Question Chilton On Radio

Eric, one dynamic I've heard a number of times (including from candidates) is the call to vote for less than the number of open seats because your vote will be stronger.

So, for instance, in the Chapel Hill race folk were counseling voters to cast only 2 of their votes to make their candidates look stronger.

Surely this distorts the outcome in a small race like Carrboro's.

BTW, I think if you can find 3 good candidates in a 3 of 6 race you should vote for all of them...not just for one or two. This calculus of strength stinks.

On a completely different note, does Carrboro have an accommodations tax?

Eric - btw, our girls were both in first grade at Carrboro Elem together and I ran for alderman.

Eric, the key piece you are continuing to miss is that the Charter (when applicable) stands for the following principle: "The 1st through Nth place finishers win seats in a pick N election."

You propose that it should be a logical extension of that doctrine that N+1th position ought to be considered the people's next highest choice in a pick N election. But that same logic says that a person who came in 2nd in a pick 1 race should be considered to be the people's 2nd choice. Therefore Patrick Ballantine should take office if Mike Easely leaves office.

But no, the gubernatorial succession rule is far, far from that. Why? Because Ballantine was defeated. The voters rejected Ballantine. The result of the last gubernatorial election cannot tell us anything about the people's second choice. No correction, perhaps the result of the last gubernatorial election does tell us one thing about the people's second choice: Not Patrick Ballantine.

WillR, Carrboro has authority for an accomodations tax, but no accomodations to tax.

Will, are you suggesting that Carrboro may have a great new revenue stream when this supposed hotel is built?

This all reminds me of democracy in small towns in Connecticut, where the loser DOES win. The board of selectmen conists of three persons, the first selectman, the second selectman, and the third selectman. There are two races on the ballot, first selectmen and third selectman. The first place finisher for first selectman is elected to that position. The second place finisher for first selectman is second selectman, and in the race for third selectman, the top vote getter win the race for third selectman. Runner-up for third selectman wins nothing. But in both the races for first selectman and third selectman, the voter only votes for ONE candidate.

I can say that in the case of both the Chapel Hill and Carrboro provisions regarding filling vacancies, and whether they are to be on the ballots, etc, that I was the drafter (this 30 years ago or so). I can say for a fact that NONE of the discussions touched on the issue of how to fill a vacancy where someone resigned after the election. (Although after I resigned from the Chapel Hill Town Council in 1979, I recall advocating that Joe Herzenberg be appointed to replace me, and he was the 4th place finisher. The reason I advocated appointing him was that his politics and mine were (at the time, at least) pretty close to identical, not because he was 4th place.))

But Eric is absolutely correct, one can certainly look at a charter provision that really does not cover a situation as guidance for how to deal with a similar circumstance. Judicial Interpretations of old constitutions often deal with situations like this. Lawyers and judges are trained to look for precedents and illustrations in interpreting provisons, lest they be accused of "legislating from the bench".

Oh, and I'm still waiting for Eric to acknowledge that he hadn't read all the way to the end of the 12th Amendment before stating that the US Constitution had nothing to say about the qualifications of the Vice President!

Mark, I am not missing that point at all.

The principle you cite--"The 1st through Nth place finishers win seats in a pick-N election"--entails a rejection of your view that Carrboro elections law attaches any particular relevance to the fact that a particular candidate received a particular percentage of the vote in an election. That principle does not express the slightest concern for whether a candidate received 60%, 40%, or 2%.

You're right, Gerry. I was so carried away with the genius of my hypothetical that I didn't read all the way to the end of the 12th Amendment.

I have never been one who allows something as insignificant as "facts" to get in the way of my astonishing brilliance.

;-)

"Oh, and one more thing Eric, stop throwing stones from your front step over the Carrboro line "

Is this comment meant to say that only people who live in Carrboro should have an opinion on the Carrboro government's decisions?

If so, would you say the same thing about the Hillsborough government's decisions with regard to Weaver Street Market?

Allan, I think Mark was just joking, responding to my having said that I live close enough to the Carrboro line to throw a stone into Carrboro from my front steps.

