Lanier Cansler stepped down Tuesday as secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, saying that he expects the frustration of running the state's largest agency to increase in an election year.
Cansler, who has headed DHHS since the beginning of Gov. Beverly Perdue's administration three years ago, announced Jan. 13 that he would leave at the end of the month to start a consulting business focusing on finding better ways for health care to work in North Carolina.
He said he's used to challenges – he was a four-term Republican lawmaker who has served for a Democratic governor. Still, reconciling the differences between the executive and legislative branches of government became tougher than ever in recent months.
"It does get frustrating whenever you're working on the issues and you get caught in the political contest," he said. "In each of their minds, I think what they're thinking is the best thing for the state, but there's great philosophical differences."
Republican legislative leaders and Perdue have been at odds in recent weeks, for example, over how to handle a growing budget hole at DHHS.
The agency's budget was cut by more than $350 million last summer, but difficulties in making those cuts – the federal government didn't approve of many moves – has left DHHS with a $150 million deficit. It's projected to grow to more than $240 million by fiscal 2012-13, which starts in July.
"I realize politics are always going to be there, but to the extent you can let the right decision rule the day rather than let politics rule the day, that's the goal, because that's when you can achieve the most for the state," Cansler said.
Throughout his tenure, Cansler also dealt with allegations of neglect and abuse at the state's psychiatric hospitals. Months before he took over, a patient at Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro fell and was left in a chair, neglected for nearly 24 hours before he died.
One of his first actions in 2009 was to establish a zero-tolerance policy for patient abuse, yet a May 2010 incident at Cherry Hospital prompted him to order intensive retraining for all employees of the facility.
Cansler said he's proud of the strides made to change the culture inside DHHS, such as better training, to fight Medicaid fraud and to stabilize the state's mental health system. He said, however, that the state needs to invest more in mental health.
Perdue has named senior policy advisor Al Delia acting secretary of DHHS. Cansler has agreed to be chairman of Perdue's new Commission on Affordable and Sustainable Healthcare, and he said he would be available to help Delia as needed.
"I'll still be in the mix. I just don't have to worry about the crisis of the day," he said.
Just because a drag race doesn't end with someone getting killed, it doesn't mean that drag racing is a safe thing to do.
Even though it looks like Congress will raise the debt ceiling, this is no way to run a government.
Many pundits have pointed to the crisis over the debt ceiling as further evidence that Washington is dysfunctional. They say the inability of President Obama and congressional Democrats and Republicans to reach a deal is another example of how partisan polarization, political incivility and 24-hour media have left our nation's leaders unable to make deals. In their minds, we should not be surprised about what has happened. This was virtually inevitable.
While placing battles in historical perspective, it is also important to recognize when we are seeing something new. The "Washington is dysfunctional" argument has confused chronic institutional problems with the partisan strategy that has been used by the GOP.
The trigger to this crisis, which threatens the health of the nation's economy, was an aggressive move by tea party Republicans -- hesitantly supported by the House leadership -- to hold routine debt ceiling legislation hostage until they received exactly the spending cuts they demanded. Lacking the votes they need for a clean vote on them through the budget process, they have instead forced everyone's hand. Obama has little leverage to do anything but agree to their cuts.
In 1994, Republicans who were elected also arrived to Washington sounding like renegades. They insisted that they would do whatever was necessary to change the status quo, and they refused to compromise with Democrats for the sake of appearing reasonable. South Carolina Congressman Lindsey Graham said, "Ain't nothing was off limits, buddy. You could feed us, wash us and comb us, but we'd still bite."
Most famously, in 1995 and 1996, they were willing to shut down the federal government in their pursuit of deep spending cuts. Eventually, most of the class of 1994 mellowed, realizing that governance required compromise, as did political survival.
What we are seeing with tea party Republicans is something even more dramatic. The new Republicans have been the driving force behind the decision to prevent a routine vote on the debt ceiling -- a routine vote with potentially devastating financial consequences -- to obtain massive cuts in federal spending.
When Obama and many Democrats moved toward their position, they were also unwilling to compromise on how to reduce the deficit. When the president proposed that revenue-raising measures should be part of the package, they refused to budge. House Speaker John Boehner barely received the number of votes he needed for his legislation late last week.
To be sure, this is not the first time the political parties have used the debt ceiling to make a point. In 1966, for example, every House Republican but one (former Speaker Joseph Martin) voted against raising the debt ceiling because, they charged, President Lyndon Johnson was lying about the size of the deficit.
"I think the president probably in a couple of months will come up and say that to win the war in Vietnam, we need a tax increase," warned Missouri Republican Thomas Curtis. "I would much prefer to increase taxes to place a further burden on the national debt." More recently, some Democrats, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, spoke against raising the debt ceiling to protest President George W. Bush's policies.
The difference is that this time around, tea party Republicans have been willing to follow through on the threat, and they have control of the House. This is what has made the situation so dangerous. Previous opposition to raising the debt ceiling has been primarily symbolic.
Usually, the politicians making the argument knew the vote would happen anyway, or they were prepared to change their mind in the end. Tea party Republicans are not kidding. They forced their own leadership to bring the nation to the brink of disaster. They are not doing this through the normal budget process, and they are taking no prisoners.
More than ever, it is incumbent on the Republican leadership to push back against its own members who use these tactics. Even Boehner has seemed to be aware of the economic and political dangers that loom. One can see throughout this debate that he was at pains trying to contain the right wing of his party.
The consequences of default would be potentially disastrous for all Americans, red and blue, and recovery would take a long time. There are other ways Republicans can push for their objectives. In the future, they must do so.
With the newfound power of redistricting in their hands, North Carolina Republicans will likely seek to draw districts that give them a chance to win more congressional seats in future elections. Despite winning statewide congressional voting by a 55-45 percent margin, Democrats hold just a 7-6 edge in congressional seats. With the power to shape district maps at their disposal, Republicans should easily be able to reverse that margin, at minimum.
