News-Record.com

I had to scoot out of town unexpectedly this weekend - and let me tell you, the drive to Atlanta just stinks - and am just back in town. On my way back, friends let me know the House was getting ready to roll out its budget.

The budget bill and accompanying money report are posted online.

According to what House Speaker Joe Hackney told members Monday night, the House will run the bills through the Finance, Appropriations and other committees Tuesday. If Republicans don't pose procedural objections, the full House will debate the bill Wednesday and Thursday. After that, the Senate gets to take a crack at the bill.

The bill is likely to evolve over the next few days. There are always tweaks this way and that. But will less money available this year, expect the fights over the scraps in the next few days to get pretty darned heated.

Total spending is $21.3 billion. Republicans have called a presser to talk about the budget Tuesday morning, and I'm guessing they're going to say it spends too much.

After a quick run through the two documents, here are some things I noted:

• * Funding for the furniture market still takes a 1 percent cut to promotion budget.

• * A big facet of Gov. Mike Easley's mental health reform plans had been to consolidate the Local Management Entities that govern mental health services. The House budget bill would prohibit the governor and DHHS from doing this without scrutiny from the General Assembly.

• * UNCG gets a $42.7 million classroom building.

• * UNCG and NCA&T gets $1.85 million to plan for a joint data-processing center.

• * It will cost you more to get married and be born. The fee for a marriage license would go from $50 to $60 under the House plan. Newborn screening fees would go from $14 to $18.91.

The original draft of the House budget released last night was remarkable for its lack of local projects. There was no money, leadership said, to pay for lots of small projects when there were big priorities - such as mental health and education - that needed tending and not a lot of money to go around.

But the house appropriations committee is hard at work this afternoon and a Greensboro project that was not in the original draft has made its return.

The International Civil Rights Museum would receive $245,000 from the state under an amendment put forward and won by Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat and one of the "big chairs" of the appropriations committee. Originally, the museum appeared nowhere in the House spending plan.

At this point in the game, the honorables can't create money with new taxes and they can't exchange money between different sections of the budget. So if there's a project one wants funded in the "General Government" section - as is the museum - one has to find money in that part of the budget. You can't, for example, take money from the natural and economic development section and shift it to education.

Adams found money used in the administration of the legislature and shifted it to the museum.

"I'm just trying to keep it alive so it will go to conference," Adams said.

The real game here for someone trying to fund a project is to make sure it is either in the governor's budget, the House budget or the Senate budget. All three, of course, would be best. But as long as it's in one, the item is alive. The civil rights museum was not in the governor's budget and the Senate has yet to take a whack at their spending plan.

Adams said she hoped the Senate would put funding into their budget. Either way, she said, the goal was to try to win as much as $1 million in state support for the museum this year.

Adams also said that Rep. Hugh Holliman - the House majority leader and someone who sits in on high-level budget discussions - had run and won an amendment that would put more money into the High Point Furniture Market. The original draft cut promotional aid to the market by 1 percent. Holliman's amendment would boost support by something close to $600,000, Adams said.

My friend Taft Wireback has been writing about problems with the state tire contract for a while now, including a proposal to fix the current system.

The bill in question comes in both House and Senate flavors, and it is the Senate version that looks like it might run first.

The Senate Commerce Committee heard the bill today but was on the verge of voting the thing down before Chairman R.C. Soles figured out it was about to die and ended the meeting. It would come back another day, he said.

Ralph Edelberg, an engineer with the Division of Purchasing and Contracts, helped cause the delay. He said the bill would restrict the division's ability to get contracts that various state agencies want.

Members of the committee were concerned that the bill's language would specifically exclude White's Tire Service, of Wilson, from bidding on the state tire contract because of the "bead-to-bead" process they use to repair process.

Sen. Tony Rand, the Senate majority leader, said that he thought the bill was suppose to open the state tire contract to more competition. But he complained that it looked like it went to the opposite direction, making it so at least one company could not compete.

"It looks to me like we're just flipping it, we're favoring the other side," Rand said.

That "other side" would be companies like BesTreads in Winston-Salem and Snider Tire of Greensboro.

Meanwhile, Sen. Katie Dorsett said he objection was that the state purchasing division had not been consulted on the crafting of the bill.

More to come on this one.

If you live in Rockingham County, you've probably heard about the proposed horse park. (More here.)

Well, now the state House of Representatives are well aware of the project as well.

The House was working on its budget today, and the Appropriations Committee spent something like 10 hours today making tweaks and tucks. Our story begins at the end of this marathon when Rep. Nelson Cole brings in something like the 77th amendment of the day.

To listen while you read, click here to listen to the 10 minutes or so of committee discussion and vote.

As it was originally drafted, the budget included $3.34 million to build a horse barn at the Hunt Horse Complex at the state fair grounds in Raleigh.

Cole's amendment takes that money and moves it down I-40, up Rt. 29 and up to the "Upper Piedmont Agricultural Research Station."

The what now?

Regular readers will recall the ongoing tug-of-war involving Ag Commissioner, Steve Troxler, NC State and a cast of thousands. Those research stations are spread across the state, some managed by the Ag Department, some by the universities.

Well, the "Upper Piedmont Agricultural Research Station" is in Rockingham County, right next to Chinqa Penn.

Already, NCA&T conducts some research there.

Why mention A&T?

Glad you asked.

As it turns out, economic developers in Rockingham County have dreamed up a big horse show complex as a way to spur development in the area. At the same time, A&T's equestrian program has had designs on a new facility.

So the economic developers and the A&T folks realize they're working toward similar agendas.

Back to the Appropriations meeting.

Cole's amendment sends the $3.34 million to A&T. The equine program gets to build a big barn and other horse-related items at the research station, which now looks a bit more relevant. To boot, Rockingham's "Horse Park of the South" gets a jump start.

"They will be a joint but separate venture," Cole said.

The Appropriations Committee passed the amendment on a voice vote.

Again, click here to listen to the 10 minutes or so of committee discussion and vote.

You might think that Wake County representatives might have an issue with the change.

You'd be right.

"That barn belongs at the Hunt Horse Complex," Rep. Grier Martin said after the meeting. While Rockingham County deserves its horse complex, he said, it shouldn't come at the Hunt Horse Complex's expense.

Martin and Cole left the meeting room and walked back over to the legislative building together. It seemed like they might try to reach some sort of détente.

Cole's take is that Wake County doesn't necessarily need more state investment.

"My question is, what do they need in Raleigh to generate economic development," Cole said. "We've got to rebuild our (Rockingham County's) economy ... All the prosperity in North Carolina is along the interstates."

In the mean time, at least for the moment, Rockingham County and the Triad can claim an odd sort of budget victory in what is definitely an odd sort of budget.

Immediate questions that need answering: What happens to land that the county has already bought for the complex? Will the Cole amendment survive tomorrow's House floor session or will Grier nab the money back? And what will happen when the Senate gets in the picture?

The House ran it's budget through the Finance and Appropriations committees Tuesday. Next stop is the House floor session that will begin at 2 p.m.

Update: You can click here to see the post-surgery bill. (Thanks to Mr. Cohen for the heads up.) Update: Click here for the updated money report.

On the floor, the honorables can run amendments to the bill, so if you tune into session you'll hear folks trying to make some more tweaks and tucks.

If you're interested in some Triad-centric highlights, you can check in on Rockingham's horse complex here or civil rights museum money here.

I'm not going to try to recount the entire day of slicing and dicing here. The AP's Gary Robertson has a good take on why Gov. Easley is unhappy with the House budget. Update: And Miss Laura has more on the day at the tavern.

I do have a couple bits of audio to share, though.

Rep. Pat Hurley, a Randolph County Republican, had set out to run an amendment that would restrict the growth of lottery commission salaries. Specifically, it would keep any lottery commission employee from getting paid more than the governor.

You may recall that lottery commission employees have been in line for a 5 percent race at a time when most state employees are looking at 1.5 percent. That idea got some unfavorable attention.

Click here to listen to Hurley pitch her amendment and some debate.

Rep. Bill Owens, a Democrat and Rules Chairman, and Rep. Alma Adams, an Appropriations Committee Chairman and Greensboro Democrat, combined to talk her out of the amendment.

"I've made my point and I think you see that," Hurley said.

Fair enough, but I'm not so sure that amendment wouldn't have passed the committee. Liberal Democrats and Republicans aren't enamored with the lottery and might have taken the opportunity to tweak the state's gambling enterprise.

Heck, Hurley didn't even have the best quote on the amendment. That came from Rep. Joe Kiser, a Republican and former sheriff who planted tongue firmly in cheek to quip:

"By paying these high salaries we're doing nothing but taking money away from the children."

Hurley brought it back later as a study of salary grades across state government. You can click here to listen to her fully back down.

