Can repetition create truth?

All that was needed
was an unending series of victories over your own memory.

George Orwell

Can thought be controlled by repeating positive messages,
while underreporting negative,
and vice versa?

Men… think in herds,
it will be seen that they go mad in herds,
while they only recover their senses slowly…,
one by one.

Charles Mackay

With a little help,
can most convince themselves of just about anything?

Insanity in individuals is rare,
but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule.

Friedrich Nietzsche

If a percentage of what you think,
may be what some frequently suggest you think
could a good chunk of what many others think
be what they have been told to think,
right up until they may not think what they thought anymore?

Egypt V: Oil

Geopolitical unrest and world oil markets

Egypt IV: "Egypt's Economic Tragedy In 3 Simple Charts"

Egypt's Economic Tragedy In 3 Simple Charts

Egypt III: With what will Mubarak maintain subsidies and lower prices?

President Mubarak tells his new prime minister, Ahmad Shafik
to keep government subsidies and cut prices.

Aljazeera Thread

If a nation prints more money,
like cutting a 16 inch pizza into 12 slices instead of 8,
is each slice worth less?

What if the pizza shrinks while the number of slices rise to 100?

There is an element in the readjustment of our financial system,
more important than currency,
more important than gold,
and that is the confidence of the people.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Replaced Herbert Hoover as US President in 1932
after government intervention failed to mitigate The Great Depression

Egypt II

If Gazelles need water and grass,
and Cheetahs need water and Gazelles,
and an abundance of sustenance leads to more Gazelles,
should more Gazelles and water lead to more Cheetahs?

If too many Gazelles relative to water and grass lead to fewer Gazelles,
do fewer Gazelles = fewer Cheetahs?

Population, when unchecked,
increases in a geometrical ratio.

Subsistence only increases in an arithmetical ratio.

Thomas Robert Malthus
Suggested populations could increase faster than food supplies

Winston Churchill: "...we are entering a period of consequence."

The era of procrastination, of half-measures,
of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to a close.

In its place, we are entering a period of consequence.

Winston Churchill

Morpheus, The Matrix

You take the blue pill,
the story ends,
you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill,
you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Morpheus
The Matrix

County Salaries in North Carolina 2011 from UNC School of Government

Each year the UNC School of Government has a total listing of county salaries in the State of North Carolina for 2011. Here is the scribd version below. If you want to see the internet version it is available CLICKHERE .



County Salaries 2011

Newsbusted is New for the Week Check out the Embedded Video Compliments of Newsbusters

Newsbusted is new for the week of 1-25-2011 please enjoy the embedded video compliments from our friends at newsbusters CLICKHERE

If the US gives Egypt's military $1.3 billion annually and they open fire on freedom fighters, not unlike members of the Continental Army...

Washington gave Cairo $1.3 billion in military aid
and $250 million in economic aid in the 2010 fiscal year...

Jeff Mason and Arshad Mohammed

Could we be funding the troops that put down a legitimate rebellion?

SIT-IN MOVEMENT INC [56-1856093] GuideStar Report

SIT-IN MOVEMENT INC [56-1856093] GuideStar Report





2009 sit in movement inc 990 form

"Civil rights museum cuts five from staff" Flashback Math

"Civil rights museum cuts five from staff

Five full-time employees,

including an assistant to the curator and an information technology specialist,

have lost their jobs as part of a restructuring

at the International Civil Rights Center & Museum...

The move, which could shave $250,000 from the $3.1 million operating budget...

The museum, with nine full-time and 11 part-time positions remaining..."

Nancy McLaughlin
Greensboro News & Record

.
If 5 lost jobs could save $250,000, 5 / $250,000 = $50,000 per full time position

If there are 9 full time employees 9 x $50,000 = $450,000

If 11 part times positions pay $12,500 each, 11 x $12,500 = $137,500

If $450,000 + $250,000 + $137,500 = a $837,500 payroll,
with a $3.1 million budget...

