needs to nominate its reps and Chapel Hill has two more folks to tap.

"Steve S... And by the way, are you going to come of out the closet and use your full name?"

Give me a break, Ruby. That kind of snide, poor-taste comment is exactly why some people with opinions different from yours prefer not to expose themselves to cheap digs on this blogsite.

There's nothing insulting about it, "Steve S." This is the same way others have been treated when they engage in discussion without revealing their identities. I don't see why you should be held to a different standard.

http://orangepolitics.org/2006/02/round-two/#comment-33006
http://orangepolitics.org/2005/09/chapel-hill-sierra-club-forum-tonight/...
http://orangepolitics.org/2004/11/i-want-my-chl/#comment-20478
http://orangepolitics.org/2004/05/wchl-forum-today/#comment-17941

Etc...

Shouldn't this thread be "Jack Evans...."

I found the "action language" of Jack Evan's recent LAC email interesting:

All:

As a result of our discussion of future meetings during the session on Nov 2, I've spent some time on calendar issues, both personal and general. My understanding is that the plan for future meetings is as listed below.

November 30: 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. (regular meeting)
December 16: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Saturday meeting)
January 4: 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. (possible final meeting)
January 18: 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. (to be used only if needed to conclude our work)

In the spirit of full disclosure, let me admit that I have a conflict with the January 4 date due to other meetings that I am obligated to attend. However, I offer the following general thoughts for consideration regarding the January 4 date. While January 4 is not in the heart of the holiday season, it is only three days after an official holiday and some participants may have personal or family plans that
would intersect with the January 4 date. Classes do not resume for the Spring Semester until Wednesday, January 10.

Specifically regarding our LAC work, if it develops that we're working on a draft of the LAC final report following the meeting on December 16 in preparation for January
4, some of that work would likely have to be done between official holidays.

Finishing the LAC work promptly is desirable, but having as many LAC members participate as possible is also desirable. If a number of people would have problems with the January 4 date, we might want to collect that information. We have the option of cancelling the January 4 meeting and using the January 18 date (which should still be on our calendars) as our final meeting.

If others of you have preferences in this regard, you might send that information to Ken Broun so that he could bring a summary of those data to the meeting on November 30. We should then be able to finalize our plans quickly.

OK. First, where's the concern for COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION in this schedule? Dang. Once again UNC is reverting to form (well, at least a form quite common during the Moeser regime) of stuffing change into the summer or winter holidays. We only need to look at Broun's and Evan's appointments to see some sterling examples.

And why the rush? There's a number of critical issues left undiscussed (energy budget) or barely traversed (housing) or deferred, at UNC's request, until later.

There's no time within this schedule for the LAC members LET ALONE THE COMMUNITY to weigh in on what is just now arising from the formless void of the LAC process.

I endorsed this process from day one, so it's with great sorrow that I must evaluate the LAC's current approach as "the same old, same old". God, why does UNC fritter its community goodwill away so casually?

If you think this is a rather rushed schedule, please consider contacting:

EvansJ@kenan-flagler.unc.edu

John P. Evans
Executive Director, Carolina North
Hettleman Professor of Business
304 South Building, CB 4000
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
919-843-2025

Pages

 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.