My bet: someone else tries to run the lottery limitation bill Wednesday on the House floor.

Today is a big lobby day at the General Assembly, with several groups coming down to press their agendas here at the legislature. Among those here today are folks who would like the state to curtail city's abilities to force annexations. Click here, here and here for background.

Among those up here are Michael Savicki, of the Cow Palace neighborhood outside Lexington in Davidson County. And yes, that's a model guillotine.

"We've been needing a symbol, in my opinion, to get national attention," Savicki said. If his group were able to generate enough negative press, he said, people would stop moving to the state and then legislators would be forced to deal more quickly with annexation issues.

You can listen to him explain things here:

Funny thing: the stop annexation folks are down here as the North Carolina League of Cities, whose members are on the other side of the issue. It has been interesting to watch the folks who are cross-agendas wander about the building tonight.

Apparently, the anti-annexation people are planning to protest outside a wine and cheese function the league is throwing for legislators tonight.

... the House included the $2.7 million to renovate the polar bear exhibit. House members also included $600,000 to rebuild the African Pavilion.

Sorry kids: the $2.7 million for a permanent the children's zoo area got axed.

As I sit here listening to the honorables read their budget out loud to their colleagues, I can catch up on some things that have gone untended. Among them: linking up to a blog that was new something like a year ago.

Go check out Talk Politics by UNC's Leroy Towns and Anne Johnston.

The House passed the budget on a 102-12 vote today. That's a tentative okay and the honorables will debate the bill again on Thursday before delivering a final verdict. The bill then heads to the Senate, which if it follows historical patters, will rework the thing pretty good before getting into final negotiations with the House.

For those following the Rockingham County horse complex saga, funding for that got trimmed back.

Rep. Nelson Cole had raided funds slated for the N.C. State Fairgrounds horse complex for the Rockingham project. He gave $900,000 of the $3.34 million he took back to the Wake County project, will keeping the rest for Rockingham.

My guess is that neither number is going to be the final amount in the budget, but both are not eligible for the final and most important draft.

From today's paper: local projects in High Point, Greensboro and Rockingham County made out well in the budget.

The honorables passed the budget 102-12 Wednesday but the House has to vote again today before sending it on to the Senate, which will do their own thing before everyone sits down to do a compromise budget.

In action this morning, we're seeing more amendments.

Of note, Rep. Skip Stam's amendment that would have lead to a discussion on repealing local land transfer tax authority has been ruled out of order in four different ways, so it won't be heard.

The big debate of the morning so far has been whether the state should fork over another $1 million to the Johnson & Wales culinary school in Atlanta. The addition money would get the state up to $6 million on its $10 million commitment to the Charlotte school, made during the days of House Speaker Jim Black's reign.

More to come.

Final vote 104-10.

On to the Senate.

As they say (or used to) in the news biz: Get me rewrite! If tradition holds, they'll produce a bill substantially different from what the House put forward.

I'm told we'll likely see them roll out something in a week from Monday.

Guilford County Commissioner Linda Shaw is getting ready to step away from her post as Republican National Committeewoman.

Her replacement will be elected at the North Carolina Republican state convention in Greensboro this weekend. At the same time, the party is expected to confirm Rep. David Lewis as Republican National Committeeman.

Republicans I've spoken with this week say they only know of one candidate, Mary Frances Forrester, who is running to replace Shaw. Other nominations could arise from the floor, but Shaw and other leaders say Forrester is likely to get the nod.

Forrester is the wife of Sen. Jim Forrester, but has been a party insider in her own right. She is a former chairwoman of the Gaston County Republican Party, has been a delegate to the national convention and has served in roles such as parliamentarian and bylaws chairman for various GOP organs.

She attracted some less than welcome attention from the gay press when she penned this piece for the N.C. Christian Action League website.

My fellow Christians, make no mistake. It is under the guise of tolerance that the homosexual agenda is seeking to change the course of Western Civilization, redefine the family and rob our children of their innocence.

Reaction came here, here, here, and here, among other places.

My guess is that it's unlikely the furor surrounding her piece probably won't be much of a roadblock to winning the committeewoman seat.

In a comment on a prior post, alert reader Doug asks why the News & Record hasn't written about the latest Mike Easley flying about on state aircraft story.

There are two ways stories make it into the paper: one, the AP or other wire services we subscribe moves a version we can use - that hasn't happened of a staff member like myself writes it. I've been assigned to other tasks this week (with varying degrees of success) and I'm not sure how this story would rank priority wise at any rate. Here's why:

The latest story in question was this one in Carolina Journal, a publication of the Conservative John Locke Foundation. It reads:

RALEIGH — When Gov. Mike Easley and the first lady fly in state aircraft, most of their trips include a connection to Brunswick County, where the couple owns two homes. Easley does not reimburse the state for any portion of the coastal trips, although state documents apparently require that he do so.

Easley and his wife, Mary, flew on state-owned aircraft 237 days over the past four years, according to records obtained by Carolina Journal from the N.C. Department of Commerce, which is charged with managing the three aircraft available to the governor. The actual period of study was from Jan. 1, 2004 through April 10, 2008.

It's interesting stuff, but one reason the story may not be causing much of a ruckus - I've not seen it in the N+O or Charlotte O or other papers - is that the gist of it is not new. Consider, the News & Observer wrote the following in 2002:

Easley has been flown to or from his home on the Cape Fear River 16 times this year in the state's Sikorsky 76, a seven-passenger helicopter operated by the Department of Commerce.

Easley spokeswoman Cari Boyce said the governor travels to Southport frequently because he lives there. In addition, she said, Easley has a southeastern office in Southport, although she did not elaborate whether it is in his home or somewhere else in Southport. There is no line item for such an office in the budget.

In any event, an analysis of Commerce Department flight logs shows that Easley has traveled by helicopter to Southport for as many as seven weekends this year. He has used the 4-year-old, $6.8 million helicopter to go home more than for anything else.

And he has done so at a cost to the state of roughly $2,050 per flight hour, according to the Department of Commerce. That adds up to more than $30,000 in the first five months of the year. Easley flew far less last year, making just five trips to Southport or Bald Head Island, another coastal resort where the governor owns property.

There is no policy in North Carolina prohibiting the use of state aircraft for personal use -- leaving the choice ultimately up to Easley .

Boyce said the governor's method of travel is purely a matter of security and is determined by Bryan Beatty, secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety and the man ultimately in charge of protecting the governor.

Beatty said convenience and time management are also factors. Easley is the chief executive of a government that spends $26 billion in federal and state dollars and employs 227,000 people. His schedule is tight. His drop-offs and pick-ups at Southport are usually on the way to or from official state business -- a speech in Charlotte, a school appearance in Goldsboro.

It often makes sense from security and time-management standpoints to travel by air, Beatty said.

Easley, I believe, ended up reimbursing the state for some expenses back then, although seems to have retrenched from that, if I read the CJ piece right. There have been, if memory serves, periodic follow-ups on the governor's flying habits - including whether helicopter use was consistent with calls for fuel conservation in the aftermath of Katrina.

One odd bit from this week's Carolina Journal piece made me scratch my head a bit:

Other frequent flyers on the state aircraft were UNC Chancellor James Moeser, who made 71 trips, and State Treasurer Richard Moore, who made 46 trips. Unlike Easley’s flights, all of Moeser’s and Moore’s trips appear to be solely for public business, where the trip started and ended in Raleigh. Neither was delivered to or picked up at locations not associated with the public business for which the aircraft were requested.

Well, no. Moeser's frequent use of the state aircraft to go schmooze bigwigs at various sporting events actually prompted the legislature to change the state law governing the use of the aircraft. I wrote a story, linked from this blog post, which said:

House budget writers want to make it more expensive for state officials to travel to athletic events on state aircraft, a provision apparently aimed at UNC-Chapel Hill's use of two state airplanes.

The Commerce Department owns two planes based in Raleigh...

[snip]

UNC-CH Chancellor James Moeser and other high-ranking officials also used the plane to travel to sports events 15 times in 2006, records obtained by the legislature's fiscal research division show.

For example, an entry on March 17 reads "Chancellor attending NCAA Basketball Championships."

Use of the state aircraft is "a time-management issue," a university spokesman said.

The Indy here in Raleigh also did a follow up piece. While I don't think any of those flights were illegal, there were plenty of folks questioning whether they were necessary or met the strict definition of "state business."

I've talked to some folks who question why the Dept. of Commerce needs an air fleet at all. After all, North Carolina isn't as big or detached as Alaska and that state's governor scored bit-time popularity points by selling the state jet.

Charlotte's Jim Morrill reports that Ada Fisher won the race for GOP National Committeewoman over Mary Frances Forrester.

