News-Record.com

I'm practically tripping over George Ragsdale yard signs on my morning runs through High Point's affluent Emerywood neighborhood.

(I don't live in Emerywood but within easy running distance.)

Many Emerywood residents have sponsored fundraising events for Ragsdale.

This has been surprising to me because Ragsdale, a Republican, is running against N.C. House District 61 Republican incumbent Laura Wiley.

Don't get me wrong. Ragsdale, 31, is a bright guy with political talent. And he comes from the family that pretty much built Jamestown.

But Wiley, a former High Point city councilwoman who bumped Steve Wood from this House seat four years ago, has done a very good job. Our editorial endorsement of her today was an easy call. There's no reason to replace her, and certainly not with someone who's running for office for the first time.

Ragsdale has tried to make an issue of furniture market support. Again that's odd, because Wiley (with Sen. Katie Dorsett) secured the initial substantial state funding for the market and worked very hard to make fellow lawmakers aware of how important the billion-dollar business event is to the entire state.

In our interview last week, Ragsdale said sure, but Wiley voted against the budget that contained the market funding. That led to an interesting discussion. (Mark ran down the details and included an audio tape here.)

The philosophical question raised is whether a legislator who favors any spending item in a $20 billion budget is bound to vote for the entire package. I'd say no. Yes, you want to support certain initiatives but that doesn't mean you should accept a lot of wasteful spending as well.

The sidebar to the story was former Speaker Jim Black's "leadership" style. By threatening on one occasion to remove furniture market funding, he forced Wiley to vote for the overall budget. He didn't necessarily need her vote to pass the budget, but he was still willing to sacrifice the furniture market -- a hugely important event for the entire state -- just to punish one legislator who wouldn't give in to his authority. Of course, he could do the same thing to many other legislators -- which helps explain how he stayed in power and loaded budgets with benefits for his friends and supporters. Fortunately, his practices caught up with him and he now resides in a federal prison. And Wiley says current Speaker Joe Hackney doesn't use those tactics.

Wiley, by the way, seems to be highly regarded by leaders of both parties in the House. She was appointed to a seat on the six-member ethics panel that examined the misbehavior of former Rep. Thomas Wright and unanimously recommended his expulsion. Doing so was an important step for the House in the post-Black era of ethics reform.

The N&O identifies Holden Thorp as a finalist for UNC-CH chancellor.

Thorp, a chemistry professor and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Carolina, confirms he's a candidate.

The story also refers to the blog University Lotto, which says other finalists are Michael Smith, vice chancellor for public service and engagement and dean of the School of Government at Carolina; and Phillip L. Clay, chancellor at MIT and a member of the Board of Trustees at Carolina.

All look like outstanding candidates. Their Carolina connections are a big plus.

Officially, the search process is hush-hush. The public isn't supposed to know who the finalists are.

So news leaks out unofficially.

What does the secrecy accomplish? It would be better to conduct an open search from the start.

Janet Pueschel is the mystery candidate for a seat on the N.C. Court of Appeals.

She's not campaigning.

She doesn't respond to surveys.

She didn't offer a personal statement on the N.C. Voters Guide.

She doesn't speak with the media -- some of the media, anyway.

And her motives have been questioned.

Yet she's an experienced Raleigh lawyer and former Wake County clerk of court -- certainly adequate credentials for a judicial race.

What I'd heard about Pueschel was that she entered the contest on the last day of the filing period, Feb. 29, not with the intent of winning the election but to help the incumbent, John M. Tyson.

This is a nonpartisan race, but partisanship usually isn't far below the surface in judicial contests. So, for the record: Tyson and Pueschel are Republicans.

Also entering the race were two Democrats: State Utilities Commissioner Sam J. Ervin IV (grandson of the famous Senator Sam), and 10-year Wake County District Court Judge Kristen Ruth.

Rumor had it that Pueschel jumped into the field to dilute the vote that might go to Ruth and improve the chances that Tyson would get through Tuesday's primary. The top two will advance to the general election.

Women voters who don't know much about judicial candidates tend to favor women. Just by being a Janet on the ballot, Pueschel could grab a share of those votes that otherwise might go to a Kristen.

That idea was reinforced when I read a comment posted by Jeffrey Sykes on Guarino's blog. Jeff attended the 13th Congressional District Republican Convention last weekend and heard Pueschel speak. His account:

"She said she put herself on the ballot because stats show that people who do not know about the candidates will statistically vote for the female name over the male name. She said she hopes to draw enough votes away from the other female candidate to give Tyson a fighting chance. She opened and closed her speech by saying 'I do not want your vote. I want you to vote for Judge Tyson.' "

I was amazed. If that's true, it's very unethical in my opinion. Someone running for public office, especially a judicial office, shouldn't do so in hopes of fooling voters or helping another candidate. So, this afternoon, I called Pueschel at her Raleigh law office to ask if that's what she's doing.

I found she does speak to the media. Maybe not always, but she seemed happy enough to explain her position.

She disputed Jeff's interpretation of her remarks. She didn't say she didn't want people to vote for her, she told me, she said she doesn't want people to vote for Kristen Ruth. She's familiar with Ruth's work as a judge, and she doesn't believe Ruth ought to be on the appeals court bench. She doesn't know enough about Ervin to have an opinion, she said. She does believe Tyson is a good judge.

Pueschel insisted that she's not running to lose in next week's primary.

"I hope I will be on the ballot in November," she said. "I think I would be a good judge."

She's not campaigning, however, because she doesn't believe judges should run political campaigns. They shouldn't make political statements. She said she's appalled when judicial candidates are questioned about their opinion on Roe v. Wade and other hot-button cases. That's inappropriate, she said. Voters should decide about candidates on the basis of their legal education and experience, she said.

Voters who want to know more can reach her by phone, email or mail, she said. "I'm not hiding from anybody."

She'd rather not have judges chosen by election at all, she said, but appointment should include some objective system of vetting to make sure judges are really qualified. And she doubts appointments would be made without partisanship.

So, we have the system we have. While I understand more about Pueschel now, she probably won't make much of an impact in the primary. Even in judicial races, it's hard to win if you don't run.

Left out of today's editorial about the McCain-Clinton gas tax ploy was a statement about Barack Obama's pandering.

While he's presenting himself as taking a principled stand against a feel-good but essentially useless summer tax break, he's playing to emotions by saying in a new TV ad that he'll attack high gas prices by going after "price-gouging" by oil companies.

So, what's price-gouging?

We all know oil companies are making huge profits. They have huge gross sales, obviously moreso when prices rise.

But note these statements from a CNNMoney.com report yesterday:

"Gasoline, with a nationwide average of $3.62 a gallon, costs about 20% more than it did a year ago, according to the motorist organization AAA.

"But oil, at $113 a barrel Thursday, costs over 75% more than it did a year ago."

I guess any politician can rail against any business that charges more for its products than he thinks it should. He can promise to "go after" them. But he ought to speak honestly about what he's proposing. Is it price controls? Is it prosecution for racketeering or price-fixing? Is he accusing oil companies of criminal conspiracies or merely greed? And if he's taking an aggressive approach against high prices in one segment of the economy, will he apply the same strategy across the board? Should government override the market and set prices for all goods and services and determine how much profit private companies should be allowed to make?

I don't think we're getting straight talk from any of the candidates about gas prices.

Just in time to help voters before Tuesday's primary ...

Judge Robby Hassell joins the short list of Guilford County District Court candidates with campaign Web sites.

Others are:

Angela Foster,

Betty Brown,

and, although she's not in a primary, Tabatha Holliday.

That leaves 17 others who don't have campaign Web sites. Granted, several are running unopposed. But putting up a Web site is such an easy, inexpensive way to tell the public who you are and what you stand for that I don't know why anyone who is or wants to be a judge wouldn't do it.

Come on, your honors. You're missing out, and so are the voters.

BlueNC blogger Betsy Muse is repelled from Jim Neal's Senate campaign toward support for Kay Hagan.

