Issues:
Comments
Ruby and I agree for once--thank you Alex. Anyone wanna make a bet on how long it takes him to get bored? :)
And welcome Lydia. I may not have campaigned for you, but I have every confidence you will do a wonderful job.
It was a nice occasion, attended by other notables -- Ellie, Mike Nelson Allen Spalt, Diana McDuffie, and Frances Shelton among them. Kevin Foy and Lydia were law partners once upon a time.
Alex failed to credit himself for the Vision 2020 initiative that brought Carrboro citizens out of the woodwork by the hundreds. His parting words were gracious and characteristically candid, lengthier than I would have predicted. Wish I'd been there to give him a pat on the back.
Thanks, Catherine,
Love ya.
--Alex
It's sad to see Alex go. He was the only one of the BoA left that didn't take his marching orders from Mark Chilton. Also of note, it was quite amusing to see the Carrboro mayor pay lip service to the Bill of Rights.
When I read or hear comments like the one Will Shooter just made I figure the folks must not know Mark Chilton very well. It really concerns me that people can be that uninformed. But then I think about all the folks who voted for him that do know him and I feel much better.
If ya have concerns go have a real conversation with him about the Bill of Rights. THEN come back here and tell me what you heard. If one conversation doesn't do it for you I bet there are opportunities to have more. Plus check out his actual voting record. (Even quicker would be to read all his posts here on OP. He's REALLY honest with his writing.)
All of our local elected officials are approachable. Call them, email them, chat with them at Weaver Street. Its really so easy to learn about who they really are if you care to know. (I wish National politics was this way.)
I realize there is much more to an official than having a conversation with them. But it sure can tell you a lot. So if you choose not to get to know your elected officials then your arguments against them are shallow at best.
Attaboy Brian, This board doesn't take it's marching orders from any one. It is composed of individuals who take their responsiblities very seriously and are incredibly diligent in looking out for the welfare of all the citizens of Carrboro. I couldn't be more impressed with the make up of the current board, what a talented and dedicated group we have representing us!
My cell is 919-636-0371 for those of you who wish to discuss the Bill of Rights.
Well, it's not absurd actually. Being outside of the magic crystal ball and not being a cheerleader to the current administration, I can clearly see the disdainment that comes from having an opposing view to policies and the hypocracy to the democratic process. I can cite multiple recent examples that too many have decided to "sweep under the rug".
And no, I will not discuss the Bill of Rights in a phone call. I like to discuss them in an open and public forum. Anyone care to see this discussion, then start a separate thread, and we'll continue from there.
Ruby,
I'm very puzzled by this last post.
Not sure what the bill of rights has to do with local politics? There is an entire thread dedicated to "Bill of Rights" proclamations. Is it that when others pay lip service to the constitution, they get a pass, and when I question the sincerity, suddenly it's unclear?
Perhaps I'm not sure of how things work here. The forum Is Orange Politics, but once again, if someone has a dissenting opinion, they get the "conspiracy" (your word) treatment.
How can local politics be discussed in such a one sided manner? If that's the case, then this site is as impotent as the Independent.
Just because I refuse to get on the cheerleading bandwagon, doesn't mean I'm "conspiring" against the establishment. I've participated in the electoral process 3 times in the past 6 years. If I had not run, the other candidate(s) would have run unopposed. I didn't win, but also didn't stamp my feet in anger and kick up a fuss. I accepted the outcome, and it was a clear message that thousands of Orange County residents shared in my dissention by voting for me.
Perhaps you'd like to give Verla Insko a call. She told me I was the nicest person she's met in a political race. I consider that a ringing endorsement of my character and sincerity.
I do appreciate the hard work and compassion that you put into OP, but don't try to belittle me when I choose not to agree with the status quo.
I think the point is, Will, that you are criticizing my record on support for the Bill of Rights without citing so much as one specific example of my supposed shortcomings in that regard. You also asserted (without any supporting evidence) that the Board of Aldermen is somehow taking "marching orders."
If you had any evidence of these claims, then we could discuss these supposed issues in the "open and public forum" that you say you want - right here on OP. Instead you choose to insult me repeatedly without even giving a single supporting example.