That's pretty darned interesting, since Forrester was the odd-on favorite by most of the big-wig Republicans I talked with last week. Jim's brief indicates that Fisher's candidacy was something of a surprise, and it sure wasn't who the party leadership was counting on.

Fisher twice took on the unenviable task of trying to unseat Democrat Mel Watt from the 12th Congressional District, so probably won some love among the rank and file that way.

She is running this year for running for state House seat against Lorene Coates.

The Associated Press unleashed a big project on Congressional earmarks this weekend. As part of the project, they rolled out an interactive map, which shows North Carolina's per capita earmark rank is 42.

AP recruited some newspapers to help out with the reporting. I'm really liking the interactive feature the Asbury Park Press rolled out.

The bulk of the stories were based on data from a few different places available on the web, including the Taxpayers for Common Sense. It's fun to play with even if you're not writing a big ol' takeout. (Previously.)

I didn't spend much time around Jones Street today...I had a touch of the Obama-mania.

As it turns out, Monday night was kind of quiet, with the bulk of the time taken up honoring baseball teams and churches and what not.

For you raw milk fans, Rep. Pricey Harrison expects her bill disapproving the Ag Board's pet milk rule will be heard by the House Ag committee on Wednesday. A related bill, which would provide a mechanism by which it would be legal for humans to obtain and drink raw milk, will probably not get done this year, she said after session tonight.

From the "everyone's talking about it" file comes this story at the WECT site, which says Sen. Julia Boseman of Wilmington admitted in court to using marijuana. As the barkeep has commented, (last item) this one feels like it's going to get uglier before too long. (Star News has more.

One Tuesday's Senate floor calendar: The Jessica Lunsford Act. It had been in the Appropriations Committee and was moved to the floor by Sen. Tony Rand Monday night.

The Skip and Phil show (weekly presser by Skip Stam and Phil Berger, House and Senate Republican leaders) is due to return Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m. with talk about "earmarks" according to one staffer who stopped by the press room to prod us all to stop by.

Republican leaders Skip Stam (of the House) and Phil Berger (of the Senate) held their weekly news conference, this week focusing on earmarks. Check that, they were really focusing on all proposed spending increases in the budget.

(You can click here to listen to the full presser.)

Here's why I say this wasn't really an earmark newser:

They presented a list of Senators and a total amount by their name. They only attributed funding to the Senator if they were the primary sponsor on the list and it didn't matter if the spending was a departmental request, salary bump, or local project.

(Click here for the news release and list they handed out.)

So, if we take the person at the top of their list, state Sen. Katie Dorsett, a Democrat, gets tagged with a $617,511,720 total. But the bulk of that - to the tune of $500,000 or so - is a request for employee and teacher pay raises.

If you think about earmarks in the classic federal sense, such as the ones detailed in this post, salary increases wouldn't qualify. Earmarks are traditionally thought of as pork and/or spending that would benefit a legislator's home area. Pay raises would be a benefit across the state.

That said, the larger point that Senators had requested $2 billion in spending increases is well taken. However, it's worth noting that the majority of that spending probably won't make it in the final version of the bill.

I asked Stam if he knew what the comparison was between the amount of new spending requested by the House and what made the final cut. He quipped:

"The Democrats this year in the House were constrained by the lack of money. But if get next year to a situation where the economy is doing better, they're instinctively, perhaps genetically, inclined to spend whatever money is there, where as Republicans will look more at priorities and only spend what is necessary."

He added, "I was kidding about the genetic part."

There was a second part to the Republicans thesis here. Not only were Democrats requesting a lot of spending, but it is sometimes hard to track exactly how some items get in the budget.

Now, the very fact that Republicans can file a spending request list shows there is some transparency. But, as Berger notes, there will be some items that show up that are never debated of filed under a bill and no one will be able to tell how they got there, at least not by way of a paper trail. And the budget process is run by the Democratic leadership in such a way that it produces the result they want. Of course, you could make an argument that doing that sort of thing is one of the spoils of power.

At any rate, here's a video slice of Berger talking about that point for those who don't want to wade through the audio posted up above:

The North Carolina Association of Realtors sent out this press release today, which reads in part:

The North Carolina Association of Realtors®, with more than 43,000 members statewide, has made a $10 million commitment to continue its statewide efforts to protect private property rights and housing affordability.

The Association’s 160-member board of directors today approved a longterm plan to direct association dollars into a special advocacy fund designed to educate the public on key issues. An immediate infusion of $2 million will be made, and monies from future budgets also will be directed into the fund.

[snip]

The NC Association of Realtors® has been a leader in educating the public about state and local government efforts to impose a real estate transfer tax, also known as the home tax. Since November 2007, 19 counties have overwhelmingly voted against a tax on homeownership. In one county - Gates - voters have said no in two separate elections.

Translation: We're happy no local government has passed this thing but would much rather it not be an option and we're willing to spend a lot of money to make your constituents think you're a bad, bad, bad person if you don't vote to repeal.

Update: On a related note, our friends at the Associated Press just moved this little nugget:

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) _ The Senate Finance Committee wants to repeal a local tax option that has been shot down by voters in every county where it was considered.

The committee recommended Wednesday to expunge a law approved last year that allows counties to triple land transfer taxes if approved by local voters.

Since last fall, 19 counties have asked voters to approve the tax hike. None was successful. Democratic Sen. David Hoyle of Gaston County told the committee that county commissioners shouldn't have the option to include the request on the ballot. He said voters have already shown they're not interested.

The bill now goes to the full Senate.

Democratic leaders in the House don't seem interested in repealing the law. They rejected efforts to discuss the issue during last week's state budget bill debate.

The folks at the JWP Civitas Institute, a conservative policy group, just put out this study on N.C. Senate earmarks:

During the current "short" session of the General Assembly, more than half a billion dollars worth of earmark spending has been requested by the North Carolina Senate as identified by The Civitas Institute. The total for the two year budget cycle comes to roughly $1.3 billion in Senate earmark requests.

Now hold on a minute, you may be saying. Didn't the Republican leadership just come out with an earmark list that totaled $2 billion?

Yes, but the methodology is different. While the Republican leaders counted any appropriation bill as an earmark, the Civitas study used a more narrow definition, more in keeping with what the word "earmark" has come to mean: an appropriation that takes the decision making out of the executive branch's hands and sends money to one particular geographic area.

Of local note: Civitas calls Sen. Katie Dorsett's request for $500,000 to go to the John Coltraine Music Hall in High Point one "of the most outrageous/controversial items."

Update: Worth noting - I would still quibble with some of the items counted as earmarks. More than $2 million in drug and alcohol treatment grants that would be administered by the department of corrections wouldn't count in my mind because that money isn't "earmarked" for any one particular nonprofit or company.

For those in Guilford County interested in the H 1195, the Pleasant Garden Recall bill, it passed the House today. Because it's a local bill and has already passed the Senate, it's a done deal.

Folks from the Natural Science Center of Greensboro came to the General Assembly today, along with a lot of their colleagues from around the state. They set up booths all around the building and showed off whatever it was that made their museum special.

The Grassroots science museums took a cut in the House version of the budget and part of today's appearance was to argue for restoration of that funding.

The folks manning the Greensboro booth said that they'd had lots of traffic from pages and interns, although the day had been a bit light on legislators. (To be fair, pretty much every Wednesday there's some group of groups showing their wares, so it's pretty easy for this to blend into the background.)

Greensboro did have a pretty good display though. They had an infra red camera that showed how hot your body is.

Here's a picture of museum staffer Rick Betton aiming the camera at me and the thermal image it produced displayed on the monitor.

And here's Terri Cooke who donned a plastic bag as Martha Regester looked on. Even though Cooke was under the bag, the camera picked up both of the museum staffers just fine. I'm told the camera is useful if you're looking for critters at night.

No word on whether it's useful in finding room money in the budget for your program.

Groups hoping to end North Carolina's ban on collective bargaining rights for public workers rallied at the General Assembly today. North Carolina and Virginia are the only two states with such a prohibition.

H 1583 would end that ban.

Greensboro Mayor Yvonne Johnson came for the rally today, probably among the few municipal officials to be so outspoken in support of the bill. The North Carolina League of Municipalities, which lobbies on behalf of the state's towns and cities, has opposed the legislation.

"There's no question in my mind that we ought to have the option," Yvonne Johnson said on a phone call. "I think we could save a lot of legal fees that way...I think city employees should have the same rights as somebody who works at Wal*Mart."