The notion that Hillary Clinton should have dropped out of the race weeks ago seems absurd now. She has an even chance or better to win in Indiana Tuesday and she's closed a lot of ground in North Carolina, latest polls say. No matter what happens, though, voters on the Democratic side here are casting meaningful ballots in the presidential nominating process. Can we all agree that's a good thing? Clinton's made it happen by refusing to give in, and working her butt off (Bill, too).

I'm still not settled in my own voting. Lieutenant governor is one contest where I'm far from decided. Maybe I'll take a pass on that one on the grounds that we don't need a lieutenant governor anyway. Let's rewrite the constitution to eliminate the position and say the Secretary of State becomes governor if a vacancy occurs.

John McCain turns 72 in August, and his age bothers some people. Voters can decide whether that's a consideration.

Voters don't have that option in North Carolina judicial races. This state imposes a mandatory retirement age of 72 for judges at every level. Even in the middle of an elected term, a judge must step down upon reaching his or her 72nd birthday.

What a crock. If you can serve as president of the United States at 72, you ought to be able to serve on the N.C. Supreme Court (which isn't overly stressful, from what I'm told). So, let's eliminate age discrimination from the judiciary.

I wish Kay Hagan would quit mocking Elizabeth Dole with this ruby slippers shtick. She used it again at last night's Big Dem Dinner in Raleigh, Mark reported:

"I want to give Miss Liddy Dole a pair of ruby-red slippers, and let her click her heels three times, and go home to Kansas with Bob," Hagan told the audience.

Maybe the partisan crowd enjoyed the gag, but I think it can backfire on Hagan.

First, Dole's "home" isn't Kansas. She married a Kansan, but they've lived in Washington throughout their 33-year marriage.

More critically, it's a terrible mistake to portray Dole as sweet, kind Dorothy.

You know who was always going after Dorothy and her ruby slippers ...

Hagan better be careful she doesn't cast herself as the Wicked Witch candidate.

She'll find her chances of victory melting, melting ...

Kentucky Derby entrant Cowboy Cal is running today in memory of John Long, son of Greensboro residents David and Mellie Long.

The Houston Chronicle reports.

The story goes back more than 30 years, when the Longs' 3-year-old son was diagnosed with liver cancer. Their friends, Bob and Janice McNair, recommended treatment at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where the McNairs lived. Young John succumbed to his disease but not before giving the McNairs' 13-year-old son the nickname Cowboy Cal.

The name stuck around and now belongs to the McNairs' Derby hopeful. Whatever winnings the horse brings home will be donated to M.D. Anderson in John Long's memory.

David Long was a Presbyterian minister who answered calls in many locations during his career. Now he and Mellie are retired and living in Greensboro.

His sister is former state legislator Mary Long Jarrell of High Point. His nephew is Guilford County District Court Judge Tom Jarrell.

The Longs are in Louisville for the race. Until I heard this story, I didn't have a rooting interest. Now I do. Cowboy Cal carries a special name and the memory of a child whose short life hasn't been forgotten.

Hillary Clinton's gaining ground in North Carolina polls, but I wonder if that's misleading. So many people have voted early that a late surge can be too late. She might win most of the ballots cast tomorrow but still lose the primary.

I didn't vote early because I wanted to give the candidates every opportunity to influence my decisions.

I heard some discussion about how "undemocratic" it would be if one presidential candidate won the "popular vote" across the country but ended up losing the nomination. Bogus complaint. There is no national popular vote in the primary process. Some states don't even have primary elections at all but caucuses, which are more like horse-trading than voting. The system is what it is, and the name of the game is collecting a majority of delegates at the convention by whatever means you can.

Our governor tried, not very successfully, to push Hillary Clinton's tax holiday on the CNN program minutes ago. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Barack Obama supporter, panned the pandering proposal.

Interviewer Larry King only gave them a few moments and didn't ask Easley why, if dropping the 18 cents per gallon federal gas tax would help North Carolina motorists, he opposes suspending the 30-cent state gas tax. Wouldn't that help even more?

Easley recited the extremely lame line that a "windfall profits tax" will pay for the holiday. Let's get the oil companies to pay it instead of the people, Easley said.

Give us a break, governor. There is no windfall profits tax, and there isn't going to be one. Certainly not this summer, and probably not ever because it doesn't make sense.

"Opposing school bonds has been a civil rights strategy for a long time, and we're employing it today," says Guilford County School Board member Deena Hayes.

I'm not sure I understand whose civil rights are advanced by crummy school facilities, but if this thinking makes sense to Hayes and her colleagues, I'd suggest they extend their strategy to similar applications.

I think they'd do more good by calling on people in the black community to oppose the lottery. Many probably waste more money playing the so-called "Education Lottery" than they would pay in taxes for school bonds. And how much educational progress are they getting for it?

Opposing a lottery that suckers poor people would be a more plausible civil rights strategy than voting against school bonds.

The day's news properly belongs to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but John McCain's remarks at Wake Forest University today deserve attention.

He spoke about the proper role of the courts and the philosophy of judicial restraint, which to him means deciding cases within the framework of law.

McCain decried the Senate's blockage of judicial nominees, which he said has created a crisis in the courts. He noted his role as one of the "Gang of 14" -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- who forged an agreement to stop the filibuster strategy. Their effort was unfortunately temporary, but it did account for some progress while it lasted.

He took an effective jab at Obama, noting the Illinois senator was one of only 22 Democrats to vote against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts:

"And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator's measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it -- and I quote -- should share 'one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism -- come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up."

McCain noted that he, along with most Republican senators, voted to confirm President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

McCain's record indicates he's taken a fairer and less partisan approach to the Senate's advice and consent role than have many other senators. That's a strong indication that he could be trusted to make good judicial selections if he were president.

It's 7:35, no votes are counted, and CNN already projects Obama as the winner in North Carolina.

Overwhelming exit poll numbers?

Update, 7:51: Actual votes coming in at State Board of Elections site.

Incumbent judges don't lose often in primaries, but when it happens you usually can find an easy explanation.

In Guilford County, District Court Judge Linda Falls finished last behind Robert Enochs and Angela Falls, who will go head-to-head in the general election. The word I've heard from the courthouse is that Falls, a rookie judge, has had troubles adjusting to the job. I guess word got out to voters, too, and Falls will have to give up that job at the end of the year.

Statewide, Court of Appeals Judge John Tyson is out after finishing third behind Sam Ervin IV and Kristin Ruth, who likewise will square off again in the fall. Tyson can blame the Obama-Clinton presidential primary, which produced a huge turnout of Democrats. Judicial races are nonpartisan, but Tyson is a Republican. Ervin and Ruth are Democrats. The N.C. Democratic Party did a good job of alerting its voters to those facts, producing the outcome we had. So many more Democrats than Republicans voted today that both Ervin and Ruth could outpoll Tyson.

Meanwhile, Greensboro attorney Jewel Ann Farlow finished second behind Court of Appeals Judge Jim Wynn in a three-candidate race, ensuring that both she and he will advance to the November ballot. This was a lot closer than I expected, but there could have been gender voting at work.

My column today:

End Of The Road, N.C. — “Mind if I join you?” I say to the old timer perched on a bench at the edge of the tiny town square.

He’s dressed in overalls and wearing a broad-brimmed straw hat to fend off the sun. His rough hands look like they might have guided a plow in days gone by. He’s working a mouthful of tobacco with dark gums and a few brown teeth, occasionally spitting juice into a Styrofoam cup that may or may not also contain coffee.

“Be my guest. No better place to enjoy all the excitement.”

I sit and survey the scene from his point of view. A truck sputters down Main Street. A barber in front of his shop chats with a lady mail carrier. A couple of storefronts stand forlorn and empty.

The last time anything exciting happened here, I think, was maybe the end of World War II.

“What do you mean? What’s happening?”

“Bill Clinton’s coming.”

“Bill Clinton? Are you sure?”

“Yep. He’s campaigning for his wife, Hillary.”

“But the primary was yesterday.”

“Well, I hear he runs a little late. But I don’t mind waiting. I’ve never seen a president before, and I always liked ol’ Bill, even if he got hisself in trouble now and then. I wouldn’t mind some of that kind of trouble myself.”

