News-Record.com

With crime in Charlotte increasing, city officials are stepping up -- and not just in the area of policing.

A memo from City Manager Curt Walton to the mayor and City Council proposes steps beyond the city's normal law-enforcement function.

"The primary challenge, however, is how to expand the capacity of the criminal justice system to deal with criminals once they are beyond the control of the CMPD (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department)," Walton wrote. "Re-arresting repeat offenders for the same crimes is as frustrating for the CMPD as it is for our citizens."

Walton's recommendations, which the council will consider tonight, include:

* expanding the number of electronic monitoring devices for repeat offenders;

* funding technology improvements in the offices of the district attorney and trial court administrator;

* funding additional staffing in the DA's office;

* developing a property crimes court and taking other steps to expedite the prosecution of property crimes.

These are expensive proposals in an area where the state, not local governments, has total funding responsibility. But if the state isn't addressing problems adequately, locals have to step up.

That's the feeling right now in Charlotte, anyway. I don't know about Greensboro or High Point.

Frankly, the days of "it's not my job" in terms of government responsibilities should be numbered. Public safely is government's job at every level. It just doesn't make sense that local law-enforcement agencies can keep arresting criminals, only to see state government agencies (the courts, prison system, probation-parole) either let them off or lose track of them.

Walton outlined the desired effect of providing more resources for the DA's office:

"This would result in defendants being placed under supervision or in prison sooner and also accomplish the following:

* No plea bargains for habitual felons;

* All residential breaking and entering cases will continue to be prosecuted as felonies and the state will request active time in every case;

* All auto larcency, possession of stolen vehicle, and breaking and entering of motor vehicle cases acceptable for prosecution will be prosecuted as felonies and not as misdemeanors;

* All felony plea offers will increase in severity."

These are tough, blunt proposals. Walton also makes clear he's not excusing the police of responsibility:

"The recommendations in this memo are made to complement, not replace, enforcement of the law. In fact, it amplifies enforcement efforts by making consequences tougher; however, much of the crime in our city is committed by repeat offenders. Until there are increased options for prosecuting, incarcerating or at least monitoring the behavior of this targeted group of offenders, CMPD's efforts will be minimized."

Are circumstances much different in Greensboro and High Point? I don't think so. How do we want to respond?

I'll never be a real conservative.

Real conservatives always refer to public schools as "government schools."

And that's not a compliment.

If it's a "government school," it just doesn't work right because, you know, the government can't do anything right. So let's just shut down those government schools!

But, oddly enough, I never hear references to the "government fire department," "government streets," "government parks," "government garbage collection," "government water and sewer" or even "government police."

Sure, conservatives complain about government services delivered inefficiently. So do liberals (although their solution usually amounts to spending more money).

But there's never the same derogatory tone that's reserved for "government schools."

Is "government" really that much worse at providing public education than anyone else?

If not government, who should run public schools?

(I'm out of town and dodging this debate.)

I met Holden Thorp just over a year ago at a Phillips Ambassadors program on the Carolina campus. We chatted for about five minutes, barely enough time for me to figure out that he was someone very important.

The rather obvious clue was when he told me he was getting ready to become the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

It might be remarkable that Thorp hasn't been a chancellor or college president before winning the big job at Carolina. But he's run the College of Arts and Sciences, and that by itself is bigger than most universities.

Thorp struck me as friendly and down to earth, maybe a bit reserved. He doesn't seem like the charismatic politician type some colleges and universities choose because, well, the position can demand political skills.

Reading his list of accomplishments, though, I get the idea there's not much this guy can't do. Scholar, distinguished professor, researcher, innovator, entrepreneur, administrator. He's excelled at eveything. Maybe he can try his hand at coaching the football team.

And he's only 43. He may bring to the chancellor's office what Dean Smith established for the basketball program: consistent, long-term excellence.

Maybe the best part: Thorp is a Tar Heel head to toe. He's come up through the ranks. It's about time local talent was recognized.

At the same time, his appointment doesn't look like homeboy favoritism. Any university would love to have a star like Thorp on its campus. Carolina made sure no one else will get him.

Sure, one leader doesn't make or break a university. But a great university deserves outstanding leadership. Thorp has to prove himself, but the fact that he's proven himself extraordinarily well at every step of his career so far is most encouraging.

Update, 5:08 p.m. Friday: The feds totally contradict the N.C. AG's Office, The N&O of Raleigh reports.

Very weird.

My apologies to Gov. Easley and his staff.

end of update

Gov. Mike Easley is reckless and irresponsible to defy advice from the N.C. Attorney General's Office that state community colleges should not admit illegal aliens as students.