For those following the dust up over Agriculture Research Stations, there appears to be an agreement to play nice among all involved.
Rep. Dewey Hill, who chairs the House Ag Committee, sent out an e-mail this afternoon saying H 2450 wouldn't move forward:

House Agriculture Committee Members:

HB 2450 Study Ag. Research Stations/Develop Plan will not be moving forward. Commissioner Steven W. Troxler, NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; Dr. Johnny C. Wynne, Dean and Executive Director for Agricultural Programs, NC State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; Dr. Alton Thompson, Dean, Agricultural Education/Economics and Rural Sociology, NC Agricultural and Technical State University have agreed to continue their work together and to jointly study and develop a comprehensive strategic plan for the management of agricultural research stations.

I am pleased these leaders in our thriving agricultural community will be working together to improve our way of life as we live and work in this great State of North Carolina. A common vision of an agricultural research system that is efficient and up to date is shared. Also shared is a continuing commitment to work together for the best future of North Carolina agriculture. Your ongoing support is most appreciated.

Sincerely,
Dewey Hill, Chair
House Agriculture Committee

That comes on the heels of this joint letter from the Ag Department, NCSU and NCA&T going out Tuesday along with this e-mail from Ag Commissioner Steve Troxler:

Dear Friend of Agriculture:

Many of you are aware of efforts recently undertaken by the General Assembly's Program Evaluation Division (PED) to study the agricultural research stations system in North Carolina. The goal of the PED's work was to find ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our research system. This is a laudable goal and one that all agricultural leaders agree is necessary as food prices climb and our population continues to grow.

I am pleased to report that NCSU College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Dean Johnny Wynne, NCA&TSU School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences Dean Alton Thompson, and I have collaborated on a joint letter that reaffirms our commitment to work together to improve our agricultural stations system. A copy of the letter is attached.

Dean Wynne, Dean Thompson, and I are looking forward to moving ahead with our efforts. We look forward to consulting with you as plans are developed, and appreciate your continued interest in our agricultural research system. I hope you will not hesitate to contact my office if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Steve W. Troxler
Commissioner of Agriculture

I'm not sure if or how this affects Rep. Nelson Cole's bid for horse facility money.

But it does seem to indicate that some of the tension between NCSU and the Ag Department might have eased.

For those following the state tire contract debate, you should know S 1797 cleared the Senate today and is headed to the House.

The latest Senate version would permit companies to continue to grind the identifying markings off of tires before doing retreads.

Rep. Nelson Cole opposes removing that measure, saying it will be tough to identify tires incase of a recall or an accident involving a retread.

Cole said Wednesday that when the bill is vetted in the House, there will be a PCS - proposed committee substitute - that restores the language.

H 2367, which would create a year-long moratorium on forced municipal annexations, passed the House finance committee this morning on a 25-4 vote, if I counted right.

The bill next goes to the House Judiciary II committee, and then on to the floor. There seems to be a fair amount of momentum for this thing on the House side, although conventional wisdom says its prospects in the Senate are far less certain.

(Click here and here for background.)

The topic of cities bringing land into their corporate boundaries has been a hot one down here at the legislature, at least on the House side. There have been several cases throughout the state where people feel quite aggrieved at the process. The basic argument against particular annexations seems to be this: they help the city by increasing the tax base but hurt homeowners because they have to pay extra taxes without getting a lot in extra services. At times, they complain, cities are involved in land and money grabs rather than logical growth.

Under the bill, homeowners could voluntarily request they be brought into a city. But a city could not target land adjacent to its corporate borders and bring it in. The idea is to give the General Assembly a year to work out changes to the law that would protect homeowners.

Groups pushing for the moratorium and a rewrite of the state's annexation laws have organized under the Fair Annexation Coalition.

Cities, represented by the North Carolina League of Municipalities, have said that they shouldn't be punished for a few bad actors or cases outside the norm. Stifling annexation, they say, will hurt economic development. They argue that solutions can be crafted while annexations continue.

Click here to listen to a short clip from Doug Aiken, with the coalition, and Andy Romanet with the league speaking to the finance committee this morning.

Rep. Pryor Gibson attempted to amend the bill so it would be a six month moratorium, ending on Jan. 1.

"We lack political courage," Gibson said.

Click here to listen Gibson make his pitch and then lose the vote.

Of local note, Rep. Earl Jones, D-Greensboro, and Rep. John Blust, R-Greensboro, voted in favor of the bill. Rep. Hugh Holliman, D-Lexington, did not vote on the measure. His house is in a territory that's due to be annexed, so he has a conflict.

The votes against the bill were Gibson, Rep. Jean Farmer-Butterfield of Wilson, Rep. Bill Owens of Elizabeth City and Rep. Kelly Alexander of Charlotte, all Democrats.

Alexander is the newly minted legislator appointed on May 30 and during his comments on the bill said that he did not want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater," a line that Romanet used in his presentation.

Senate majority leader Tony Rand said his chamber's top appropriators were scheduled to finish tinkering with the skeleton of their budget proposal this Friday. They plan to give staff members the weekend to write up and print what will amount to the first draft.

That would let the Senate appropriation subcommittees to meet on their parts of the bill Monday and the full appropriations and finance committees to take a swing at the thing on Tuesday.

According to Rand, salaries for teachers and state workers will be about the same as they were in the House budget. If that average of 3 percent raises for teachers holds, it will disappoint Gov. Mike Easley, who wanted to see a much bigger boost in salaries to get teachers to the national average.

Rand said that Senate leaders hadn't yet figured out what they'll do with COPS or other borrowing as of Thursday morning, saying that was a topic to be discussed Thursday afternoon.

If plans for next week hold (and you can almost hear the legislative building itself laugh at you when you talk about plans and timelines) the subcommittees would do their work on Monday, the full committees would do their mojo on Tuesday and the bill would be voted on Wednesday and Thursday.

That would allow conference discussions to begin Friday, Rand said. For those who don't follow the budget full time: the conference process lets the House, Senate and governor's office settle the difference between their three versions of the budget.

Cross-posted from Decision 2008:

-=-=-=-=

Doug points to the Libertarian candidate for governor, Mike Munger, sounding off about being excluded from a series of upcoming gubernatorial debates. Dome also has coverage. (Also: BlueNC.)

Munger writes in his post:

It’s not the media; you can’t blame them. Having me in the debate is MUCH more interesting, and would improve ratings. You can count on the media actually preferring that I be included.

But I’m not. Because the Dems and Repubs don’t want even a whiff of competition to affect their cozy cartel.

Well, I'm not going to say "blame the media," but Munger might not be able to blame the Republican and Democratic competitors in the race. I asked both campaigns via e-mail if they had an opinion on Munger entering the debates.

Amy Auth, the newly minted spokesperson for Republican Pat McCrory, said: "Pat doesn't host debates -- he attends them. It is up to the folks planning the debates to decide who to invite."

David Kochman, spokesman for Democrat Bev Perdue, wrote, "We'll leave that decision up to the hosts. We're committed to the debates and will let them decide how to handle that."

So, both campaigns are on the record as saying it's up to the hosts to decide who to invite.

The first forum coming up is the N.C. Bar Association, a week from Saturday.

Russell Rawlings, a spokesman for the association, said that his group had not invited the Libertarian candidate nor did it plan to. The Bar Association has always focused its election-year forums on the Republican and Democratic candidates, he said.

Cross-posted from Decision 2008.

-=-=-=-=-

Related to yesterday's post on whether Libertarians would be included in upcoming debates: I spoke with the Libertarian candidate for governor, Mike Munger, today by phone. He was kind enough to let me record the conversation to share with y'all:

• * Munger says debate organizers shouldn't substitute their own judgment for that of the voters.

• * There is reason to believe, Munger said, that 2008 will be a relatively good year for Libertarians. At least, he said, it will be easier for them to keep they ballot access.

• * But Munger cautions that Libertarians need to take advantage of their opportunity. "Let's be honest. I think a lot of people have the perception that Libertarians aren't serious about trying to win office and that some of the issues that Libertarians emphasis are not really mainstream politics," Munger said. "I think that's exaggerated but it's not completely untrue. So some of the burden on us is to be able to conduct campaigns responsibly, in a way that's directed toward issues people care about."

The newspaper version of all this should run on Monday.

After reading some truly silly stuff about whether North Carolina might or might not be "in play" for the General Election, I decided to write my own.

More cogent thoughts here, here, here and here.

My paper rode in the layoff rodeo last year and it wasn't a bit of fun. So my heart goes out to friends and colleagues in Raleigh and Charlotte who are doing it today.

Normally, I would not post business and industry news on a political blog. But I mention this here because the McClatchy papers generate a lot of the political and government content that comes out of Raleigh and is used by papers across the state. So the merging of their two state operations is of interest to just about anyone who follows politics. From the N+O's story:

The newspaper will begin a closer relationship with The Charlotte Observer, also owned by McClatchy. The two newspapers will combine their political, sports and research departments. The features departments also will produce sections jointly.

