First County Commissioner candidates forum Wednesday!

Is creating and preserving a natural corridor for wildlife and recreation in Orange County a priority for you? How and when do you plan conserve land for this?

Betty Tom Davidson: This is an ongoing process. Supports a natural corridor, but we need to balance it with farmer's and others' interests. Loss of biodiversity is a problem. She has biodiversity on her farm, and also smaller ones like squirrel.

Fred Battle: Is in favor of a natural corridor. If you're a nature person, and have a tendency to walk, there's a lot of animals and stuff, and they need protection. We should have some land that's allocated for their protection.

Artie Franklin: He's not really sure what level of a priority this would be. To some degree, we already have this. He's interested in finding out if there's a formula to determine how much recreational land you need for a population. Maybe places for deer to pass under roadways is a possibility.

Alice Gordon: This is a priority, and wants to follow lands legacy action plan on an annual basis. The money is budgeted out, we just need to follow the plan, and look for additional opportunities to protect land.

Closing statements:

Jamie Daniel: He's straightforward, admits he's already won the primary. Encourages people to check out his website.

Barry Jacobs: Has lived here 32 years, as a farmer and preservationalist. He thinks of himself as a caretaker in public service. He tries to think of everyone. He carries a mussel shell to meetings to think of those who can't speak for themselves. We can do better, and always wants to seek improvement. We can expand a rural buffer around Hillsborough. Smart growth for schools involves good placement and avoiding spawl. Density should be put where the infrastructure is available, for many reasons, including preservation.

Robin Cutson: Environment and money come together in organic farming - we have the market for locally grown organics, and should talk to farmers to find their needs here. It keeps dollars local, and helps the environment. Orange County should play a part in Carolina North, for environmental reasons, and also to protect from Biodefense work which could be harmful to the community.

Fred Battle: Affordable housing and affordable taxes are important, especially to senior citizens. The elderly feel the pinch. There's always a segment that can't afford it. He wants to be a voice for the less-affluent. Thinks anything over $100,000 is not affordable, especially to town employees. This should always be a goal.

Mike Nelson: Is glad to be back in Carrboro Town Hall. For him, environmental issues are important both personally and professionally. He works at an environmental non-profit. Environmental issues aren't just about trees, they're about people. When the environment is degraded, it hurts people, especially those of modest means. We should be good stewards of the earth and each other.

Alice Gordon: Has been a Sierra Club member for 30+ years, and has been a consistent worker for the environment since joining the Commisioners. She wants to keep working on ongoing issues, like water conservation and the rural buffer, transportation, and air quality. She will continue to work for a regional transportation plan. She's running on her record, and wants to put a continued emphasis on environmental leadership.

Artie Franklin: Thinks the study of the issues is important, because of the diversity of issues. He is a problem solver and likes to use knowledge to come up with the best solution, including environmental issues.

Betty Tom Davidson: Looks foward to an honorable campaign season. Tells story of living on a rural tobacco farm as a youth. Moral: take care of the land, things are interdependent. She's led to public service to bridge needs of diverse parts of county.

That's it. I hope that was at least fairly accurate as to what was said. My apologies for typos or mistake.

Thank you Jason - you've done a Jensenesque job ;-)!

Doesn't seem like anyone really put any specific inspiring ideas on the table related to energy, water, or local agriculture.

Inspiring . . . hard to come by these days in general.

Did things work out in tv land?

Thanks to everyone who came and submitted questions. I thought it went pretty well. But I am tired!

Forgot to thank Jason! You did a great job. Now you see why I hate my laptop :)

Aw, Tom, you only dislike your laptop. Save the h-word for the really bad stuff.

Jason and Tom, great job.

Mary,

Carrboro doesn't post any kind of advisory board meeting notices other than the standard "1st Tuesday of the month" on their website and they don't post notices at all on Channel 18 as you know. Chapel Hill does.

I'd like to see Carrboro make better use of the channel 18 and their website. For example, they could post agendas and meeting notes for their advisory board meetings. A lot gets discussed and done in advisory board meetings that the public should have access to.

Terri

The big question to me is how will we use our incredibly fortunate situation in this region to be an environmental leader to the best of our ability. When the shit hitting the fan increases in intensity - as it no doubt will - we should be prepared to weather the storm and help others by the example we've set and the knowledge we've gained. Of course, we are generally in the vanguard, but it is all mostly mediocre common sense "smart growth" stuff that has basically made it to the mainstream menu.