My companion shakes his head and chuckles wickedly, causing tobacco juice to spill over his lower lip. It’s time to draw the conversation back on track.

“I don’t want to disappoint you, but ol’ Bill’s not late. He’s gone. They’re all gone.”

The old idea that black candidates can't win countywide office in Guilford was shoved further into history yesterday in the at-large school board race.

Sandra Alexander and Michael McKinney led the field of five candidates with a combined 65 percent of the vote. Add E.C. Huey's 8 percent, and you have nearly three-fourths of the countywide vote going to African Americans.

Alexander and McKinney will run head-to-head in November, assuring the election of a black school board member at-large. The race is nonpartisan.

This follows last year's election of Yvonne Johnson as Greensboro's first black mayor.

It adds up to progress beyond the thinking that the "voting rights" of African Americans demand special districts in which they make up the majority. That was true, but it isn't now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.)

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?

If you read our print edition (of course you do), you know that on our Tuesday Second Opinion page we run a feature called Laugh Lines. It takes the best of the political jokes from the late-night TV funnymen.

Who says they're the best jokes? Dennis Shelton, our Editorial Department page designer, that's who.

I'm a big fan of this feature. I don't stay up late enough to watch the late shows, so this is my source for late-night political humor.

When my son, Andrew, was living in Tanzania for two years, I clipped the Laugh Lines column every week and stuffed it in with whatever else I was mailed him. I was trying to keep him in touch with the mood back home, although maybe the effort wasn't successful since it would take anywhere from three weeks to six months for him to receive mail, if it did at all. Jokes about the Indiana primary might not be all that funny six months from now.

Anyway, Leno rules the Laugh Lines column. He dominates, no contest, week after week.

But not this week. This week, Letterman gains the upper hand. Hey, if he can pull one out, is Hillary really done?

Here's this week's Laugh Lines column:

“Hillary Clinton barely won my home state of Indiana. And she lost in the state of North Carolina. But here is the good news. She has a substantial lead in the state of denial.”
David Letterman

“It occurred to me that Hillary Clinton has one thing in common with President Bush. Neither of them has an exit strategy.”
David Letterman

“The experts say, if you do the math, there’s no way Hillary Clinton can win the nomination. And today, Hillary responded by saying, 'People who do math are elitist.’ ”
Jay Leno

“The groom ... asked President Bush for his daughter’s hand in marriage. And President Bush said, 'Well, it’s OK with me, but you gotta run it by Cheney.’ ”
David Letterman

“President Bush has offered to help Myanmar. ... That’s where they had that terrible cyclone, where thousands of people were killed. ... In fact, Bush offered to help the country under one condition, 'Don’t tell New Orleans.’ ”
Jay Leno

You heard it here first. I wrote back in February that the allegation that Greensboro police discarded secret Klan-Nazi-CWP shootout files was likely phony.

Yesterday, Chief Tim Bellamy confirmed it.

The "files," Bellamy said, contained newspaper clippings.

Just more turmoil in Greensboro over nothing.

Case closed? Not so fast. This all came about because ministers Cardes Brown, Gregory Headen and Nelson Johnson were willing to make public allegations based on the word of a police officer -- later identified as Julius Fulmore -- who, it now appears, made an unwarranted accusation against fellow officer Craig McMinn, no doubt causing McMinn considerable distress, and also putting the department to a lot of trouble.

If I were the chief, I'd want to find out what was behind that accusation and determine whether disciplinary action is appropriate.

When I saw the headline, "Bush visit to Furman faces opposition," I thought that can't refer to quiet little Furman University just outside Greenville, S.C.

That's where my wife graduated a few years back, and we've visited the lovely campus several times since then.

George W. Bush accepted an invitation to give the commencement address on May 31.

Not surprising considering the president's record-low approval ratings, some people in the Furman community weren't terribly happy.

But I was having a hard time picturing protests, disruptions or efforts to shout down the speaker. If that happened in the polite atmosphere at Furman, well, respect for free speech and good manners are all shot to hell in this country.

Fortunately, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Some 200+ students and faculty members simply have signed a statement listing their objections to Bush administration policies. It doesn't threaten anything or demand that Bush be barred from speaking. It doesn't criticize anyone for inviting him.

"Because we love this country and the ideals it stands for, we accept our civic responsibility to speak out against these actions that violate American values," it says.

Which is fine, just as long as everyone doesn't try to speak at once.

A respectful protest is in order.

My column today ...

Should Barack Obama give up his presidential campaign after his crushing defeat in yesterday's West Virginia primary?

A Democrat can't win in November without West Virginia, and only Hillary Clinton commands the loyalty of those poor, uneducated, working-class white voters.

So she says.

Is Obama thinking of the good of the party as he clings to his lead in delegates, superdelegates and popular votes yet ignores the only people who really count: Clinton supporters?

If he can't win West Virginia, what business does he have running for president?

Kudos to the city of Winston-Salem for naming four finalists for the police chief position today.

The city Web site provides background info about each candidate and includes an online feedback form. Even better:

"The public is invited to attend a public forum to meet and address the candidates on Thursday, May 22, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. The forum will be televised live on WSTV 13, the government channel on TimeWarner Cable."

Last week, Charlotte-Mecklenburg announced its three finalists for police chief. The three spoke at a public forum attended by about 200 people last night. (Observer's coverage here.)

The three candidates are the current chief from Richmond, an assistant chief from Atlanta and Charlotte-Meck's deputy chief. So much for the often-heard dodge that you won't attract top applicants if you're going to name the finalists.

The public really cares about crime and public safety, and citizens deserve the opportunity to hear what a potential police chief has to say before he or she is hired. Yes, the city manager makes the final decision, but that selection should be informed at least partially by public opinion.

Leaders in Charlotte and Winston-Salem should be commended for taking that route. Every city should do the same.

Addendum: You may notice that Alan Dreher from Atlanta is a finalist for both jobs.

Our ambitious former senator has been retired from running for president for three months or so -- his longest break in years -- but he returns today to endorse ...

... this is suspenseful ...

Barack Obama!

Wow! Is it too late to bet on Big Brown in the Kentucky Derby?

Rather than step in before his home state primary last week, Edwards chose to wait and name his choice in Grand Rapids, Mich., this evening.

This is portrayed as Obama's answer to Hillary Clinton's victory in West Virginia yesterday.

She won big with white, working class voters ...

He gets the endorsement of one white, multimillionaire trial lawyer.

I thought all along Edwards would back Obama. Edwards is much more closely aligned in his views with the very liberal Obama than with the moderate-liberal Clinton. When he delayed, I figured he was bargaining for the best deal -- attorney general? secretary of poverty? vice president? Time will tell what Obama offered.

Edwards' support likely will help Obama a little, but it hardly matters at this point. The nomination is all but decided.

If Obama wins in November, this endorsement will help Edwards more ... and I expect he's counting on that. He's not done running for president.

Barack Obama's apology to Detroit TV reporter Peggy Agar for calling her "sweetie" has me worried.

"That's a bad habit of mine," he said in a message he left on her voice mail yesterday. "I do it sometimes with all kinds of people."

All kinds of people? If he's calling men "sweetie," he does have a problem.

But I doubt he does. I'd bet he reserves the term for women. Maybe that's not a wise thing to do, particular if he's elected president and meeting with, oh, say, Angela Merkel. Or, worse, the wife of some Middle East poohbah.

Still, I think terms of endearment have their place. I'll throw out an occasional "sweetie" to girls under 10, but definitely not to women in a professional setting. A caller to the Brad & Britt show this morning said he called a woman at work "dear heart" and was written up for sexual harassment. It's become that kind of world.

The waitress where my friend and I eat breakfast on Saturdays calls us "sweeties," which I certainly don't mind.

At another favorite eatery recently, however, I was taken aback when the waitress, who looks like she's 16, called me "darling." My wife was sitting next to me. She didn't remark about it, so I guess there was no problem. It just seemed odd coming from a child when I'm more than old enough to be her father.

