News-Record.com

Two years ago, the General Assembly outlawed video poker. So when I heard about folks running "video slot machines" getting arrested I assumed they were just running old vid poker machines outside the law. It was not unusual in the old days of video poker for an ambitious operator to have a back room where a bunch of unregistered machines operated above legal limits.

But as it turned out, I was only partially right. For the lede of a story in Sunday's paper, I watched one player at a convenience store up on Lawndale Drive, and there was no back room involved:

According to companies that distribute the machines and software, he's playing a sweepstakes, a premium offered in exchange for buying a couple dollars' worth of long-distance service. Guilford County prosecutors agree and have dropped at least one case related to these video slot machines.

But prosecutors in Rockingham County and state Alcohol Law Enforcement officers disagree, saying the machines are illegal and their owners should be prosecuted.

"They appear to fall squarely under the prohibition of a slot machine in the North Carolina statutes," said Alan Fields, the ALE supervisor for the region including Guilford County.

Two weeks ago, ALE agents raided several businesses in Rockingham County, charging 10 people with owning illegal slot machines or allowing their operation.

Some of those Rockingham County machines were little more than desktop computers with specialized software and a reader that can scan a prepaid phone card.

Others were retrofitted video poker machines.

Click here to read the full story.

This is, I imagine, a confusing environment for folks to operate in. One county lets you run the machines with impunity while the next county over, one can be busted for running them.

Florida's legislature is about take a swing at these things, and one wonders whether it will get on the radar of honorables here in North Carolina.

Update: Click here for the AP story from today.

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

The AP reported this from the legislative ethics hearings on Rep. Thomas Wright this morning:

An attorney for Rep. Thomas Wright says a state House ethics panel that could recommend the chamber kick the lawmaker out of office is racially biased.

Attorney Douglas Harris told the panel on Monday that Wright is being treated differently than a white House member who was the subject of a joint House-Senate ethics allegation last year. Wright is black.

The committee chairman, Rep. Rick Glazier, allowed the hearing to go forward. But he told Harris his motion to halt the hearing would be considered if put in writing.

The committee is considering whether Wright participated in actions unbecoming a lawmaker. The New Hanover County Democrat is accused of misusing or failing to report more than $340,000 in campaign donations, loans and charitable money.

Along with the House investigation, state prosecutors have charged Wright with criminal fraud and obstruction of justice charges.

I was listening in and there were two quotes that capture the tone that doesn't quite come through there.

The chairman of the panel at work, Rep. Rick Glaizer, had just gotten through instructing Harrison "not to go there," in bringing up prior ethics cases.

"What we have here is a white man being treated one way, and a black man being treated another," Harris said, referring to a prior complaint that was brought against Rep. Pryor Gibson, who is white, and the current hearing regarding Wright, who is Black.

Yeah, he went there.

Harris added later, "I object to my client being treated in a 'Jim Crow' manner in 2008."

For those not listening live, you can click here to listen to a fuller take.

Harris, I should note, is a Greensboro attorney. His client is from New Hanover County down east.

The hearings are scheduled to go on through Tuesday.

Those who might need some refreshing as to what's alleged, might check out some of these prior posts or just click here to listen to the first part of an opening statement by the committee council.

I was going to hold off on this, but since Dome is out there with it...

-=-=-=-

So I got a call this afternoon from someone who suggested I look at a certain page on Bev Perdue's website and click a certain link. When I did, it plopped me right into the campaign's content management system. Apparently, I, or anyone else who clicked on the magic link, could add, delete or edit content on Perdue's blog.

The CMS page looks like this (click to enlarge):

See that button that says "Edit." It seems to work, although I'm not going to go monkeying with content on a political candidate's site.

I've sent an e-mail to Perdue's folks to see if they're aware of the problem or if they're just trying to engage in a really new kind of open source campaigning. And no, I'm not going to tell you how to get in there and cause mischief.

Update: The offending links appear to have been disabled.

There's too much going on today. Some of the items:

• The Council of State met this morning. Gov. Mike Easley, Lt. Gov. Perdue and AG Cooper were not in the house. The rest of the crew approved an addition to the Haw River Park.

• Easley did hold a presser on mental health today. He and DHHS Sec. Dempsey Benton gave a long spiel on the fixes they would make. They left the room before reporters were done asking questions. Click here to read about that.

• The hearings about the alleged misdeeds of Rep. Thomas Wright continue at the legislature. Lawyers for Wright attempted to have Rep. Rick Glazier removed as chairman of the proceeding, alleging he was acting in a racist manner. The committee declined and the case rolls on.

On the heels of joining up with an enforcement-first immigration caucus in the Senate, Sen. Elizabeth Dole filed a couple immigration-related bills this week:

• The first would repeal an executive order that requires government services to be provided in languages other than English. From the release:

  "Hundreds of different languages are spoken by people in this country, and it is fiscally irresponsible and impractical for our government to provide services in all of these languages," said Dole. "Moreover, proficiency in English should be encouraged, as it is not only required for citizenship but also is essential for maximizing opportunities in this country."

• The other would make drunk driving a deportable offense. From a release:

  "In North Carolina, we have had a number of fatal automobile accidents caused by an intoxicated person who was in the United States illegally," said Dole. "In several of these incidents, the illegal alien has a record of DWI, but has been caught and released. My bill would help ensure that undocumented aliens who have self-identified themselves by drunk driving are removed. Likewise, individuals who abuse their legal status in the United States by repeatedly breaking our drunk driving laws should lose their privilege of living in our country."

I have argued before that immigration will be a big factor in the upcoming election. It has slipped in the polls as of late, although remains big with conservative voters.