For those wanting more detail on the political operation, this comes from a memo circulated to N&O employees today:

A new McClatchy capital bureau will serve both newspapers with coverage of state government and other topics of statewide concern. Initially, this bureau will be comprised of five reporters from the N&O and two reporters from the Observer, all of whom now cover state government. Other reporters with beats that have statewide focus could join this team later. The bureau will be headed by Bill Krueger, who is now the N&O's government editor. Krueger will report jointly to N&O Senior Editor Linda Williams and Observer Deputy Managing Editor Glenn Burkins. This bureau will be based in the N&O's building, but will operate separately from its newsroom.

I'm hoping my math is correct and that means the political reporting teams for both papers will be deposited in full to the new bureau.

Update: Click here for a repasted copy of the full memo sent to newsroom employees.

I'm stuck in Greensboro today as the first-look at the Senate budget goes down this afternoon. The early AP bulletin had this to say:

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) _ Leaders in the North Carolina Senate are releasing their budget proposal, which proposes spending less money than the House on reimbursing doctors and others for treating Medicaid patients.

Senate Democrats began rolling out portions of their spending plan in subcommittee meetings Monday afternoon. Proposals are expected later Monday on spending for education, the environment and prisons.

The Senate's proposed health budget reduces the money available for Medicaid reimbursements by $42 million. That's a deeper cut than the House offered in its budget two weeks ago.

The Senate has scheduled a full meeting of the Appropriations Committee on Tuesday morning. The two chambers want to get a final budget to Gov. Mike Easley before the fiscal year starts July 1.

I'll be back tomorrow to dig into the full budget bill and report.

I wrote in a column earlier this month that Rep. Pricey Harrison had gotten some push-back on her legislative stance regarding illegal immigration:

(Harrison has) taken the most heat over a bill she did play a part in drafting. It would prevent community colleges or state universities from asking about a person's immigration status, overruling a decision by the community college system this year.

"I'm getting pretty ugly e-mails and probably some phone calls on that," she said. A couple of writers have suggested "your days are numbered," but she didn't take that as a death threat but more of a promise to find political opposition in an upcoming election — no one has filed to run against her this year.

"More of them are like, 'What part of illegal don't you understand?' or, 'Go back to Mexico,'" she said. "But pretty ugly."

More on that bill here.

More of that push-back is coming to the General Assembly on Wednesday, when ALI-PAC and related groups are due to hold a rally. From an e-mail sent to us scruffy media types:

On Wednesday, June 18, 2008 a historic coalition of immigration enforcement and border security groups will converge on the NC Legislature, to ask for emergency legislation to stem the tide of illegal aliens into North Carolina.

Each group participating is focused on a different aspect of illegal immigration and each group is multi-ethnic and inclusive meeting ALI-PAC's standards of working with only non-racist and non-violent groups.

The following leaders are available for interview, before June 18th by phone. Also available on the first floor of the Legislative Bldg. and at the rally on the bicentennial Mall, across from the Jones St. entrance to the Legislative Bldg, between 11 and 1 on June 18.

More here. Other immigration-focused groups like the Minuteman and some think-tank types like Civitas will also be on hand. I would be surprised if at least a few legislators did not speak as well.

I was interviewing William Gheen for a related but different story last week and he mentioned the legislative lobby day.

He said that the rally had two big objectives:

• * Shut down the bill sponsored by Harrison and company.

• * Push the legislature to amend the budget so that no state resources go to people here illegally.

"Close to 80 percent of the public feels that no taxpayer resources should be going to illegal aliens," Gheen said. "We want to make sure the lawmakers understand this is a crisis situation because of the South Carolina crackdown."

More regarding the South Carolina situation is here, although the gist of the measure seems to be that it makes work harder to come by for those here illegally.

Gheen also said that the state should stop funding El Pueblo, a nonprofit group that does community building in the Latino community. The group gets grants to do various types of outreach work.

But it also has a lobbying arm. Gheen argues the group shouldn't lobby while it receives state funding. This is a point, he said, his group will make when lobbying on Wednesday.

This is not a new charge. The group responded to a similar statement back in 2007. (PDF)

I asked Irene Godinez, El Pueblo's advocacy director, whether her group would be on site Wednesday to provide any sort of counter-argument.

"We're trying not to engage with that particular group," she said of ALI-PAC. "The more we can do to avoid engaging them, the better off we will be."

This may, in fact, be a situation where El Pueblo and other immigrant advocacy groups are better off not getting into the argument. The legislature as been reluctant in recent years to move either way on the status quo regarding immigration. So while Wednesday's rally is likely to be noisy and will get a lot of attention, recent history casts some doubt on whether it will cause much movement on the issues ALI-PAC is bringing to the forefront.

More to come later this week.

Two stories relevant to Jones Street from today's paper:

• *My colleague Emily Stephenson reports the Senate version of the budget has a crafty way to give teachers raises without giving them raises.

• *Hagan and Dole have been scrapping over illegal immigration. This applies to the legislature because anti-illegal immigrant groups will be rallying at the building today. More than likely, they'll be unhappy with the N+O report that bills designed to keep illegal immigrants out of community college have stalled and are likely going nowhere.

The big immigration rally turned out to be more of a gathering, with only turned out 25 folks showing up other than media and other onlookers. Here was the scene this morning:

So you want to pass a bill that contains $21.4 billion in spending without all that troublesome debate that you run across in a representative democracy?

Then the N.C. Senate might just be the place for you.

Click here for a version of the AP's budget story, which gives the broad outlines of Wednesday's budget debate.

Budget discussion was moved along at a brisk pace by senate leaders, mainly Majority Leader Tony Rand, who used his powers to cut off debate on several amendments and out and out kill a few others. Of the eight amendments that we heard about on the Senate floor Wednesday, three were tabled or ruled out of order. Others were offered but debate was cut off after they were introduced.

As an example, the last amendment of the day was offered by Sen. Harry Brown, who wanted to take some money from funds set aside for dropout prevention to fund vocational educational programs.

Brown is a consistent advocate for vocational education, saying that more kids should be encouraged to pursue trades rather than channeled toward college.

At any rate, the amendment ran into an objection from Sen. A.B. Swindell, who argued the dropout prevention grants were doing good throughout the state and ought not be raided.

Click here to join Swindell as he decries Brown's amendment and then moves that it be laid upon the table.

Tabling an amendment essentially kills it, although it's theoretically possible to resurrect the thing. Essentially, it's a tool of the majority to keep measures they consider undesirable at bay.

After the tabling Rand, as you can hear on that take, moves the previous question. English translation: Rand cuts off debate on the bill, curtailing all other pending amendments and any discussion of the bill on its second reading.

So it was done, the vote 33-16. Don't expect to hear any debate Thursday either.

This sudden ending of the debate did not sit well with Republicans who used words like "offensive" and "disrespectful" to describe the sudden shut down.

"They've got the majority.... They're going to get the budget bill they want," said Sen. Phil Berger , an Eden Republican and the Senate minority leader. "But the idea that they can't countenance debate seems to me to be offensive to everything that we expect from an elected body."

You can click here to listen to more of Berger's thoughts.

From talking with folks who have been around the General Assembly longer than I have, the GOP has something of a point here. Even if GOP amendments had failed before, they at least got something of an airing. And cutting off debate entirely is something that, if not unheard of, is rare.

And it's quite the contrast to the House process used this year. Here's how I described it for a story in Thursday's paper:

When the House debated its version of the budget, members were allowed to offer amendments during two sets of committee meetings as well as a protracted floor debate.

But rank-and-file senators were given a copy of the two-volume, 337-page budget Monday afternoon and had to offer any changes for committee consideration by 10 a.m. Tuesday.

Then Wednesday, leaders allowed only eight amendments to be offered on the Senate floor, with three of those dismissed by way of parliamentary rulings and motions.
By contrast, the House fully debated and voted on more than 20 changes on the floor.

Berger said that Republican Senators had a bunch of other amendments in waiting, some relatively innocuous, like one that would require state agencies to use tap water rather than bottled water for their employees. Others were definitely more political, like one that would have prohibited More at Four Pre-Kindergarten funds to be used for the children of illegal immigrants.

So why did Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight have debate shut down? Basnight said he was protecting his members from having to vote on amendments that were politically motivated.

"You will have an amendment that will come in for the sole purpose of not necessarily changing what's in the budget. ...The purpose would be to put people on record without any kind of protective debate on the subject," Basnight said.

Click here for more of Basnight's thoughts.

Those votes, he said, could be used against his members during the campaign. Basnight added that Republicans were not showing their amendments in advance of offering them and that if they had been more forthcoming more debate would have been allowed.

An alternative explanation:

Republicans said they did share some of their proposals and suspected one in particular may have prompted the clamp-down.

The Senate budget would give Gov. Mike Easley authority to raise teacher salaries by up to 7 percent if tax revenues come in higher than forecast over the next four months.

