News-Record.com

From a story set for Sunday's paper:

RALEIGH — Taxpayers should have woken up today knowing how the state government plans to spend North Carolina’s $20 billion-plus budget.

Instead, as the state’s fiscal year begins, legislators have retreated to their districts for the weekend after passing a stop-gap spending resolution. That measure keeps the government running for 30 days but does not address the biggest questions facing the state.

Click here for the full story.

There's not a huge amount for me to add here, since this was mainly a story to catch the home folks up who haven't been slavishly following the AP or hanging out at the Tavern.

The really funny thing to me is how much agreement there is among all this disagreement. (More after the jump.)

From the lede of a story set to go for Sunday's paper:

GREENSBORO - As a key fundraising deadline passed at midnight Saturday night, folks like Robert Lloyd, of Greensboro, figured into presidential hopefuls' campaign strategy just as much as high rollers who shell out $1,500 a plate for heavily sauced chicken and rice.

The 80-year-old probate lawyer has kicked in a total of $300 toward Arizona Sen. John McCain's campaign, according to Federal Election Commission reports. That's far below the $2,300 per-person donation limit for the primary and a tiny fraction of what any candidate will need to be competitive.

Leading candidates for their party's nomination are expected to top $20 million apiece in fundraising for April, May and June, while candidates such as McCain are expected to bring in more than $10 million.

E-mail messages from former U.S. Sen. John Edwards' campaign say he aims to top $9 million.

"Until the election, there are only two ways to keep score: polls and money," said Gary Pearce, a Democratic political consultant from Raleigh. While money isn't the end-all of a campaign's performance, candidates need to be seen as raising enough to be taken seriously, Pearce said.

Click here for the full story.

The data for this story came from the FEC. Particularly helpful was its interactive map which lets you narrow contributions down by zip-code grouping.

After that, it was pretty much a matter of calling people up and asking them to speak their mind.

Yes, former Sen. John Edwards got some extra play in the story (although not the lede) because he's from here and he raised the most money in North Carolina during the first quarter.

How much other candidates got into the story really depended on how a combination of how much they raised, how many donors they had local to Greensboro and High Point and how chatty their partisans were. Rudy Giuliani, for example, didn't get much time because he didn't have a lot of donors from the area and the couple I called didn't respond.

And yes, we're going to get a whole bunch of campaign finance data for the second quarter here in the coming weeks. That's fine. My interest was as much in what motivated people to give to candidate as what they had to say about their particular would-be standard bearer.

Your thoughts, of course, welcome via the comments link below.

From a story in today's paper:

The N.C. Association of Realtors has spent nearly $500,000 to derail a proposed tax that, by the group's own estimates, would affect people who have never heard about it.

Known as a transfer tax in legislative circles - or the N.C. Home Tax in the association's advertising materials - it would be paid by anyone selling property.

It became the focal point of disagreement that unraveled a complex deal on Medicaid and taxes between House and Senate budget negotiators last week. Many legislators, staff and lobbyists chalk that up to pressure brought by the Realtors.

"The reality is, the Realtors scuttled the agreement," said Rep. Paul Luebke , a Durham Democrat and one of about a dozen lead budget negotiators for his chamber.

Click here for the full story.

A few side notes:

• If $500,000 really all that much money?

  Well, let's take a comparison from the field of politics. Would be Lieutenant Governor and current Sen. Walter Dalton boasted about raising $465,000 in the first part of this year. And that's to run a statewide campaign, not influence 170 legislators.

• There has been a persistent rumor/story going about the legislative building that the realtors have basically threatened legislators (or Senators ... depends on which version you hear) in swing districts with opposition in the next election if they back the tax. That rumor filtered up to the blogsphere in Fitsimon's blog.

  Now, that would be a credible threat if - IF - the realtors made it. They have a history of running ads in campaigns and obviously have some money to spend.

  But Rick Zechini, one of the Realtors' lobbyists, says that it's "absolutely not true."

  For my part, I've heard this from staff and legislators alike, but not from any legislator who says that they, personally, have been the subject of such a claim.

  Could they have telegraphed that message and I've just not run into someone willing to talk about it? Sure. But I don't think that one is ready for prime time (or newsprint) yet.

• It must have been a heck of a party. My favorite item on the realtors lobbying disclosure forms was a wing-ding they held at the Science museum across the street from the legislative building.

  According to their form, the party back in April cost $18,561.31 and entertained "65 designated individuals," and three family members. I'll let you do the per-person cost on that.

  Update: Tim Kent, executive VP with the realtors, says the more than 300 realtors attended the reception as well. That, he rightly notes, changes the per person cost somewhat.

• One of the boys over at Blue NC wrote to say he had started up a new blog dedicated to countermanding the realtors' influence. I haven't looked at it much yet, but you may want to check it out.

• The Realtors' transfer tax site is here.

• Previous writings on realtors and the influence of money and such here and here.

So the House and Senate Democrats are at loggerheads over the budget. As they meet and try to work out their differences, Republicans in the two chambers are left looking from the outside in.