And while not EVERY legislative action is a piece of an upcoming campaign, and these moves are consistent with Dole's approach to legislating, but they do seem a good way to keep supporters happy.

An Associated Press picture from the Thomas Wright hearings down at the General Assembly:

Caption: "Four of the six member bipartisan House Select Committee, including, left to right; Rep. Edith Warren, Rep. William McGee, Rep. Marvin Lucas, and Rep. Laura Wiley, listen to testimony during Rep. Thomas Wright's, D-NC, ethical hearing at the Legislative Office Builiding in Raleigh, N.C., Wednesday, March 5, 2008. The Wilmington representative faces allegations of campaign finance fraud, loan fraud, obstruction of justice and obtaining property by false pretenses. Wright faces possible explusion from The House of Representatives. (AP Photo/Sara D. Davis)"

Those four have been doing a lot of listening. As I worked on other things today, I had one ear on the hearings. The long and the short of it was this: if you've been paying attention to this saga, you probably didn't hear a whole lot new. SBI agents and a state board of elections official plowed ground that had come up at prior hearings.

Committee Chairman Rick Glaizer said he hoped the festivities would wrap up by the end of Thursday. I don't know if that's possible, given the rate at which they're going.

From an blog post by the LA Times' Washington Bureau comes this scene of Rep. Mel Watt at work on Capitol Hill:

The meeting took a truly unexpected turn ... when Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia called upon Chertoff's entourage to all stand up -- without explaining why.

That task fell to Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina, like Scott an African American and a Democrat. He said he wanted to make clear, for the record, "that the 10 staff members who stood up behind Secretary Chertoff are all white males."

There ensued a testy exchange between Watt and Chertoff, with the latter cautioning against assumptions about ethnicity based on appearances.

"I know an African American when I see one," Watt shot back.

In a comment directed at the staffers, he called out, "If anyone is an African American, I hope they will stand up."

That sparked laughter from some in attendance (thougn not from Chertoff's aides).
Watt then asked, to truly drive his point home, "If anyone back there is a woman, I hope they will stand up."

Finally, he chided Chertoff: "If you are going to do law enforcement, you need to have an element of diversity."

El Pueblo, a fairly potent lobbying/activist organization that takes up issues on behalf of the Latino community, has a new executive director. From a news release:

On March 1, 2008, the Board of Directors named Antonio (Tony) Asion as the new Executive Director of El Pueblo, Inc. El Pueblo is a statewide, nonprofit public policy and advocacy organization dedicated to strengthening the Latino community of North Carolina.

As the new Executive Director, Asion will supervise a staff of fifteen who work in programs in the areas of health, education, leadership development, advocacy, Public Safety, youth and culture.

Asion's first priority will be to work with both the Latino and non-Latino community to highlight commonalities, differences, and the benefits of working together to overcome the fear and misunderstanding each has of the other. Together with El Pueblo's accomplished Collaborative Leadership Team and El Pueblo's continued commitment to allied coalitions with other organizations statewide, Asion will lead, coordinate, and collaborate to achieve this goal.

Originally from Cuba, Asion received his Master's degree in Criminal Justice from Wilmington College in Delaware. He is a retired State Trooper from Delaware and was most recently the Deputy Director of El Pueblo. Tony also served as Public Safety Director, tackling such issues as DWI prevention, child passenger safety seat usage and gang prevention among the Latino community.

The hearings regarding Rep. Thomas Wright continue today. I'm keeping an ear on things but the bar keep can give you the blow-by-blow.

One of Wright's attorney's is Douglas S. Harris of Greensboro. I've gotten a couple questions about him that go something like, "wasn't he disbarred?"

Well, no, not exactly. He did have a run-in with the N.C. Bar Association a few years back. Here are appellate level and rulings related to that case. And here is the North Carolina State Bar's final ruling on the case. That order doesn't disbar Harris, but does take exception to his actions in a personal injury case. The final ruling suspends his law license for two years but stays that suspension (meaning it's not in effect) provided that he not run afoul of another disciplinary hearing.

The bar association rapped him for not maintaining records, not withdrawing from representation when a client discharged him and not handling an insurance settlement correctly.

I'm not really sure this has much to do with the current proceedings, but I've gotten a couple of questions about it...so there you go.

As for today's festivities on Jones Street, they've just broken for lunch. The Associated Press reports:

An attorney for Rep. Thomas Wright is questioning a state elections board investigator about campaign contributions she says Wright failed to disclose.

Irving Joyner cross-examined investigator Kim Strach on Thursday about her testimony Wednesday before a legislative ethics committee. The House panel is considering whether Wright engaged in unethical conduct and could recommend he be censured or expelled from office.

Strach said the Wilmington Democrat didn't report $180,000 in contributions between 2000 and 2006. But Joyner questioned the assumptions Strach made while considering which unreported checks and expenditures were for political purposes and needed to be reported.

Strach acknowledged she hadn't tried to talk with Wright in recent months about whether expenses were for political or business purposes.

The prosecution in the legislative hearing trying to determine if Rep. Thomas Wright did something unethical wrapped up its case about 20 minutes ago. It was a pretty standard summation of the evidence.

Irving Joyner, a lawyer for Wright, is now presenting his closing. He started by suggesting that the proceeding might have been unfair.

"I recognize the hill that I have to climb. and I know that I'm trying to walk up a slippery slope," he said.

He said that since it was the committee itself that found probable cause for a hearing, they had already determined his client was probably guilty. Now, he said, the same committee sits in judgment, preparing to make a recommendation to the full House.

He's now trying to punch some holes in the prosecution's case.