$3,100,000 - $837,500 = $2,262,500

On what is the museum spending $2,262,500 every year?

XMG Vs. Guilford County Computer Talk from Anonymous Email

e mailed to Triadwatch on this whole XMG Vs. Guilford County issue from someone who wants to remain anonymous.


Custom CMSes can cost anywhere from several hundred, to tens of thousands of dollars easily. It depends on the data and the customization. In the corporate website world, those developments can also cost in the tens of thousands. I know several websites for corporations that were done anywhere for 30k-100k+. Complete design work, and you'd gawk at it. That's just the way things work.



Also, mockups are standard in the industry. You always do a mockup before going through with actual design work. That goes for application development, game development, everything. It's part of good design.


I will say though, that if you want to call into question issues, there are actually several that the more information seem to get disclosed, the more you wonder what's going on (from a business angle).


I am curious why the county isn't chasing this legally. They did pay, and depending on what the PO said, they're not subject to timelines unless written inside the PO itself. So any "extra" paperwork doesn't really do anything when it comes to the actual "business contract" part of it.


From a business perspective, I find a lot of issues with vendor fault here and the more disclosed information, it seems that the more the vendor was at fault. Which in that fashion, I do wonder whether or not there has been weight thrown around politically to stiffen a legal suit. Depending on how the PO was worded, the county is entitled to their money back I would assume.


Give you an example of a basic PO. I as a buyer tell you that I want 5 apples at 10 cents a piece, and you sell them for 50 cents. You sign off on my PO. Thus, you're obligated to give me 5 apples at 10 cents a piece. If you give me 4 apples at 10 cents a piece, then you still broke the contract and I can either not take any of it or sue for not upholding contract.

Egypt

"...Egypt is bordered by the Mediterranean Sea to the north, the Gaza Strip and Israel to the northeast, the Red Sea to the east, Sudan to the south and Libya to the west.

...Egypt is one of the most populous countries in Africa and the Middle East. The great majority of its estimated 79 million people[3] live near the banks of the Nile River, in an area of about 40,000 square kilometers (15,000 sq mi), where the only arable land is found. The large areas of the Sahara Desert are sparsely inhabited. About half of Egypt's residents live in urban areas, with most spread across the densely populated centres of greater Cairo, Alexandria and other major cities in the Nile Delta.

...President Mohamed Hosni Mubarak has ruled the autocratic state as President of the Republic with dictatorial powers since October 14, 1981, after the assassination of President Mohammed Anwar El-Sadat.

...The Egyptian military receives billions of dollars of aid from the United States. It remains Egypt's most powerful institution. It has dozens of factories manufacturing weapons as well as consumer goods, and it exempts itself from laws that apply to other sectors.

...A rapidly growing population, limited arable land, and dependence on the Nile all continue to overtax resources and stress the economy.

Egypt is the most populated country in the Middle East and the third most populous on the African continent, at about 78,866,635 (July 2009 est.).

Population grew rapidly from 1970-2010 due to medical advances and increases in agricultural productivity, enabled by the Green Revolution.

Egypt's population was estimated at only 3 million when Napoleon invaded the country in 1798.

In 1939, Egypt had a population of 16.5 million."

Wikipedia

Think

If you doubt, you think,

If you think, you are.

You were who you think you were.

You are what you think you are.

If some of what will, can, can’t or won’t change,
you may or may not be who you think you’ll be.

You may not know some of what you think you know.

.

Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity

Frank Leahy

Some of what you know,
you don’t know you know.

What you don’t know you don’t know is more than you think.

.

When I was a boy of fourteen,
my father was so ignorant
I could hardly stand to have the old man around.

But when I got to be 21,
I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.

Mark Twain

If what you think effects what you do,
which effects what you and others think afterwards,
and what others do effects what you think
which effects etc…,
think before do should get farther faster with less risk
than do before think.

What others think was, is and may, might not be what you do.

.