Rumor has it that Liz Brown is holding a fundraiser for Mike Nelson for the folks who have in the past been strong pro-merger supporters. Has anyone else heard this?

Would this be a conflict of interest in your opinion given that Liz is on the Sierra Club endorsement committee?

Liz Brown did not participate in the Sierra Club endorsement meeting. If it's true that she's holding a fundraiser for Mike Nelson she would have had to recuse herself per the Sierra Club conflict of interest policy which states that anyone working for, donating to, or in any other way affiliated with a campaign must recuse his/herself from voting on the endorsements in that race.

Liz Brown did not participate in the Sierra Club endorsement meeting.

Would she have opted out if I had not posted originally with the conflict of interest concerns? I doubt it.

No Mark, as I already told you by e-mail she was out of town because it is the week of OCS Spring Break. Your complaints had no impact on our process whatsoever. The Sierra Club will not let itself be bullied by external forces.

Liz Brown is not holding a fundraiser for my campaign.

My opinion: Make no mistake, Liz Brown is supporting Mike Nelson for County Commissioner. I have heard it from numerous sources up here in my neck of the woods.

My opinion: Mike Nelson knows she is supporting him too. Another candidate for the same office stated, "School merger may be off the table, but it is not off the agenda".

My opinion: I believe it. He is 100% correct about merger.

My opinion: Liz Brown wants the school systems to merge at all costs, regardless of consequence or impact. She will do or say anything to achieve her goal. The end justifies her means.

"My opinion: I believe it. He is 100% correct about merger."

Paul, could you clarify your opinion for me? Who is correct about merger and what is this person correct about?

Thanks!

Laura,

Sorry for not being clearer on that sentence. My opinion is that I believe school merger is still an agenda for some in our county. Even if it is off the table for the moment.

Jason,

Who said school merger had to be the only election issue? Who said other issues cannot be considered? Additionally, who decided that merger *cannot* be an issue? If folks are interested in a particular issue, let them ask or write about it. No one should attempt to squelch anyone else's concerns.

Why we should care about whether or not one elected official supports another is what politics is all about? Is it not? This is OrangePolitics? Right?

Regardless, perhaps we agree on something at some level.

Two out of the five Orange County Commissioners have stated that the relationship between the Orange County School Board and the BOCC is at the worse point it has ever been in their many years as commissioners. They believe it is so because of one individual, an elected OCSB member. Their problem, as I understand it, isn't necessarily with her "pro-merger agenda" but with her venomous methods of promoting her agenda that divide rather than work for a common compromise.

Obviously, for folks who don't have children, school related issues may not be as important as others. However, shouldn't the behavior of elected officials in how they interact with other elected bodies be important? Would we want to elect someone who shares the same beliefs as someone who believes the end justifies the means, regardless of consequence or impact?

Ruby, rather than table to subject, why not invite both sides to post their arguments, for and against, and air out this issue?

I imagine each post will generate tons of comments, so maybe a gentle reminder to the commenters to stick to citeable facts, figures, studies, etc. will keep the noise down.

I know the issue appears noisome or tiresome to those not invested in it, but the merger issue actually involves many of the facets of governance we've talked about, debated, etc. on OP for years - equality, diversity, limits of governance, taxes, taxing authority, "small is better", environmental impacts, etc. Here's a chance to strip the personalities out of the debate, work the data - and maybe expose problems with each sides positions.

Again, with known strong advocates on each side, and during an election cycle with candidates that'll possibly bring merger back to the table, why not sponsor an OP debate to end all other OP debates and put merger behind us?

I was merely trying to ask if anyone had heard about particular things going on in a way that reaches people who might know and gets answers on the public record, which I believe is in the scope of a political blog.

Mike did tell me via email that Liz offered to host a neighborhood coffee, but that nothing definite is in the works. Given her previously mentioned role, this does relate to the Sierra Club endorsement and, thus, this thread.

I appreciate Mike's answering here.

Thanks,
Mark

Jason,

I don't think the real issue is merger. Ultimately I think the debate is about the power of Chapel Hill residents to control everything that happens in this county, whether its schools or elections. Merger is just a good proxy for that which is much more difficult to talk about IMHO.

Just to clarify Mark Peter's earlier posting, what I told Mark via email was this: "Liz mentioned wanting to host a neighborhood coffee. I haven't heard from her in some time and don't know if she's planning on doing it or not."