Obama probably would have been fine with it. He could have given her a "sweetie" right back.

The community should follow closely the prosecution of Michael Vernard Thompson, who has been indicted for last year's murder of Betty Sibert Thomas at her Greensboro store, Angie's Hats.

This was a vile crime, and the courts need to make sure the criminal element in this city gets the message that it won't be tolerated.

Yesterday's announcement of a big aviation project going to the N.C. Global TransPark is good news for North Carolina.

Governor's news release ...

News release from Wichita-based Spirit AeroSystems ...

Kinston Free Press report.

I wondered whether the GTP had beaten out PTIA for this mega-project.

Apparently not. Spirit spokeswoman Debbie Gann tells me no other North Carolina locations were considered for this design-and-production facility. It will manufacture the center fuselage frame section for the Airbus A350 XWB.

One key factor is proximity to the state ports at Morehead City and Wilmington. This fuselage frame is a big honker: 65 feet long, 20 feet wide and 9,000 pounds. It will be shipped across the ocean to France, where Airbus is based. That means it's got to be hauled to the coast. That's a lot closer from Kinston than Greensboro.

By truck or rail? Gann said that's yet to be determined.

Another plus: proximity to military bases and potential access to the "retiring military labor force," Gann said. Yeah, somebody who's worked on aircraft at Seymour Johnson AFB might be a good fit.

For the TransPark, landing this kind of project has been a long time coming. Created 17 years ago, it's attracted few tenants, required tens of millions of tax dollars to stay open and come nowhere near its purpose of becoming a thriving hub of aviation, logistics and trade.

FedEx considered the TransPark for its East Coast hub a decade ago before choosing PTI.

Now I wonder whether the Lenoir County facility, backed by big dollars from the state, suddenly presents competition to the Triad, which also is developing an aviation/logistics industry cluster.

I'm working up an edit on this, tentatively scheduled for publication Saturday.

Addendum: The news about Airbus isn't all that encouraging.

The California Supreme Court's ruling today legalizing same-sex marriage will reverberate across the country.

Notably, the decision came by a 4-3 margin -- the same split as in Massachusetts several years ago. This overturned a 2006 Appeals Court ruling, so obviously there's considerable disagreement on the courts even in a liberal state.

I haven't read the opinion yet, but the news account linked above indicates the majority viewed this as a matter of marriage equality, while the minority said the court was overstepping its bounds. Defining marriage is a responsibility properly left to the legislative branch of government. I specifically remember that the Appeals Court two years ago rejected the equality argument, stating that all unrelated men and women already have an equal right to marriage. What was being sought was something completely different. And that something completely different must be established by law, not by judicial fiat. I agree with that view.

How will this resound from west to east? Certainly the presidential candidates will be asked to weigh in. Do they support same-sex marriage? They can dodge by saying this is a California issue, but then the question is whether they think California same-sex marriages should be recognized across the country. In effect, would they support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which says states may refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states.

Then there's the impact on judicial elections, such as those coming up in North Carolina. Candidates for state appellate judgeships should not say how they would rule in particular cases, but voters will want to know and they'll listen for hints. Candidates who avow their support for "traditional values" will be sending a big hint.

Then there's activity on the state legislative level. In most states, voters have been allowed to approve state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Efforts to get such a proposal on the North Carolina ballot have been blocked by Democratic leaders on the basis that state law already sets that definition. But today's action in California shows that courts can overturn the law. It's more fuel for opponents of same-sex marriage, and it can burn very bright and hot.

I don't think our higher courts, especially our Supreme Court, would issue a ruling like that in California today. Our courts do respect the rule of law and the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Our courts are more conservative. But at some point, the push for a constitutional amendment will yield to a vote of the people. The California Supreme Court has made that much more likely.

Update, May 16: Some details about the decision follow below:

If President Bush used his speech to the Israeli Knesset today to slam Barack Obama as an appeaser of terrorists, he was way out of line.

It's terribly inappropriate to haul domestic partisan politics into an overseas address.

But it's not clear that's what he was doing. Bush didn't name Obama, who seems to have inserted himself into Bush's reference to leaders who would try to reason with Iran and Syria.

What do you think? Are Democrats overreacting? Is the president guilty as charged? Was Bush being wickedly clever?

Oh, heck. Surely we can eliminate the third possibility.

Davidson County commissioners have approved a $2 million cash incentives offer for SunEdison of Beltsville, Md., to construct a solar power plant worth an investment of $173,000 and providing three full-time jobs, the High Point Enterprise reports today.

UPDATE: The Winston-Salem Journal reports the SunEdison investment would be $173 million, not $173,000. That makes a difference.

End update

Two million tax dollars for a private investment of $173,000 (correction: $173 million) and the creation of THREE jobs?

The Enterprise quotes Steve Googe, Davidson's top economic development official: "I think this type of technology attracts other businesses and keeps our county on the cutting edge."

"Green" technology is the cutting-edge rage these days, no doubt, but local governments can't drive themselves into bankruptcy pursuing it.

Davidson County should give the $2 million to its school systems. Education is the best investment for a sustainable future.

I disagree with my friend Rosemary Roberts, who wants North Carolina to move its 2012 state, local and presidential primaries from early May to early February.

Rosemary argues the shift will assure that North Carolina will be a player in the presidential nominating process then (this year was a lucky fluke, she says). And to avoid the expense of holding two primaries, the state and local contests should move up, too.

The second part of her proposal is a no-go.

Our filing period for state and local offices opened on Feb. 1 this year. That's the official launch date of primary campaigns.

Guess what happens if we move up the schedule by three months? Filing for those offices shifts to Nov. 1, 2011, for elections that won't be held for more than a year, in November 2012. I'm talking about school board, county commissioners, state legislators, judges, plus the big state and federal races like governor and Congress.

Imagine these campaigns starting before Thanksgiving so we can hold a primary on the first Tuesday in February. And then have a gap of nine months before the general election.

No, thanks.

At the presidential level, I wouldn't be keen on North Carolina being part of a 20- or 30-state Super Tuesday primary. How much attention from the candidates would one state out of 20 or 30 get? Not much.

This year was a fluke, but it gave us almost daily visits by the presidential candidates or family members for a couple of weeks.

In 2012, somebody will be running for re-election, so his party won't have contested primaries anyway. It won't be worth moving up our primaries.

The folks commenting on the Debatables blog about next month's statewide Democratic Party runoff primary for labor commissioner recognize a real problem but none mentioned where the best solution lies:

Eliminate elections for offices that should be part of the governor's cabinet.

The results of the first primary in this race found four candidates receiving from 23.92 percent of the vote to 27.54 percent. That's a random separation of votes. The laws of probability would give you that kind of outcome if the candidates rolled dice, or drew cards or competed in some other exercise in pure chance. The voters were guessing.

Mary Donnan was the leader, and John Brooks qualified for the runoff by receiving 2,000 more votes than Ty Richardson out of 1.2 million cast. Luck of the draw.

The runoff might produce a more deliberate outcome because turnout likely will be limited for the most part to voters who have an interest in the race and therefore some knowledge. But that will be a very small number.

This should be avoided by allowing the governor to appoint the labor commissioner and certain other Council of State officers who currently are elected.

Look, we don't elect the federal labor commissioner and agriculture secretary or attorney general. Labor, agriculture, justice and other concerns fall under the responsibility of the president's administration, and the same should apply on the state level.

The governor certainly would make partisan appointments, but it would serve his interest to select individuals with the appropriate skills to do the job. If voters manage to do that, especially in elections for the obscure offices, it sometimes seems like pure luck.

What happened to Steven Domalewski two years ago was tragic.

A 12-year-old Little League baseball pitcher at the time, he was struck in the chest with a batted ball. The impact stopped his heart long enough to cause severe brain damage. Now he's left with permanent serious disabilities.

"His family plans to file a lawsuit today against the maker of the metal bat that was used in the game, against Little League Baseball and a sporting goods chain that sold the bat," the Associated Press reports. "The family contends metal baseball bats are inherently unsafe for youth games because the ball comes off them faster than from wooden bats."