Berger wanted to amend that so that other state employees would receive the same raises teachers got. Such an amendment would pit the interests of teachers and state employees, two key Democratic constituencies, against one another.

Republicans also said the idea that politics should be scoured from the budget debate was disingenuous, pointing to an amendment offered by Hagan that would allow the state to expand available slots in a children's health insurance program earlier than planned.

"I know that's not an issue in the campaign for the U.S. Senate. That was a pure coincidence," said Sen. Tom Apodaca , a Hendersonville Republican.

Hagan is running to unseat U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole and gave differences over federal funding of the state children's health insurance program as a key reason she entered the race against the Republican.

I would imagine the real reason for stopping is some blend of those two, some ones I haven't guessed yet and the ever-popular "we were just freaking tire of talking about the thing."

I don't have much of an opinion about the substance of any of the amendments shot down or left hanging. But the expression "politics ain't beanbag" kept running through my head tonight. Shouldn't the honorables running for one office or another be able to withstand what head would have been created by a few more amendment votes or debate? Or was Basnight right to protect his members from potentially volatile discussion.

You thoughts welcome below.

We've got a budget blog post here, a a budget news story post there (Republicans have some legit complaints about the process) and online budget bill info for good measure.

An anti-illegal immigration rally turned into more of a gathering, and those who attended will likely be disappointed with the state of immigration-related bills at the General Assembly.

Female legislators made their voices heard Wednesday, while Gov. Mike Easley sounded off for Obama.

Oh, and the raw milk bill cleared the Ag committee Wednesday and is headed to the health committee today.

And that's just the stuff I and my colleague Emily Stephenson (who came to Raleigh to help me out for a couple days) could get to Wednesday.

One bit via the AP McClatchy Newspapers: Gov. Easley's trip to Italy cost $170,000. I hope he at least got one of those little Leaning Tower of Pisa statues for that deal, or, you know, swiped some little shampoos from the hotel.

The GOP does a press conference to make the case (with some fairly strong arguments on their side) that they were unfairly shut out of the Senate budget process.

Mitch Kokai with John Locke shows up to video tape the thing.

As most reporters were still finishing their budget stories, this news release comes from Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger's office under the subject heading "Video News Release on Senate Budget":

The N.C. Senate today passed its version of the 2008/2009 state budget. In doing so, they refused to allow a vote on many Republican offered amendments through motions to call the question or table amendments offered. They were able to avoid recorded votes in an apparent strategy in this election year to maintain control.

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and members of the Republican Senate Caucus held a press conference immediately following the conclusion of today’s Senate session to discuss the budget’s passage. To view a video of the Senators’ remarks at the press conference, please click here. (Eds note: Bold mine)

That link goes to a John Locke server that hosts the Kokai's video file, without linking to any other JLF content or telling you where you are, unless you read the URL. (Note there was a post on JL's blog that contained similar if not the same video, but that's not where the release sent us.)

Does this mean John Locke is dropping the whole non-partisan thing and openly throwing in as a support group for the GOP now, providing "video news release" hosting services and such? Or did Berger's office just rip off the link without giving credit? Or will John Locke be providing "video news release" services for the Democrats when they announce a final budget deal?

The Senate gave final approval to its version of the budget. The vote was 31-14 with two "pairs," groups of two senators who agree offset each others votes even though one of them isn't in the chamber. Local note: Sen. Stan Bingham of Davidson paired with Sen. Jim Forrester, with Bingham as the "yes" vote.

Because of the parliamentary maneuver that was used to shut down debate Wednesday, there was absolutely no debate today.

The bill has to wander back over to the House, which will almost certainly reject the Senate plan, prompting a conference committee. Then negotiations begin.

The main players will be the full appropriations chairs for the Senate and the House, along with other leaders like the majority leaders and - usually behind the scenes until the end - the Speaker and President Pro Tempore. Also, the governor's office has a fair amount of input and usually has folks in or near the room where things are being worked out.

Yes, there will be two pretty big conference committees from either side appointed to work out the differences. But the really hard items - ones were the differences are bigger or more intransigent - get worked out at the higher levels and with fewer folks involved.

Raleigh's Dan Kane had a good breakdown today of the differences between the House and Senate budgets. From that story:

The N.C. House and Senate are just $15 million apart in their budget proposals, a minuscule gap in spending plans that exceed $21 billion. Neither increases taxes, and both offer the same modest pay raises for teachers and state employees.

But when you flip through their proposals, dozens of differences emerge, and some could easily keep lawmakers in Raleigh past the start of the fiscal year July 1.

Take the pay raises, for example. Both chambers offer 3 percent for teachers, community college instructors and UNC faculty, with most other state employees getting the greater of a 2.75 percent increase or $1,100. But the Senate threw in a provision that allows Gov. Mike Easley to give teachers another increase this fall if the economy improves.

When I spoke Wednesday with Rep. Hugh Holliman, the House majority leader, he said he expected negotiations to begin in earnest on Monday, although I wouldn't be surprised to see a few discussions here and there on Friday.

How do we have audio of a debate that largely wasn't allowed to take place?

Well, the Senate has a rule that allows members to take some time at the end of session and explain why they voted a certain way. A few took that opportunity.

Sen. Phil Berger, the Republican leader in the Senate, was the first to take advantage, summarizing his party's objections to how things went down.

"This essence of a democracy is debate," he said. Click here to listen to more of his deconstruction of the budget process.

Majority leader Tony Rand is not one to let challenges to his party's actions go answered. His reply to Berger's criticism was that regardless of the process, North Carolina's budget seems to be pretty well constructed. How else, he asked, can you explain the state having room to grow some programs at a time when other states are cutting back.

"We're obviously in a state of grace," Rand said. Click here to listen to more of his response.

Bonus audio: The House rejected the Senate version of the budget. Rep. Mickey Michaux explained some of the differences between the two versions. The Senate, for example, only provided $11 million to help schools fuel their buses, the House put $45 million toward helping with rising fuel prices. They also differ on bigger items such as children's health insurance and the finance package: The House has a finance package, the Senate doesn't.

Click here to listen to more from Michaux.

From today's paper:

RALEIGH -- How did five lines related to biodegradable plastic bottles make it into the Senate budget draft -- freaking out bottlers, outraging Republicans, surprising the only company that makes them, and showing exactly how random the process of putting together a $21.4 billion spending bill can be?

Two words: Marc Basnight.

The quirky, environmentally-minded Senate President Pro Tempore has enough clout to finagle any item he wants into his chamber's version of the budget. And what he has wanted lately are ways for North Carolina to reduce its consumption of foreign oil and to pollute less.

Since most plastic bottles are made from oil and many end up in landfills, Basnight jumped at the chance to boost anyone making biodegradable containers made from plants.

But flexing legislative muscle, even to save the planet, can have unintended consequences.

Click here for the full story.

Linkage: The company mentioned in the story is Primo Water Corporation in Winston-Salem.

For those following the transfer tax repeal, the measure has popped over from the Senate, where it passed to the House.

When bills cross over that way, the Speaker of the House (Joe Hackney right now) gets to refer them to committee.

The referral for the transfer tax repeal: RULES, if favorable to FINANCE.

Before Hackney's tenure as speaker, a referral to RULES was tantamount to the kiss of death for substantive legislation. It was where former Speaker Jim Black parked bills he didn't want to see go anywhere.

Hackney doesn't seem to have used the referral to rules quite as much, or at least quite as punitively as Black did.

Worth noting, however, is that despite some support in the House for repeal, there is also considerably more resistance to the repeal in the House. More liberal members in particular favor keeping the thing on the books.

So is Hackney parking the bill to die? Or will it become a bargaining chip in the ongoing budget negotiations?

I asked Rules Committee Chairman Bill Owens what the likely fate of the bill was.

First thing, he said, is it probably wouldn't emerge from committee unless the Democratic caucus got together and decided as a group what they wanted to do with the thing.

That said, he's not a fan of the repeal. Owens was one of the people who helped push the transfer tax through as part of a complex deal with the counties over Medicaid funding in 2007.

"This is one of the concessions we gave them," Owens said, saying it didn't sit right to pull it back less than a year after granting the authority. "It's something we should talk about next year in the long session."

Owens, who is a realtor himself, notes as the realtors groups do that the transfer tax has failed on referendums where ever it has been tried. But he has a different take.

"Right now, the people are having their say, what's wrong with that," he said.

From this conversation it sounds like the thing is parked for the year, unless it somehow gets played as part of the ongoing budget negotiations.

Americans for Prosperity is holding a rally to complain about high taxes on Wednesday.

On Tuesday afternoon, they parked a giant pig outside the legislative building, presumably to make a point about pork-barrel spending rather than as preparation for the bbq:

Substance aside, they may win the contest for best prop to be used at a legislative rally this year.