The State Board of Community Colleges last year issued a guidance memoradum instructing local community colleges to "immediately begin admitting undocumented individuals" consistent with its policy that, "Each college shall maintain an open door admission to all applicants who are high school graduates or who are at least 18 years of age." State law gives the State Board of Community Colleges the authority to establish admission criteria.

But that's not the end of the story. In an advisory letter dated May 6 to Shante Martin, general counsel for the N.C. Community College System, N.C. Department of Justice General Counsel JB Kelly writes:

"The admission criteria and its application should be interpreted in a manner consistent with other applicable state and federal laws on college admissions."

To wit:

"Federal law makes certain non-citizens inelgible for State and local public benefits. State and local public benefits are defined under federal law for purposes of this prohibition. That definition includes 'postsecondary education.' ...

"Prohibited State and local public benefits can be provided 'only through the enactment of a State law ... which affirmatively provides for such eligibility.' ... State law may provide eligibility for postsecondary education benefits to an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States only to the extent any citizen or national of the United States receives the same eligibility regardless of State residence. North Carolina has not enacted such laws."

This affirms a complaint often voiced: Why should an illegal alien receive benefits, such as admission or taxpayer-subsidized tuition, at a North Carolina public community college (or university, for that matter) while a U.S. citizen who happens to live in, say, Virginia is denied the same benefit? Well, according to General Counsel Kelly, he can't unless state law specifically creates that benefit.

Kelly notes some "unsettled" aspects of the "scope and applicability of the Federal prohibition" and volunteers to seek clarification from Washington. Before such clarification is provided, and until some state law is enacted, Kelly adds, prudence calls for a halt to the admission of undocumented aliens. That careful course "would more likely withstand judicial scrutiny."

That makes perfect sense, except apparently to Easley. Don't pay any attention to those legalities, he says, urging community colleges to offer admission with no questions asked.

At this point, let me say there's a rational case to be made that illegal immigrants who earn North Carolina high school diplomas and qualify for higher education should be allowed to enroll in community colleges. If they're going to live in North Carolina anyway, why not help them build better lives for themselves and their families?

But what seems like a good idea is far different from what the law says is allowed. We can't simply decide to ignore the law just because we don't like it or think it's unfair.

The governor, who takes an oath to uphold the law, should be the last one to say it ought to be ignored.

Easley might think he understands the law better than does the Attorney General's Office. After all, he's a former attorney general himself. But the responsible thing to do in such a case is to wait until a definitive judgment is made.

Kelly all but says the state is inviting a lawsuit challenging its policy of admitting illegal aliens and that it's likely to lose. Easley should not put the state in a precarious legal position by ignoring the good advice of the office charged with keeping the state on the right side of the law. That's simply reckless.

Addendum: Gubernatorial candidate Bev Perdue disagrees with Easley. Pat McCrory opposes in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

A year ago, Superior Court Judge Howard Manning slapped down the Wake County Board of Education's plan to assign thousands of students to year-round schools.

The board did not have the statutory authority to make such assignments, Manning ruled, without the "informed consent" of parents.

This week, it was Manning who was overruled in a unanimous decision from the N.C. Court of Appeals.

In considerable detail, the opinion written by Judge Martha Geer and joined by Judges Douglas McCullough and Sanford Steelman, traces the constitutional and statutory authority granted to boards of education in setting policies, including the assignment of students to public schools. The court rejected the contention that children have the right to attend schools on a traditional calendar or that it denies equal protection to place some children in year-round schools and others in nine-month schools.

Because the three-judge panel was unanimous, there's no automatic right of appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court. Because the opinion, in my reading, is so clear and convincing, I doubt the Supreme Court would hear it on discretionary review.

That likely leaves it as a definitive authorization for school boards to proceed with an important strategy for maximizing available classroom space -- and potentially saving significant amounts of money in construction costs.

Wake County developed a plan for multi-track year-round schools, which divide students into four tracks, each with its own schedule. At any given time, three tracks are in school and one is on break. I see it as something like this:

Groups A, B, C and D attend Public School 1 on this schedule:

Winter: ABC
Spring: ABD
Summer: ACD
Fall: BCD

Suppose each group has 250 students. That would add up to 1,000 students attending PS1, but the school would need seats for only 750 at a time. There's a lot of cost difference in building a school for 750 instead of 1,000.

This has to be an option for every school system, including Guilford County, where the $457 million in school bonds we just approved won't address all our needs for classroom space.

Would a plan like this be popular with everyone? Absolutely not. That's why parents sued the Wake County school board. People like their kids to be out of school in the summer. I did.

But what we like and what we can afford aren't always the same.

The question of authority has just been settled. School boards are free to consider this option.

Addendum: In Wake County, each group in a multi-track system actually attends nine weeks, followed by three weeks off, on a staggered schedule year-round. With parent's consent, currently.

http://www.wcpss.net/Calendars/2007-08/07-08-year-round.pdf

A Court of Appeals ruling issued Tuesday points to good work by Greensboro police in properly carrying out a strip search that turned up cocaine in a woman's underwear.