Nevertheless, redistricting has been a contentious process in the past, with a myriad of lawsuits resulting from the the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
While the intent of the law is to ensure that racial minorities have fair representation in Congress, along the way, it sometimes mitigates partisan gerrymandering. In practice, it prevents a bloc of minority voters concentrated in a geographic area from having their voting power diluted or spread across multiple congressional districts. Section 5 of the VRA means the General Assembly must “preclear” their redistricting plans with the U.S. Department of Justice.
The two districts in North Carolina subject to section 5 of the VRA are the 12th and 1st districts; the DOJ will have final say in deciding how these districts will be drawn.
These requirements first took place after the 1990 U.S. Census, which was followed by two African-American congressmen winning election in 1992, the first time in more than 90 years that an African-American represented North Carolina in Congress. The 12th district has been represented by Mel Watt since 1992; he’s won the seat capturing around 70 percent of the vote each time.
The original district, as drawn in 1992, was 64 percent African-American and spanned almost the entire length of the state, south to north. Parts of the district were very narrow, running along Interstate 85 to connect urban parts of the district around Charlotte to Durham, which is more than 150 miles away.
The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt ruled the district unconstitutional in 1996, finding that the oddly-shaped district was drawn up for explicitly racial purposes in violation of the 14th Amendment. The lines of the district were tweaked to exclude parts of Durham in 1998.
In 2009, a U.S. Supreme Court case, Bartlett v. Strickland — involving North Carolina General Assembly districts — eliminated the consideration of “crossover voters” who vote with Minorities to elect a candidate of their choice in districts like the 12th.
The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of Voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of Minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional Minority districts with more than 50 percent Minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several Voting districts.
The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina’s House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina’s voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.
The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.
State officials discovered that if they adhered to the “whole county provision” of state law, the Minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.
Concerned that the reduction would amount to Illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state’s whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.
One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law’s whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.
According to David T. Canon, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, this ruling will make re-crafting the 12th district easier for Republicans. Canon says that after the Bartlett v. Strickland ruling, “The only thing that matters is the percentage of minority voters in the district.”
Republicans will be able to use redistricting techniques such as “packing” and “cracking” but would risk disapproval from the DOJ.
“Cracking” means dividing a district and moving its parts into several other districts in order to reduce the power of the minority voters, while “packing” would heavily concentrate Minority voters into one district. Canon thinks in order to meet DOJ approval, the 12th district, “would likely need to have somewhere between 45 and 55 percent minority voters.”
Once the 12th and 1st districts have been approved by the DOJ, Republicans can piece together the remaining districts in an effort to capture seats in 2012 currently held by Democrats.">with a myriad of lawsuits resulting from the the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
While the intent of the law is to ensure that racial minorities have fair representation in Congress, along the way, it sometimes mitigates partisan gerrymandering. In practice, it prevents a bloc of minority voters concentrated in a geographic area from having their voting power diluted or spread across multiple congressional districts. Section 5 of the VRA means the General Assembly must “preclear” their redistricting plans with the U.S. Department of Justice.
The two districts in North Carolina subject to section 5 of the VRA are the 12th and 1st districts; the DOJ will have final say in deciding how these districts will be drawn.
These requirements first took place after the 1990 U.S. Census, which was followed by two African-American congressmen winning election in 1992, the first time in more than 90 years that an African-American represented North Carolina in Congress. The 12th district has been represented by Mel Watt since 1992; he’s won the seat capturing around 70 percent of the vote each time.
The original district, as drawn in 1992, was 64 percent African-American and spanned almost the entire length of the state, south to north. Parts of the district were very narrow, running along Interstate 85 to connect urban parts of the district around Charlotte to Durham, which is more than 150 miles away.
The Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt ruled the district unconstitutional in 1996, finding that the oddly-shaped district was drawn up for explicitly racial purposes in violation of the 14th Amendment. The lines of the district were tweaked to exclude parts of Durham in 1998.
In 2009, a U.S. Supreme Court case, Bartlett v. Strickland — involving North Carolina General Assembly districts — eliminated the consideration of “crossover voters” who vote with minorities to elect a candidate of their choice in districts like the 12th.
The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional minority districts with more than 50 percent minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several voting districts.
The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina’s House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina’s voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.
The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.
State officials discovered that if they adhered to the “whole county provision” of state law, the minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.
Concerned that the reduction would amount to illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state’s whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.
One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law’s whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.
According to David T. Canon, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, this ruling will make re-crafting the 12th district easier for Republicans. Canon says that after the Bartlett v. Strickland ruling, “The only thing that matters is the percentage of minority voters in the district.”
Republicans will be able to use redistricting techniques such as “packing” and “cracking” but would risk disapproval from the DOJ. “Cracking” means dividing a district and moving its parts into several other districts in order to reduce the power of the minority voters, while “packing” would heavily concentrate minority voters into one district.
Canon thinks in order to meet DOJ approval, the 12th district, “would likely need to have somewhere between 45 and 55 percent minority voters.”
Once the 12th and 1st districts have been approved by the DOJ, Republicans can piece together the remaining districts in an effort to capture seats in 2012 currently held by Democrats.
The Federal Voting Rights Act does not authorize vote dilution lawsuits in voting districts in which a particular racial or ethnic group comprises less than 50 percent of the voting age population.
In a 5 to 4 decision announced on Monday, the US Supreme Court rejected a claim that so-called minority crossover districts qualify for protection under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Instead, the court's conservative wing embraced a narrow view of the law.
Crossover districts are those in which a cohesive minority voting population can elect candidates of its choice by forming a coalition with cross-over votes from whites or other non-minority voters.
The case is important because it establishes ground rules that will apply nationwide during the redrawing of voting districts following the 2010 census. It could result in a reduction of minority districts by encouraging district drafters to pack traditional minority districts with more than 50 percent minority voters, rather than aiming for widespread distribution across several voting districts.
The decision comes in a case challenging the creation of North Carolina's House District 18. State officials tasked with redrawing North Carolina's voting map found themselves caught between two competing laws.
The VRA mandates that new districts may not be drawn in such a way as to dilute the existing political clout of minority voters in minority voting districts. But North Carolina has a law requiring that counties not be split up within voting districts.