It really doesn't hurt my feelings, but it pretty much flaunts the OP Guidelines printed below and is generally pointless. I get that you don't like me (even though I don't believe we have ever met or spoken). I think that by now the readers of OP also understand that point.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Ok Mark, let's start here. In the Andrew Dalzell case, your police chief sent 5 members of your police force to Stanley County with the intent of violating this amendment in coercing a confession in the murder of Deborah Keyes. Your police chief said, and I quote, that the idea was "brilliant!" The confession, and the case, was rightly thrown out of court.
The fact that Carrboro has a police chief, that has no concept of the Bill of Rights, and answers to you and the other members of the BoA, still remains at her post is confusing. If the highest ranking member of your law enforcement can casually dismiss the constitutional rights of a murder suspect, and recieve no repremand, then what does that speak of you?
Are you not in control of Carrboro, or do you see this as unimportant? Please stay on topic with your reply. This is not a personal attack, as you like to say, but a direct question dealing with your record on the Bill Of Rights.
I have already addressed this issue very directly on OP in a comment found here:
http://orangepolitics.org/2005/01/what-happens-when-the-police-get-cleve...
I don't have anything to add to that comment.
According to Carl Fox, the DA at the time, your police force asked for blank stationary that contained his signature. He publically said that he had no knowledge of the plan, so you've danced around the subject, but the fact remains that this happened under your watch, and you've chosen no action. I believe, that as Mayor, you are in charge.
So is your silence a confession of bad constitutional judgement? You can not hide from this Mark, this isn't a zoning variance issue, this is murder.
I'm not making accusations against you Mark, but implore you give a better explaination than a dismissal in an old post.
"This is murder?" No, Will, what happened to Debra Keys was murder. What happened to Mr. Dalzell was something considerably less serious.
"According to . . . the DA at the time, your police force asked for blank stationary that contained his signature. He publically said that he had no knowledge of the plan" Do you really find that plausible? You think the DA handed over a piece of his stationery with no idea of how the police would use it?
I stand by my statements from earlier. The Carrboro Police Department is committed to using Constitutionally permissible police tactics. The fact that a court has now declared one particular tactic unconstitutional does not really prove much about the Department's overall commitment to the Constitution.
And in any case, the Department's training on such issues has subsequently been beefed up (at my specific direction). And the Board of Aldermen has since retained a police attorney to act as expert counsel to the Department about any such questions in the future.
The elected officials only found out about Mr. Dalzell's arrest and interrogation after it had already occurred (as is always the case with such matters). What course of action would Mayor Shooter have taken in this matter? Firing the Police Chief for collaborating with the District Attorney? Give me a break.
Ruby,
Mark asked me to point out just one thing on his record in regard to the bill of rights. So I did. If he want's another, there are more. If he can't handle the "heat" of public office, perhaps he should resign. And his juvenile comments like "Mayor Shooter" proves my point.
I don't have a problem with being fair and productive. I don't have a problem with any other local politician, but I won't have a small elected official, who should know better, pull punches on me, and then hide behind his desk.
I haven't made any personal attacks on Chilton, just questioning his record and sincerity to the office in which he serves. And like the old saying goes," a hit dog hollers".
And that, is the first amendment.
There you go again. Hiding behind my desk? What is that supposed to mean? How am I failing to stand the "heat?" What dog are you proposing to hit?
"Mayor Shooter" is not a flippant remark, by the way. It is a common rhetorical device familiar to me from my experience in law school. My appologies if others are unfamiliar with it.
The question (without the rhetorical devise) is: How would you have handled the situation differently?
I'm sure we could have a great discussion on the Bill of Rights, but Ruby--can you move this to its own thread instead of letting it go on here?
My answers to Mark will move to the orangepolitics.org/2005/01/what-happens-when-the-police-get-clever since he has chosen to dodge the issue. Perhaps he can answer a direct question there.
Not a rumble of recriminations here. Our new board will work just fine together.
From this vantage point, the so-called "bitter" recriminations in Chapel Hill were not bitter at all but merely interesting. Cam feels worst for not having campaigned hard enough. At least he hasn't lost his sense of humor.