Hi there folks,

I'm Ian, one of the co-hosts of the ESP Show on WCOM. I need to say that I've gotten the sad impression here that some of you think it's wrong to question public officials, especially with tough questions. Or at least for anyone to question YOUR preferred public officials...

It makes me sad to hear that from self-percieved progressives, as that's exactly the same tack the Bush administration and friends take.

The appointment was controversial, and therefore deserved tough questioning. Whether or not it was "English-style" isn't the point. If I had been able to be present for the entire interview, I would have asked possbily tougher questions than Geoff did.

Let's be honsest: The tactics of calling Katrina "rejected" by the voters; of flooding the phone lines with people who are clearly friends/co-workers/political teammembers of Mark's; those anonymous callers saying things like "I've never listened to the show and probably won't again," (hm... and how did you come to listen this time??); calling the show and Geoff irresponsible, boring, tired, or implying he's an idiot (Chris); of excoriating Geoff for asking the questions; pretending that the issue was resolved and was just being rehashed for political reasons by sneaky supporters of Katrina Ryan... these are all clever and politically viable, but they are just tactics, not truth.

The issue was and remains that technicalities were specifically sought after and used to circumvent the intention of the law. And while no one could say what the Aldermen did was "illegal," it was certainly a political means to get their own into power and keep someone out who they disagree with strongly and are possibly fearful of having influence locally. And that's all it was. Let's be honest about it.

The reason it was worthy of a radio show and public discussion--again--was not who was appointed, but how and why.

Mark, you have a strong political mini-machine, both for callers on the show, and for people showing up here to criticize the audacity, the style, and the intentions of those who question your and the other Aldermen's actions. And I appreciate the subtlety of your printed arguments here, though I disagree. I'm sure you'll be a fine mayor, and that the Aldermen will be good officials.

That's effective politics. But it's not "progressive," entirely honest, or right. Or frankly, in style with the progressive hats Carrborians like to wear and admire and enforce on each other in public. I guess it's that last little bit that seems so hypocritcal to me in all this: It's important to talk progressive about all the right issues, but when it comes down to process, the ends justify the means.

Which is no different than those we criticize so harshly in the current national administration.

Eric,

Maybe we agree on this issue. As I said before I think it was appropriate for the individual alderpeople to include the information on the order of finish in the election as an element in their decision and I think at least some (maybe all) of them did. I just don't think handing the position to the fourth finisher as a matter of course is a good idea.

You ask “how is it that the voting dynamics of a 6-person race for 4 open seats would be expected to be so different from a 6-person race for 3 open seats?” An analysis could be made of the recent BOA election and the probable number of votes each candidate would have received in a race for 4 seats estimated. I imagine that, depending on the assumptions of the model, any result you want could be obtained. In this specific case I can envisage a set of assumptions that will show that the fourth place finisher would have still finished fourth and a set that would give other candidates the fourth slot. In any case I don't think it would be a valuable exercise because if we tried to estimate the errors in the point estimates they would be large. I also think the model by its nature would be divisive.

I am glad to hear that there is an enterprise in addition to horse shoes where being close counts, interpretation of complex legal documents.

Marc and whoever else is interested,
I have no trouble believing that the three motivating factors Eric listed in his 11:35 AM post are indeed his motivations.

The BOA created a very difficult task for itself. On one level they have accomplished that task and deserve our thanks and congratulations. But perhaps there is another level at which that task is not yet complete. Hopefully it will be soon.

Ian,

You said "The issue was and remains that technicalities were specifically sought after and used to circumvent the intention of the law."

After reading this thread I don't see how you can still say that “the law” has any well determined intention with regard to the situation at hand. The only situation in which the fourth place finisher would obtain a seat would be if the voters had four votes each. It does not seem to me to be a technicality that the voters only had three votes and we have no way of knowing who would have finished fourth in an election where each voter had four votes. I would have liked to see another election but apparently that was not possible.

Ian, I think Jim is exactly right. The fact is that the Town Charter expressed no intention on the scenario that presented itself.

