Indy Endorsements

Wow, thanks for the info, Tom! Particularly interesting to see who in 2003 had the most letters by a wide, wide margin -- Hill 21, Greene 27, and Strom 34 -- no one else above 8. D'yah think all were spontaneous? And does anyone think voters won't get the idea that they might be less than spontaneous if there are so many more and they read somewhat similarly?

Still, they might be functioning as a higher-level kind of exposure similar to signs by intersections. Having less than a handful of letters might roughly equate to having few or no signs. (Think Jim Ward's gambling just a bit by not having signs this year, despite the laudable intention. Will be interesting to see whether his vote total is notably lower than sign-using incumbents.)

In any case, I suspect people do skim the letters to see if any issue pops out at them -- "others voted against a puppy-kicking ban but she courageously represented the puppies" -- or, maybe, if they recognize the name of the writer.

Hi Will,

As the afore-mentioned Chapel Hill News reporter and someone who trades in metaphors, I feel the need to challenge yours. I would point you to recent stories highlighting the incumbents' critiques of the council's approach to downtown and to Rogers Road, reports that were based largely on remarks made at previous candidate fora.

The truth is, I had a prior commitment to talk to some journalism students at N.C. State, scheduled long before the Friends of Downtown forum. Unfortunately, the forum was pretty slow to get started and started with the incumbents. I stayed as long as I could (I was even late getting to Raleigh), and thought about leaving even earlier just to avoid this kind of criticism, but I was hoping the incumbents might be concise enough for me to hear at least Matt or yourself, if not Penny. I guess we all know how that turned out :). In the math of political debates, 5 to 7 minutes equals 10, unless there's a red card or flashing light to say otherwise.

When I wrote "incumbents' critiques" I of course meant "challengers' critiques." A Freudian slip? Perhaps your metaphor is right on. Well, I'm doing the best I can.

Jesse, I assumed you had a prior engagement and had to take off. I also understand that the incumbents' remarks seem repetitive as they read off their prepared spiels (never a mea culpa, always blue skies).

You've had better attendance at these events than any individual reporter - maybe as good as the collective DTH presence but you did miss some substantive statements made by the challengers on the budget, growth, the delay in implementing some basic improvements in Town government, Downtown's management, etc.

I wish the same amount of column inches that were devoted to Jim shushing me up could've been devoted to some rather serious debate on Downtown's condition and the budget mess.

You also missed the only substantial airing of our coming financial crisis, some of the incumbents factually incorrect responses and, most importantly, the business folks feedback (I'll be posting something on that over the weekend).

Further, if you wanted a read on the emotional tone some of the incumbents have adopted - it would've been a fantastic opportunity to do so.

Of course, as far as the media, the Herald-Sun has consistently been missing in action. I speculated early on that the H-S wouldn't be covering the challengers this year and looks like I was, sadly, correct.

Will you be attending tomorrow's Dem precinct event? I hope so as I expect some of the same issues will rise to the fore.

Oh, and a real kicker, you missed Bill Strom holding up a 1996 John Locke/Pope foundation study on tax burdens to justify a point. Ironic doesn't cover it.

I was there for the John Locke item, but I couldn't figure out if it was relevant. 1996 is a long time ago in terms of telling us anything about relative tax burdens. I doubt I'll make it on Saturday. We just can't cover them all.

Thanks Jesse for the response. A zillion thanks for participating on an online forum, it's a rare thing for our local journalists to do (I think Ray, Dan and you lead the pack - and both Ray and Dan have moved on).

So, Ruby, you are saying that the Indy selections could be based on "very good reasons" but since they do not want to go to the time or trouble to articulate those very good reasons they supply us with the crummy "strawperson" reasons.

But, if the crummy, "strawperson" reasons are based on fiction and fiction requires the time and effort to be "creative" would they not have been better off providing us with the very good reasons in the first place?

Ruby, since this came up I've done a bit more research on Mike Kelly.

If the Indy had pre-decided a slate, as you suggest, and then finds reasons to justify their choice, why pick a bogus strawman? Makes no sense - pick something the person really did or didn't do - and don't exaggerate or mischaracterize one behavior for another.

From what I understand, Mike is an attentive board member, goes the extra mile (as it appears all of the folks running this year - challengers and incumbents alike - have done). Folks I trust say he has more than fulfilled his obligation to the community - so why create an imagined slight?