I'm very, very sorry for Steven and his family. I get the fact that a metal bat can drive a ball harder than a wooden bat.

But this lawsuit is misguided.

Baseball, like most sports, presents an element of risk. It can't be played with a guarantee of safety. Parents who aren't willing to accept that shouldn't let their kids play.

Are metal bats unreasonably more dangerous than wooden bats? I played youth baseball way, way, way back in the wooden bat days, and my kids played and I coached after the shift to metal. In both eras, big, strong, athletic kids could hit a baseball with enough power to injure another player. Rather than ban metal bats, it would better promote safety to bar big, strong, athletic kids from playing.

Wooden bats might not generate as much force but something else happens that's occasionally dangerous: They break. In fact, they can shatter, sending sharp shards flying. That risk is eliminated with metal bats.

What about the ball? A baseball is hard. It doesn't have to be batted to cause a serious injury. A thrown ball that strikes a player in the face or elsewhere on the head also can do some damage. Leagues for younger kids often use a softer ball. The Domalewski family could just as well sue the baseball manufacturer and the store that sold the baseball that struck Steven.

Then there are the dimensions of the field itself. In Little League, the pitcher throws from only 45 feet from home plate. By the time he completes his delivery, he may be 40 feet or less from the point where the batter hits the ball. That puts the pitcher in an extremely vulnerable position.

Some leagues for younger kids don't let the players pitch. Coaches pitch to their own players. I've seen pitching machines used. The youngest kids play T-Ball. The ball is set on a tee at home plate and the kids whack it and run. No fielder has to stand as close as 45 feet to the batter. The Domalewskis could sue to force these kinds of rule changes.

The most common response to safety concerns has been to require greater use of personal safety equipment. I've seen the shift from batting helmets to batting helmets with ear coverings to batting helmets with ear coverings and face guards. Even on base, players were required to keep their helmets on. Heck, as a coach, I once made my bat boy wear a helmet all the time because he always seemed to be walking into trouble. Catcher's gear has improved. Now there's a move for fielders to wear chest protectors. Parents and coaches should decide what they think is best, although you can't load the kids down with so much armor that they can't move.

The ultimate solution, of course, is to do away with dangerous sports -- that is, any sport that presents even the slightest risk of injury.

Kids can get enough exercise playing video games.

Carolina Journal's John Hood calls North Carolina a "laughingstock in national education-reform circles."

While the state's political leaders congratulate themselves on "progress," Hood writes, "a series of studies has shown that North Carolina sets some of the lowest achievement standards in the United States."

The latest evidence, Hood notes, comes from EducationNext, which looks at the difference between academic achievement as measured by the states themselves and achievement as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress:

"Three states -- Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Missouri -- have established world-class standards in math and reading as the goal for all students."

Only those three states earn a grade of A for high standards, says EducationNext. In contrast:

"Twelve states -- Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia -- received Ds because they had pitched their expectations far below other states."

That would explain why colleges and businesses find that far too many of our high school graduates have poor reading and math skills.

“Sheer incapability or lax enforcement of the laws barring entry into this country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented aliens, has resulted in the creation of a substantial 'shadow population’ of illegal immigrants — numbering in the millions — within our borders.

“This situation raises the specter of a permanent caste of undocumented resident aliens, encouraged by some to remain here as a source of cheap labor, but nevertheless denied the benefits that our society makes available to citizens and lawful residents” — U.S. Supreme Court, Plyler v. Doe, 1982.

We’ve really gotten a grip on that problem over the last 26 years, haven’t we?

Not. In Plyler v. Doe, the court struck down a Texas law that denied illegal immigrants access to public schools.

Today, North Carolina confronts a related issue: Should illegal immigrants be admitted to degree programs in its community college system?

The same arguments presented to the Supreme Court a generation ago echo here now, and they produce the same differences of opinion.

The court was sharply divided, 5-4. Likewise, contradictory legal views have been aired in North Carolina.

The Attorney General’s Office issued an advisory letter stating that community colleges may violate federal law if they admit illegal immigrants. Gov. Mike Easley, a former attorney general, stated the contrary view — backed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Nevertheless, the community college system opted to heed the advice of the current attorney general, Roy Cooper.

The UNC system is left out of this discussion, but only for now.

Easley leaves office at the end of the year, and both candidates to replace him disagree about the community college policy. Proceeding in the face of likely opposition from the next governor, and without support from the legislature, wouldn’t be prudent for the community college system, whose board is appointed by political leaders.

I get the sense, however, that college officials would rather open their doors. And they have supporters, who say it doesn’t make sense to educate these students through 12th grade then tell them they can go no further. Kids shouldn’t be penalized when it was their parents who brought them into this country illegally . They should be allowed to reach their full potential and contribute as much as possible to the community. Finally, advocates note that these students — barely a handful so far — pay full tuition, not the taxpayer-subsidized in-state rate.

Opponents counter, with forceful logic, that state resources ought to be reserved for legal residents and that these students aren’t legally entitled to employment anyway — college education or not.

In Plyler, the court rejected the state’s claim of a compelling interest in denying education to illegal immigrants. The cost did not create an unreasonable burden, it said.

That was then, when the country’s illegal immigrant population was estimated at 3 million to 6 million. It’s triple that today. Would the surge of uninvited newcomers change the court’s view?

Frankly, I think it would disgust the justices of 1982.

Justice Lewis Powell blamed Congress, “Vested by the Constitution with the responsibility of protecting our borders and legislating with respect to aliens,” for failing to provide “effective leadership.” But he nevertheless would not leave the children of illegal immigrants “on the streets uneducated.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger agreed “it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children — including illegal aliens — of an elementary education.” But, noting that the failure of immigration enforcement had created “a socioeconomic dilemma,” he insisted “it is not the function of the Judiciary to provide 'effective leadership’ simply because the political branches of government fail to do so.”

Those words ring true today. This is a bigger mess than ever, but it can’t be fixed by the courts or by the state of North Carolina. We’re all still waiting for Washington.

Call me at 373-7039 or e-mail at dgclark@news-record.com

Additional thoughts below:

Watauga County commissioners agree to a $3 million deal that will keep the Tweetsie Railroad running, the Winston-Salem Journal reports.

Tweetsie holds special meaning in my wife's family because her grandfather drove the train back in the early days of the park. She made many childhood visits to the mountain attraction -- and the younger generations of her family have become well acquainted with its charms as well.

It's become quite an institution, apparently worth a $3 million boost by the local government. Plans call for Tweetsie to pay back the money.

In addition, the Watauga County Tourism Development Authority (no Web site?), supported by a hotel/motel occupancy tax, will spend $1.1 million promoting Tweetsie and other visitor destinations.

Although the park's Old West theme is a stretch for North Carolina, I'm glad the historic steam engine will keep chugging along. The park provides a nice setting for a fun family outing.

Compliments to the Greater Guilford Republican Forum for hosting N.C. Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds at its luncheon Wednesday.

Edmunds, a Greensboro resident, is running for re-election.

Edmunds has an easygoing manner and clearly was comfortable with this group. He spoke mostly about campaign issues, but definitely not in the way a candidate for a political office would talk. Anyone in the audience who wanted to hear some Republican red-meat rhetoric didn't get it from Edmunds. During a Q&A period, the justice passed on opportunities to go after those liberal, activist judges that a lot of conservatives just know are wrecking our courts.

Not that he's seen in his 10 years on the bench, Edmunds said.

"It's not a political philosophy that drives what we do," he said of the North Carolina appellate courts. "It's devotion to the rule of law. The more I see of the game from the inside, the more impressed I am with the people who do the job the way it should be done."

North Carolina's judiciary is nonpartisan, Edmunds reminded the Republicans. That said, he noted that the parties are involved. His opponent announced her candidacy at a Democratic Party event, he said.

That's Wake Forest law professor Suzanne Reynolds, who disavowed partisan politics in an interview with me a couple of months ago, but Edmunds is right -- the parties choose sides on a partisan basis.