Gov. Mike Easley, the House and Senate are all honoring those students from Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Charlotte who integrated North Carolina's school more than 50 years ago, as well as the superintendents who made it happen. The date was Sept. 4, 1957.

First up was Easley, who hosted the group at the executive mansion this afternoon. I wasn't standing close enough to get really stellar audio, but you can hear some of his comments by clicking here. (You can click here to read Easley's proclamation.)

"It was 50 years ago that each of you together opened the schoolhouse doors to African Americans," Easley said.

Among those on hand were Josephine Boyd Bradley, who joined Greensboro Senior High School in 12th grade. I asked her what those first days were like.

"It was frightening," she said. "I didn't know what to expect."

She said that by the last two or three months of the school year, much of the commotion around her presence in the school had died down.

"As graduation got closer, things kicked back up again," she said.

On hand to witness Easley's proclamation was Fayelene Thompson, Bradley's niece, who grew up in Greensboro. I asked her if she knew about her aunt's place in history growing up.

'"Not early on," she said. "But as I got older I did."

When she was in high school, Thompson said, she wrote a poem dedicated to her aunt titled "Thank you."

Craig Phillips, who was superintendent of the Winston-Salem public schools at the time was also recognized for his role in devising a plan to integrate. Benjamin Smith, Greensboro's superintendent at the time, was recognized posthumously.

Phillips said that he greeted Gwendolyn Bailey Coleman that day with a handshake, some thing that he said he has been pondering the past 20 years.

"If instead of shaking your hand I gave you one big hug, we might have been a lot farther along," he said. So he proceeded to giver her that hug today.

As I load this, the state House is debating a resolution honoring those who made integration happen.

I'll have more notes from yesterday's American's for Prosperity rally, including some of what former U.S. Senate majority leader Bob Dole had on his mind.

But the barkeep is going to call in my tab unless I post some low-quality video I shot of Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, the Republican candidate for governor, playing the drums.

First a pic.

I'm told that McCrory has hopped on drum sets before and that it's something he quite likes doing a public events. His musical set preceded a speech that decried the status quo in Raleigh and called for - shock - a change in leadership.

At any rate, here's what it sounded like with McCrory on drums and AFP's Dallas Woodhouse (not pictured) on vocals.

With any luck, I'll have time to deal with some substance later.

So, I think to myself as I walk out the backside of the legislative building, what is this thing:

A mutant pumpkin? The leavings from
the AFP rally?

Nope. It's a giant colon.

Rep. Ty Harrell asked for a group of cancer prevention organizations (and with them, the colon) to come down as part of Cancer Screening Awareness Day. On hand were the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, 4CNC and others. The colon belongs to the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation and its appearance was funded by the drug company called Sanofi-Aventias. (Eds note: an earlier version of this post had the wrong ownership information for the colon and mistakenly called this a lobby day.)

Now, I know, I KNOW, there's an urge to make fun here. I mean, the idea of bringing a giant poop shoot amongst the honorables invites all sorts of jokes. Really, it's astounding how many giant a--hole jokes three reporters can come up with in the space of 60 seconds. None of them are appropriate, mind you, for a family blog...except maybe in the comments section.

If you want to share you're best, um, crack at such a joke, the comment link is open.

Alexis Moore, who's with 4CNC and the Linberger Center, gave me the tour.

"People don't die from colon cancer if it's found early and treated," she said.

She also said there's a pilot program in High Point that is aimed at seeing if expanded use of self-testing (there's a kit) can head off more cases of advanced colon cancer, which apparently looks like this:

Moore said that the High Point program could be expanded to all of Guilford County as well as a couple of other metro areas. You can find more about it here.

And just to round out the pictorial:

Rep. Mickey Michaux told members on the House floor today, "We're going to have a budget for you shortly."

He also cautioned they were dealing with some "bruised egos" and suffering some "slings and arrows. (One of those from Dome: the closed open door.)

It sounds like there are a few remaining big issues.

"We could really be done in a half hour," he said. To which everyone with a lick of sense said, "Yeah right."

At any rate, if you're into reading tea leaves, you can click here to listen to Michaux's two-minute riff for yourself.

Update: And then then there's this tid-bit from our friends at the Associated Press, although $70 million isn't quite the monkey wrench in the works you think it might be:

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) _ Gov. Mike Easley's administration is warning legislative leaders there's less tax money than previously believed to spend for next year.

Easley's office told lawmakers Thursday that state government should collect $70 million less than projected when the fiscal year ends next week. Easley budget adviser Dan Gerlach attributes the decline to lower-than-expected sales and income taxes.

Less money now means less money to spend in next year's budget, which is being worked out by House and Senate Democrats. Negotiators may have to find additional spending reductions or take money out of savings to make up the difference.

Rep. Jim Crawford, one of the House's negotiators, downplayed the news Thursday. He said the dollar figure is a small percentage of a budget that will exceed $21 billion.

From today's paper:

RALEIGH -- The N.C. Legislative Black Caucus Foundation will hold its relaunched Scholarship Weekend today and Saturday, a year after it was canceled because of questions surrounding the connection between legislators and fundraising.

"We just tried to get things reorganized," said Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat who leads the N.C. Legislative Black Caucus and its foundation.

About 400 people are expected to attend, organizers said, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California is expected to deliver a keynote address. The leaders of the state's 10 historically black colleges and universities are also invited to attend.

The black caucus is made up of the 28 African American legislators who are in the House or Senate. The foundation was established by that group in 1986 and has as its charitable purpose advancing education. The foundation has funded scholarships for students at hitsorically black schools.

The foundation's website is here.

Previous coverage can be found here, including my first story, post and linkage.

From a story in today's paper:

RALEIGH — A trio of anti-smoking bills making their way through the legislature would ban smoking in state vehicles, keep smokers 25 feet from state government buildings and reinforce community colleges' authority to restrict smoking on campuses.

Should they pass as expected, the new laws would be the latest in a series that chip away at where smoking is allowed, particularly in and around government buildings.

Advocates and observers say these smaller prohibitions could be the foundation for broader anti-smoking measures in years to come.

In particular, advocates say, a ban on smoking in all workplaces — not just those owned by state or local governments — may be within reach after falling six votes shy of passing the House in 2007.

"That's the big one. It's coming back in January," said Rep. Hugh Holliman, a Lexington Democrat who has pushed broad smoking-related restrictions after his own experiences with smoking-related cancer.

Read the whole thing here.

This story about an N+O reporter being shut out of a budget meeting has prompted some discussion, including from editorial writer Doug Clark. Doug and others have asked how it can be that the General Assembly can just ignore the law. Well they can't, or at least haven't in this case. Here's the explanation I wrote over at Doug's:

Doug,

This is a case where what's right and what's legal don't mesh up.

What's right would be for the entire budget process to be in the open. Period. End of story.

Some operations of the General Assembly are, and have been for years, exempt from the open meetings laws. One of those exceptions (involves) conference committees of the general assembly (see GS 143-318.18). The budget is in conference committee now between the House and Senate, so that's one out.

Also, the meeting that Kane was booted from involved just the chairs of the conference committee, not even close to a quorum of membership. So they have an out on two fronts.

So was there a legal justification required for closing the meeting? Yes, two of them.

Should they have let Kane, or anyone else who wanted to in? Certainly we scruffy media types would prefer that. It would be in the best interest of the public understanding how their $21 billion (give or take) is spent.

By the way, budget negotiators are back at work today (Sunday), supposedly getting together at 8:30 a.m. I'm told two different stories: one that they're going to try to finish today and the other that they'll try to finish on Monday. Either way, they're gunning to get the final bill passed by Friday, July 4.

The wife and I took the kids swimming today. When we wandered back in, a statement from Gov. Mike Easley was sitting in my e-mail:

"Earlier today, my staff met yet again with House and Senate budget leaders on the reduction in revenues and the best ways we believe to deal with that reduction. I am concerned that this message keeps falling on deaf ears.

"The State Constitution requires that a budget be balanced before I sign it. The General Assembly cannot ignore reality. The very latest numbers verify that we remain short of the estimates that legislative budget writers are currently using.

"We recommended specific and sensible ways to fill the budget gap.

"It makes no sense to provide almost $20 million in tax cuts to the wealthy, in this economic environment, as they currently propose."

It goes on, and uses this phrase: "the budget must be balanced and have the right priorities for me to sign it." That's a veto threat in not so many words.

As has been noted on several fronts, the honorables have incentive to end the session quickly. Pretty much all of them have some sort of fall campaign to run, and several members of the Senate are running statewide. Speaker Hackney has a big NCSL meeting in the middle of July, and one would imagine he doesn't want to be messing with an ongoing legislative session while he does that.

