And today's appointees are: Alito and…

Round 5

John H. made an excellent case for putting someone on the board that will work hard in these tough times - brought up Corretta Scott King - Alito...

New votes - 3 Dan, 3 Lydia -> Alex switches...

Randee says we have "two years to make this decision" after Mark C. said the BOC went through this for 6 months years ago...

Jacqui is making the Balkanization argument to counter Randee's feelings that choosing an annexee will send a message...

Joal says "Lydia is that person."

To Jacqui's argument that Dan will represent all of Carrboro

Does anyone want to weigh in on the equivalent backgrounds of Dan and Lydia?

Choosing an annexee will send the message that a very loud 5% of a town's population gets their own Alderman.

Jacqui - "One of the reasons I was a top vote getter is because of my feelings on development downtown"

Alex - eye roll

Joan - does the balkanization/implicit districting argument get traction with you?

Alex is reaffirming his "ground-based" decision. I agree with Jacquie's analysis on the implicit districting - it would definitely suck in Chapel Hill (though there's a bit of tilt in some areas already).

JohnK I'd almost agree with you except for the hardened expressions on Joal's and Alex's faces.

Will, yeah, it does. Or at least as you're representing it.

John, if you can mobilize everyone in your neighborhood, more power to you.

It's interesting that John, Jacqui and Mark have brought up numerous reasons to select Dan but Joal, Randee and Alex have not risen to speak on the specifics of their choice EXCEPT for their initial positions (which Alex used for supporting KR).

So, elaboration and evidence for why Dan should be selected by 3 members over 5 rounds of votes, not the same for Lydia - though she has many attributes that could be brought forward in a similar fashion...

OK. Joal wants to recess the meeting until Thurs. to discuss this further.

Mark C. suggests Round 6 that might make the recess moot.

OK. Dan - 3 Lydia - 3

My feeling, there was a dearth of leadership on this one....oh well, I'm guessing that some backroom negotiations will make something shake loose...Who knows James and folk might be back in play....

Is this how Carrboro's BOA has been functioning (so to speak) of late? John H. mentionned all the tension - that he's ready to be a team player....

It is interesting that the folks who voted for the annexation are supporting an NTA candidate (well, not Randee, as she wasn't on the Board then). And Mark and Jacquie aren't.

Tonight's a great example of why they really need that extra person and an odd number of people!

Ruby, good idea as long as they let us out of the room.

OK. The BOA will reconvene tomorrow @ 7pm. Sounds like John and Joal will be racing back from business...

BTW, Carrboro's attorney says any BOA member could be lobbied over the next day.

Well, if at least one Board member absolutely won't switch and support the other applicant with three votes, then they need a new applicant that four will support, and it doesn't appear to be one of those with three votes right now.

Then again, 6-0, 5-1, and 4-2 outcomes aren't all that bad on big issues, but would people stand for that for 2almost two years?

Sorry folks for the blips in transcription ( losing the "e" on Jacquie for instance). I think I caught both the sense of the meeting and most of the comments accurately but feel free to disagree ;-).

Blame Tom Jensen, liveblogger par excell nce, who was too wimpy to drag his laptop all the way to Carrboro...

Is anyone going to workup a matrix showing the relative strengths of the two candidates? Any bets on whether a final resolution will occur tomorrow?

"Choosing an annexee will send the message that a very loud 5% of a town's population gets their own Alderman."

That may be Joan, but what you and Jacqui seem to be forgetting is that this is an appointment process rather than an election. Apples and oranges. Whatever the BOA does isn't going to set a precedent for anything except the next time there's an open seat.

I think when the board reconvenes we should get all of them to tell us their second choice and see if there would be a good compromise candidate before doing another vote. As was mentioned above, it is a good slate of candidates and perhaps if we hear about the second choice pick of the alderman and mayor, there might be room for movement. By the way, I know that I am not on anyone's radar screen, but my daughter Stefanie and I were there well before 7:30. We left during the first break since I had to get her back home. Stef found the process very interesting, up until the third ballot when no one was budging. At that point, she was pushing to go home.

They should have used Instant Run-off Voting & still can next time.

It would probably have been done in one vote.

Deer Rooby, I cain't spel good.

First time commenting here. My name is Steve Dear.

I lived in the NTA for 14 years before moving into Carrboro's town limits 16 months ago. I served on the board of adjustment from the NTA for a time in the '90s. I was often at odds with the town's growth policies regarding the NTA. You'd think I'd support someone from the NTA.