State officials discovered that if they adhered to the "whole county provision" of state law, the minority voting age population in District 18 would be reduced from 39 percent to 35 percent.
Concerned that the reduction would amount to illegal minority vote dilution, the officials concluded that they were required to ignore the state's whole county provision to avoid violating the federal voting rights law.
One of the affected counties filed suit, claiming the state law's whole county provision should be upheld. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed.
In affirming that decision, a plurality of the US Supreme Court ruled that the Voting Rights Act protects the voting clout of minority voters in districts in which minority voters comprise more than 50 percent of the voting age population.
"The rule provides straightforward guidance to courts and to those officials charged with drawing district lines to comply with Section 2 [of the VRA]," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the plurality decision.
"We decline to depart from the uniform interpretation of Section 2 that has guided federal courts and state and local officials for more than 20 years," he said in the opinion.
"Minority groups in crossover districts cannot form a voting majority without crossover voters," Justice Kennedy wrote. "In those districts minority voters have the same opportunity to elect their candidate as any other political group with the same relative voting strength."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined Kennedy's decision in full. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia concurred in the judgment, but did not agree with the underlying reasoning.
In a dissent, Justice David Souter said the plurality was being unfaithful to the intent of the Voting Rights Act.
"Minority voters in districts with minority populations under 50 percent routinely elect representatives of their choice," he said. "The effects of the plurality's unwillingness to face this fact are disturbing by any measure and flatly at odds with the obvious purpose of the act."
Justice Souter added, "States will be required under the plurality's rule to pack black voters into additional majority-minority districts, contracting the number of districts where racial minorities are having success in transcending racial divisions in securing their preferred representation."
Justice Kennedy said that enforcing the VRA to protect minority voting clout in districts where minority voters did not constitute a majority would "grant special protection to a minority group's right to form political coalitions."
He added, "Section 2 does not impose on those who draw election districts a duty to give minority voters the most potential, or the best potential, to elect a candidate by attracting crossover voters." The law safeguards those who already possess the "potential to elect" favored representatives from losing that potential through vote dilution, he wrote.
In a dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the high court's decision "severely undermines" the aim of the act. "Today's decision returns the ball to Congress' court," she wrote. "The legislature has just cause to clarify beyond debate the appropriate reading of Section 2."
This week the US Supreme Court ruled on the scope of the minority vote dilution component (section 2) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In doing so the court interpreted the VRA to only protect the voting power of minority groups when they constitute a majority of the electorate in a legislative district. This ruling makes the requirements of section 2 significantly narrower then the defendant in the case, the chief elections official for the state of North Carolina, had believed it to be.
North Carolina had broken its own constitution's requirement that legislative districts respect county boundaries in order to avoid diminishing the concentration of African-American voters from 39% to 35% when redrawing a district in 2003. One of the now-split counties sued, resulting in this week's ruling.
Though the VRA speaks only generally of preventing the dilution of minority votes in order to preserve the ability of minorities to elect candidates of their own choosing, the court has now made clear that only districts with a majority of minority voters (a so called "majority-minority district") are protected from vote dilution. In North Carolina the district in question is a "coalition district" where minority voters are able to pick their choice of candidate only when joined in coalition with other voters.
The controlling opinion was written by Justice Kennedy in the conviction that courts need a clear rule for when section 2 applies to avoid what he views as the constitutionally suspect insertion of race into government decision making. While this decision is a loss for minority voting power and will likely lead to a greater number of minority "packed" districts, many Circuits Courts have previously adopted the Supreme Court's view, limiting the impact of this particular ruling.
The most positive aspect of the decision was a strong statement by Justice Kennedy that "racial discrimination and racially polarized voting are not ancient history." Court watchers almost unanimously viewed Justice Kennedy's forceful assertions about the continued problems of racism as a sign that the court in another coming voting rights case (which will almost assuredly see Kennedy casting another deciding vote) will likely uphold the power of the Department of Justice to "pre-clear" election law changes in jurisdictions with a history of disenfranchising minorities to make sure that they don't violate voting rights.
So Mel Watt is North Carolina's most Liberal Congressional Rep.
Really?
I guess "Liberal" is the new buzz word for sorry, ineffective Democrats seeking to raise Campaign funds.
Isn't Mel Watt's 12th District the MOST gerrymandered Congressional District in the state? He's been in there WAY too long.
Mel ONLY caters to Wall Street and his Fraternity/ Sorority friends that's it!
Where do you think Self-Serving, Sneaky, Empty-hearted Mayors like Anthony Foxx spawned from? Politicians like Mel Watt.
Mel is an Incumbent who keeps the rest of his constituents (mainly African-Americans) within North Carolina's 12th District poor so they can never challenge him.
Thus he's basically useless.
Due to North Carolina's Racist history, there was definitely a time when Gerrymandered districts were necessary.
However Politicians like Mel Watt are now abusing the true intended purpose of Gerrymandering for their own personal gain.
They advocate and push Straight Ticket Voting from their poorest Constituents which allows them to remain in Public Office NOT to help, but to become personally Wealthy.
In fact Mel Watt is so crooked he introduced a watered down amendment in 2009 which would have granted Wall Street execs more power to be corrupt and play games with Taxpayer money.
Even Alan Grayson slammed Mel Watt's bill.
Too many Black Youth are dropping out of High School and NOT attending College because of Mel Watt's Selfishness and Greed.
Does Mel care? Don't count on it!
North Carolina, especially Charlotte deserves better.
Jennifer Roberts was unanimously re-elected as Mecklenburg County commissioners' chairman on Monday, overcoming a surprising effort to oust her from the position.
And in an unusual split in the leadership roles, Republican Jim Pendergraph was elected as Vice-Chairman of the county board.
The votes - which occurred during a swearing-in ceremony for the new nine-member board - came hours after Democrat Harold Cogdell told some commissioners that he thought he had enough votes to become chair instead of Roberts. Some said he struck a deal with the four GOP commissioners that would have also made Pendergraph the vice chair.