Ian says
"The issue was and remains that technicalities were specifically sought after and used to circumvent the intention of the law."

sorry Ian, the law here has no intention to cover vacancies AFTER an election, It is wholly inapplicable, being designed to cover an entirely different situtation. As I have pointed out, it was merely designed to provide that vacancies which OCCUR prior to the election should appear together on the ballot, not as a separate part of the ballot as in the 1973 Chapel Hill-Carrboro school board race. It is not a "technicality".

Now, if you want to say that is a good idea to take the 4th place finisher, that's fine, but the law provides not an iota of support for that position. It might be good politics, it might be more democratic, it might be more ethical, but it has NOTHING to do with the law.

IF there had been Instant Run-off Voting in the regular election, we would have avoided all this mess.

Mark
IRV solves lots of problems, like avoiding costly runoffs (n systems that have majority or 40% vote rules, which Carrboro town elections do not), allowing people to vote for the real first choice, not just who they think can win, etc. Unfortunately, it would not have helped in this case because the extra seat was not available at the time of the vote.

No problem. Have an extra choice made. Everyone knew it was coming.

I can only wonder how many lawsuits would have resulted. As interesting as it is to debate these issues, it's not really that hard to accept that an election can only fill the vacancies that legally exist. Voting for "spares" - notwithstanding how soon or late the "spare" might be needed - just isn't how we should do it.

The BOA must agree that the charter needs clarification. One of the reported outcomes of their retreat from last week was the mayor's call for revisiting the charter.

Agree 100% Terri! Then if there is a charter revision, there will be a new legal process that will help avoid this in the future.

one of the past "solutions" to the problem was requiring someone running for office in the middle of the term resign upon filing. This would mean that we really WOULD know how many seats were up. The General Assembly actually passed this in the late 1980s, and the State Supreme Court promptly ruled it unconstitutional.

In this election, we would not have benefited if both Mark and Alex had resigned prior to running. Even worse, we may have lost out because neither would have been willng to resign to run. In the end, we'd have a BOA without one of them, and the BOA would be weaker for it.

Fred,

The idea is to institute the reform before the election. Then it's pre-approved and at least the process is legal.

I don't see how anybody can say with a straight face that there is avbetter way to choose the representative than by democratic voting. And, if saving time & money is considered important, and if value is placed on those candidates who actually run for office, then IRV solves the problem.

Mark,

I like everything about IRV and would like to see it instituted at both the county and municiple levels (broader too but I don't see that as a possibility). But I don't see how it would have helped in this situation. There were only 3 slots to fill at the time of the election so the instructions on the ballot would be the same even if IRV was in place--select your top 3 choices. Are you saying that with IRV the instructions could have been written to select your top 4 choices even though there were only 3 open seats? Wouldn't that have conflicted with the charter?

It wasn't the balloting that was the problem here--it was interpreting the meaning of the votes received by the 4th place vote getter. Revising the charter is the only solution I see to avoiding similar situations in the future.

Terri

I agree with the IRV and rewriting of the charter. I still maintain that it was well known before hand that there would be four vacancies assuming Mark won, and the fully honest thing would have been to deal with it in the beginning by either resigning or having the board address the issue in advance.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but I suspect it was more than lack of foresight. Nothing sinister, just local politics, and wanting to get someone on the board whose positions the board members and Carrboro political club approved of, who likely would not have been elected if he ran...

I invite you all to join us next Thursday morning, when we have more local guests. I believe Alex is next on.

Terri,

I agree. What I'm saying is that the dilemma did not sneak up on anybody and the charter could have been changed (or an attempt made) before hand. Of course, the state may not have allowed IRV and the law says this and the law says that...

Putting aside the way we may want to relate to a state government that treats us like second-class citizens, the fact remains that IF we had used IRV with 4 choices, democracy would have been served about as well as we could do.

Many seem to accept as a complete certainty that there would be a vacancy to fill. One can assume it, but it wasn't a certainty. Just suppose that the winner of the mayor race was also an alderman in a seat with two years remaining, and after winning, he announced that he had changed his mind (I know, strange and very unlikely, but strange and unlikely things in life do happen!) and would not be sworn in as mayor. So, should they have planned for a "spare" alderman before the fact?

What's the status of the pilot test we were supposed to be following in Orange County on IRV? Or did I dream that up?