Will, don't forget Kirk. He's all over OP. My take: He's earned enough respect around here over the years to say what he thinks, and he still manages plenty of journalistic restraint. I'm mostly quiet because I don't want to stick my foot in my mouth :). I'm sure many of my colleagues feel the same way. We're open to public criticism every day, with our e-mail addresses published with every story; who wants to invite more, especially in an extemporaneous forum that moves at the speed of light? But if I can ever offer any clarity, based on prior reporting, as Kirk often does, I'll try to do more of that.

Kirk! How could I forget him? I usually think of Kirk as the Mayor in waiting - maybe that's what threw me off!

If I were to rank my concerns this round (guess I'm going to), volume of substantive content would be number one.

Thank goodness Mark, you and the rest of the CHN folks have OrangeChat to create content that McClatchy wouldn't let clutter up the print version ;-) Even so, it was disappointing to see Jim's "shut up" get more play than the budget, etc. Next round, maybe more salient content?

As you well know, the forums are often a very poor mechanism for exposing differences on issues.

My second wish, so to speak, would be for one-two reporting: cover the issues, say the coming budget crisis and then interview the candidates to see where they stand. To be of any worth, the follow-up reports need the context of the first and the breadth of response to make sense (no 6 word sound bites from candidates).

My strong third, more face-2-face interviews in-depth. Again, the snippet approach is doing our community a disservice. While emails have some utility (like being difficult but not impossible to misquote), the answers are constrained and often drained of life. Nuance is often the first casualty.

Finally, something I wish I'd seen these last two runs, a review of the incumbents records and where their rhetoric doesn't track reality.

I've been through two cycles now, had the advantage of having observed 6 years of Council judgments at close range, it still amazes me that the incumbents get a pass. Take Bill Strom. He says we made our reserve numbers this year but doesn't tell folks we made it because the Town had a completely unexpected sales tax windfall. When folks report what he said, it would be great if a bit of that background made it into the story.

Please, please, please don't take this as a criticism of your work - which I respect but a criticism of how the local media functions in Chapel Hill.

Once upon a time, I said to a CHN reporter, "Carrboro needs to grow up, not out." He quoted me as having said, "Carrboro needs to grow up."

Since The Independent is perceived (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) as the torch-bearer for progressive politics in this region and it's endorsements carry significant weight, maybe they should host candidate forums. This way they could highlight progressive issues and angles as well as take some of the mystery out of their process.

I've never understood newspapers endorsing candidates. Give us info on the different candidates, that's great, but why would a newspaper be more qualified to tell people how to vote than, say, your next door neighbor? And I find it especially ironic that a paper named The Independent would tell people who they should vote for.

Too bad the folks here on the east side of Rogers Road are disenfranchised and that the folks on the west side now are Carrboro citizens (still w/o many town benefits, but lots of new taxes). As many people know, this division of our community certainly destroys any political influence we could have had on these Chapel Hill town elections. Had the political influence of this community NOT been destroyed, I would have encouraged this neighborhood to vote for these town council members:

1) Sally Greene (i)
2) Will Raymond (I think Will's willingness to disagree would help the council make better decisions.)
3) Bill Strom (i) (I think Bill is willing to listen, so hey, Bill, what's going on with the Sierra's Club lack of attention to the Rogers-Eubanks crisis?)
4) Jim Ward (i) (I am not sure why exactly but my instincts tell me that Jim's desire to do what is right or at least to try asking the right questions if led to do so is a good thing and a plus for the council.)

Shame the CHN didn't make today's forum. The video should be up soon so maybe they'll get a chance to review the various candidates answers and temperament before making a final decision.

Go Greene!

Local elections are next week. This is my official endorsement for Sally Greene for Chapel Hill Town Council. And not just because she is a blogger. Or because she was endorsed by The Independent. But because of what Brian said....

I think more than anything else the endorsements this politcal season merely underline what Mark Chilton said earlier - and Mark, I'm sure I'm horribly taking you out of context, bearing in mind the length of this thread, so I apologize upfront.

You said that you thought that these endorsements were 'predictive.' I thnk that's right. And sad. I believe that increasingly, and perhaps because of the intensity of the races, the respective bodies making the endorsements are going for safety more than anything else.

I only say 'sad' in the context that it is 'sad' whenever institutions of politcal influence substitute progressive integrity and thoughtful process with anything else.

Where I disagree with you, Mark, is where you say these endorsements are not influential. Again, sadly, I think that they still are. And that's why I oppose endorsements - I believe them to be merely another form of special interest. There is only one endorsement that should matter - the ballot box.