Mark said that "nothing definite is in the works." That may or may not be true. For all I know, she may still be planning on hosting a coffee in her neighborhood.

Frankly, I hope she is. I will attend any neighborhood coffee to which I'm invited. I don't have, nor will I ever have, a litmus test that I apply to invitations. As a candidate for office it would be foolish to turn down invitations to meet voters.

I just got back from three glorious days at the beach with my family...and I get a “tip” that disparaging things are being written on this thread about Liz Brown. Honestly, do some people not have anything better to do with their time than wonder what Liz does with hers?

And so what if Liz offers to host a coffee at her house for candidates in upcoming elections? Last time I checked, we still live in a country where we are free to support who we want and are free to do that publicly and in the privacy of our own homes.

And to those who would say Liz would do anything to merge the school systems…Are you really saying: "Whatever Liz Brown wants to happen, will happen!" Come on! Don't you think you are giving her more credit than any one person in public office in this county is due?

As someone who has gone on the record herself as seeing the financial merits of merger, one who has had MANY conversations with Liz about this issue...I totally disagree that this is behind Liz's motivation to support Mike Nelson or any other candidate. It certainly isn't mine.

I've met with Mike, I support him in his bid for BOCC and yet I have never even asked if he supported merger. You know why?!?!?! I'm supporting Mike because what's happening in our schools is not all that I think about. I, like the rest of us out here with brains, think about other issues as well...affordable housing, the environment, economic development, wise land use policies, maintaining green space, etc...And I think Mike Nelson will be a great addition to the BOCC to address ALL of these issues.

And as to the relationship of the OCS BOE and the BOCC, Paul...things are different. Are they the worst they've been in years? They may be. However, if the relationship is not as harmonious as it has been in the past, that is not one person's doing. And if anyone says that it is, then I suggest the person saying that is being awfully petty. I would ask this of any commissioner currently in office or hoping to be there: If you had a personal problem with an adult, why would you let the behavior of that one adult get in the way of what is best for the 7000 children in the Orange County School system? If that is going on....then it is time for a change!

Libbie Hough

And so what if Liz offers to host a coffee at her house for candidates in upcoming elections?

I was merely asking because of the potential conflict of interest if someone who participates in the endorsement process exclusively invited one candidate to an event in his or her home prior to the endorsements being issued. This potential conflict was completely omitted in your analysis.

And to those who would say Liz would do anything to merge the school systems...

Given the most recent example of misrepresentation the relationship of the district and ad valorem taxes by Liz as well as the history of such misrepresentations, it is the duty of people who want to see decisions made based on the truth to call out these misrepresentations as well as to seek to insure that due diligence is being used during endorsement processes.

Thanks,
Mark

Mark,

Your example of "most recent misrepresentation" is a link to a Squeeze the Pulp thread on which Liz Brown never posted. Instead you are referencing a Herald-Sun post which interpreted what a reporter thought the school board members, not Liz in particular, mean by their opposition to a special district tax. I understand your passion for clarifying this issue, but I just don't see what vilifying an individual school board member accomplishes.

From what I have learned from you, I think this is a political issue that lands square in the laps of the commissioners. To me, it's not just about school funding equity but about political leadership and willingness to make tough decisions in the face of public conflict. It's also about how elected officials choose to balance the needs of a diverse electorate. Straddling the fence isn't leadership and in fact, fuels the debate and perpetuates the conflict IMHO.

That said, I have my own serious reservations about the Sierra Club endorsement process after last falls fiasco.

Terri,

I agree. When things are heated it is very easy to pick on an individual or group of individuals and say they are the source of the problem, or at the very least, twist things to convolude the issue. I'm sure at times that I'm guilty of the same thing.

Mark, I went back to the post on STP that you referenced and some of your other posts. And, I agree with you...the way I see it, the BOCC at any time could adjust the ad valorem and lower the DT to address the inequity in funding. Many people in the OCS and the CHCCS suggested that during the budget hearings last year. So why is it that we say that the CH district tax PREVENTS OCS from receiving a greater amount of our request? Mainly because some folks have and continue to say there is no connection between the amount of the DT and our funding stream. I contend there is a connection. But, in the interest of clarity, maybe it would be more accurate to say that because the BOCC chooses not to raise the ad valorem tax and simultaneously lower the district tax it is the BOCC itself that prevents the OCS from receiving more equitable funding? I am fine with that as well.