Fred, are you trying to become a lawyer? :)

Ian--I asked why the board didn't address the issue before the changeover. The only option for the old board was was to re-write the charter. They could not make decisions about a situation that had not yet occurred. If we've learned anything from this, it's that logic needs to be clearly spelled out by ordinance or else we just have to trust those who are elected to make decisions on whatever basis they choose. Then the voters speak out on their satisfaction with the decision at the next election. No one ever said democracy was clear cut.

With IRV you can just have an extra pick in case something happens - death, illness, whatever.

It seems to me the most undemocratic thing about the recent Carrboro elections was the annexation of the NTA without giving the NTA residents a chance to vote in this election.....can anyone walk me through the reason voting privleges did not come along with annexation, and could things have been handled differently so that the NTA residents could have voted in this past election?

Fred, you are right that it was not 100% certain that the Mark vs. Alex race would have to result in a vacancy - death/disqualification of a candidate or of the mayor-elect coudl have resulted in some other outcome. Also, there could have been a write-in candidate (no so far fetched, you will recall).

And of course, up until the last minute of the filing period, there could have been a non-incumbent challenger. That is only significant in the following way: It was not clear that the Mayor's race woudl involve only two mid-term incumbents until ecactly the moment when it became too late to file for the Alderman race.

Chris, owing to bad timing of the annexation, the annexation resolution was required by NC law to take effect 365-400 days after its adoption. It was adopted (over my objection) in January 2005, so the effective date of the annexation was Jan 31, 2006 (three months after the 2005 election). This was one of two serious timing problems in the annexation in my opinion.

Eric, of course you don't have to get 50% to win, but the fact that the three winners did get over 50% and the fourth place finisher got less than 35% speaks volumes about the voters intentions. You want me to apply the 'spirit of the charter,' and I can see that that is a valid consideration, but why can't you acknowledge the validity of applying the spirit of the voters.

Ian, don't be absurd. You guys were the ones who hyped the radio show on OrangePolitics. So don't be surprised that OP participants called in. I didn't organize a response, you did.

Quote from Ian:

It makes me sad to hear that from self-percieved progressives, as that's exactly the same tack the Bush administration and friends take.

Let the record show that Ian Kleinfeld compared Mark Chilton to President Bush and friends. How very odd.

The people who called in to support Mark did so not because they disagreed with Ian's RIGHT to question him or the Board of Alderman. (I'm so glad that people question our politicians.) But many people disagreed with the manner with which Ian conducted his interview and promotions. The whole show idea smelled like partisan sabotage from the start.

Brian, what's particularly interesting is how they advertised this radio show over on Squeeze the Pulp.

Thursday, February 9, 9.15am to 10.15 am, on WCOM 103.5FM Carrboro/Chapel Hill (live stream: www.communityradio.coop), Mark Chilton will be interviewed live by The ESP Team on their political chat show.

Top issue will be repercussions from the Alderman Co-option issue.

I don't recall reading anything about "Alderman Co-option" here on OP. Sabotage, indeed.

Couple of points.

Let's put the blame on the correct shoulders. It was I who interviewed Mark, not Ian. He is the producer of "The ESP Show."

We practice true progressive democracy on our show between the three rotating co-hosts and producers: me, Ian Kleinfeld and Paul Aaron. That is to say, we are unscripted and we don't interfere with each other's right to comport ourselves as we see fit.

Ian says he would have been more aggressive than me had he been in the interviewer's chair. I have already told him that I would not have engaged in the same argument that he has on this thread. That's democracy.

It is true that there was genuine misunderstanding between my English-American language background and that of my purely American friends.

In England, 'co-opt' is an innocent word, that means 'appoint.' I now understand that, in this country, it means 'subvert.' I did not intend that meaning, and it is why I suggested to Ruby that she simply exclude it from the guest post.

And so as to avoid a new thread of irrelevance, Ruby behaved as editiorial monitor at all times with patience and courtesy.

This was perhaps simply another example of cultural difference. But what's wrong with cultural difference? We are a land of immigrants, all with cultural differences.

There is a saying I have picked up from the South: I wasn't born here, but I got here as fast as I could.