So frankly, I'm not sure I am all that sad. If the endorsing organizations plumping for safety means that their endorsements become less influential over time, then I guess so much the better.

I like having the endorsements, generally. I wish they were better. There's a predictive element, but as Jacquie notes, that's not always the case. I don't agree with Geoff that endorsers are just taking the safe route for the status quo. I think a lot of times, if they err, it's b/c they know more about the incumbent. Geoff, the logical end of your argument is that no one should endorse anything. Yet, we all "endorse" something almost every time we post here. So why shouldn't newspapers - and anyone else - endorse if they want to? They have the right to endorse and we have the right to criticize. :). And what makes a newspaper endorsement a special interest? They want to espouse their views, more power to them. I do wish they would be more mistake free though. It takes a lot of nerve to run for public office and it's sad for a candidate to get torpedoed by inadvertantly bad info. I can't believe Mark Marcopolos and I are actually agreeing, but perhaps the Indy can be convinced to do some sort of candidates forum in future elections. Perhaps even an online forum on OP sponsored by the Indy... :)

I guess, Dave, it's like so much of civic and political endeavor - it's all a question of balance. Like the balance between the need for security versus freedom, for example.

The whole point of political forums is to allow people to express themselves - sometimes in an informed way, and sometimes just to let off steam.

But when your views or your influence on others gain some traction, can you still march out there and spread your views without accepting some responsibility for their impact?

Do you have to haul up a bit and say, whoa, do I have an agenda, should I? Should I be listening before I speak? Should I worry about mistakes?

My view - and granted it's a little bit 'out there,' purist on this one - is that just as soon as you become half-way influential, and your opinions carry weight, added to the fact that you might well have an agenda (and newspapers certainly do), then bingo, you are a 'special interest.'

At the very least, at that point, you should be a deal sight more careful about process. Personally, I go further - and find myself agreeing with you.

The best thing to do, if you have arrived at that position of authority, is to start thinkinhg about using it to good end, and to help to educate the public rather than to force-feed it.

Of course, one could take the argument to its logical conclusion and state that even the questions one asked in such a forum would be tainted with the 'special interest' brush - no-one is ever truly objective.

I know. Back during the BOCC election in 2005, when I was saying the same thing about endorsements, we at "The ESP Show" on WCOM tried to do precisely this.

We attempted to hold one-hour in-depth interviews with all of the candidates. I think we were fair, but not everyone agreed with the questions we were asking.

That said, I thought we were, at least, moving in the right direction: on the one hand, we were not simply endorsing, and on the other, we tried to extricate a little more out of each candidate than is sometimes possible at large, set-piece forums.

I'd like to see the local media doing a lot more of this sort of candidate examination.

I've posted a story about Joe Herzenberg and the value of endorsements by neighbors:
http://ncbilldrafting.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/joe-herzenberg-strategist...

Chapel Hill News endorsements in Chapel Hill:
Kevin Foy
Jim Ward
Sally Greene
Bill Strom
Will Raymond

The Daily Tarheel endorsements are out for Chapel Hill Town Council.
Jim Ward
Penny Rich
Sally Greene
Matt Czajkowski
Kevin Foy

I found the DTH endorsements interesting. With the head, "Mix it Up," they seem to be calling for "new, stronger voices" and "fresh input."

Of course, many can take exception to their opinion, but it does raise one of the issues that voters ought to consider. As they wrote:

As an incumbent member, we don't doubt that Bill Strom would continue to do a good job on the council; there were simply new, stronger voices that we think would be more beneficial to Chapel Hill.

Cam Hill has extensive experience in Chapel Hill and invaluable institutional knowledge of the area. But we weren't sure if his ideas would produce concrete results, and again, Chapel Hill needs fresh input from some of the new candidates.

No telling what a roomful of 20 year olds with a little power will come up with...

Wonder if they'll write about the delta between what the incumbents said about fund-raising and what they actually did?

Bill Strom's $9.000 bucks seems to be quite a stretch for a candidate that supposedly supports voter-owned and community accessible elections. Sure seems excessive, even if Bill wasn't working against his stated goal.

Before Tom asks, I raised and spent under $2,000 this year. No candidate loans either. Every contribution $100 or less.

Unless Jim decided to go gang busters, it looks like he'll be setting a tough benchmark for other candidates wielding the awesome power of incumbency to meet.