The apparent deal raised eyebrows because - with few exceptions - the chairmanship of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners has been held by the member of the majority party who received the most votes in the at-large race.
Roberts finished first in November's election, followed by Pendergraph and Cogdell.
On Monday, however, Republican Karen Bentley nominated Cogdell as chair.
Democrat George Dunlap was critical of the nomination and the reported deal between Cogdell and Republicans. At one point he said he would only vote for Cogdell as chair if he "denounced the Democrat party... and declare that he is a Republican."
But Cogdell said there was no deal-making and took himself out of the race. He then said he'd be willing to support Roberts as chair and Pendergraph for the number two leadership role.
Cogdell said the issue had never been about him being chair, and suggested he was only trying to send a message about how partisanship can hurt decision-making.
"Everything comes down to Partisan Politics," he said. "I'm sick and damned tired of Partisan Politics because what has happened is people aren't communicating anymore... No party has a monopoly on good decisions."
The discussion Monday night was at times heated and often confusing. At one point it was unclear if commissioners could continue debating on the chairmanship.
"And you wonder why I don't want to be chair," Cogdell said, drawing laughter.
Roberts, who earlier voiced concerns that board members had not approached her about any issues they had with her leadership, later thanked her colleagues for selecting her as chair.
"There is no one more surprised than I at this moment," Roberts said.
She also told Cogdell that if he had a point he wanted to make in the future, to give her a call.
Monday's swearing-in formally kicked off what will undoubtedly be another challenging year for the county.
Mecklenburg, as well as many other local governments, is still struggling with lingering effects from a recession that led to layoffs of county workers and deep cuts to services like schools and libraries.
Some have said it could be years before the county's tax revenues return to the levels of a few years ago. On top of that, the county in 2011 is resetting property values for the first time since 2003, with many homeowners worried about the impact on their tax bills.
Many commissioners said Monday that the board generally reaches bipartisan - and often unanimous - consensus on issues. But the board split along party lines this summer in approving the 2010-11 budget, and next year's budget also could be divisive.
During this year's elections, many Republican candidates said they wanted to find more ways to cut spending while setting a "revenue neutral" tax rate, where the county collects the same amount of money through property taxes as this year - even if tax valuations change.
But Democrats were leery of committing to any budget decisions, saying it could be months before the county gets numbers on property tax values and sales taxes.
On Monday, all commissioners forecast tough decisions for the board. Republican Neil Cooksey said the county had gotten rid of a lot of "low-hanging fruit" in the past two budgets, and said he'd like to do a department-by-department look at expenses.
Another issue looming in the next year will be how to redraw local election districts once the results of the 2010 Census come in.
Jennifer Roberts was unanimously elected chairman of the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners tonight, overcoming an effort to nominate fellow Democrat Harold Cogdell to the post.
Also tonight, Republican Jim Pendergraph was elected vice chairman of the county board. This is Pendergraph's first term as commissioner.
Roberts admitted her re-election tonight came as a surprise, because Cogdell was believed to be making a run for the top leadership role on the board. Some commissioners said Cogdell had agreed to support Pendergraph as vice chair if the board's four Republicans backed him as chair. But Cogdell said tonight there was no deal made.
Cogdell was nominated for chair tonight by Republican Karen Bentley, but asked that his name be withdrawn.
Republican Neil Cooksey then nominated Roberts as chair, Pendergraph as vice chair.
Hours before tonight's vote on who will lead Mecklenburg County commissioners, commissioner Harold Cogdell Jr. has told two colleagues that he appears to have the votes to unseat chairman - and fellow Democrat - Jennifer Roberts.
"He has decided that he's going to seek the chairmanship ... and he thinks he has the votes for it," Democratic commissioner Dumont Clarke told the Observer.
Cogdell, who previously served as commissioners' vice chair, could not be reached.
On a board that will have five Democrats and four Republicans, Cogdell has apparently been trying to line up the GOP votes in a deal that would make Republican Jim Pendergraph vice chair.
Commissioner George Dunlap said Cogdell told him today he would vote for Pendergraph if the board Republicans back Cogdell as chair.
Pendergraph said today he expects Cogdell to win.
"I'm probably going to vote for Harold," he said. "We're all smart enough we can add to five. No one's going to challenge someone unless they feel they can win. And I'd be surprised if he doesn't."
Roberts said this afternoon she still hadn't heard from Cogdell, despite having left several messages.
"It's all up to Harold," she said when asked about her chances of re-election.
Roberts, the leading vote-getter in last month's election, is trying to win a third term as chair. It was unclear today how the votes will fall.
Democrat Vilma Leake, who said she was "still praying" over the decision, said she's "going to do what's right."
On her Facebook page, Roberts has said she hoped Cogdell would not give in to "a personal power play."
In a Sunday post, she added: "I have been re-reading Julius Caesar to remind myself that ambition is as old as mankind. I will continue to stay strong no matter what happens, and to know that there is a higher power than any of this earthly stuff."
I think I’m done cutting Roberts any slack on this DSS mess. For her to obstruct and slam the attempts of other commissioners to find out what is going on with county’s massive, $200m. DSS operation is too much.
And for Roberts to suggest that a closed session airing of DSS’s dirty laundry is not her preferred way to go is an insult to the intelligence of all Mecklenburg County taxpayers.
The only reason Commissioner Bill James and the other GOPers are suggesting the closed session route is in response the “disclosure” stonewall County Manager Harry Jones has erected around the investigation — a construction effort aided and abetted by Jennifer Roberts. Fine. Let’s hear DSS chief Mary Wilson answer questions in open session. Super. Next.
It will also be interesting to see if Commissioner George Dunlap’s confirmation that a federal grand jury probe is underway of DSS shakes anything new loose. Why it took a full month for the probe’s existence to be reported remains a mystery, but at least everyone in town has caught up to the story.
However, it would be wrong to assume that the probe will result in any indictments, both as a matter of fairness and institutional inertia. Prosecutors are political animals and will require some slam-dunk, smoking gun type evidence of wrongdoing for them to move on a DSS devoid, until very recently, of adult supervision of its funds.