The committee investigating Thomas Wright is deliberating the counts lodged against the Wilmington-area legislator. First up was the charge that Wright purposefully evaded campaign finance laws.

The committee voted 6-0 to find clear and evidence exists to sustain the charge.

Comment by Rep. Rick Glaizer, the committee chairman: "The fraud in this count on the public is breathtakingly massive."

It doesn't much sound like the rest of them are going to go much better for him.

Update: They voted 6-0 that Wright stepped out of bounds by soliciting money from AstraZeneca for a charity and then putting it in his own bank account.

Comment from Rep. Laura Wiley: "I find the notion of being paid for sweat equity rather abhorrent." She said that lots of people work on foundations for little or no compensation. Wiley was riffing off a statement by Wright that he took the checks from the drug companies and others in exchange for "seat equity" he put in to building the Community Health Foundation.

Update: Committee votes 6-0 to find that Wright solicited money from Anheuser-Busch and put it into his own account.

Update: Committee votes 6-0 to find that Wright solicited money from AT&T and put it into his own account.

Three more counts to go.

Following on this post about the House hearing on Rep. Thomas Wright and his alleged misconduct.

Update: The committee found on a 6-0 vote that Rep. Wright solicited a letter from a government official (Torlen Wade, who used to be a DHHS employee) that falsely claimed that Wright's foundation was going to get a grant. Background here.

More from the AP on today's proceedings here.

Rep. Rick Glaizer, the committee's chairman, called the letter "utterly a false statement." He said Wade was both intimidated by Wright's position in state government and what was then an ongoing friendship.

"It's absolutely untenable to put a state employee in that position," Glaizer said. "If you're not intending on using the letter, what in the world was the purpose of the letter."

He added later that "This account in quality is utter fraud...legislators cannot be allowed to do this.

Two more counts to go. Then the committee will deliberate on what should happen to Wright.

Update: The committee does not find that Wright used the letter mentioned in the above count to fraudulently get a loan. The committee couldn't get a second on a motion, so the count is dead for the moment.

Glaizer: "This is the least clear count...this is a closer call for me."

The bank's lack of documentation on the loan gave the committee problems. Wade's letter apparently never made it into the bank's file - at least the file that was presented at the committee hearings.

On to the last count.

Update: The final count says that Wright exhibited a pattern of bad behavior, including soliciting fraudulent letters from state agencies and soliciting money for charities that he put in his own bank account.

The committee votes 6-0 to find "clear and convincing evidence this happened."

On to the punishment phase ... will be in a new post.

The committee is about to ponder what to do with Rep. Thomas Wright, a New Hanover County legislator, now that he has been found responsible for six counts of doing things that legislators ought not to do.

Previously today: here and here.

The committee is in recess until 6:30 p.m. Glaizer said that the committee will finish its work and recommend a punishment tonight.

Update: Until then click here to listen to Rep.Rick Glaizer talk about why Wright's solicitation of a fraudulent letter from a state employee in order to obtain a loan for a foundation that itself was not operating on the up-and-up is a bad thing.

The interim take from the Associated Press after the jump.

The special House Ethics Committee investigating Rep. Thomas Wright, D-New Hanover, voted 6 - 0 to recommend he be expelled. That recommendation now goes to the full House.

Previously today: here and here and here.

It fell to lawyer Bill Hart, who has served as the committee's de facto prosecutor, to make the case for kicking Wright out of the General Assembly.

He listed the 11 House members who had been expelled between 1757 and 1880 for offenses ranging from getting into a fight after a card game to fraud, larceny and "gross prevarication."

"I would submit to you that the conduct of Rep. Wright matches or exceeds the conduct in those cases," Hart said.

(Update: Click here to listen to some of Hart's arguments during the punishment phase of the hearing.)

The committee apparently agreed with .

Wright and his lawyers did not present a defense or argument during the punishment phase of the proceedings.

He told the Associated Press before the committee's dinner break: "I'm highly disappointed in my colleagues," Wright told reporters after the hearing. "This was a joke ... how dare they sit in judgment."

One of his lawyers called the proceedings a "charade."

Committee members did not let his absense stop their judgement.

"This man who was once a very good legislature ... somewhere, some time ago, lost his way," said Committee Chairman Rick Glaizer. He called Wright's alleged transgressions "breathtakingly massive...Rep. Wright holds public office because of his lies."

From Rep. Laura Wiley, a member of the committee: "No one is above the law, no matter what good they may be trying to accomplish...There is not excuse for deliberate flouting of the law that we ourselves make."

More to come.

Update: Click here to listen to Rep. Laura Wiley, a High Point Republican, giver her comments on the case before voting to recommend expelling Wright.

Update: The proceedings now go to the full House.

Wright has a court date on March 31, and House leaders have said they don't want to interfere with the operation of the courts. On the other hand, House leaders have seemed eager to move these proceedings forward. I would, frankly, be shocked not to see a special session sometime before the May primaries.

A spokesman for Speaker Joe Hackney said that the timing of any special session would depend on the schedules of members and the courts.

Previously, Gov. Mike Easley said that he would call the General Assembly back to work as soon as he received word from Hackney.

Update: For balance, Click here for the closing argument made by Prof. Irving Joyner, one of Wright's attorneys. The clip joins him as he argues that legislators are allowed to amend their campaign finance reports. (He doesn't mention that his client hasn't attempted to amend the reports that lead to part of his troubles.)

Final note: There are many reasons that the House has not voted to expel one of its members for over 128 years. Among them: most folks in elected life genuinely have an interest in serving the public. As I've written before, it would be a mistake to paint all legislators with the same brush.