Sen. Phil Berger and Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam used their regular Tuesday morning newser to make that point and to say how they'd do thing differently.

Basically, the Republicans contend that the Medicaid problem can be solved without raising taxes on either the state level or the local level, as has been most recently proposed.

Stam cited an e-mail from the Speaker's office saying that the Senate had rejected the House plan on the budget.

"Well, of course, I didn't have that plan, most of the Democrats didn't have that plan, you didn't have that plan. And I only mention that so when its reported that the House has done something or the Senate has done something, we're only talking about a few people," Stam said.

Click here to listen to the full take.

Put this one into the probably bogus but too fun not to share file:

Rep. John Blust, a Guilford County Republican, was an outspoken of former Speaker Jim Black, a Mecklenburg Democrat. And as such, Blust didn't see very many of his bills move, occupied a hole of an office in the General Assembly building and was relegated to providing the voice of loyal (but ignored) opposition.

Things have since gotten better for Blust under the Hackney regime. He's got a better office and has seen some of his bills work through committees and one or two even get to a floor vote.

So along comes this post on the North Carolina Conservative Friday and a follow-up today that strongly suggests Blust may be tainted. (More after the jump.)

The Senate voted 36-12 to send House Bill 973 back to the House.

This is the mental health parity bill, which requires insurers cover mental illness the same as they would physical illnesses. Substanc abuse coverage is not included.

The House would have to give a final okay before the measure would go to the governor.

For those who have been following the flap over the N.C. Legislative Black Caucus scholarships, this will be of interest.

Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat and the head of the caucus, sent a letter to the editor to the paper speaking out on the scholarship issue.

Dome has written more about this. I may or may not get into this again after the holiday as the story warrants.

Update: Two bits of push-back to Rep. Adams:

• One from our Letters page.
  
• The other from Scott Mooneyham's Insider column.

Former House Speaker Jim Black is asking for more time before his sentencing on federal corruption charges.

This is the second time he's done so. The first time was because he wanted a new judge.

This time, it's because he does NOT want a new charge...sort of.

When federal defendants plead guilty and are awaiting a judge to issue a sentence, they're overseen by the probation office for whatever jurisdiction they're in. That probation office also make a pre-sentencing report, essentially a recommendation as to how bad exactly the defendants offenses were and what the guidelines for sentencing might be.

Up until recently, Black was facing sentencing on "acceptance of illegal gratuities," which is sort of like a bribery-light statute.

But in this e-mail, the probation office told Black's lawyers that they were going to recommend a guideline consistent with full out bribery, which would mean more time in prison for Black.

He obviously objects to that idea and asks the court for more time to prepare a response:

6. Had the PSR recommended that the base offense level be set pursuant to § 2C1.2, as counsel had most recently been told by USPO it would be and as the plea agreement recommends, the defendant would not be moving the Court to continue sentencing and asserting his right pursuant to Fed R. Crim. P. 32(e)(2). Because the defendant did not receive the surprise PSR until the day after the Court ordered deadline for filing a motion to continue sentencing, and indeed did not even receive notice that the PSR would be other than previously related to counsel until after the noon deadline of the day such a motion was ordered to be filed, the defendant could not have foreseen the need to move the Court to continue sentencing by the Court’s deadline.

7. To respond to the erroneous sentencing guidelines calculations in the PSR,
counsel will need to provide the Court with extensive briefing. Presumably the
government will also submit a brief to the Court in opposition and objection to the PSR
pursuant to the plea agreement. Further, the defendant will need to subpoena additional
witnesses to the sentencing that he did not anticipate.

Click here to read the full motion.

Black has already requested some of the transcripts from folks who testified at the grand jury proceedings, presumably to show that he might be guilty of one thing but not the other.

Meanwhile, as my colleagues at the Charlotte Observer pointed out last month, the judge has asked Black to be a teetotaler until his sentencing.

If one were to have wandered off Jones Street into the General Assembly building today, it would have looked like not much was going on. Yes, there were House and Senate sessions, but they were held only to comply with constitutional requirements as to how often the chambers need to meet while in session.

But if you found your way out back to the Legislative Office Building and head up to the sixth floor, there you would find legislators and their staff grinding through the state budget. Yes, the budget was due on July 1, but the honorables granted themselves an extension until the end of the month.

After last week's fracas with Medicaid and the transfer tax, the honorables in charge of budgeting have decided to move on to other matters and let that whole controversial can of worms sit for a bit.

I was up there for a bit watching them hash through some things today. The core team in the room for the Senate was comprised of Sens. Kay Hagan, Walter Dalton and Linda Garrou, the three appropriations committee chairs, along with Sen. Tony Rand, majority leader and policy poobah. The House members had their appropriations chairs backed by Rules Chairman Bill Owens and Majority Leader Hugh Holliman. (Various lobbyists and staffers from the governors office were lurking out in the halls or poking their heads in the room, depending on the topic at hand. I even saw freshman Republican Rep. Joe Boylan listen in for a while.)