On the third hand, not all gross mismanagement rises to the level of criminality. This is why the county commission must itself reestablish public trust in one of its largest ongoing budget expenses. Jennifer Roberts needs to help that process or get out of the way.
In a surprise move, Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Commissioner Harold Cogdell is apparently trying to unseat fellow Democrat Jennifer Roberts as board chair by striking a deal with Republicans.
The maneuvering carries implications beyond the chairman title. Roberts sent commissioners an e-mail this week asking them to avoid "back room" negotiations in which they would support board members for a leadership post in exchange for votes on budget spending priorities.
On Friday, Roberts said Cogdell has promised Republicans he would vote to make Republican Jim Pendergraph vice chair if they support his bid for chairman. Democrats hold a 5-4 majority on the panel.
"Harold Cogdell will come round to realize that now is not the time for a personal power play," Roberts said on her Facebook page. "It is not time to be divisive and to succumb to personal ambition and backroom deal making that does not serve those who elected us."
Cogdell declined comment. Pendergraph, Mecklenburg's former sheriff who won his seat in November, also refused to discuss the matter.
"We'll have to see how it plays out," Pendergraph said before declining further comment.
Commissioners will reorganize the board, electing a chair and vice chair, during a meeting at 6 p.m. Monday at the Government Center, 600 E. Fourth St.
The commission chair, typically the most visible leader of the majority party, will help set Mecklenburg's agenda as the county confronts budget deficits and resets property values for the first time since 2003. The position pays $27,962, about $5,000 more than pay for other commissioners.
Cogdell's challenge represents a potential setback for Roberts, who has been board chair for four years. On Thursday, she said she had met recently with the board Democrats and all of them - including Cogdell - pledged to reappoint her. But Roberts said neither Cogdell nor board Republicans have returned phone calls.
She said if Cogdell wins, it would serve as a distraction to commissioners and erode trust with the public, since Roberts was the top vote-getter in the November general election. Cogdell finished third behind Pendergraph.
Historically, Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Commissioners have selected the candidate receiving the most votes as chair and the second-place finisher from the majority party as vice chair.
But a break with tradition is not unprecedented. In 1997, commissioner Hoyle Martin helped oust fellow Democrat Parks Helms as chairman and won the vice chair post for himself. Republican Tom Bush replaced Helms.
Four years ago, Helms said he wanted to serve as board chair, despite Roberts' winning the most votes in the at-large race. Roberts said she met twice with Helms before he withdrew from consideration.
An attorney and former Charlotte city councilman, Cogdell won his seat on the board of commissioners in 2008, and served as board vice chair, even though fellow Democrat Dan Murrey finished with more votes.
On Monday, Roberts sent an e-mail to commissioners saying she would vote for Cogdell to remain vice chair. "We trust and understand each other," Roberts wrote. She also said Pendergraph wants to claim the post.
Her e-mail also warned commissioners against secret deal-making.
"I understand there has been back room conversation about Vice Chair," Roberts wrote. "There may be promises being made but I would encourage everyone to remain flexible on any budget promises, as there is so much we do not know yet about our challenges ahead."
On Friday, Roberts said she was "disappointed" Cogdell would challenge her for the chair position.
"There will be implications he has not considered," she said. "I am hoping he will change his mind."
Internal e-mails reveal new allegations of misspending at the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, raising more unanswered questions about what happened to money intended to help needy children.
Some of the more than 1,000 e-mails the Observer obtained through a public records request provide the most detailed account to date about the agency's accounting fiasco.
E-mails show:
Officials suspected an employee wrote $80,000 in checks to herself from donations.
An administrator questioned why other donations were used to buy $340 diamond earrings, leather coats and a $300 DVD player.
A top executive complained that a senior fiscal administrator frustrated co-workers with her "inability to explain the simplest concepts of revenue and expenses."
After nearly a year, officials have never said who was at fault for $162,000 that disappeared or whether anyone was disciplined.
No one has been charged in an ongoing police investigation and a county report says officials cannot be certain where the money went.
Meanwhile, donors are left to wonder whether their generosity ever helped buy Christmas gifts for those in need.
In one e-mail, a woman describes calling the county in 2007 to give $900 for single mothers at Christmas. The person who answered the phone told her to make a check payable to the worker's sister.
The donor said she grew suspicious and made the check out to the county, but the idea that it may still have been misused is "like a kick in the stomach."
In another e-mail, a founder of Second String Santa said he was concerned whether kids received the more than 50,000 toys his group had donated since 1989.
Will Miller said he believes some of the toys reached children, but he's not sure about the rest.
"Will we ever know? Probably not," he said.
Two commissioners said they have asked county administrators for a full accounting of what went wrong at DSS but have yet to receive answers. County officials have never explained who was responsible, they said.
"To fix it, you have to admit all the stuff that is messed up," Commissioner Bill James said. "They don't want to do too much digging."
County administrators declined interview requests. Instead, a county spokesman released a prepared statement saying appropriate fiscal controls have been installed in response to an outside audit and an internal investigation.
"Our review of the e-mails we provided and your follow up questions did not reveal any new information that would suggest any change in the audit findings or in management's response to those findings," the statement said.
Some commissioners said they have been told that the employees involved have either left county government or been placed in new positions.
Unusual spending patterns
DSS spends $176 million annually and employs 1,200 workers to assist Mecklenburg's poor and neglected. The agency administers everything from food stamps to foster care and child protection services.
Last spring, DSS Director Mary Wilson ordered financial audits following reports of suspicious spending.
Auditors looked at multiple spending programs and financial practices in the agency. They found a $10,000 check made out to an employee, missing and altered receipts and money for kids spent on office supplies.
County leaders responded by suspending the programs, putting DSS finance under direct county control, training workers on accounting procedures and ordering a review of financial procedures in each county agency.
The Observer reviewed e-mails dating from December 2008 to July 2009 for seven current and former county administrators, including Wilson, County Manager Harry Jones, County Finance Director Dena Diorio and Internal Auditor Cornita Spears.
E-mails show county officials noticed unusual spending patterns as early as last December but did not disclose problems to the public until March.