Also, this is a drastic, serious step. Irrespective of what you think of Wright and what should happen with him, expelling him from the legislature essentially voids the votes of all those in his district who put him in office. For better or worse, he's who they elected and forcibly depriving someone of their elected representation is the most radical of steps in our democracy. No level of government takes such a step lightly.

Another reason you haven't seen this kind of proceeding for a while: most folks who come under the kind of pressure and scrutiny that Wright has faced simply resign. The most recent example of this is former House Speaker Jim Black. It's hard to fight a legal case and defend one's House seat and represent your constituents. Wright, by the way, is on the ballot in the May primary.

We'll look for clarity in the next few days about what the timelines might be and how exactly the House will handle this most somber business. Since it hasn't been done in 128 years, I'm guessing there's no ready-mix rulebook lying about that lays out how to go about this sort of thing.

If you need to catch up, I'm posting the AP's summary of what exactly it is Wright is alleged to have done wrong.

Rep. Howard Coble, Greensboro Republican, wrote a piece on Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing in "The Hill," a newspaper that mainly services official Washington. From the lede of the Op/Ed:

If you are under the age of 20, half of you did not purchase a single compact disc last year. You still acquired music - both legally and illegally - but you did it exclusively online. According to today's teenagers, going to the mall to buy a CD is so last century!

The main point of the editorial - after the self-consciously unhip start - was to say that those who use P2P services are at risk of identity theft and to advocate for blocking such services.

Needless to say, it has drawn some negative criticism from various technology bloggers, here, here and from Public Knowledge. There Sherwin Siy writes

There's an interesting parallel between the conclusion that all p2p applications, since they can be used for infringement, must be blocked, and the conclusion that copyright infringers, since they have infringed via the Internet, must be kicked off the 'net.

This parallel is a perilously narrow view of the purposes of communication technologies. Telling a lie in public may result in penalties, but those penalties should never silence the offender by preventing him from speaking publicly again. But that is exactly what such policies do.

Coble is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet. That means he has some influence over how these laws get written up, although not as much as he did when he chaired it.

Rep. Brad Miller, a Raleigh Democrat who represents parts of Greensboro, has been keeping busy asking for stuff from the FBI. The FBI has kept busy not giving it to him and his colleagues. From this piece on the "Government Executive" website:

Nine months after House Science Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee leaders wanted details about the FBI's plans for a massive data collection and tracking program, little has been done to address their concerns. Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., and ranking member James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., asked for a GAO report on the National Security Branch Analysis Center last June. House Oversight and Government Reform National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee Chairman John Tierney, D-Mass., has joined their request.

The FBI sought $12 million for the center in fiscal 2008 to hire 59 employees, including 23 contractors and five FBI agents, according to the lawmakers' letter to the GAO. The effort would increase the FBI's ability to use "predictive models and patterns of behavior" to uncover terrorist sleeper cells, Justice Department documents said. The clearinghouse could hold 6 billion records by 2012, according to some estimates.

Update: Click here for a short online news story.

-=-=-=-=-=

Back in 1971 Greensboro lost the protest petition. Now the voices that say residents should get it back are getting the attention of local legislators.

(Don't know what I'm talking about. Read up: here / here / here / here.)

Rep. Pricey Harrison said this morning she has requested a bill be drafted that would repeal Greensboro's exemption from protest petition law. At least four other members of Guilford County's legislative delegation (Reps. Earl Jones and Alma Adams and Sen. Katie Dorsett, all Greensboro Democrats and Greensboro Republican Rep. John Blust) are aware of the issue and disposed to look at it.

If the delegation does decide to move forward, it won't be easy necessarily.

"I've briefly looked at the law," Blust said. "I do want to find out why in the world was Greensboro exempted. It seems like something that should be applied evenly across the state."

I just sent this to our online editors:

Greensboro residents will be able to get an up-close look at their state government in action in May.

The North Carolina General Assembly will meet in Greensboro at NCA&T’s Harrison Auditorium on May 22 at 11 a.m.

Both the House and Senate will travel for the day’s session, according to their Principal Clerk’s offices.

They are tentatively scheduled to handle a resolution honor the city on its 200th anniversary, although they could vote on any other official business.

The session is being held to help celebrate Greensboro’s bicentennial.

From Speaker Hackney's office:

Raleigh _ Speaker Joe Hackney of the North Carolina House of Representatives has asked Gov. Mike Easley to call a special session of the General Assembly for 10 a.m., Thursday, March 20, to consider a resolution regarding the recommendations of the Select Committee to Investigate Alleged Misconduct and Other Matters Included in Indictments against Rep. Thomas Wright.

The select committee made its recommendations last week after four days of hearings.

Alright...I've got to go on the campaign trail and commit some journalism for a couple days ... y'all play nice.

The Guilford County legislative delegation (The House and Senate members that represent some piece of the county) will hold two - count 'em two! - public hearings this Spring before heading back to Raleigh in May.

Hearing number 1 will be in High Point, Monday, April 14, 6 to 8 p.m. at the High Point City Council Chambers: 211 S. Hamilton Street.

Hearing number 2 will be Monday, April 21, 6 to 8 p.m. in Greensboro at the Melvin Municipal Building (what normal people call city hall) on Eugene Street. That meeting will be televised.

From a news release:

Both of the hearings are open to any citizen who would like to address the delegation. The hearing will provide an opportunity for the delegation to receive input from citizens about their concerns and issues, as well as provide opportunities to receive input from local municipalities and other entities representing Guilford County.