Crystal Elaine Neal contended that evidence in the drug case should have been excluded because she didn't give permission for Officer Jennifer Mauney to conduct such a revealing search. Trial court Judge Catherine Eagles denied the motion, and the COA, in a unanimous decision written by Jim Wynn and joined by Wanda Bryant and Barbara Jackson, affirmed.

The action took place April 25, 2006, as "Officer Roman Watkins was conducting surveillance of a gas station located in a well-known drug area on East Market Street in Greensboro," Wynn wrote.

You can read all about it at the link above. Cutting to the key part: Officers' observations and the attitude of a drug dog created suspicion that Neal was hiding something. A female officer, Mauney, was summoned. Neal was asked whether she would consent to a thorough search. She said yes and was taken into a bathroom at a nearby business.

"Officer Mauney then had Defendant turn sideways, according to police procedure, and asked her to lift her shirt, then unzip her pants and lower them. She then asked Defendant to lower her underwear, at which point a package of what was later determined to be cocaine fell out."

Uh-oh. Neal ended up pleading guilty to possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, trafficking in cocaine by possession and trafficking in cocaine by transportation. She was given a sentence of 35 to 42 months but appealed the conviction on the grounds that the search should have been disallowed.

The court firmly disagreed. Wynn noted legal precedents that require a balancing of personal rights against the need for a particular search but cited a U.S. Supreme Court standard of "objective reasonableness": "What would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?"

In this case, Neal should have known what was coming when she was asked to consent to a thorough search and when she was taken to a private location by a female officer.

Wynn concluded by making a point of mentioning the officer's conduct:

"Officer Mauney did not touch Defendant directly but rather only observed as she removed her own clothing for a short period of time. Accordingly, we find that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search conducted by Officer Mauney."

This is a clearly written, common-sense opinion in which the courts fully support excellent police work for the benefit of the community.

Deena Hayes said Monday: "Opposing school bonds has been a civil rights strategy for a long time, and we're employing it today."

Most of her constituents did not employ that strategy yesterday.

The $412 million school bond package was supported by 57.9 percent* of voters in Hayes' School Board District 8 -- a stronger endorsement than countywide.

* That's my unofficial calculation. You can find the precinct-by-precinct returns at the county elections board site here.

Good news for Pat McCrory: Gov. Mike Easley endorses Bev Perdue.

If Easley's support helps Perdue as much as it did Hillary Clinton, McCrory will win going away.

Will John McCain carry North Carolina in November, as Republican presidential candidates have done since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980?

Let's do the numbers.

If yesterday's turnout was an indication, McCain starts in a hole against Barack Obama.

McCain received 383,401 votes in the GOP primary. Barack Obama drew 897,017 votes on the Democrat side.

Granted, the Republican primary wasn't competitive and didn't pull in as many voters. But the Democratic primary was intensely competitive, so Obama lost a lot of votes to Hillary Clinton.

Let's project. Say McCain retains the support of everyone who voted for him yesterday, picks up the votes of everyone who supported other Republican candidates AND steals half of Clinton's votes.

That's very generous, and it would add up to only about 850,000 votes.

On Obama's side, he keeps the voters he had yesterday and picks up only half of Clinton's. That still pushes him up to about 1.25 million.

OK, only about 2.1 million people voted in the primaries. More will turn out in November. In 2004, 3.5 million presidential votes were cast. Let's say the number will be 4 million this time.

That will be an increase of 1.9 million over the number of voters in the primaries.

McCain will need to win 1,150,000, or 60 percent, of those additional voters to break even with Obama.

Maybe he can do it. Maybe this analysis is off the mark.

But let me say today, six months out, that North Carolina is in play in this year's presidential race.

Addendum: The math would be similar in the Perdue-McCrory and Dole-Hagan races.

Which Republican received the most votes in yesterday's North Carolina primaries?

It wasn't Pat McCrory (233,877) ...

John McCain (383,401) ...

or Elizabeth Dole (461,085).

How about Greensboro lawyer Jewel Ann Farlow, running for N.C. Court of Appeals?

That's a nonpartisan race, but Farlow is a registered Republican who was endorsed by the state GOP.

She polled 600,787 votes ... good for second place behind Judge Jim Wynn. They'll meet again in the general election.

Farlow, little known statewide or even in Guilford County, has never been a judge or held any elective office, and barely campaigned. Yet she trailed veteran jurist Wynn, a Democrat, by only 180,000 votes and trounced the third candidate, Dean Poirier.

My opinion: Farlow's strong showing was a fluke. But it made her the answer to a trivia question that would stump a lot of political experts.