Some of us have asked, as did Terri in her STP post, why won't the commissioners take this approach? I think only the commissioners can answer that question. My theory: (and it's not much different from Terri's -- most folks in CH would only hear "the BOCC is lowering the DT." As the power base is in Chapel Hill, how can the BOCC risk alienating it's largest group of constituents? But rather than acknowledge that reality, it's much easier to say: folks in Northern/rural OC don't want higher taxes under any circumstances. I disagree.

Libbie

Libby,

For the most part you and I are in agreement. But I think the commissioners concerns are a bit more complex than just fearing the wrath of CH parents. Is it really feasible to fully fund both districts, to the level CHCCS has become accustomed, with a shift from DT to ad valorem? I think it would require much more than the current 16 cent (?) DT in order to fully fund each district. And we also know that both districts budgets keep expanding.

The commissioners have taken a strong stance in environmental preservation. Would those initiatives have to take a financial hit in order to keep the tax rate feasible for our farmers and the marginal wage earners? What impact would such a shift have on affordable housing, another of the commissioners concerns? And since the state and feds are shifting costs for Medicaid and mental health care onto the counties, how do they balance those needs with those of the schools?

We already live in a county that is becoming more and more exclusive. I don't imagine the commissioners want to live in an all white upper class community any more than I do. So even though they have the ability to shift the taxes, does it really make sense for them to do so?

Good question, Terri. Yes, it makes sense for the commissioners to have the moral courage to do what it takes to fund the Orange County School board's budget request.
Or, if they truly refuse to do this, we should all agree that we're OK with "two Orange Counties" -- the affordable one with lesser-funded schools, and the expensive one with higher taxes and better-funded schools. To do this, however, we'd also have to agree that the children in one district need fewer resources than the children in the other district. I don't believe that OCS needs the same funding that CHCCS students now receive, because I think we're doing a wonderful job now with a lot less. However, many basic needs go unfunded every year, and that shouldn't happen when the other school district receives a whopping 46 percent more local funding per student.

My comments to this point have been on topic to this thread and I think that it would be better to discuss this funding topic either on the STP thread or on the OP district tax thread

Libbie, I don't see the lowering of the DT as an issue among CH/C constituents because it will be made clear that the CH/C schools are being funded with an increase in the ad valorem. As long as current programming is not being cut, I truly don't see anyone getting concerned about it. And of all the conversations that I have had with the commissioners and meetings I have attended, that scenario of CH/C backlash has not been mentioned.

Liz, This is about taxes and whether OCS voters are willing to pay them to go from the 4th of 115 in local funding to a higher slot. Please tell us where and how you think the taxation should occur.

M

I agree Liz. But it does seem like this continues to be an either/or situation. Either both districts are funded at the level of CHCCS and other community values and needs are pushed aside OR we agree to let CHCCS benefit from the district tax and accept that achieving equity has unacceptable financial ramifications beyond the schools.

So while I stand by my earlier position that political leadership is called for, I have a great deal of sympathy for the commissioners who seem to me to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. But Moses Carey was re-elected .....

Will, I look at the needs of our students. Are we meeting them all? No. I don't care if we're 2nd best or 100th; the point is, our board has decided on a budget that we need to provide adequate services to our students, but the commissioners won't take it seriously. Meanwhile, they fund the city school board's budget without batting an eye. And we're in the same county, in a state that has set up schools by county, not by individual district, unlike Northern states.
The bottom line is: We're below the national average in funding, and the city schools are above it. Yet we're in the same county. (In a state that ranks 39th in school funding!) And we have more free/reduced students (33%, vs. Chapel Hill's 18%(?)), as well as more special-needs children, both groups needing more resources than the rest of our students. We need more money to do the best by all of our students.