[snip]

Citizens are encouraged to come to either location to share their thoughts with their elected members of the North Carolina General Assembly. Speakers will be given limited time (3 minutes) and are asked to come early to sign up or contact Representative Jeffus' office. Please be prepared to give your name, address, telephone number and organization. Organizations and individuals who need additional information are asked to contact Representative Jeffus' office. Email address is maggiej@ncleg.net or telephone is (919) 733-5191.

For those who haven't been to one of these shindigs, it's a chance to lobby the legislative delegation (or as many of them as show up) about stuff you think they should work on in the coming legislative session. Invariably, various government, nonprofit and industry types will line up to speak about their pet projects du jour, but there has been a fair amount of input from regular citizens at past meetings.

Update: Click here for Jennifer's story.

-=-=-=-=-=

My colleague Jennifer Fernandez was in Judge John O. Craig's courtroom today listening in on a hearing on video slot machines. Click here to read my preview from Friday's paper. (And click here for a little bit deeper story from a few weeks back. Also a prior blog post.)

Jennifer reports that Craig granted an injunction that will keep ALE agents from pressing cases against stores that have machines with software from Hest Technologies and International Internet Technologies. But he's also ordered the two companies not to expand their operations into more stores, Jennifer reports.

We'll have a story on the hearing in Saturday's paper.

The AP reports that the N.C. Court of Appeals has ruled the lottery was properly passed in 2005. In their opinion, the justices say:

...the North Carolina Education Lottery Act is not a revenue bill and thus was not required to be enacted under the mandated constitutional procedural requirements. Because we conclude that the Lottery Act was not a bill "enacted to raise money on the credit of the State, or to pledge the faith of the State directly or indirectly for the payment of any debt, or to impose any tax upon the people of the State," (See footnote 2) we agree with the trial court that the Lottery Act does not constitute a revenue bill.

Basically, that's a long way of saying that the General Assembly wasn't required to follow the same procedures needed to pass a tax or issue bonds in order to pass the state lottery.

However, there is an odd disconnect between the plane English understanding of things and the legal definition of the process, particularly the court says the lottery isn't a revenue agency and the lottery itself is busy telling you how much revenue it has raised.

A split opinion on the appeals court means the state Supreme Court will likely get a chance to reconcile language and reality.

Alcoa, the big aluminum company, is in the process of repermitting its power generating station on the Yadkin River. Its permit is due to expire this year and the company has applied to the FERC to renew.

Sen. Phil Berger, the Republican leader in the state Senate, says the state should oppose the renewal based on drought concerns. He copied us scruffy media types on a letter he sent to Gov. Mike Easley:

Dear Governor Easley,

I understand that Alcoa, Inc. has filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for renewal of a license to generate electricity at facilities on the Yadkin River in Stanly County. If FERC approves the request, Alcoa’s electric power generation will allow it to divert water from the Yadkin River for its profit while providing no benefit to the people of North Carolina. Renewal will give Alcoa this control over North Carolina’s natural resource for a period of 50 years.

In 1958, when its current license was issued, Alcoa provided a number of jobs to North Carolina’s citizens; sadly, this is no longer the case. In 2002, Alcoa laid off hundreds of North Carolina workers and no longer provides employment for a substantial number of our people. If Alcoa is granted a new license, North Carolina’s precious and valuable water resources will be utilized for profits of an out-of-state corporation instead of being used for the people of North Carolina.

You have emphasized the need to preserve and protect North Carolina’s water resources, especially during the recent drought conditions; this is an opportunity for you to further those efforts in a tangible way. I hope you will take action to protect North Carolina’s citizens and their water resources by opposing Alcoa’s FERC application.

Sincerely,
Philip E. Berger

I'm catching up on my e-mail after a quick trip out of town to do some training (I can now fetch, roll over and shake paws on command) and just saw an e-mail from the House Speakers' office with the rules for tomorrow's session on board. For those not living and breathing Jones Street, this is the special session to consider whether to expel or otherwise punish Rep. Thomas Wright for various misdeeds, including soliciting donations for a nonprofit that didn't go into a nonprofit's bank account.

Of the most interest in the temporary rules governing this session:

(5) Adoption of a resolution to expel a member of the House of Representatives shall require an affirmative vote of twothirds of all the members of the House, notwithstanding any other provision of law.

That's quite a bit higher than the simple majority standard that I think a lot of us pundits were expecting.

"It's a serious matter so they wanted to set a high bar," said Bill Holmes, a spokesman for Speaker Joe Hackney. He said that the two-thirds standard will also avoid possible charges of undue partisanship. (One could imagine, for example, that if enough Democrats decided not to show for tomorrow's proceedings, Republicans might actually hold enough or nearly enough votes to win a simple majority vote.)

For those trying to do the math, if all 120 members show, 41 members would have to vote against expulsion to keep Wright in the House. Since Wright presumably gets a vote, the question is simple: does he have 40 colleagues who think he ought to keep serving?

He has at least one.

Reports earlier in the day said Rep. Earl Jones of Greensboro would offer a censure motion rather than back plans to expel Wright.

Either way, the ball gets rolling on all this at 10 a.m. in her post Tuesday, the barkeep rounded up the rumor report. I tend to agree with her, Wright is much more likely to burn his friends and neighbors rather than just tuck tail and resign at this point.

Two final notes (for tonight) on Thursday's special session called to discipline Thomas Wright:

• * I'm told that the Legislative Black Caucus, which is headed by Greensboro Rep. Alma Adams, decided not to take a position on expulsion. The caucus, you may remember, accused colleagues of rushing to judgment on Wright last year.