(And Reynolds wasn't invited to appear at Wednesday's luncheon.)

Edmunds said he doesn't discriminate when it comes to meeting voters: "I've been to Democratic events. If I'm invited and I can make it, I'll show up."

Judicial candidates can't afford to turn down opportunities to get before crowds. Those, like Edmunds and Reynolds, who are participating in public campaign financing have only about $250,000 to work with. Does that sound like plenty? "It doesn't pay for a single mailing to all the voters of this state," Edmunds said.

The judges count on voters seeing the voter's guide put out by the State Board of Elections, hope that the media will pay attention to their races and also rely on word-of-mouth endorsements, largely from lawyers.

"In my race, I am delighted if people ask lawyers because I think I win that race," Edmunds said.

His experience includes work in Guilford County as an assistant district attorney, then an assistant U.S. attorney. He was U.S. attorney for this district from 1986 to 1992, then practiced law privately until his election to the N.C. Court of Appeals in 1998. Two years later, he was elected to an eight-year term on the U.S. Supreme Court. In my observation, he's been part of a centrist majority made up of Republicans and Democrats during that time. Edmunds invited listeners to read his opinions, which are available on his Web site.

His earlier elections were partisan. Now all judicial contests are nonpartisan. The change, plus the shift to public financing, present challenges. Ideally, the courts will become a little more insulated from partisan politics and special-interest influence. But systemic changes can only work if the judges and judicial candidates themselves respect the initent behind them and resist the temptation to plunge into the hot-button political issues -- no matter what anybody else does.

"I think we judicial candidates can't be a part of a race to the bottom. ... People expect us to be fair," Edmunds said.

Edmunds did his part to elevate the discussion Wednesday. Let's hope all our judicial races can be conducted on a high plane this year.

Yvonne Johnson's views about the advantages of prevention vs. penalties when it comes to youth crime and gangs certainly have value ...

... but it seems to me she's speaking less as mayor of Greensboro than as director of an agency, One Step Further, that provides prevention and alternative sentencing services, some with state funding.

As Mark reported, legislative backers of tougher punishment admitted it was necessary to beef up prevention and intervention programs to win wider support. That's the politics of it.

The reality, though, is that it's too late for "prevention and intervention" when you're dealing with young offenders who already are committing dangerous crimes. At that point, they have to be removed from society for the protection of the public.

I'lll go back to a comment Guilford County DA Doug Henderson made last week, which I included in an editorial Sunday: The debate over gang legislation has become a political football between those who want tougher penalties and those who favor "education and avoidance of the problem altogether."

He told me his prosecutors already ask judges to take gang membership into account when sentencing offenders even though that's not counted as an aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines.

But, if the state is serious about breaking gangs, it ought to be.

There are good arguments for prevention and intervention. But let's not act as if there aren't plenty of effective prevention and intervention programs and agencies already at work. They include:

Families.

Schools.

Churches.

Youth sports programs.

Boys and Girls Clubs.

Scouts.

Etc.

I don't mean it's the job of the schools or churches to prevent crime and fight gangs. But, if kids go to school to learn and keep up with their studies, or get involved in church activities, or join a scouting program, or hang out at the Boys and Girls Club, chances are they won't join a criminal gang or otherwise get in trouble.

Unfortunately, there are kids who avoid these positive programs and activities, and whose families don't steer them in the right direction. Maybe the state can come up with new programs that are more likely to divert these kids from a life of crime.

In case they don't, however, the criminal-justice system must have effective tools to do its job -- which is to protect the public.

Bravo for the beer bust by state ALE. Don't mess with beer drinkers, bar owners. But Bud Light, Busch Light, Coors Light? I didn't know there was any difference.

Thanks, Leonard Pitts, for today's thoughtful column : One idiot who calls himself a conservative means all conservatives are stupid. Another blow against bigotry.

Money discriminates against the blind, a federal appeals court rules. I thought it discriminated against everyone who doesn't have it.

The candidates' spouses are targets this year. Kathleen Parker writes not so favorably about Michelle Obama today (Charles Davenport will take his shots Sunday). Cindy McCain draws criticism, too. I guess the only one who gets a free pass is Bill Clinton.

Every time I see a headline like this, I have to remind myself: Oh, yeah, my kids aren't teenagers anymore. Thank God.

Time magazine: "What will (Hillary) Clinton's terms of surrender turn out to be? Her husband, for one, seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton's view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama's running mate, according to some who are close to the former President.

New York Times: "Friends of the former president say his musings have been more casual: He believes that an Obama-Clinton ticket could help unify the party, and he thinks she has earned a meeting with Mr. Obama to discuss the possibility. According to these friends, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be identified revealing private talks, Mr. Clinton believes that his wife’s victories in major primary battles, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the 16 million votes cast for her candidacy make her the proper choice for Mr. Obama."

Would Democrats actually buy this?

Wouldn't it reveal lack of confidence in Barack Obama's ability to win in November? Does he need the Clintons on board to beat a 71-year-old Republican whom they can tie to a discredited president during an unpopular war, economic recession and energy crisis?

In reality, tough and savvy John McCain won't be a pushover. But everything's going Democrats' way ... unless Obama does something that gives the appearance of either desperation or appeasement like bow to the Clintons' demands.

He says he's going to break away from old-style politics? Then hooking up with Bill and Hillary is the wrong way to go.

Besides, she'll slug him the first time he calls her "sweetie."

On a slightly different subject: Charles Krauthammer offers historical perspective and a critique of Obama's talk-with-tyrants policy.

The Brooklyn Bridge opened 125 years ago today and remains a marvel of engineering.

I recommend David McCullough's fascinating account of its construction, "The Great Bridge"

Whatever she really meant, Hillary Clinton's reference this week to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy was just plain dumb.

It's created quite a stir, as the New York Times reports today.

At worst, Clinton was suggesting the same thing could happen to Barack Obama so she has to keep her campaign machine running just in case.

Kennedy was murdered by Sirhan Sirhan at he Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles after midnight on June 5, 1968, after winning the Democratic presidential primary in California.

Clinton offered a more benign explanation that she only meant that the 1968 Democratic presidential contest was still unsettled in June -- so why all the pressure for her to drop out so early this year?

Even assuming that is the point Clinton was trying to make, using 1968 as a model for 2008 isn't very smart. The presidential campaign of 40 years ago was a total disaster for Democrats from start to finish. In no way was it analogous to circumstances today. In fact, it was more like a polar opposite.

A very unpopular war was going badly in 1968, and the president in charge of it was reviled. Chants of "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" rang outside the White House. That was Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. Unlike George W. Bush today, Johnson was eligible to run for re-election. But on March 31, he declared he would not seek the nomination.

That announcement, by the way, put the 1968 campaign on a much later schedule than the 2008 time frame.

Up to that point, first Sen. Eugene McCarthy, then Kennedy, had launched their own bids for the nomination. After Johnson's withdrawal, Vice President Hubert Humphrey entered the race.

The process was much different then, with only a dozen or so states holding primaries. Candidates appealed to party leaders in other states for support. McCarthy and Kennedy competed in the primaries; Humphrey did not, but he began amassing delegates anyway. In fact, even after Kennedy's (narrow) win over McCarthy in California, it was Humphrey who already was leading the chase and probably would have nailed down the nomination at the late-August convention in Chicago even against Kennedy.

The assassination did add to the chaotic conditions that roiled the country in 1968. Chicago turned into a battlefield when the Democrats arrived, horrifying Americans watching on television. Humphrey had the support of powerful party insiders like Mayor Richard Daley but couldn't sufficiently distance himself from Johnson's war policies. The road to the White House was paved for Republican Richard Nixon, whose theme of restoring law and order and pledge to end the war resounded with voters. Four years after Johnson's landslide victory, Democrats limped to a dismal showing in November 1968.

This year the Democrats are the ones promising to end the war and are trying hard to link the Republican candidate to the policies of the unpopular lame duck president. Only four years after a Republican victory, they are in a strong position to recapture the White House.