I am dissapointed that Dan was not appointed with a strong majority tonight. And I would feel the same way if I still lived in the NTA. I commend John, Mark, and Jacqui for their comments and votes.

I am surprised and unconvinced at some of the comments made by others at the meeting. No one said anything remotely convincing to me that Dan isn't by far the strongest candidate.

Good candidates applied, but how can you overlook all of Dan's more than two decades--decades!--of decidated service to this community plus the insights he has repeatedly shown himself capable of bringing to bear on every issue the town faces?

I may not agree with Dan on every single thing. But we are lucky to have him. And I think he will show what a good listener he is.

I am waiting for an alderman to express a compelling reason to not support him.

I heard John H. refer to building a good team on the BOA.

That's what Dan would do.

Sorry Alena, I tried to record all the folk that were there....

I'm surprised that folk didn't have a second choice ready to go.

I also thought Mark was making a case for James and Joal for Dan!

Again, the strange bit was that on subsequent rounds the BOA that supported Dan made an extended case for their choice but Lydia's supporters didn't...

Terri, you're right about Alex's gutsy choice...he had his criteria and stuck with them...

I think Jacquie's balkanization theory is sound and should give pause to folks whose decision is dominated by the annexation issue...

If you were to Venn diagram the various parameters each of the BOA'rs put forward tonight and then sort the candidates appropriately, I think you'd come up with the same 5 or 6 names - James, Dan, Lydia, Cat, David M. and B. - based at least on my reading of the applicants.

If the BoA cannot break their 3-3 deadlock in appointing either Dan Coleman or Lydia Lavelle then they must compromise to avert future 3-3 decisions. Until there is a new member, the Board risks its ability to be a decisive organization. They must then compromise and agree to choose among the remaining applicants. Each BoA member will not get the new member they love but they will get the new member they like. After all, each BoA member did state that all the applicants were acceptable.

How can the balkanization theory be sound Will? Here's the theory as I heard it represented tonight: "If the 6 people who constitute the BOA appoint someone based on area of residence, in future elections candidates will 1) choose to run thinking they represent a certain geographical constituency and 2) they will expect to win based on that constituency alone." Isn't that part of every candidate's rationale? Didn't you expect your neighbors to vote for you? Don't people decide to run for election thinking they have something to offer a certain constituency?

Mathematically, you can't infer what 6 people do to a population of 18,000. In other words, the BOA can't start a voting trend. And anyone who actually believed they could win an election based on their relationships with a small portion of town would be totally clueless.

Sorry Will. We may agree on wifi, but this balkanization theory as you call it is just bogus.

And while we're talking about math.....no one has a mandate when only 10% of the population votes, regardless of how many votes they got.

Just to clarify, I do not have any tie-breaking power as Mayor. By contrast, in HIllsborough the Mayor votes only in tie-breaking situations.

What was disappointing about it, Mary? The result or the process?

Terri, maybe I misread what Jacquie was saying but to me she was making the case that if you select a candidate for geographical reasons only then you have implicit districting. To me that's a sad state of affairs. For instance, the county-wide districting suggestion makes me ill. There's so many other modern ways to coalesce a group of supporters beyond districting - which is an inherently flawed and divisive approach to representation.

If all the candidates in the annexation area were poor choices, then I would agree that choosing someone from that area to appease the area would be bad politics. But there are strong candidates from the annexation area, and all have said they would work for the "whole" Carrboro. We won't have to worry about an appointment like this again if we pass an ordinance that (1) in situations where a sitting board member changes a job due to an election, that the seat goes to the person with the next higher vote and 2) if there is a vacancy mid-term, that we have a special election to fill that vacancy. The turnout will probably be low, but then we can truly feel that the candidate was chosen by the town and we won't run into this situation again. Then we will get candidates that will have to campaign and win over the community.

Sorry. Just one last comment. The business world is full of examples of the board of directors of a company bringing in an outsider who may not be totally familiar with the business area of the new company, but due to their successful track record in prior endeavors, they can quickly learn the key issues facing that company. The person works with the management team of that company to achieve results that benefit the whole company. Lou Gerstner is one example. He came from Nabisco and American Express to assume the leadership role at IBM and turned us around to become a profitable and successful company again. I think it is wrong to assume that just because someone hasn't been involved with Town politics for years and years that they won't or can't be a productive and influential member of the board.

Sorry if this is already in here somewhere, I kinda sped-read my way down.

Is it true that Coleman has worked on the campaigns of some or all three of the folks voting in favor of him? Especially when the elections were so recent and we knew there'd be an appointment, that seems a little shady if it's true.

Can anyone speak to that?