  It sounds to me like the caucus couldn't reach a consensus on what ought to be done and didn't want to put members in a position of having to answer why they didn't vote with the group. That means there are at least a few members in the group who feel strongly that Wright needs to be expelled.

• * I asked Greensboro Rep. Earl Jones if he stood by earlier comments that he would ask for censure not expulsion. He does.

  "The reasonable, practical and just thing to do is to censure him," Jones said. "We should respect the democratic process and the legal process." Jones said that voters in the May 6 primary will have the option of keeping Wright, and court proceedings are already under way.

  When asked if he thought he censure idea would fly, Jones said, "I don't know. This train is running pretty fast here."

  He did say party leaders assured him the rules for tomorrow's session would allow him to at least run the censure motion.

See you at 10 a.m. Thursday.

A few quick notes to set the scene at the General Assembly today:

There are at least 112 members on the floor of the House today.

Rep. Thomas Wright, who has been accused by investigators of disobeying campaign finance laws, misappropriating money intended for a nonprofit, using his position to bully a state bureaucrat into producing a fraudulent letter, and other unsavory stuff, is present.

Rules have been adopted.

On his way in, Rep. Paul "Skip" Stam, a Republican who say on the ethics committee that has recommended expulsion made a few comments on the way into the chamber.

"None of would like to be here today. It's not a pleasant thing at all," he said.

Rep. Earl Jones of Guilford County has carried through with his promise to offer a censure alternative. He is introducing it now.

Jones called expulsion a "serious, extreme" punishment. "It is not practical, just or fair to do so given the present circumstances," Jones said.

Jones argued, among other things, pointed out there is a court case ongoing and that Wright could be found not guilty. "If Rep. Wright is exonerated by the courts, is it fair or justice," for the House to expell him.

He further argued that expulsion disenfranchises voters in Wright's district.

Rep. Rick Glaizer, chairman of the ethics, disagrees.

"I don't know how we argue...how we tell the public that $180,000 is censure. You've got to do $250,000 before we expell you," Glaizer said, referring to the amount on money that Wright is said to have pocketed but not reported to the Board of Elections.

Jones came back to debate a second time.

"We shouldn't just be expelling members without a higher standard than clear and convincing evidence," Jones said. He continued later, "Beyond a reasonable doubt, is that too much to ask."

Rep. Wright has stood up to speak to Rep. Jones' motion for censure rather than expulsion.

"I am innocent of the criminal charges before me, however, I need an opportunity to prove that. This less than the appropriate setting to do that," he said.

He says he can't speak his mind and fully defend himself on the House floor without compromising his criminal case.

"My voters will have a chance to make that decision in 60 days," Wright said, his voice cracking.

The vote was 12 to 102. Debate on expulsion continues.

Rep. Hugh Holliman, Democratic majority leader, is now speaking.

Vote: 109-5. More later.

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

For those linking directly in to this page, click here to see more posts, including audio, from today's session.

The vote on censuring rather than expelling Rep. Wright was 12-102. Rep. Earl Jones, Rep. Alma Adams, and Rep. Maggie Jeffus all voted in favor.

The vote to expell Wright was 109-5.

Rep. Earl Jones was the only member of the Guilford delegation to vote against expulsion. Reps. Earline Parmon of Winston-Salem, Larry Womble of Winston-Salem, Mary McAllister of Fayetteville and Wright himself were the other no votes.

Rep. Maggie Jeffus, a Greensboro Democrat, has sat in the seat next to Wright for at least two sessions, and probably a few more than that - she couldn't remember. As such, she had the strangest seat in the House, next to Wright and his lawyers but forced to sit in judgment.

"It was very difficult to do this to a colleague, and a friend and seatmate, yet looking at what we looked at in the book and what we'd heard, I felt like I had not choice to do that," Jeffus said.

She did vote for Jones' censure motion, which would have over-rode the expulsion motion.

"I felt like we might give that a chance and see. In my own mind I think censure and expulsion are both very serious and in the end would have the same kind of result," she said.

Click here to listen to her thoughts.

Here are sounds and comments from the General Assembly session to expel Rep. Thomas Wright:

Wright did not have a lot to say after he was expelled today, letting his lawyers respond to questions from reporters. He did comment on one question about what he was hearing from people in his district. "They still support me...We'll let the people of the district make their decision soon." Click here to listen.

Previously: Rep. Maggie Jeffus.

One of Wright's defense lawyers, Irving Joyner of the North Carolina Central University Law School, called the House's action "a prime example of a rush to judgment. Click here to listen to some of his comments after the expulsion.

Rep. Laura Wiley of High Point sat on the special ethics committee that heard the bulk of the Wright case. "I think the seriousness and the evidence lead us to the only thing we could of done, which was expulsion," she said after the hearing. Click here to listen to more of her comments.

Rep. John Blust, a Greensboro Republican, said that getting rid of Wright only throws out one bad apple, but doesn't protect the entire barrel. "Until we stop having certain people be able to control the flow of bills at the expense of the entire body ... there's going to be abuse of that power." Click here to listen to more of his comments.

Rep. Earl Jones, a Greensboro Democrat, pushed for censure rather than expulsion. Click here to listen to his comments, made after ethics committee chairman Rick Glazier, a Democrat, and co-chairman Paul Stam, a Republican, urged the chamber to reject Jones' motion. "It's wrong to just trump and veto the voters who are going to go to the polls (during) the May 6 primary and decide Rep. Wright's fate," he said.

Wright spoke for less than four minutes in his own defense. Click here to listen to his full comments.