On New Year's Eve, Wilson told staff she had suspended a voucher program the agency used to purchase clothes and other items for clients at local stores. She wrote that officials were worried about a lack of oversight and a spike in spending.
One monthly retail bill leapt from between $5,000 and $6,000 to more than $20,000 in October 2008, the e-mail says. Employees turned in receipts only 30 to 35 percent of the time, she wrote.
At one time or another, workers possessed or had access to numerous credit cards and gift cards, including some to Bath & Body Works, Bass Pro Shops, Macy's, the Cheesecake Factory and Outback Steakhouse.
Outside auditors verified for county administrators that DSS workers possessed county-issued credit cards, including 10 credit cards for Sam's Club, three for Harris Teeter and an online charge account with amazon.com.
In February, county officials asked internal auditors to look into questionable spending, including purchases of diamond earrings, leather coats and a DVD player.
An e-mail to one of the auditors from a human resources consultant said the purchases raise "many questions and concerns."
According to the county's statement, most gifts were typical children's items such as toys, clothes and books. More expensive items such as diamond earrings and leather coats were approved purchases for foster children who reached special milestones like high school graduation, the statement says.
"Receiving a gift of some significant value was viewed as an incentive for other children who were in foster care to set goals and accomplish them," the statement said.
Commissioner Harold Cogdell said he spent part of his early childhood in foster care and believes the gifts are a good idea.
"It makes sense to me to show the kids some love," Cogdell said.
A new accountant
DSS has endured multiple management shakeups in recent years. The latest came when Wilson reorganized the agency after she was hired in July 2008.
She laid out the reasons to hire a new finance director in a February e-mail.
Wilson wrote that the senior fiscal administrator who managed DSS finances failed to provide reports about oversight, alienated staff and lacked the ability to conduct productive discussions with senior county executives. The e-mail does not name the senior fiscal administrator.
DSS later hired accountant Angela Hurlburt to oversee its finances.
James, the commissioner, said he has asked for the names and background information on Hurlburt's predecessors. He wants them to answer questions from the Board of Commissioners' Audit Review Committee, which investigated accounting lapses at DSS.
He said administrators have failed to respond to his requests and complained that officials "keep us in the dark."
Other commissioners disagreed.
Chairman Jennifer Roberts and Commissioner Dumont Clarke said county leaders have already put in place reforms that will protect taxpayer and donor money.
"The highest priority" is implementing new financial controls, Clarke said.
Shifting the finances
Auditors from Cherry, Bekaert & Holland reviewed DSS and found that Mecklenburg officials responded appropriately. The county's Audit Review Committee came to the same conclusion.
But DSS Director Wilson bristled at one of the major reforms.
Leaders put DSS finance under the direct control of the county's main finance department after allegations of misspending surfaced.
In April, Wilson sent an e-mail to County General Manager Michelle Lancaster to complain. Calling the decision "premature" and "shortsighted," Wilson said there are emergencies when DSS workers must write checks immediately, including occasions when the agency takes children in custody who need clothes, toiletries and school supplies.
"I understand the urgency at the time, but there was a reason DSS had check writing capability and I think we threw the baby out with the bathwater instead of fixing the underlying issue, which is documentation and accountability," Wilson wrote.
Donors left with questions
Past supporters of the DSS Christmas charity include Young Lawyers, employees of Wachovia and Bank of America, and Project Joy, the holiday fund drive initiated by Observer columnist Tommy Tomlinson. The Christmas charity, known as the Giving Tree, is now run by the Salvation Army.
The donor who gave $900 e-mailed the county in July after learning about accounting failures from news accounts. She attached a picture of the check copy she made around Christmas in 2007.
She wrote that she did not remember the name of the woman she spoke with on the phone.
The donor said she and her family all pitched in to raise the money so she could assist women like her who had struggled as single mothers.
When she heard there were allegations of misspending in a DSS charity program, "It's like your stomach just drops."
A grand jury is investigating the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, which has faced scrutiny over accounting practices and spending since early this year, two county commissioners said Monday.
Commissioner George Dunlap said the grand jury has been looking into whether crimes were committed by employees.
Commissioner Bill James said board members were told last month that a federal grand jury is investigating. He refused further comment on the topic, saying commissioners were instructed by a county attorney not to discuss specifics.
The county ordered an audit of the Giving Tree after a DSS employee raised questions about spending at the Christmas charity for needy children. The county discovered checks written out to a county employee who volunteered with the program, as well as money issued to the sister of another employee.
County spokesman Danny Diehl said officials cannot confirm whether a federal grand jury is involved, but said the county "is cooperating with law enforcement to complete the investigation."
The county has asked Charlotte-Mecklenburg police to investigate. A police spokesperson on Monday said their work is ongoing.
Other commissioners reached Monday would not comment on work by authorities. "I want the investigation to have the best possible outcome, said board Chair Jennifer Roberts. "So I am unable to discuss it in the interest of not impeding the work of law enforcement."
In the meantime, James and fellow Republican commissioners Karen Bentley and Neil Cooksey want the county board to meet next week to learn more about ongoing probes.
"There are facts we don't have," James said. "I am just concerned there is stuff even senior management doesn't know."
Diehl said the county will respond to any questions the board has about the DSS audits. "The board has received reports and been briefed on all aspects of the DSS audits that are available to the county manager and staff."
The developments follow Observer stories on Sunday detailing a 74-page memo from a former county employee who headed the Giving Tree. Cindy Brady, who retired from the county in August, wrote she was never given a chance to talk at length about how the charity worked, despite requests to do so.
Brady said the county advanced her as much as $198,000 since 2005 with the approval of her supervisors. Brady said she spent the money on gifts for needy children, but says she did not collect all of her receipts, and some were handwritten or lost.
County leaders say they can account for how about $162,000 was spent by the Giving Tree last year.
But audit reports acknowledge numerous problems with receipts and other documents to track expenses and cited inadequate oversight and controls of the program by management.
The county has announced a number of changes in response to the charity audit and reviews of other DSS spending, including putting department finances under control of the county finance office and re-training DSS employees in financial practices and procedures.