At least during the times I was in there, I didn't see any finance folks, but that's not all that unusual for this sort of session that was concentrating on how to spend money rather than to raise it.

The big news, at least among the conferees, seemed to be they had reached an agreement on salaries:

• Rank and file state employees would get a 4 percent raise.
• Public school teachers, community college faculty and university system faculty would get a 5 percent raise
• State retirees would get a 2.2 cost-of-living raise.

More after the jump.

House and Senate budget negotiators have headed home for the weekend. They plan to reconvene at 10 a.m.

My sense of things is that progress has been made through the easy stuff, and now they need to start working through the slightly more contentious issues. Negotiators still say they expect to have a deal done by the end of next week.

You can hear my colleagues Matt Willoughby and Eszter Vajda and I chat about what's doing with the budget and other things this weekend on Legislative Week in Review.

From the lede of a story in Tuesday's paper:

REIDSVILLE - The doe-eyed black Angus cattle lounging under a stand of trees at a farm called the Upper Piedmont Research Station hardly look like the center of a political tug-of-war in Raleigh.

The stations, 18 farms across the state, focus on issues such as growing drought-resistant corn and how best to fatten up heifers like those who sought shade here on Monday.

But a proposal by state senators to transfer management of the 18 research stations from the Department of Agriculture to N.C. State has sparked an argument involving land conservation, government efficiency and the state’s $20 billion budget.

Click here for the full story.

(Here's a shot of the afore mentioned cows by staff photog Nelson Kepley. Click to enlarge.)

As has been noted elsewhere (Asheville Citizen Times / Exile on Jones Street / The AP), the fate of the state's Agricultural Research Stations is at the center of political tussle in Raleigh.

The stations are essentially designed to take ideas developed in the lab and test them out in a farm environment. Right now, they are run by the Department of Agriculture, but a Senate budget proposal would shift them to the control of N.C. State.

As you might imagine, this has lead to some friction between the Ag Department at the university. And it has gotten caught up in state budget negotiations (you remember the state budget, which was due on July 1 but is still a work in progress). The Senate has proposed the switch as part of the budget, the House is pushing back against the idea.

Some linkage:

• Info on the stations from the Ag Department, including where they are in your neck of the woods and what they're studying. I visted the Upper Piedmont station Monday.

• This is a memo from Senate President Pro Tempore's Marc Basnight's staff giving the rationale for the change.

• This is a letter Ag Commissioner Steve Troxler sent to others in the farm community last month outlining why he opposed the move.

• This is a letter Troxler sent to legislators on Monday.

What's really going on here? Basically, various interests are running up against one another. None of them are acting completely irrationally, but when they marinate in a political stew they can get nasty. The scorecard so far:

• The Senate: Remember, the Senate budget proposal spent $300 million less that the House version in an effort to end two "temporary" taxes (the upper quarter percent of the sales and income taxes). To do that, they had (and have) a strong incentive to trim where they can, and as the above memo shows, they think they can get $2 million out of the transfer.

  It's also worth pointing out that the Senate has long had a (deserved) reputation for responding to the requests and interests of the UNC system. Suffice it to say, they don't share the same type of relationship with the Department of Agriculture.

• The House: Budget writers over there seem to want to have a little more say in how the transfer goes down. Specifically, I think, they want to know how any of the land associated with the research farms will be divested.

  Since Troxler has been in office, he says that Democrats and Republicans alike have been far more receptive to his department's agenda than the Senate.

• N.C. State, Steve Leath: I spoke with him for a while Monday morning. His pitch is that putting the farms under the university system only makes sense. He said that researchers would never work in labs that they don't control, yet they're force to cede control of projects to the Agriculture Department for crop research.

  Basically, he's interested in having the farms do cutting-edge research and he thinks the relationship with the Ag Department gets in the way of that.

  (I'll get to the selling of land thing in a second.)

  By the way, a recent Dome item noted that Leath had just been promoted to "vice president for research of the 16-campus University of North Carolina system."

• The Department of Agriculture, Steve Troxler: Troxler makes a few arguments. The first is, don't mess what's worked for 70 years. (He says Leath doesn't know what he's talking about when he says research has been slowed down.) Secondly, he says the department provides an important counterweight to the university's research goals. Yes, cutting edge research is important, but Troxler says it has to be done in a way that translates into the farm work being done on family farms across the state.

  Lastly, Troxler said that it makes no sense to line up prime farmland for development, especially when the state is looking for ways to buy up open space.

On that last point, Leath acknowledges that the university would likely divest itself of some of the land, using the profits to add to or build up other farms in the system. The university already owns some farms not in the research station fold, and you can well imagine some of those assets being shuffled about.

But, Leath says, nothing would happen without consulting the legislature, NCA&T and others.

Still, for a lot of folks, this potential sale of research station property may be where they begin to take a big interest in this story.