Rep. Hugh Holliman, a Davidson County Democrat and the House Majority Leader, offered the last piece of debate on the expulsion motion before it was voted. "Every other power and authority granted to us by the people of the state rests on our ability to make sure that above all, the members of our body are fit to serve the public," Holliman said. Click here to listen to his full comments.

That's it from me for now. The lady of the tavern has promised more audio, and the Legion of Dome has put up a short video of the day's proceedings.

It's pretty obvious why former Rep. Thomas Wright voted against his expulsion from the House Thursday. It may have been the one motive of his that wasn't questioned during speeches on the House floor.

But for the four others who voted not to expel Wright, that could be a tough vote to talk about in the upcoming election. But a quick check of SBOE filings shows that won't be much of a concern.

Rep. Earl Jones, of Greensboro, has no announced competition in the primary or general elections.

Reps. Earline Parmon, of Winston-Salem, has no announced competition in the primary or general elections.

Larry Womble, of Winston-Salem, has no announced competition in the primary or general elections.

Mary McAllister, of Fayetteville, faces Elmer Floyd in the primary. There is no registered Republican. Floyd has tried and failed to unseat McCallister three times.

That said, there are plenty of other honorables who voted to chuck Wright to the curb who don't have any competition to speak of. But the trend was worth noting.

From this story in Sunday's paper:

Kay Hagan's chief rival in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate has accused the state senator of using her status as a powerful and politically connected committee chairwoman to intimidate his potential supporters.

"There is an inside machine that is working very hard to lock down the money in the state," said Jim Neal, a Chapel Hill investment banker and Greensboro native. On the stump and in phone calls to potential donors, Neal has told audiences that potential supporters were being "muscled" by political operatives friendly to Hagan.

"Someone will agree, 'Jim, I'll throw a fundraiser for you.' And then all of a sudden we won't hear from them for a while and the next thing you know, they're throwing a fundraiser for Kay (Hagan)," Neal said when asked to describe how this muscling worked.

Hagan said she had "not heard of this at all" and said she was shocked Neal was making the allegation as part of his stump speech.

Coming next Sunday: profiles of the two leading candidates in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary.

We may not know who UNC System President Erskine Bowles is supporting in the U.S. Senate primary, but I just got word from a Hagan staffer that Crandall Bowles, Mr. Bowles' wife, and others will be hosting a fundraiser for Hagan tomorrow in Charlotte.

Lest you be tempted to think that Mrs. Bowles is just a surrogate for her husband, please remembers she's very much her own woman. She is chairman of Springs Industry and serves on other corporate boards.

Obama Wednesday. Clinton Thursday. Profiles of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate race on Sunday.

So there's not a lot of time for legislative or other government news this week. But if you're interested in those lining up to take on Howard Coble this fall, here's a quick and dirty summary of a debate held Tuesday night.

So Presidential contender Barack Obama was in town today. Live coverage went mostly to main site:

• * pictures.
• * Story updates.
• * Doug's thoughts.

I'm waiting on our tech boys to upload some video of a newser Obama did after his speech. Among the things he was asked: Who ever won that basketball game between him and Sen. Edwards back in February.

"I will confess. Edwards took it. Now he had his home floor. And he's got an interesting game. He doesn't have much range, but from about 14-to-16 feet, he does not miss. So when I took it outside, beyond the 3-point line, he couldn't go out there. But he hit like eight in a row from 14-to-16 and that mid-range jumper was tough. So I'm going to have to get a rematch."

Will post more links when I get them.

Thursday, Sen. Hillary Clinton will be in the state. We'll be staffing her Winston-Salem appearance.

If any of you are still interested, we have video from Sen. Barack Obama's appearance in Greensboro. The third video segment on the page is a group interview with Obama that helped flesh out this story.

I caught Sen. Hillary Clinton's appearance in Wake County today. She used it to highlight a $2.5 Billion per year workforce training program.

During her speech, she praised Gov. Mike Easley's efforts to back programs like Learn and Earn that let students get college credit and work experience in High School.

She didn't slag Obama, but did take a few shots at the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain.

"It's time for a president who is ready on day on to be Commander-in-Chief of the economy," Clinton said. Then, referring to McCain's recent economic policy speech, she called his plan a do-nothing approach.

"It seems like if the phone were ringing, he'd just let it ring, and ring, and ring," Clinton said. "I think we've had enough of president who didn’t know enough about the economy."

The News & Record is mustering for coverage of her appearance in Winston-Salem this afternoon. Worth noting, Clinton was more than an hour late to her first campaign appearance this morning.

Hillary Clinton was in Winston-Salem Thursday evening, after stops outside of Raleigh and in Fayetteville. From the paper and website:

• Today's policy story.

• The color story for Winston.

• This live story - in bloggy format.

• Video.

• Photos.

If former President Bill Clinton is holding to his schedule, he's in Greensboro right now and will be in High Point at 9:30 a.m. Others will run down those events for you. I'm heading to the U.S. Senate debate tonight in New Bern.

Over at the Decision 2008 blog I have a post recapping the spin from Friday's U.S. Senate debate. When I get it, I'll post a link to the story I wrote from the forum, which will have more of the substance. Update: Click here for Saturday's story.

In the story, I noted the following from Lumberton lawyer Marcus Williams:

On a question regarding campaign finance, Williams expressed frustration with being relegated by the media to a second tier of candidates.

"Print media arbitrarily decide that if you're wallet is big, you're a leading candidate," Williams said, suggesting there be "standards for the media to provide parity of coverage."

Now Williams has a point, to a point. In the same story I wrote of State Sen. Kay Hagan and Jim Neal:

Hagan and Neal are the front-runners in the race by virtue of their campaign organizations, fund-raising and relatively widespread name recognition compared with the three other Democrats in the race.