Mark, the commissioners set the tax rates. They have refused for years to set the ad valorem at a rate that would fully fund the county schools. They used to say “We can't, because that would over fund Chapel Hill.”
Now we see that's easy to fix; fund the county schools and then set the district tax, making it truly supplemental, instead of allowing it to supplant 1/3 of the city school's budget as it does now.
So many people say the people of Northern Orange don't want higher taxes. No one does. Are they willing to pay for their children's and grandchildren's schools? I'll bet the answer would be yes. Would they prefer to pay an extra $50 a year to operate OCS, or to build new schools in CHCCS? I'd guess the former. Yet the commissioners don't give them that opportunity; instead they neglect OCS and pass along the costs of building new schools to those same Northern Orange residents. (Which is why merger would be cheaper in the not-so-long run.)
Look at election returns on OCS board elections: Do the anti-tax candidates come in first? Not in the 10 years I've been voting; they squeak in a distant 2nd, 3rd, 4th. And no “conservative” is even running this year. Our community deserves to get its tax dollars back to run our schools the way our democratically elected school board sees fit. We don't even ask for as much as Chapel Hill. Last year we requested 37 percent less per student than CHCCS; the commissioners gave us 46 percent less.

Back to the Sierra Club and BOCC candidates: I would like to see true leadership. Should OCS schools be built w/green features, if the city schools include them? Of course; current commissioners ignore this. Should rural residents pay a recycling fee but not get curbside pick up? What benefit does rural Orange get by protecting 4,000 acres of the city's watershed and supply? Or by limiting development? If we're one county, the commissioners need to spread the burdens and the benefits of these environmental protections. These all relate to taxes, tax base, and school funding.

The two tax structure we have now gives the BOCC the option to fund OCS at a lower level compared to CHCCS. Many in the county want just that, with lower tax bills to match. My theory is that those who support merger simply want to remove that option. In other words, those county residents who don't want a tax increase will have one forced upon them. Because the power base *is* in Chapel Hill, and a merged system will require higher county taxes. Chapel Hill residents will not stand for one dollar less in funding. This is what the pro-merger folks are counting on.

I believe the BOCC needs to show the courage to weigh all of these factors and decide what is the best thing for the most people. As far as I can tell, that is just what they have done. I suspect they feel that the taxes required to fund the OCS at one of the highest levels in the state is a fair if imperfect compromise to the taxes required to fund a merged system at the very highest level.

Terri,

You are right on the money. When the BOCC has to look at all issues facing the county, choosing the right path to address equity in school funding does becomes more difficult, however IMHO not impossible. Personally, I support higher taxes to address all the concerns you've mentioned both at a state level and at the local level, though I know not everyone does.

I also support greater accountability of the Chapel Hill district tax because it funds 1/3 of that system's portion of its local budget. If that is the case then what does it fund? Does it fund what most consider to be the "basics" in one system? If so, shouldn't we see what we can do to offer comparable "basics" in the other. I invite you to take a look at our budget request (coming out shortly). In it you will see that we are asking for things (mostly) that are already in place elsewhere in the county. We are also requesting monies to offer programs that would be unique to the OCS.

...and to piggy back on Liz's point of funding our budget requests rather than shooting right now for equal funding...While I personally think that equal funding at the higher level is the ultimate goal (and I differ with Liz on that one), I am willing to gradually move towards closing the funding gap.

So, back to the thread here. I am very interested in BOCC candidates who will look at the county as a whole, not as two separate societies with radically different cultures. As I see it,being as we are one county in the same state, we live in a community with shades of gray. Our children will be participating in the same global economy and therefore need to be equally prepared to meet that challenge. That is why I believe that the school funding issue, while only one of the many significant issues facing the county, cannot exist in a vacuum.

Libbie

Liz,

Meanwhile, they fund the city school board's budget without batting an eye.

This is one of your often-repeated misrepresentations. John Link county manager said on August 16th, 2005 that only once in 18 years has CHCCS been fully funded. And he said that OCS was overfunded one year.

And we're in the same county, in a state that has set up schools by county, not by individual district, unlike Northern states.

Apparently, the northern states are unlike the rest of the country. The average state has about 330 districts and a little over 3.000 students (ncforum.org). Our state has half as many districts and our districts have 2-3 times as many students. So your choice is an unrepresentative selection.

Of those northern states, how many BOEs have taxing authority?

The bottom line is: We're below the national average in funding, and the city schools are above it.

Please cite some figures and sources here.

Now we see that's easy to fix; fund the county schools and then set the district tax, making it truly supplemental,

Finally. This understanding contradicts recent columns and letters that you have written on this topic.

Also, just because there's a way (ad valorem raise), doesn't mean there's a will.

instead of allowing it to supplant 1/3 of the city school's budget as it does now.

The district tax increases the total CHCCS budget by 11%. Either correctly qualify your figure or use the correct one. (You have been called on this numerous times.)

instead they neglect OCS and pass along the costs of building new schools to those same Northern Orange residents.