I don't see what role Hillary Clinton thinks she plays in her comparison to 1968. It can't be that of Eugene McCarthy, because he didn't race to the nomination after Kennedy's death. Maybe that of Hubert Humphrey, who didn't win any primaries but accumulated the most delegates anyway, thanks to sway with party bosses? But Humphrey ended up as a flawed and failed candidate in the fall.

Or perhaps she'd prefer the Richard Nixon role. After all, he ended up winning the general election.

Nixon did compete in most Republican primaries and did well, but he did not win the cumulative popular vote. The candidate who did was another Californian, Ronald Reagan. As we know, however, Reagan would have to wait 12 years before gaining the GOP nomination.

Frankly, I doubt Clinton thought very long or hard before referring to Robert Kennedy and 1968. She's apologized for the insensitivity of the remark, but really it was just dumb.

I've been to Chimney Rock Park enough to picture exactly how Saturday's tragic accident could have happened.

A 2-year-old boy pulled out of his mother's grasp, The Charlotte Observer reports.

The boy ran, then slipped under the rail of the boardwalk along the Skyline Trail and fell more than 100 feet to the Cliff Trail below, a spokesman for the state parks system told the newspaper.

"Sheer cliffs, breathtaking views, and the dramatic plunge of a waterfall -- just a few of the fascinating sights along the Skyline-Cliff Trail Loop," a description on the park's Web site says.

Those sheer cliffs and the "dramatic plunge" should tell anyone that the park has its dangers. Visitors should always stay within the safety rails and fencing. Some of the trails aren't suitable for very small children. If you insist on taking your toddler, it would be wise to literally tether the child to an adult.

This family deserves the public's sympathy. I hope the tragic death of their son will warn other parents that they can't let go or lose sight of their small children for an instant on mountain trails.

The park will have to re-examine its safety features to determine whether it should put in place further measures to prevent accidents, but parents have to accept primary responsibility for the safety of their children.

The trails at Chimney Rock are exhilarating because they take visitors along the edge of the cliff. The experience includes an element of risk. Maybe some safety advocates will call for closing the trails in response to Saturday's death, but that would be as foolish as closing the ocean because people sometimes drown. Just use caution and common sense. Whether you're hiking on a mountain trail or swimming in the ocean, don't ever let go of a 2-year-old child.

Gas prices keeping you from the beach this summer?

Beach promoters hope not. They're offering gas cards or rebates worth:

Fifty bucks from Oak Island Accommodations ...

One hundred bucks from Sunset Properties ...

One hundred and fifty bucks from Bald Head Island Ltd.

Anybody topping that?

Of course, the key is how much you pay for your rental. This may be the summer to get some deals because more people are planning to stay home (USA Today/Gallup survey). If you do enough research on the Internet, you might find a bargain that will drive down the overall cost of your vacation, despite higher travel costs.

I'm not going to the beach this summer, but there were times when my family's beach vacation was the best week of the year. If it means as much to your family as it did to mine, you'll probably find a way to get on the sand this summer.

I'd try to save money on the rental and also plan to eat in more, eat out less; cancel the side trip to Myrtle Beach or the N.C. Aquarium; make the kids pay for their own mini-golf and refuse to buy them dumb stuff like boogie boards or hermit crabs; and, if I were really strapped, I'd drink cheaper beer.

A $50 gas card wouldn't hurt, either.

What's your vacation strategy this summer?

Wake Forest is taking a risk in dropping its SAT/ACT requirement for applicants.

The goal is is to increase student body diversity:

"By making the SAT and ACT optional, we hope to broaden the applicant pool and increase access at Wake Forest for groups of students who are currently underrepresented at selective universities," said Martha Allman, director of admissions at Wake Forest.

The university repeats an enduring myth about the SAT:

"Some studies indicate performance on the SAT is closely linked to family income and education level, while others suggest a possible testing bias against certain minority students."

I don't doubt the link to family income and education level. I'm sure the same is true about other academic indicators that Wake now says it will take into greater account.

But the "bias" contention has been around as long as I can remember and never proven. Note the careful language used: other studies "suggest" a "possible" testing bias against "certain minority students." Not all minority students because some groups -- Asian Americans -- post top SAT scores. So one would have to believe the SAT is biased in favor of Asian Americans and against other minority groups.

The risk for Wake Forest, a top-30 national university in the U.S. News rankings, is to maintain the quality of its student body after replacing the SAT/ACT with other admission criteria.

"High school curriculum and classroom performance combined with the student’s writing ability, extracurricular activities and evidence of character and talent will remain the most important criteria for admission," the university says. It also will strongly encourage personal interviews.

High school curriculum, classroom performance and extracurricular activities are problematic. A student who excels at a weak high school might not be prepared for work at a strong university like Wake Forest.

Our AP story today quotes Steven Roy Goodman, an independent college admissions consultant: "As much as many people in the university world support the movement toward optional testing, it's very difficult to assess the quality of courses in high schools around the country and around the world, and to reconcile the different grading systems, and to take into account the grade inflation that we've seen in many schools throughout the United States."

At Wake, applicants will still have the option of submitting SAT/ACT scores, and one would assume students with high scores will do so. It also will be assumed that those who don't posted low scores. Wake is implying that high scores might help an applicant but not submitting a high score won't hurt another applicant. I don't know how that will work.

Now my own connection to this story: My son, Kenny, earned BS and MS degrees from Wake Forest. He had a high SAT score, which certainly helped him during the admission process. His SAT math score was particularly strong (perfect, in fact, if I might brag), and it should have given the Wake admissions office the clue that he would be a successful accounting student. I think that SAT score should have been given as much consideration as his high school extracurricular activities, or an essay, or even an interview.

I also understand that Wake Forest needs more diversity in its student body, but it has to be very careful about addressing that by admitting students who aren't prepared to succeed in a very challenging academic environment. That would be unfair to those students and harmful to the university's standing as a top institution.

Update, May 28: The Charlotte Observer today applauds the new Wake Forest policy, stating it's been known for decades that the SAT is discriminatory. It says there are more reliable indicators of academic preparedness:

"Grade point average in high school and the academic rigor of the high school curriculum, demonstrated by, for example, performance in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses."

The problem with that logic: All those indicators also can be called discriminatory if some groups don't perform as well as others. Furthermore, some minority groups are underrepresented in those courses (that's what we've always heard in Guilford County). And AP and IB performance is determined at least partly by standardized tests. Will they be viewed as unbiased? I doubt it.

Bottom line: Wake Forest is eliminating (or partially eliminating since, as noted above, students still can choose to submit SAT/ACT scores) a tool that has been proven useful to help sort out college applicants. If you're choosing between two students with 4.0 high school GPAs but one shows an SAT score of 1400 and the other 1100, the decision would have been easy. Now, not so much.

But time will tell. If Wake maintains its high academic standards over the years ahead, I'll be proven wrong. Frankly, I hope so because I'd hate to see a great university go into decline for reasons that, it seems to me, don't really have to do with academics.

My column today:

Few people care how legislative districts are drawn. Most see it as inside politics that makes no real difference to their lives.

What matters more? Certainly a rezoning that will allow a big new commercial development right next to your neighborhood, adding noise and traffic.

Issues that hit home always demand more attention. But, sometimes, how they’re resolved depends on the inside politics that escaped notice when it happened years before. ...

John Hood offers a stinging review of the use of tobacco settlement money to land the Spirit Aero plant at the Global TransPark.

The Golden Leaf Foundation kicked in $100 million. That's a lot of state money that wouldn't be available for a similar project at PTIA.

State Supreme Court candidate Suzanne Reynolds says she has signed the N.C. Bar Association's clean campaign pledge.

"Removing party affiliation from the ballot was a positive step," Reynolds, a Wake Forest University law professor, said in a news release today. "Now, it is up to the individual candidates to avoid partisan appeals and to reject efforts to elicit our positions on hot button issues. We have an obligation to conduct our campaigns in a way that instills confidence that judges will not pursue political agendas."

I agree and applaud all judicial candidates who take that approach. (I've sent a request to the Bar Association for the names of all the appellate court candidates who have signed the pledge, and will update when I receive a response.)