Lexington trucking company owner Duskin Lassiter, Moncure podiatrist Howard Staley and Lumberton lawyer Marcus Williams are also in the race to challenge the likely Republican nominee, incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

So, what gives? Are we nasty print reporters trying to pre-determine the outcome of the election? Do we just not like some candidates?

Well, no.

The election season was already nuts before the American people decided they wanted the presidential primary to continue into May. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to suck up all kinds of time and attention that was already in scarce supply.

In the print industry: space in the newspaper is a dwindling commodity, compared to where it was several years ago. Also, you may have noticed, there aren't as many print reporters around and by goodness you readers seems to have a lot on your plates as well.

All of that calls for some judicious thinking and allocation of resources. Given unlimited time, space and manpower, everyone would get the same volume of coverage and that would be great. But we don't have unlimited amounts of anything so choices have to be made.

Profiles of the candidates I have coming for this Sunday are a good example. I spent a considerable amount of time with Hagan and Neal. I spent a day or two on the road with each, I've chatted with each on the phone a bunch. They're both getting a share of A1. The other three candidates are getting much shorter shrift.

So how is it that folks like Lassiter, Staley and Williams get assigned to a second tier of candidates? It seems a little unfair, but there are some objective measures that people in my business use:

• * Money - ability to operate factor. No, money isn't everything. But you've got to have a little of it to run a statewide campaign. There's simply no way to shake hands with every voter in the state and free media (newspaper and broadcast coverage) will only get you so far.

  Money can buy advertising, organization, yard signs, and all the other stuff that helps a campaign work.

  As of my last check with the FEC: Williams had not filed a report that I could find. Lassiter had raised a total of $635, $600 of which he dontated to himself. Staley had $100 cash on hand.

• * Money - indicator of confidence. When someone donates to a campaign, they're indicating support. Lots of donors means lots of supporters. Large money donations means that supporters with bucks have a high degree of confidence in the campaign.

  Think of it like stock. People put their money into a campaign because they see it as a good investment that will pay off in a successful candidate. (Yeah, I know, the whole buying and selling of political powers is creepy, but leave that for another day. We're talking tactics, not ethics, here.) If you've not had anyone to invest in your campaign, that's essentially a sign of low investor confidence.

• * Time. Hagan and Neal are pretty much campaigning full time right now. They're doing more events and town hall meetings that I can keep up with.

  The other three candidates are still working at their day jobs. There's nothing wrong with that, but Lassiter told me in an interview before the debate that he's working 70 hours a week at his business. That doesn't leave a whole lot of time for campaigning relative to someone who is going 24/7.

• * Staff. Hagan and Neal have a blend of professional and volunteer staff that organize meet-and-greets, run the website, spin reporters, network, fundraise and do all the grunt work of a campaign.

  The other three have some of that, but their organizations are a relative handful of folks with relatively little experience in this kind of fight. Hagan is rolling with DSCC-vetted staffers and Neal has hired an outside consultant with experience running "outsider" campaigns.

• * Endorsements. I'm not of the camp that says endorsements swing big blocks of voters. But when candidates go through a politically-interested group's vetting process and come out with a seal of approval, that's a good sign. Neal and Hagan have between them virtually every endorsement of consequence so far this campaign.

• * Web presence. Hagan and Neal both have pretty good, full featured websites. Neal had his up longer and has probably developed it a bit more, but both are respectable.

  Williams' site has no content as of Friday. Lassiter has lots of detail on his proposals up, but is light on the web 2.0 features that Internet hipsters crave these days. The same is pretty much true of Staley's site.

• * Polling. Polls aren't always on point, as we learned in New Hampshire this year. And the polls done in North Carolina don't all agree numbers-wise. But they do agree on this much: Hagan and Neal have sizeable chunks of the population with the other three candidates trailing.

• * X-factor. Are the campaigns doing something outside all the conventional measures that's getting attention? Are they so strong on one measure that they are making up for weakness on others.

  Think Larry Kissell here. The guy was short on cash but had so robust a web presence and grass-roots support it made up for a lot in his campaign against Robin Hayes. I haven't seen an X-factor indicator in the U.S. Senate campaign.

• * Letters, e-mails, postings, etc... Candidates with vocal supporters tend to have their names show up in the Letters to the Editor columns of newspapers, get traffic on sites like Facebook, and have those who surrogate for them on blogs and other forums.

No one of those indicators would be enough for me to make a judgment on a candidate. But taken together, they're a pretty powerful group of indicators and go a long way to explaining why candidates get grouped like they do.

And that is not to say that Lassiter, Williams and Staley are not in earnest. They are. They're thoughtful men with a grasp on the issues of the day. Mr. Romoser over at Trail Mix put it well back when John Ross Hendrix was still in the race and Williams was not:

The little-known trio may not have Elizabeth Dole quaking in her boots just yet. But these are serious men who, in interviews last week, showed a sophisticated understanding of the issues facing the nation.

But that only gets a candidate so far. They have to be able to translate those smarts into a campaign that wins votes.

Profiles in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate:

Click here for State Sen. Kay Hagan, of Greensboro. Click here for slide show with audio.

Click here for Investment advisor Jim Neal, of Chapel Hill. Click here for slide show with audio.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole used and Op/Ed piece in the Washington Times today lay out her case the U.S. should spend 4 percent of GDP on military spending. This is an idea pushed by The Heritage Foundation and taken up by pushed by military leaders earlier this year.

Today's fun from the presidential front includes discussions of endorsements and the use of the word "disenfranchise."