The agency employs about 1,200, with a current annual budget of $176 million.
Brady's memo, dated July 29 and sent to a human resources manager, criticized county investigators for not interviewing her during the audit investigation. The county's former Internal Audit Director Cornita Spears said she first read the memo last month, and it led her to revise her earlier report to include about $33,000 Brady said she returned to the county earlier this year.
County Manager Harry Jones suspended Spears last month over the error.
Why James wants meeting
James cited the Observer story in explaining his reasons for calling the new discussions on DSS. He said he wants to give disgruntled employees a venue to air grievances. For months, James said, commissioners have been deluged with anonymous complaint letters from people who only identify themselves as current and former agency workers.
Some apparently won't divulge their names because they fear retaliation from superiors, James said.
The proposal requests that the board discuss the DSS issues on Dec. 17, with portions of the meeting to be held behind closed doors. It asks that DSS Director Mary Wilson appear to the meeting, and that other department employees be made available.
It also requests that former Giving Tree employees be invited to talk, including former county general manager Janice Allen Jackson, who briefly led DSS on an interim basis until Wilson was hired last year.
Neither Jackson nor Brady could be reached for comment Monday.
The proposal also wants Jones to provide in open session a detailed list of gifts bought with Giving Tree money and information on all items from the charity now in county inventory.
It also asks for copies of all internal memos produced by internal audit and county management involving the Giving Tree.
The county publicly released a three-page report in June and a follow-up report last month. The Observer has requested a longer report by Spears multiple times since July, but the county has said personnel laws bar them from releasing the document.
In order to hold the Dec. 17 meeting, at least five commissioners would have to agree. At least two of the six Democrats would have to sign on.
Roberts, Dunlap and Vilma Leake said they want to hear more about what the commissioners are trying to accomplish in holding the meeting before they can decide whether to support it. However, Roberts questioned whether meeting in closed session was the best approach, and said she is "distressed" that the board Republicans did not talk to her before putting the item on next week's agenda.
Dumont Clarke said he's inclined "to be as transparent and public as possible about this issue and do as little as possible behind closed doors."
Commissioners Harold Cogdell and Dan Murrey did not respond to requests for comments.
Cooksey said his constituents are demanding the board take a "more active role in getting to the bottom of this."
Cooksey disagreed with commissioners who have said they county is spending too much time on the issue and should not look into anonymous complaints.
"When you have issues swirling around, you can't ignore it," Cooksey said. "We have an obligation to see if these allegations have any truth to them or not."
A former Department of Social Services employee at the center of a charity probe says the county advanced her as much as $198,000 since 2005 with the approval of her supervisors.
The county checks, which she deposited in her personal bank account, were meant to provide gifts for needy children, according to an internal memo the Observer obtained. The 74-page document was written by Cindy Brady, the former DSS employee who ran the Giving Tree charity.
The document paints the defunct charity in more detail than the county has released publicly. It also raises new questions about the investigation, which the county has turned over to police.
The county has never publicly identified Brady or released the full internal audit of the Giving Tree, which the county maintains are both prohibited under personnel law.
The county also has said that all expenditures were accounted for - a fact that the former internal audit director now disputes. Cornita Spears, who was disciplined for a flawed review of the Giving Tree, says the county can't be sure of how $108,000 of $162,000 was spent in 2008.
Brady said the investigation has focused on her spending, which she defended as appropriate. But she acknowledged she fell behind in collecting receipts last year, and some were handwritten, damaged or lost.
Her memo and statements from current and former employees describe a popular Christmas charity that operated for years without accepted standards or accountability. The county has said DSS has not been audited comprehensively since 1996.
The memo, dated July 29, was sent to a county human resources manager, but it's unclear who read it and when.
County spokesman Danny Diehl would not say if County Manager Harry Jones has read it, citing personnel law. Three county commissioners listed as recipients said they have not seen it.
Former Internal Audit Director Spears said she first received the document in November, five months after she released her audit of the program.
Spears said Brady's memo had enough evidence to cause her to revise her June report, and she now says she wishes she had seen it earlier. Spears said personnel rules prevented her from interviewing Brady. Brady wrote in the memo that she wanted to talk but was "given no opportunity for input or clarification."
She said in her memo that some receipts were either lost in a rainstorm or shredded by her dog. Original receipts also remain missing, including some for more than $2,200 spent for the charity at an Old Navy store, the document says.
The county has asked the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police to investigate the Giving Tree and help retrieve receipts from vendors.
Contacted by the Observer, current and former DSS administrators named in the memo supported Brady's description of how the program operated, though one former director said fiscal controls were appropriate under his watch.
Brady's attorney has said Brady is cooperating with a police investigation. Brady, a 20-year county social worker who retired in August, declined to comment for this story.
Suspicious spending
Organizers launched the Giving Tree nearly two decades ago to provide toys, clothing and other gifts to foster children.
The program relied on donations of money and gifts. Past supporters include Second String Santa, Young Lawyers, employees of Wachovia and Bank of America and Project Joy, a fundraiser set up by Observer columnist Tommy Tomlinson. Brady said financial contributions began to grow after Tomlinson became involved.
Officials collected more than 8,400 gifts last Christmas.
But Department of Social Services Director Mary Wilson got a tip earlier this year about suspicious spending and ordered financial audits of the Giving Tree and other programs. Wilson declined to comment through a spokesperson.
E-mails previously obtained by the Observer have shown officials suspected an employee received $80,000 in checks from Giving Tree donations.
Officials also investigated whether an employee's sister got money to buy gifts. Questions were also raised over purchases of diamond earrings, leather coats and a DVD player.
Auditors found numerous accounting failures across the department. County officials suspended some programs and put the agency's finances under direct county control. Officials retrained workers on accounting rules, including the use of restricted purchasing cards.
More oversight
County records show the Department of Social Services wrote checks to Brady totaling more than $176,000 during a three-year period that ended in June 2009. Brady's memo reflects that about $126,000 was for the Christmas program last year, but the county records didn't say how much of the remaining money was for the charity.