No need to adjust your radio or call the FCC...Laura Leslie and I will be yacking about things legislative on WUNC's The State of Things program today but we promise to behave...mostly.

It appears former Speaker Jim Black's sentencing will go forward at 9 a.m. Wednesday, July 11.

The spitball interpretation among us scruffy media types is it doesn't bode well for Black's bid to do community service in lieu of jail time.

Need to read up in advance? Check out:

• Click here for one of Black's filings regarding his sentence. (There's a bunch, including exhibits. This will give you the summary.)

• Click here for thoughts from the U.S. Attorney's office on the time that Black ought to do.

Update: More from the Charlotte paper:

Former House Speaker Jim Black accepted a $500,000 check from a lobbyist in 2000, deposited the check into his campaign account and then misrepresented the transaction as a personal loan, federal prosecutors say.

The Senate Finance Committee has passed the latest version of a Medicaid swap bill. They're rewriting an old House bill that had to do with 529 plans.

The reason bills get filed in this way are to send them straight to a concurrence vote in the other chamber, rather than shunting it into the full committee process.

You can click here to listen to Sen. Rand 'splain it, but the broad outlines are these:

• The state would take over Medicaid in a three-year phase in.

• The state takes back a half cent of the sales taxing authority from the counties in two quarter-cent chunks.

• The deal creates a 12 percent Earned Income Tax Credit that is nonrefundable.

• There is no transfer tax involved or local option sales tax involved.

You'll remember that the transfer tax has been the subject of some vigorous lobbying. The idea behind giving counties the ability to that or a local sales tax was that some counties (mainly big, urban ones) would lose out on the swap - they would lose more in taxing powers than they would gain in Medicaid relief. The local options were meant to give counties a way to make up their losses.

Under this plan, the state would reset how sales tax is distributed to counties in an effort to get rid of that winners-and-losers situation. Instead of getting sales tax based equally on the point of a purchase and how many people live in a county, the proposed formula would weight things more toward the point of the purchase. That favors large urban counties - who might otherwise lose on the Medicaid swap - because they have more points to purchase from.

Click here to listen to the two comments from the "public." Essentially, the County Commissioners Association likes the switch but the N.C. Justice Center doesn't like how the EITC was done.

Granted this proposal works around some issues the Senate had with all this, but there's no word on whether the House will consider it an acceptable alternative.

So the Department of Agriculture and UNC system seem to be at odds over the fate of farm research stations.

Basically, Ag Commissioner Steve Troxler doesn't want to see stations now under his management transferred to university control.

Steve Leath, a UNC administrator, thinks that's a dandy idea because he says it would streamline research.

He also said this to me for the story that ran today:

"We did not ask for this, we did not seek it out," Leath said of the proposed shift. "That said, we have no problem with it, we think it is a very, very good idea."

So a six-page letter lands in my lap today dated Jan. 23, 2006 that was sent by Leath and sent to Sen. Charlie Albertson, one of the big guns when it comes to Agriculture down here on Jones Street.

The second sentence reads:

After careful deliberation I have concluded that we should proceed with plans to unite all the agricultural research stations and University Field Laboratories into one management entity based at NC State.

It goes on, in great detail, to outline how that might happen. Sounds like asking to me.

I'll provide a PDF of this letter when I can make one.

Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat, sat down with Editorial Page Editor Allen Johnson Monday. Allen produced this video as part of his "newsmakers" series.

Click here to see the video.

Topic A, in case you couldn't guess, was the N.C. Legislative Black Caucus and its foundation.

The state auditor's office says UNCG played favorites when it hired a contractor for an energy savings project. In the included response, UNCG officials say the state auditor's office is mistaken.

Click here to read both accusation and reply.

My colleague (and the paper's higher education reporter) Lanita Withers is looking into it.

As the AP has been reporting, former House Speaker Jim Black has been sentenced to 63 months in jail.

"Today is the end of the line for Jim Black and his corruption," said George Holding during an news conference after the sentencing.

Really?

As I was leaving the federal courthouse in Raleigh there was no feeling that this sentencing really wrapped things up. And I'm not just talking about the fact that Black faces sentencing on state charges in Wake County Court before too long of the fact like former Black allies like Rep. Thomas Wright are facing scrutiny.

Something about this scandal - whether you believe Black guilty of the more severe crimes the prosecution alludes to or the "stupid mistakes" Black admits to - seems like its going to stick with us for a while.

I think I'll go ask a few folks about that.

The House Republican Caucus just held an impromptu meeting after session. The topic of discussion, according to House Minority Leader Paul "Skip" Stam, was Rep. David Almond, a Stanly County Republican.

Rumors have been swirling about Rep. Almond down here for a couple days now. None will be printed here right now because, well, they're bad and I would need to see them way better documented in order to print them. Suffice it to say they've got to be a) pretty darned bad and b) approaching reality in order to prompte a caucus meeting.

"We don't know the facts but the rumors are serious," Stam said. When asked if the caucus would ask Almond to resign, Stam said, "Depending on what the facts are - if the facts are true - yes."