Reynolds is running against Justice Bob Edmunds, who also appears to be taking the campaign high road, as I wrote last week.

Greensboro's Pricey Harrison, one of the busiest legislators in Raleigh, introduced a bill today that would prohibit community colleges and UNC institutions from adopting "any admissions requirement ... relating to a person's immigration status, except as otherwise required by federal law."

The title of this proposed legislation strikes me as misleading:

"AN ACT TO PREVENT THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AND THE STATE BOARD OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES FROM SOLICITING INFORMATION REGARDING THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS"

It seems misleading because the bill notes that UNC and community colleges are not prohibited from requiring noncitizen students to pay out-of-state tuition. How would they know to charge out-of-state tuition if they were prevented from soliciting information regarding immigration status?

I doubt this bill will pass, anyway, but it can serve an important purpose. This question of admissions policy should be settled by the legislature rather than the UNC Board of Governors or N.C. Community College Board. These are public institutions; the public, through its elected representatives, should decide important policy questions. Whether to admit noncitizens who lack the normally required student visas is a major policy question. If this bill doesn't pass, the answer will be no.

How does Harrison earn the title of busy bee? During the 2007-08 legislative session, she has sponsored or co-sponsored 835 bills (and counting), including 48 today (so far?), of which she is a primary sponsor of 10.

Who knew we needed so many new laws in North Carolina?

Addendum: Total of introduced bills by other Guilford County legislators:

Alma Adams: 209.

John Blust: 120

Maggie Jeffus: 174

Earl Jones: 191

Laura Wiley: 155

Katie Dorsett: 289

Kay Hagan: 128

Amanda's story yesterday about library funding raises one of those questions I can't answer:

What's the right amount?

The issue is the proposed $2.12 million contribution from the county budget to Greensboro for support of the city's public library system. That's $450,000 less than the city requested.

It's still a lot more than the county allocated only a few years ago.

There's no county library system, but all county residents are entitled to borrowing privileges at Greensboro and High Point libraries. So it's fair for the county to pay a share.

What share? Nonresidents of Greensboro account for 25 percent of the materials checked out, Director Sandy Neerman says. Some time ago, county leaders pledged to increase funding until the county's contribution reached 25 percent of the total Greensboro library budget. The proposed library budget for next year is about $8.7 million. If the county gives $2.12 million, it's falling short of its commitment -- although the requested $2.57 million would appear to be asking too much.

Furthermore, the library budget covers Greensboro Historical Museum operations -- more than $800,000. I'm not sure that should be included when calculating the 25 percent level. Should that be part of the library deal? Do nonresidents of Greensboro value the Greensboro Historical Museum as much as do residents?

For that matter, another question is whether nonresidents derive equal value from Greensboro libraries. The city system includes six community branch libraries, located to meet the needs -- obviously -- of particular Greensboro communities. Not communities outside Greensboro.

Of course, one could say this discussion would be moot if Guilford had a true county library system. I disagree. There'd still be arguments about which part of the county was getting more or less than its share of library resources.

One thing I know is that we have fine libraries in Greensboro and High Point (and Jamestown, too). Everyone ought to take advantage of them, and everyone ought to help pay for them.

How much? That's a hard question to answer.

"Medical use of marijuana has already been demonstrated to manage the health problems related to Alzheimer's, AIDS, arthritis, cancer, multiple sclerosis" -- state Rep. Earl Jones.

If that were true, there would be no controversy.

The tributes to A&T football player Chad Wiley, who died Wednesday, are moving. It's obvious he was loved and respected throughout the Aggie community.

(Our news story today.)

At times like this, I wish university athletics department Web sites as a matter of routine would include more personal information about players. Wiley's "profile" doesn't go beyond who he was on the field. For the most part, other colleges aren't better.

Appalachian includes just a bit for its players. Here's Clay McKnight from High Point's Andrews High School. You learn: "Full name is John Claiborne McKnight ... born May 29, 1986 (21 years old) ... son of Kay and David McKnight ... majoring in secondary education (history) ... aspires to teach and coach at the high-school level."

Hey, happy 22nd birthday, Clay!

Carolina does OK, too. Here's Kennedy Tinsley from Greensboro's Dudley High School: "Son of Evelyn and Anthony Tinsley • Born on December 4, 1986 • Exercise and sports science major • Very active in the community, participating in nearly all of the UNC football team's community service projects."

It can't be too much trouble to add that little bit of information. It just reminds you that these kids are more than football players.

The State Auditor's critical investigative report of a $431,925 job contracted by UNCG (please read our news story) reveals the technical errors that institutions can make from time to time. It doesn't strike me as a big deal. The university contends that it received good work for the money it spent but adds that it will change some procedures to comply with the auditor's recommendations.

The only discordant note in this affair was Chancellor Patricia Sullivan's comment to our Brian Ewing that the auditor's goal was "more visibility for the auditor's office."

As long as we have an elected state auditor, I suppose suggestions of this kind are inevitable. I didn't expect to hear it from Sullivan.

The auditor's office issues investigative reports on average about twice a month. This one was prompted by a tip to the Auditor's Hotline.

The office also routinely conducts financial audits, performance audits, information system audits, strategic audit reviews and grantee/agency reviews. You can find all of them on its Web site.

Somebody needs to audit state government agencies and organizations that receive state funds to make sure the money's being spent properly. My gosh, the state budget is more than $20 billion a year. Does anyone think none of it is mismanaged? The only problem is the auditor's office can't keep up with it all.

The auditor's office did issue a press release about its UNCG report. It issues a lot of press releases. This one didn't strike me as particularly sensational or attention-grabbing. It even ended with a positive statement:

“I am pleased to see that the University responded by ‘taking this opportunity to implement several improvements’,” said Auditor Merritt. “Installing the proper internal controls and segregation of duties are important elements in guarding against fraud, waste and abuse in our public universities,” concluded Merritt.

Frankly, the auditor's office should draw attention to its work, because the public should be told about the problems uncovered in public agencies, big or small. The suggestion that this is somehow wrong bothers me.

Scott Mooneyham of the Capitol Press Association:

"Each year, hundreds of millions of state dollars are spent on preschool and child-care programs in North Carolina.

"And each year, very little assessment takes place showing exactly what taxpayers are getting for their dollar."

Scott concludes:

"Nearly two decades ago, I heard a motivational speaker tell a group of teachers, 'Love your children more than your schools.' What he meant was, remember that your methods and your programs aren't ends in themselves. The kids and their success are the ends.

"Bright Beginnings, More at Four and Smart Start may well be having their intended effects. No one should be afraid to find out, to the degree possible, exactly how well each is meeting its goals."

Read his whole article here.

Thanks to the just-released state audit on N.C. A&T, I've got a Dixie Chicks tune racing around in my head:

"Taking the Long Way Around."

Why? Because, among other critical findings (such as relatives of university employees receiving scholarships without proper documentation*), the Office of State Auditor said N.C. A&T paid excessive travel reimbursements on several occasions. In those instances, mileage claimed exceeded the distance calculated by a mapping service by an average of 110 miles (see pages 48 and 49).

“The supervisor stated that he realized the travel was excessive, but that these employees chose to drive an unusual route,” the audit report noted.

Unusual route? Sounds to me like the university was being taken for a ride.

* More on the scholarships next week

Auditor press release

Our news story

"I've seen the book and know for a fact that he's not in it and the city knows he's not in it. This lawsuit says he is. That should give people pause about the credibility of this lawsuit."

That statement by Seth Cohen, attorney for former police Chief David Wray Correction: Randall Brady to the N&R's J. Brian Ewing Correction: Not Brian tells me Wray plans a vigorous defense against the allegations of racial discrimination lodged by Lt. James Hinson.

Will the city, also a defendant, put up a similar defense?

This lawsuit can serve a very positive purpose if, by going to trial, it sheds light on the longstanding allegations that the Police Department under Wray's leadership was rife with racial discrimination. It's time to air it all out, lay the facts on the table and make on objective determination.

A settlement in this case would be disappointing.