Will,

Maybe Bill Strom raised as much money as he did because a large number of Chapel Hill citizens like the job he is doing as one of our Council members. He's adhered to his pledge to not take more than $100 from any contributor and he's adhered to his pledge to not spend more than $7,500. My wife and I each willingly contributed without being asked. I'm sure many others did the same. What is it bugs you so much about people supporting candidates that they feel are doing a great job? Is it because you can't begin to reach a fraction of that level of support?

Will, it seems like you're resorting to the same tactic you used two years ago - when you feel like things aren't going your way you go on the attack against the other candidates rather than stressing what you will do. Chapel Hill voters are too smart to fall for that tactic. They aren't looking for leaders whose chief attribute is a willingness to attempt to discredit their opponent(s). They're looking for someone who presents a clear and reasonable set of objectives and a plan to implement them.

I found it interesting that the CHN said this in their endorsement of you (which I obviously don't agree with): "He's been faulted on occasion for being overly fervent, but his ideas and strength of conviction, employed judiciously and tempered with a willingness to listen and compromise, can be a valuable asset".

The reason I have never been able to support you, in spite of some things I admire about you, is that IMHO I've never seen you display "a willingness to listen and compromise" as the CHN suggests would be necessary in order for you to function as a Council member. And when you use your 'attack' strategy, as you seem to be doing again this campaign, it just reinforces my opinion that you could never work well with others. It wouldn't surprise me if the voters are beginning to get that same impression from your actions.

George, I understand why you want to defend Bill but you don't have to twist what I said into something its not.

I'm not "attacking" anyone, I'm examining their record. No tactics involved - I'll leave that kind of thing to the political operatives working on your candidates behalf.

I've said that one of our problems is some of our incumbents talk a good game but don't follow through.

For instance, I didn't try to raise a lot of money because I didn't plan to spend a lot of money. That's consistent with what I said I'd do - Bill, on the other hand, hasn't been consistent.

The Indy said I'd build on Booker Creek - Sally, Cam and Bill voted to build on Booker Creek. That's not consistent with the Indy's thrust - I pointed that out.

As far as temperament to be on the Council, I reject completely your characterization. That kind of slander belongs elsewhere (as does comparing me to Nixon, for instance). I've appeared many times before Council, and while I've been passionate, I've not indulged in that kind of behavior (no eye rolling, snorting, disruptive and disrespectful displays).

You don't have to look further than last weeks Democratic forum to see the contemptuous disrespect Bill, though, holds for the challengers.

That is not consistent with what you say.

Will,
You just exhibited exactly the sort of behavior I was referring to and the characterization of which you state that you reject. I clearly stated that it was "my opinion" that you don't display "a willingness to listen and compromise" and you then label my opinion as slander. So I guess if my opinion (or perhaps anyone else's for that matter) doesn't agree with yours it's slander. I rest my case.

Will,
The last time we spoke in person I expressed to you the same concerns that Geroge C just brought up. If you attack candidates, whether or not there is fact in your allegations, citizens will learn not to trust you. You may not call it attack but the fact is your attitude online and in person pisses people off.

During that talk we had I asked you if you were in favor of public financing and limiting the amount people should spend. You said No. I remember you expressing the opinion that if the other candidates where going to raise big bucks so would you. I remember this because I was shocked.

I am glad Geroge C has laid down in clear terms why I will not vote for you. Not because I dislike you as a person, not because of the opinions you have, but because you have demonstrated over and over your unwillingness to work with those you disagree with.

Continue to be the voice of dissent. We need your dedicated fact checking. But if you can't build trust while a council person no resolution you propose will earn the votes needed to pass. Then how will anything positive ever get done? Its not corrupt or nefarious. Its how our democracy works. A basic lesson I've yet to see you learn.

I think you are smart enough to understand this Will. The evidence is in the words all over OP.

Well, Mark, at least they didn't make up their own facts, like the Indy did with Mike Kelley. So I guess there is room for them to improve as they move to adulthood.

On an overtly progressive site, in a town that prides itself (rightly) on going a different way politically from the state and nation in which it sits, it's odd to see someone so roundly criticized for playing the role of the dissenter and for not learning to do the sort of going-along-to-get-along-with-those-in-power that marks conventional politics.

I'm not sure these points fit exactly in this thread, but they follow on from some of the comments on this thread about "attacking" versus "listening and compromising." So, I'll make them here.

I grew up in England, but I've lived around the US long enough to know that the two countries aren't all that different.