Stam confirmed that Almond is meeting with his lawyers this afternoon and did not attend today's meeting. The House Republicans are scheduled to meet again Thursday around noon, Stam said, and may or may not hear from Almond then.

More to come, one way or the other, I guess.

Reminder for those of you interested in the Jordan Lake Rules (Background here and here) there will be a public hearing tonight:

Date: July 12, 2007 Time: 6:30 p.m. Location: Century Hall at Century Center, 100 N. Greensboro Street, Carrboro, NC 27510

Sierra Club of NC e-mailed a statement on the new rules (they like 'em, but have a suggestion or two) out on Wednesday. Read it after the jump.

From today's paper:

• My story on the aftermath of the Black scandal.

• Lanita Wither's story on the audit of UNCG's energy saving contract.

Update: Click here for audio from House Minority Leader Paul Stam's news conference.

Update: Rep. Almond's letter of resignation is read on the House floor.

-=-=-=-=-=

Rep. David Almond has resigned from his seat. (Earlier post here.)

Almond didn't speak to the Republican Caucus meeting that just broke up a while ago.

Rep. Paul Stam, the Republican leader in the House, refused to characterize the allegations against Almond.

"The leaders of the caucus asked him to resign if the allegations were true," Stam said during an quick news conference. He said Almond's resignation was "best for all involved."

Almond issued a written statement through the caucus:

"A complaint has been filed against me with the Speaker. I intend to defend myself against these charges in whatever forum may be appropriate.

In the meantime, I have concluded that it is in the best interest of my family and the constituents of my district to resign from the General Assembly."

-=-=-=-=-=

Update (12:43 p.m.): House Speaker Joe Hackney just spoke with us scruffy media types about the complaint filed against Almond. He wouldn't say much, but did say it was not an ethics complaint but rather a "personnel complaint."

He added that the House has taken "action to the satisfaction of the complainant and in accordance with federal and state laws."

Hackney called the episode "disheartening." And when asked whether he was troubled by the string of recent troubles (Speaker Black, Rep. Wright, now this), Hackney said, "No one wants to have this sort of thing to occur or reoccur in the House."

He added that at this point only the complainant or Almond could reveal legally the nature of the complaint or produce a copy.

With the latest Iraq report getting mixed review, the U.S. House is debating a resolution that would pressure the administration to expedite the withdrawal of U.S. troop out of Iraq.

Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican, just said his piece on the House floor a short time ago.

"I believe this chamber would be well advised to wait until September," Coble said, referring to an expected report from Gen. David H. Petraeus. "I think the right vote is against this proposal today."

Coble has been a critic of the administration's Iraq war policy, urging that the U.S. find a way out, but has thus far stopped short of backing Congressional efforts to impose timetables or similar measures. Today's statement was consistent with that stance.

The House has just voted 111-2 to pass the Mental Health Parity bill. The measure now goes to the governor.

Background here.

-=-=-=-=

Update: Click here for about 4 minutes of audio from today's floor debate, which starts out with a question from Rep. John Blust, a Greensboro Republican.

His question, by the way, was whether coverage for substance abuse was included in the bill. It is not.

From today's paper:

RALEIGH - Winning the Nextel Cup was probably pretty good for Jimmie Johnson, but back in May the General Assembly decided he needed an extra pat on the back by way of a joint resolution.

Also honored this year was UPS, when the shipping company with the funky brown trucks turned 100. And the Tweetsie Railroad, a theme park near Blowing Rock, can toot its horn about an official stamp of legislative recognition as well.

In fact, about 20 percent of all bills passed by both chambers of the General Assembly this year were resolutions extolling the virtues of towns, companies, girls basketball teams and various deceased residents.

Meanwhile the state budget, a $20 billion tax-and-spending plan and one of the few things the constitution mandates the General Assembly gets done, is unfinished and 15 days past due with budget negotiators still at an impasse over several issues.

"I think it's part of a larger issue of how the legislature spends its time," said Ran Coble, a longtime legislative observer who now leads the N.C. Center for Public Policy Research, a nonpartisan think tank.

Click here for the full story.

So . . . what do you think the General Assembly should honor?

According to the House calendar, today is the 100th legislative day since Jan. 24, when the honorables started their work for the year. The Senate calendar says it's only legislative day 98. And you wonder why they're not a budget done when these two can't even agree on what day it is?

At any rate, it's as good of a time as any to take stock of where things are. Four lists and some thoughts after the jump.

So a Business Week story has been circulating here on Jones Street that rehashes the Google incentives deal. More on that and other items after the jump.

The tussle over the Agricultural Research Farms between the Ag Department and the University system is still a point of contention among legislative budget negotiators. (Background here and here.)

Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat, threw in a new wrinkle to think about this afternoon.

She doesn't much like the idea of transferring the research farms from the Ag Department to the University system. She says the idea needs to be studied before any such transfer takes place.

However, if there is a decision made to do the transfer, NCA&T needs a bigger seat at the table, she said.