This statement is ludicrously off base. The BOCC recently retired significant debt for several OCS schools which went way above and beyond the call of duty, which came close to jeopardizing Carrboro High and is delaying the CHCCS elementary school 10 due to debt ceilings when Barry Jacobs pulled that 60/40 stunt and diverted promised millions from Carrboro High to pay debt instead. CHCCS residents have been paying more than their share of OCS building and OCS will have their turn soon (see NC DPI for capital stats).

Should OCS schools be built w/green features, if the city schools include them?

Most of the green features such as water reclamation and daylighting are not only great for the environment, but also end up saving money, so yes they should have them.

What benefit does rural Orange get by protecting 4,000 acres of the city's watershed and supply?

Liz, so what do you propose be done instead of what is being done now?

Or by limiting development?

Are you advocating that development should have no limits?

These all relate to taxes, tax base, and school funding.

Not in the manner that you repeatedly imply. Watershed restrictions do not change the student to property ratio because while there may be less taxpayers, there are also less students, so it does not affect the tax base. The property tax ratio is very close to the student ratio in both districts.

I am glad that you are advocating for more taxes to fund the OCS district. I just wish you would properly represent the facts.

After talking with county staff today, it's becoming more and more clear that equal funding between the two districts is simply not feasible at this time. The growth in the CHCCS district makes it virtually impossible to raise the ad valorem rate sufficiently to create that equity (21 cents/$100).

So now I understand that we are looking for acceptable, temporary compromises that do not become too entrenched, like the idea of a new district tax.

In the April 4th News and Observer:
[blockquote]Orange County Schools board members will write to state senators asking that they pass a budget funding all state school systems.

Last year, a measure to fund only one system per county was taken out during final proceedings. This would have had a major effect on Orange County, home to separate city and county systems.

A brief letter, written by Orange school board member Al Hartkopf, will ask that no similar measure appear in this year's budget.

School board member Liz Brown, who dissented, will not have her name on the letter.[/blockquote]

Actions speak louder than pages worth of rhetoric.

Will,

If the funding mechanism is inherently inequitable, it doesn't surprise me at all that it continues to be discussed and argued about in this 'progressive' community.

The OCS school board is not asking for equity in funding, they are asking to have their base programs funded 100%. Capital programs are separate budgets and I don't believe there is much dispute about them--except from citizens like you and I who believe they are overbuilt.

Personally, I'd like to see the commissioners insist that both systems begin evaluating programs and providing evidence of need and evidence of success for programs that are continued.

For example, in CHCCS there is a program called FOCAL that serves children who are not expected to succeed in regular programming. Many of these kids end their HS career with diplomas that have little to no academic credit. I've been trying for the past 5 months to understand this program. There is nothing written about it; when I talk to staff I am treated like a simpleton; and when I ask for data I was told they don't keep it.

I began investigating this program after meeting a young lady who wanted to take an academic biology course. When I called the school, I was told lots of the kids in the program don't understand their limitations. I have no doubt that some kids are not able to perform adequately in academic programs, and I understand the systems desire to protect the privacy of those kids and their families. But the lack of transparency of pure numbers and demographic profiles is very disturbing. I do not want my tax dollars being spent on programs that confuse the effects of poverty with genetic capabilities.

Terri

"I began investigating this program after meeting a young lady who wanted to take an academic biology course. When I called the school, I was told lots of the kids in the program don't understand their limitations. "

That's horrifying.

When I was in school, one was at least given the opportunity to try and (perhaps) fail.

SHEER SPECULATION:

I wonder if NCLB is, in part, responsible for this? It would behoove the schools to keep kids they think can't PASS out of classes that have EOG's. Why? Because if they don't "make their numbers" in even one subset then the school fails that entire category.

That doesn't excuse the schools.

oy.

melanie

In today's Daily Tarheel:
http://www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2006/04/04/City/...

School board vice chairman Al Hartkopf asked other board members Monday to sign on to a letter against what could be seen as a step toward forcing a merger of the county's two districts.

...

Liz Brown was the only member to vote against the letter, saying she was worried about its message. Libbie Hough was absent.

More on the dreaded "M" word discussion will be continued here: http://squeezethepulp.com/viewtopic.php?t=195 on the "Liz Brown IS pro-merger" thread.