The governor, however, loses all his playmates when the session ends. Also, when I've spoken to Easley one-on-one and in group settings about the budget, it's clear that he doesn't want to leave the next governor with the sort of budget emergency he inherited. So this idea that he's worried about declining revenues (as well as his own signature programs) seems to come from a genuine place. (Bonus: at the same time he fights for his signature programs, Easley gets to use the bully pulpit to claim the high-ground on fiscal responsibility. It seems to me this e-mail is an opening salvo in that campaign.)

And since the budget written last year is a two-year budget - this year's is merely a tweak - Easley wouldn't have to do anything drastic like shut down the government if he were to issue the first budget veto in North Carolina's history.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but Easley's veto threat carries a little more weight this year.

-=-=-=-=-=-

Update: I just spoke to Rep. Alma Adams, a Greensboro Democrat and one of the legislative budget negotiators. She said that as of 4:45 p.m. the budget chairs were still at the legislative office building and still working. When asked how late they would stay tonight, she said, "I don't even know." It didn't sound like an agreement was within striking distance, but that's just one woman's opinion.

-=-=-=-=-=-

Update 2: The barkeep has a good roundup of roundup of all things budget related this week.

-=-=-=-=-=-

Update 3: "They're making some progress on some small things but there haven't been any big breakthroughs yet...no eureka moment," said Bill Holmes, a spokesman for the Speaker's office who is keeping tabs on the budget negotiators today.

"Big things" would mean tax breaks that the legislature wants and the governor doesn't, enrolment increases for the university system, teacher salaries, etc...

...I wandered downtown to check on the budget negotiations in person. If you want the virtual experience, stare at this picture for several hours, pretending that someone opens the door every so often to make a head to the bathroom or run down to a similar room on the opposite end of the hall.

Room 612 is a conference room in the legislative office building is where the House budget negotiators have set up their base camp. Senate negotiators have another conference room. Occasionally the two groups of top negotiators will get together - typically in 612 if tradition holds - but I haven't seen that tonight.

Some tidbits from my perch here in the hall:

Rep. Hugh Holliman stopped by to say hello. He seemed pessimistic toward idea that things might finish up tonight.

Rep. Bill Owens also said hello.

"Having a big night?" he asked.

"Well," I replied, "the kids are in bed, the wife is watching a sappy movie and I just couldn't think of something better to do."

"I would have on the way down here," he quipped.

That there is funny.

Other than me, there's one poor television station reporter and her camera man hanging about, although I know other scruffy media types are calling in to check on the action like I was earlier today.

Gerry Cohen, the maestro of bill drafting, is lurking in the hall waiting to see if he can send his staff home or whether the bill typers and proof-readers will bill up late tonight and early tomorrow morning.

Other than that, I have no new news to report since the governor got grumpy earlier today. Someone told me that they were going to wrap up at 9 p.m., but it's 9:32 p.m. and they're still going at it.

Good Monday morning.

Budget negotiations broke up about 10 minutes or so before 11 p.m. Sunday night. House and Senate budget writers said they would be back in the morning to continue work on a final deal.

For those just tuning it: this is re: the $21.4 billion +/- state budget. Previous Sunday budget posts here and here..

According to Rep. Hugh Holliman and Sen. Tony Rand, the majority leaders in the House and Senate respectively, it is the education and capital portions of the budget remain unresolved. There are also "a few little items here and there" outstanding, said Holliman.

On education, both Rand and Holliman named the enrolment growth figure for the UNC system - how many new slots at university the state would underwrite - as one of the major unresolved issues. Left unmentioned was the teacher salary issues the governor was complaining about earlier in the day.

The capital section deals with what the state is going to build where for its universities and agencies. Although these will be state-owned buildings, legislators covet capital projects for their districts. And with little money for "special projects" - read: grants to nonprofits and the like - these capital items will be that much more sought after this year.

I asked Rand if there was any item upon which the two sides seemed intransigent, and couldn't think of one.

"You try not to get like that," he said.

So that's where things stand as the honorables go to sleep tonight.

(By the way, when I say budget negotiators were meeting, I mean the big chairs of the conference committee, not the cast of thousands that make up the full budget conference. But you knew that, right?)

There's also the possibility you will see a small budget continuation package pop up this week.

This isn't you're classic "continuing resolution" that the federal government seems to live off of and budget negotiators sometimes need in odd-numbered years. The budget passed in 2007 is a two year budget and will keep things going through June 30 of 2009, even if left unaltered.

But a couple folks knowledgeable about the process pointed to at least two sets of items that might need some legislative tweaking if a deal isn't done Monday or Tuesday:

• *One set is a group of federally-funded programs paid for through block-grants to the state. The legislature generally apportions these one year at a time. So even though there might be money sitting about from the feds, the state technically shouldn't spend it on anything. If memory and a quick check of last year's budget serve, there are a lot of these things in the Health and Human Service program area.

• *Items that were put under continuation review. "Continuation review" is legislative speak for "let's look and this and see if we're throwing money down a rat hole."

  Basically, once a program is made a "continuing" item in the budget, it appears over and over again until the honorables take some action to stop it. Putting an item on continuation review removes this "continuing" status and gives whatever the program is funding for one year while legislators kick the tires. Presumably if they look at something and don't like what they see, they simply drop the line item and whatever the program is goes away.

  One example of an item under continuation review from the 2007 budget is money county-level Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils. Now, these things are considered critical by folks working on anti-street gang measures and I haven't run into anyone who really thinks they're going to be de-funded this year. But, their state funding technically runs out at midnight July 1 unless the legislature does something to renew it.

There might be some way around doing this sort of mini-CR, particularly if a deal is imminent. And budget negotiators generally prefer that they focus on the main deal rather than little continuation bills. But if the lack of spending authority would throw a big monkey wrench in some particular set of works, don't be shocked to see a continuation bill come along.

Sen. Phil Berger, the Republican leader in the Senate, just asked Majority Leader Tony Rand about the status of budget negotiations on the floor.

"Most part of the budget have been resolved other than the education part and the capital part. Those are the parts we are in the process of trying to resolve those," Rand said.

That's about where the budget negotiators were last night.

"We hope that we will be able to now quickly resolve the remaining parts but we're not quite there yet," Rand said.

Berger also asked whether the budget bill would be a one day or two day bill. Bills that contain new taxes or borrowing must be voted on two separate days.

"It will have to be two days because of the cops - certificates of participation - so it's a two day bill," Rand said. For the uninitiated, COPS are a way for governments to borrow without going through all that messy voter approval needed for bonds.

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

Update: The House Appropriations Committee is heading downstairs to a committee meeting - yes at 7:42 p.m. - to do the mini CR I wrote about last night.

Rep. Mickey Michaux, the Senior Budget Chair in the House, argues that House 2437 is not really a continuing resolution, since the business of government could continue without it.

But it does keep programs under continuation review or funded by federal block grants going - which probably feels pretty darned necessary to the folks who work in those programs.

Whatever it is - I like the fun-sized CR moniker - it passed the House and Senate tonight. The bill also keeps automatic raises from going into effect and basically holds the line on government spending until July 15.

"We have reached something of an impasse," Michaux told a hastily called meeting of the House Appropriations Committee Monday night. "These differences are not many but they are of a pretty large nature."

After that meeting, Michaux said that it was time for budget negotiations be moved to the "corner offices," a reference to the House Speaker and President Pro Tempore. This would seem to indicate the negotiators have gone as far as they think they can and need the big dogs to chew through the final few issues. He pointed particularly to funding for the university system.

Here are two audio takes (one and two) from Michaux explaining more.

I wrote earlier this year about video slots, a server-based video game that simulate gambling and popped up all over following the demise of video poker. You can find them everywhere from gas stations to rented strip-mall spaces that do nothing but sell phone cards and host the slot terminals.

The machines have been operating in a gray area for a couple years now. The machines have been the subjects of raids by ALE agents, controversy among DAs and at least one lawsuit.

Well it seems the General Assembly is about to turn that grey to black and white with a bill that would outlaw the machines. The background here is a little Byzantine, but if you need more check back on these posts:

Background 1.
Background 2.
Background 3.

I spoke tonight with Rep. Deborah Ross, who chairs the Judiciary I committee in the House. Tomorrow, her committee will take up Senate Bill 180, which is an unrelated measure right now. That bill will be gutted and the language prohibiting video slots will be inserted.

If the House were to pass this bill, the Senate could, in theory, simply vote to concur with the language rather than vetting it through the full committee process.

As Ross explained it, the new bill will outlaw all but a very narrow segment of "server-based sweepstakes" games. That's essentially the sanitized version of what a video slot machine is.

J-I meets at 10 a.m. in room 1228.

Update: The committee has sent the bill to the full House for consideration.