As the Senate proposal reads right now, N.C. State would take charge of the farms and have to "consult" with several stakeholders, including A&T.

Adams said that minimizes A&T's role and that the Greensboro university should have just as big of a part to play as its cousin in Raleigh.

"A & T should managed and control some of them," Adams said.

She frames her thought as part of what she says is an historical bias for N.C. State and against A&T, an historically African American institution.

"It's just the old way of doing things and leaving A&T out," she said.

My colleague Laura Leslie at WUNC is the press corps' resident expert on all things amphibian, including the bill to name the bullfrog the state amphibian. She did an excellent radio piece when the the measure passed the House.

Laura is not around tonight, and might be a little sad to see that bill fall to legislative expediency. Here's what happened:

The House passed the bill a while ago, and it went over the Senate. The Senate, apparently not in the mood for any bull(frog) found another use for the bill and "gutted it," taking out all the original language. Senators then put in language that would put the Graveyard of the Atlantic Museum under the control of The Department of Cultural Resources.

The bill will now go back to the House, where it could, in theory, be passed without so much as a committee hearing.

As for the frog bill, unless the House sponsor wants to go toe-to-toe with the Senate and take a state symbol bill to a conference committee, it's deader than the slow toad crossing I-40.

Maybe my BS-meter is in need of a tune up. Or maybe I've just been hanging out with the legislative critters for too long and have begun to think the worse of everybody. Or maybe my daily caffein ration needs to be cut back.

Or maybe the hangover from the whole Jim Black mess has left such a patina over Jones Street that things we would have written off before get second and third looks.

What am I blithering about? Read on after the jump.

Word is that Greensboro-based Red Oak Brewery was pitching is legislative agenda down at the
N.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission

For those who spend time driving on I-40/85 into the city, Red Oak is building the shiny new brewery out near the old Konica plant.

They've also been building a case for a bill that would let them sell up to 60,000 barrels of beer without going through the state's three tier system. Currently, Red Oak and other small brewers can only sell up to 25,000 barrels without going through a distributor.

That bill has had trouble getting traction here at the General Assembly. Part of that has to do with the bill's sponsors having other fish to fry. But there's good reason to think that part of it just might have something to do with pushback from these guys and these guys.

A staff attorney for the ABC Commission confirmed that Red Oak put in an appearance today but said in a voice mail that the commission took no action.

A bill that would repeal the UNC tuition break given to students at the School of Science and Math in Durham. Basically, kids who do two years at the school are guaranteed free tuition at the school.

The House measure, passed out of committee on a voice vote, would strip the school of that privilege.

Rep. Paul Leubke, the bill's measure, says that giving the break to those students is inherently unfair to students at other high school and brought statistics that show most of the kids who graduate from the school of science and math are not going on to careers in engineering and such.

Oh, and complains it was slipped into a budget bill by the Senate a couple years ago.

Who did the slipping? Sen. Kay Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat, who the last few times I've talked to her about this says the measure is an investment in keeping bright people in North Carolina.

Hagan didn't get any back up from here Guilford County peeps on the issue.

Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat, and Rep. Laura Wiley, a High Point Republican, both spoke against the bill.

Wiley said that kids who couldn't afford to leave home or had disabilities that made going to the school impossible couldn't take advantage of the tuition break.

"This is just something that's not available to all students and I find that inherently unfair," Wiley said.

The bill will likely pass the House, but once it arrives in the Senate I think you can fairly expect it to go a whole lot of nowhere.

More background on the tuition break earlier in the year here with additional material here, here, here and here.

For those following the transfer tax debate (background here) there's more out today.

First off, Public Policy Polling did a survey for a group that supports the transfer tax. The summary:

Eighty four percent of those surveyed agreed that "voters in each North Carolina county should be able to vote on whether or not their counties can use a one time transfer tax to pay for communities needs…," while only 8% were opposed.

So how do you get a poll like that? Spend some money. From a Dome item:

The Partnership for North Carolina's Future spent over $400,000 on advertising, polling and consulting, according to its latest report. A couple of the groups that are a members of the partnership, the N.C. Association of County Commissioners and greenspace advocate Land for Tomorrow have also spent $138,000 or more, according to lobbying reports. Land for Tomorrow lists a $200,000 payment to the partnership for its "publicity ad campaign," money that has yet to be spent on lobbying or advertising.

Both House and Senate leaders have told their members that they should be ready to work on Friday. Basically, they're trying to clear as much stuff as they can out of committee before July 28.

What's magical about July 28?

Nothing really, other than it's when the leadership says it wants to "close down committees." The committee system is the pipeline to the full House and Senate. If you shut off that spigot, the flow of legislation to the House and Senate floors stops and you lay the groundwork for the legislature to get out of town.

"We're trying to get the train rolling," said Rep. Hugh Holliman, a Lexington Democrat and the House majority leader.

Of course, there's still the small matter of passing the state budget (now 18 days over-due) that has to get taken car of. Both Holliman and Rep. Bill Owens, the House Rules Committee chairman, said that the two sides are getting closer on that as well.