I have been in the Carrboro/Chapel Hill area for a year. I love the locale. I have always been interested in the plight of the disadvantaged. I choose currently to demonstrate that interest through my radio show.

If you don't like it, don't listen. If you don't think politicians should be treated in that way, don't come on the show. If you think I'm being unfair, call in and ask your own questions.

I can not prove in one interview that I am not partisan. What I can say is that I select what I believe to be that particular interviewee's vulnerable point, and test them on it.

If you don't believe me, check in this Thursday, when I will be interviewing Alex Zaffron - in exactly the same style. 9.00am -10.00am, live. 929-9601. Then, let's hear your updated opinions.

By the way, we are a literary as well as a politcal chat show. and on February 23, we will be chatting with Tom Sandevik - and I stress 'chat.' We have a totally different demeanour for our literary guests. Again, why not check in before you form a premature conclusion.

Heres' the deal, folks. Last week's interview with Mark Chilton attracted more listeners and more call-ins than almost any radio show since the inception of WCOM 103.5FM.

That means that people were listening and getting involved. That's good for radio, good for democracy and good for the community.

Happy listening, and happy blogging!

Geoff Gilson
"The ESP Show"
9.00am - 10.00am, Thursdays
(919) 929-9601
WCOM 103.5FM
theespteam@yahoo.com

My favorite tale about differing language usage between the US and UK is the verb "to table". During delicate negotiations between the UK and American Government just prior to the US entering WWII, the British group proposed "to table" an issue that the American group wanted considered, causing the Americans to walk out in anger.

why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_%28verb%29
The meaning varies among English-speaking countries:
In British English, to "table" a measure is to propose it for consideration, as in bringing it to the legislative table.
In American English, to "table" a measure is to postpone its further consideration until a later date, as in returning it to a stack of papers on the table.

"America and Britain are two nations divided by a common language" George Bernard Shaw

It finally makes the Main Stream Media
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/400705.html

Geoff, my congratulations on a notable improvement in the tone of your show from last week (Chilton) to this week (Zaffron). Whereas with Mark you sounded incredulous and combative, with Alex you sounded probing and thorough.

If this is a trend, let it continue!

Ruby, Ruby, Ruby - now who's showing bias?

If Mark felt so hard done by, why would he have agreed to come back on the Show in April, specifically to discuss Affordable Housing?

Thank you for your comments, Eric. We're all human. I can't pretend to get absolute balance with every interviewee. But "probing' and 'throrough'? Yes, we try for that. And maybe, Eric, you'd like to come on the Show?

Next Thursday, folks, a break from politics. Todd Sandvik, Poet Laureate for Carrboro will be on. We are a literary as well as a political Show.

In fact, all three of the co-hosts are writers. Before politics, our primary interest is in the written word, which, frankly, we feel can be best appreciated when spoken aloud - preferably on our Radio Show...

And then, sometimes, we have whole Shows devoted just to just entertainment and trivia - local, regional and national.

So, stay tuned, and thank you for all the input, critical as well as constructive - there is no-one in the public eye who should think themselves above a bit of probing and prodding.

On which subject, Dan, we're still waiting for you to come back to us with a firm date...now, you're not going to cry off are you...?

Happy listening and happy blogging.

Geoff Gilson
"The ESP Show"
Thursdays, 9.00am-10.00am
WCOM 103.5LPFM
www.communityradio.coop
theespteam@yahoo.com

http://www.ask.com/reference/dictionary/ahdict/57457/cry
cry off -To break or withdraw from a promise, agreement, or undertaking.

Hmm. I think I'm beginning to enjoy this blog. So. By stages.

I do not mean to insult. Believe me, you'll know when I do. But I think a little pointed joshing is acceptable in the world of politics - and this blog is very definitely in the world of politics.

Now, 'joshing' is acceptable, isn't it?

I was called "tired," an "idiot" and a "moron" before I even joined this blog. So, Ruby, how inviting and agreeable was that?

And thank you Gerry. Would it be so terribly 'insulting' if, with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I was to to remind some of you that we invented the language - you merely tinkered with it afterwards?

I look forward to more of this bantering - in continued good nature; at least on my part.

Happy blogging

Geoff

Pardon me while I visit the loo, y'all.