The agency also gave another woman about $8,000, records show. Brady's memo identifies her as the sister of an administrator who helped oversee the Giving Tree.
The administrator's sister used her employee discount at Belk Department Store in Brevard, in Western North Carolina, to purchase gifts for the charity, according to the memo and an accompanying letter from the store's manager.
The woman could not be reached for comment.
Jones said officials have strengthened supervisory oversight and clarified employee rules, responsibilities and requirements.
Ward Simmons is a citizen member of the county commission's Audit Review Committee, which investigated accounting failures in DSS. He said that regardless of whether the county explicitly spells out procedures for handling donations, employees have a responsibility to remain diligent in bookkeeping.
"There exist certain standards of prudent behavior that any employee who handles money should adhere to," Simmons said. "If someone else is not using good judgment it's not a license for a second person to do the same."
Lost, damaged receipts
Brady's report contains photocopies of checks she returned to the county, pictures of torn store receipts, a detailed accounting of more than 40 transactions, and her positive performance evaluations.
Her memo says 10 bags of clothing were purchased at an Old Navy store for $2,222. The clothes were put in a room with donated toys, but the original receipts are lost, she said.
Brady wrote that receipts were lost or damaged on hundreds of dollars worth of items from Belk, Coldwater Creek, Target and Kohl's.
Brady also wrote that for years workers did not inventory donated items individually. Storage rooms contained jewelry, music players, a home theater system and toys. She defended purchasing expensive items, saying some children overcame obstacles to graduate from high school, college or find a job.
Brady said she asked the county in February to do an inventory of the items stored at Walton Plaza, a government building on the edge of uptown.
But she said she received a phone call days later from another social worker who told her a county auditor looked at a room of clothing and said she wasn't going to inventory the items because there was "too much stuff," the memo states.
Diehl said items bought with Giving Tree donations are secure and DSS staff conducted an inventory after the audit.
Brady said after a February meeting where she was first questioned about Giving Tree spending, she was told to bring in receipts showing how money advanced to her was spent.
In the following weeks, she said she kept updating the information, and returned $33,000 in money that she hadn't spent.
Internal audit
Spears, the former internal audit director, recently said her June report on the Giving Tree failed to account for money returned by Brady. Spears was suspended last month after acknowledging the error. At the time, Jones said the auditor failed to consider information that had been available before the June report.
Spears said she discovered the oversight after receiving the Brady memo on Nov. 11 from someone in the county manager's office who asked her to review it.
There are "inconsistencies" between the information used to conduct the audit and statements contained in Brady's memo, Spears said.
One example, she said, involves an $11,000 check Brady wrote to the county. Spears said in an interview she was informed that the check was for repayment of personal purchases.
But Brady's memo states that $10,000 of the amount was unspent money from the program, Spears said.
She said she performed a thorough investigation, given the circumstances. It would have been helpful, Spears said, to interview Brady for "clarification" on some issues.
Brady said she was placed on nondisciplinary suspension in February. On March 9, she was placed on medical leave and remained on leave until she retired.
Diehl, the county spokesman, said the county typically tries to contact workers involved in internal audits or human resources investigations.
But he said exceptions may be granted in some cases, such as if an employee is on leave. "Requiring an employee on leave to participate in work-related functions, including investigation interviews, would constitute a county violation of the employee's leave status," Diehl wrote in the county statement.
In recent weeks, Jones and some county commissioners have said the Giving Tree investigation has been handled appropriately.
County commission chairman Jennifer Roberts said she is confident in Jones' assessment that the county knows how last year's donations were spent. She said the county has receipts, possession of items purchased, and returned checks.
But Roberts acknowledged that some receipts may have been altered and have missing dates and store names.
Commissioner Bill James said statements in Spears' audit report about the poor condition of receipts or other documentation makes it inaccurate to say the county has accounted for all of the expenditures. "The central question I have asked since this started was how much of the $162,000 made it to the children or needy," James said. "That question hasn't been answered."
Asked about questions that the county can account for all of last year's donations, Spears said: "From an auditing standpoint, it's not accounted for. You have to have reliable documentation."
Scapegoat?
The Observer sought comment from the roughly two dozen current and former DSS employees named in the memo. Most declined to comment or could not be reached.
Five corroborated Brady's account. None said they witnessed any wrongdoing in the program.
Polly Needham, a former DSS administrator who helped oversee the Giving Tree, said she anticipates that police will interview her. In her eight years with the program, Needham said DSS finance administrators always approved how Brady and others handled donations.
"Cindy is an honest person," Needham said. "We tried to follow the rules."
Robert McCarter, a former DSS attorney and volunteer for the Christmas charity, said he believes DSS is trying to cover up how little oversight the agency provided the program.
"There was no accounting," McCarter said. "This is the county finding a scapegoat and it is Cindy."
Darryl German, an administrative assistant for DSS who volunteered with the Giving Tree program for five years, said Brady still has broad support in the agency and many people are angry over her departure.
"I have never seen anything at all" that would be considered inappropriate, German said. "It's all been blown out of proportion."
For years, he said the program operated without any complaints about how donations and money were handled. German said it was "common" for employees to receive advance money to purchase items for clients and then submit receipts.
The county no longer runs the program, which has been taken over by the Salvation Army, but he said residents still call to inquire about donating items.
Donald Bynum, who led the Giving Tree program in the early 1990s, said he is sure Brady handled donations appropriately, but disagreed with her description of lax accounting.
In 1992, members of Second String Santa, a nonprofit that holds an annual fundraiser benefiting the program, questioned how donations were handled and feared they did not reach foster children, Bynum said. The group threatened to stop giving donations to the program, he said.
Bynum said he responded by implementing a new inventory system and making sure gifts were placed in a secure area. Organizers then compiled a report each year to show Second String Santa how donations were used, he said.
"I was proud of how we handled the program," Bynum said.
Brady wrote that she was also proud of her work. She cited a passage from a performance evaluation that said "she is an excellent ambassador for the agency."
"My job was to do what I could to get the most we could for our children with the money we had to spend," Brady wrote. "It was someone else's job to monitor the financial end of the process."
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