"The money differences are not a lot," Holliman said.

Of course, the folks working through the appropriations (read: spending) side of things have been a little more simpatico all along. The big question is the tax side, where the House and Senate have been at odds over letting "temporary" taxes expire, earned income tax credits and what not.

When asked about the tax side of things by Owens, Rep. Paul Luebke put on his best poker face and said, "We're still working." Translation: they're not THAT close.

I took a short trip out to the state fair grounds Wednesday to hear the Board of Agriculture
talk about new rules for euthanizing dogs and cats. From my story:

RALEIGH - It's not much of a choice really: lethal injection or the gas chamber.

Those would be the two ways most of the 225,000 cats and dogs who meet their end in North Carolina animal shelters would be dispatched under new rules under consideration by the State Board of Agriculture.

Click here for the full story.

Of course, the reason the rules are such a big deal is that animal shelters in the state have to put about 225,000 unwanted cats and dogs to death every year, according to Ag Dept. stats. That's a fairly horrific total.

Some of those who came out to comment Wednesday said the state really needs to work on reducing the pet over-population problem rather than concentrating on the best method of disposal. And you probably wouldn't get much argument for the board. But a 2005 law compelled the board to draft the rules but didn't give a whole lot of direction when it came to spay-neuter programs and that sort of thing.

Click here to read the department's FAQ on the rules and click here to read the new rules (PDF) for yourself.

The comment period is open through the end of August, so if you want to put in your two cents, there is still time. From the FAQ page:

Send comments to David McLeod, N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1001 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1001 or by e-mail to david.mcleod@ncmail.net.

There's just an odd brew of stuff going on and being talked about down here on Jones Street. There's no real rhyme, reason or connection to any of it - it's just all going on at once.

• The Senate has decided not to meet tomorrow. Senate Leader Marc Basnight had suggested they might be around earlier in the week, but said just now that just the budget negotiators would be about. The House, however, plans to be working. Update: The House has now cancelled its Friday session. All of this is with an eye toward getting the budget done and cleaning up some legislation before the end of this year's session. "And hopefully we can find our way out of this city sometime soon," Basnight said.

• Miss North Carolina, Jessica Jacobs, of High Point, visited the House and Senate today. Click here for audio of her chatting with the honorables in the House.

• Republicans and their allies are trying to convince Democratic leaders in the Senate to move on H878, which would put a constitutional amendment restricting the use of eminent domain on the ballot. Part of that effort seems to be having a bunch of old folks wander around the building with red stickers stuck to their golf shirt.

  Also, Sen. Phil Berger, and Eden Republican, released a letter he wrote to Sen. Charlie Dannelly asking that his Ways and Means Committee meet on the bill. Of course, it would be a heck of a thing if the committee did meet on anything, at all, since it hasn't gotten together since the first part of this decade.

• Following news of alleged, um, transgressions by sitting members of the House, there's news that a former member has been charged "six counts of aiding and abetting prostitution."

• Former Speaker Black has asked for alcohol treatment.

Gov. Mike Easley signed an executive order today that spends about $114.4 million without permission of the legislature by way of a budget. All of the money is going toward education programs, including funding the expansion of the More at Four Pre-K program.

(Click here for his news release on the move.)

Easley says he can spend the money due to the long-running Leandro case in which a judge has ordered the state to improve education for the low income students and school districts. He took similar action when budget negotiations dragged on in 2002 and 2005.

I'll have more on this and audio of some of Easley's noon presser in a moment, but the good governor was harshing a bit on the honorables, particularly their reluctance to give counties the running transfer tax option.

"A lot of the legislators over there are scared of the realtors and they've got to decide whether they want to stand with the realtors or stand with the people they represent," Easley said.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Update:

Easley talked about his two bright-line issues on the budget.

One was letting the quarter-cent sales tax expire. He said that if the budget keeps the quarter cent sales tax on, it has to go toward tax relief and scholarships for the poor.

"I am not going to be part of extending the quarter-cent sales tax and just having it expended willy-nilly on something else," Easley said.

He also said that the Medicaid problem, relieving counties of what they pay toward the health insurance program for the poor, needs to be done before the General Assembly session is over.

Click here for audio of that bit of the news conference. (The feed from the mic was a bit hot, so the sound is scratchy.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Update:

Easley said that if the budget wasn't finished in the next week, he might sign similar executive orders, using the same authority. He said that he would target items where schools had to hire people for the coming year, or let people go if funding didn't come through.

Click here to listen to his explanation of that.

Way back in February, I wrote about House Bill 77, a renewable energy package. It had a sister piece of legislation at the time called Senate Bill 3, and it's the one that eventually got moved along.

S3 has taken a long and twisted road to get where it is today, on the verge of a Monday afternoon vote in the House Energy and Energy Efficiency Committee. (It then moves on to the Public Utilities Committee and then Finance before hitting the floor.)