Heck, the town in England in which I grew up, and where I served on the local City Council, was the same size as Carrboro, and reading about some of the soap opera here is like a re-run of 20 years ago - 'deja vu' all over again!

I've mentioned the "Loyal Oppostion" in England. And that's what it is, loyal but opposition. I can't help but get the feeling that some are saying you can only join the club around here if you agree, or 'compromise' your own views.

Now, that can't be right. It wouldn't be progressive. It wouldn't even be sensible becasue you'd never have new ideas - or 'progress,' which is what 'progressive' is all about. You'd merely have stagnation.

Now, 'opposition' is healthy - even if it is sometimes injudiciously expressed. So, let's try for tolerance. But if one or other of us slips from time to time (my hand up!), then try and 'tolerate' that also, eh? 'Cos tolerance is also 'progressive.'

Being a part of the community, whether in public office or not, has to include an element of "listening and compromising." Goodness knows I'm opinionated. But I also know how to listen and admit my mistakes. There are times I think my favorite expression is 'oops'!

But people, the art of 'listening and compromising' needs also to be exercised by those already in positions of authority.

Frankly, another trait that makes for good community is 'self-examination.' I would ask all those in positions of authority to examine themselves and ask whether they are as open to listening to and compromising with new thinkers and new thinking as they themselves seem to require of those new and often different thinkers?

Isn't that also the sign of a healthy, progressive community?

"it's odd to see someone so roundly criticized for playing the role of the dissenter and for not learning to do the sort of going-along-to-get-along-with-those-in-power that marks conventional politics."

Eric,

You're right that dissent can be a very powerful and useful tool for changing the status quo, even when it's presented in a totally disrespectful way. I shudder to think how many more years the Vietnam war might have gone on without the powerful (and usually disrespectful) dissent provided by its opponents. But Chapel Hill is not Vietnam and we are not in the middle of a brutally immoral war (well, yes we are, but not in Chapel Hill [poster's opinion]). We have issues here in CH that merit serious and reasoned discussion but there is no reason that such issues cannot be discussed and dissent tolerated without according the opposition parties (whether they be challengers OR incumbents) a modicum of respect. I personally resent being labeled a slanderer because I presented my opinion of a candidate while clearly labeling it as "IMHO". WillR recently referred in this thread to a post (very early in the election season) in which I compared him to Nixon (I have a plan...). He neglected to mention that when he called me on that insult (and comparing anyone to Nixon is truly an insult) I not only posted my acknowledgment that such comparison was inappropriate but also issued him my apology.

If we had more dissenters or even serious questioners in Congress then perhaps we wouldn't be in Iraq. As Ruby has stated "I appreciate a lot of Will's work in researching and blogging about important issues" but the value of that is lost when you diss those who don't immediately accept your data or your conclusions. I don't want our Town Council to reflect our Congress which, from my perspective, has become a totally ineffectual body because of the partisan politics and the lack of decorum and respect. So yes, let's have dissent and yes, let's have a willingness to consider change; but let's also agree to disagree and not result to name-calling or other such non-relevant tactics. Let's stick to the issues, pure and simple.

No matter what I say I'll be criticized and thus, GeorgeC, you've successfully deflected any discussion of Bill's finances, his demeanor (which you know quite well by now) and any other relevant issue or discrepancy between his stated position and his actual actions.

So, was the public well served by all the machinations? I don't think so.

Mr. Marcoplos,
While I understand to some degree how you arrived at your sentiment that the amount of time that someone has been on this planet somehow relates to how knowledgeable and critical they are on issues, I think it is a bit of a fallacy.
You might not agree with who my board endorsed in the Chapel Hill elections, but please do not write our opinions off as uniformed or rash simply because we are younger than you.
We put a significant amount of time and effort into our endorsements and at the end of the day, we concluded that the town council could use a little bit of a shakeup in order to truely represent every resident of Chapel Hill and to ensure that the town government was continuing to address the issues that Chapel Hill faces in creative and innovative ways.
There is something to be said for a little diveristy of opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own view on a particular issue. In fact, reasoned and intelligent debate followed by compromise is what our governing system is based on, and it is a beautiful thing.
I know that you understand this, I just hope that you can get past the fact that we are younger than you and see that we are intelligent and reasonable human beings that are capable of contributing to the dialogue in a meaningful way.
If you ever want to discuss this further, or any other issue for that matter, I am always up for a good debate. My e-mail is apstorck@unc.edu, feel free to e-mail me at any time.

And that's why I am such a big fan of the Daily Tar heel.