From a story coming in Sunday's paper:

House and Senate versions of the bill were first drafted to encourage conservation and the use of renewable energy as a means of cutting down reliance on coal and nuclear plants. The Senate version of the bill appears headed for final approval.

It now contains provisions useful to companies that build new coal and nuclear plants - the very technologies renewable energy is supposed to supplant - in addition to providing incentives for conservation and alternative energy.

Whether that is a broad-minded approach to meeting the state's energy needs or a train wreck that caters to industry depends on who you ask.

"This bill deserves to be studied in political science classes as an example of hard political reality," said Rep. Grier Martin, a Wake County Democrat.

Rep. Martin really said what I was thinking here. Regardless of how you feel about the individual policies contained in the bill, it is an interesting piece of legislation. Although I think it represents some extremes, the process used to mold S3 is more typical than a-typical when it comes to big complicated and scientifically nuanced pieces of legislation around Jones Street.

More from the story:

The measure began its transformation in late January as part of what legislators call "a stakeholder process." Energy companies, environmental advocates, legislators and members of government agencies gathered in a conference room of the legislative office building to rebuild the bill.

According to participants, this was done at the behest of Senate leaders - who wanted to handle several pending energy-related matters in one bill - and organized by legislative staff members. However, much of the drafting of the bill was done by lawyers who work for the utility company Progress Energy.

"That's exactly right, and that's troubling," said Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Greensboro Democrat and the chairwoman of the House Energy and Energy Efficiency Committee, which is vetting the bill.

Click here for the full story.

You can find the current version of S3 here, as well as a fiscal note that explains certain sections of the bill.

It's worth noting that the version of the bill online this weekend is not the version the committee will vote on Monday. A PCS - proposed committee substitute, which is legislative talk for a pretty hefty rewrite - is in the works. The structure of the bill won't change much but some of the provisions will be changed.

What I'm told is that there will be some emissions limits put in on the biomass (wood, animal poop) generating section of the bill, since some studies showed they were dirtier than burning coal. And I'm told that they're attempting to tweak the parts of the bill that deal with coal and nuclear to add some consumer safeguards, although I'm not really clear on what those might look like.

For those of you wondering, "Why are energy company lawyers doing drafting work on legislation, isn't there a legislative staff that does that?" well, yes, yes there is. But they have a bunch of big bill pending right now, including measures on hog lagoons and landfills.

My understanding, which comes from legislators and other group participants - not the staff itself - is that it's not all that unusual to have outside lawyers do some drafting work during the "stakeholder" process, as long as they take in to account input from all the other stakeholders.

Philosophically, it's not hugely different from executive agencies which write and submit bills to the General Assembly. That happens a lot, and they even get a special designation - "AB" - which gives them a little more something-something getting through committee.

It's an odd place the state legislature...sausage made daily.

We are through the looking glass people. Witness, this trio of stories:

The N+O probes more in to Rep. Almond's resignation while the Southern Pines Pilot writes unfavorably about favorite son Rep. Boylan and then a guy who served as Doctor of the Day at the legislature was handing out, um, unusual advice, in book form.

If this keeps up, the Weekly World News is going to set up a bureau on Jones Street.

Like the boy wizard's school at Hogwarts, the General Assembly is its own little realm with traditions - formal and informal - all its own. One of the favorite games for folks to play around here is for one denizen walk up to another and say, "So, when do you think they're going home?"

Tea leaves not withstanding, no one really knows - not even the leaders, I don't think.

So, I'll put it to you guys - my literally dozens of readers: when will we get the send the honorables home for the year? Keep in mind, we still have to finish the budget (and if we don't get a move on we'll be looking at a second continuing resolution), we've yet to finish an energy bill and a hog lagoons bill and the governor does have that pesky veto authority which can drag out showdowns over controversial legislation.

Update: Here are a few bits of audio from today's HEEE Committee and afterward.

• Rep. Pricey Harrison explained the good and the bad of the bill as it now stands.

• Rep. Charles Thomas, a Buncombe County Republican, took umbrage with the stakeholder process.

• Rep. Susan Fisher, a Buncombe Democrat, and Pryor Gibson, an Anson Democrat, debated the merits of taking the coal and nuclear sections out of the bill This audio clip captures the end of Fisher's comments and fades out to cut some extraneous stuff and then comes back to Gibson's take.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Regarding the energy bill I wrote about this weekend, it has been modified in a couple substantial ways:

• New renewable energy producers will have to monitor their emissions and comport to state and federal clear air regulations. This addresses the notion that burning chicken and pig poop could end up producing more pollution than coal.

• Utilities will have to prove they can't meet increasing demand with renewable energy sources and conservation before the public utilities commission gives them permission to build new coal and/or nuclear plants.

Environmental types I spoke with after the meeting say the bill is much improved in their view. For example, they are concerned how tough a test the utilities will have to pass in order to prove that renewable can't meet demand.

Power company representatives say they still support the bill, and in fact had a hand in drafting the changes.

The measure passed out of the House E