A great many people think they are thinking
when they are really rearranging their prejudices.

Edward R. Murrow

There may be less risk and greater return
in learning from other people’s experience,
before having to learn from your own.

Fec's "Acceptance," by Eric

Acceptance

Joe Killian's answers on XMG, Guilford County's IS Department and Skip Alston, from "On Joe Killian's comment"

So Mr. Williams has only been paid for finished product
that was correctly completed?

"That's really a question for Barbara Weaver. She said to me in an interview that the design portion -- about $32,000 of the whole two phase project -- was completed to their satisfaction and paid for.

I couldn't say how much of the CMS -- the second part -- was finished. It is certainly true that they paid for some of it. The analogy that's come up in conversation with Weaver and Williams is that Williams essentially built a car. He finished and was paid for the body of the vehicle but didn't finish building the engine. He says this is because the budget ran out due to their having asked him to do work outside the scope of what he'd agreed to do. They say he bit off more than he could chew.

On what has already been paid for,
or what has not been paid for?

Their story is that throughout the project there were bugs and errors they asked Williams to address, on things they'd paid for and things they hadn't yet because they hadn't reached that point. The documentation seems to back them up on that. Williams says had he been allowed to finish he would have worked out any of the bugs to their satisfaction. They say they had to cut bait because he wasn't delivering on what he promised them in the second phase.

Was what was paid for sub par?

Was the initial work evaluated before the next work was approved and initiated?

No one characterized to me the work in the first phase as sub par. They were dissatisfied with the second phase and again, how much of that they considered sub par and why that was (shoddy work or just not being allowed to finish) is one of the things at issue. They did evaluate and approve the first phase before beginning the second, according to interviews and documents.

What is Skip Alston's view of what occurred at the meeting?

Chairman Alston's view, as expressed to me, was that he was trying to broker an agreement between a contractor and the county before their differences led them to court. He says he set up the meeting and attended it but did not play a role in the actual negotiations."

Joe Killian, emailed on January 25, 2011

On Joe Killian's comment

Animal-Rights Activists Release Yow Cows Into Wild

"Members of the radical group Animal Liberation Front swept through a 900-square-mile region of East-Western Guilford County Monday, freeing an estimated 71,000 cows from their human captors.

"These cows are finally free to run wild through the wilderness," said ski-masked ALF member "Roch," loosing a 200-head Guernsey herd from Milk-Rite Dairy. "No creature should have to live in servitude to humans."

Within hours of the cows' release, police departments throughout the area began receiving reports of bovine fatalities.

"We've been getting calls all night long," Guilford County Sherriff BJ Barnes said. "So far, 43 cows have been hit by cars, 11 have fallen off bridges and drowned, and three have been electrocuted from chewing on power lines."

Some of the cows were loaded onto trucks, then transported 100 miles north and freed in a forest clearing, where, as of press time, all 450 were standing around eating grass.

The long-distance transport of the Cumberland cows was deemed necessary in light of an event last August, when 80 Milking Shorthorns were released from the Miklewski farm in Greensboro, only to wander back into their pens the next day.

"It was the greatest thrill of my life to have personally broken the padlock on the gate that cruelly held these cows," Animal Liberation Front member Skip Alston said. "As long as I live, I'll never forget the lazy, sluggish look in those cows' eyes as I shoved them through the gate with all my might."

Animal activists are hailing the raid as a major victory for cows' rights.

"Cows do not belong in dairy farmers' pens. They belong out in the wilderness, where they may run free with the wolves and bears," PETA spokesperson Ed Cone said. "This raid was an important first step toward returning the proud, majestic cow to its natural environs."

Monday's cow release is the highest-profile raid for the Animal Liberation Front since October 1996, when the group released three million chickens into Yosemite National Park."

The Onion

Potential questions for Guilford County Information Systems Director Barbara Weaver and Brenda Jones Fox

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered.

The point is to discover them.

Galileo Galilei
Censored Astronomer

Was XMG asked to build a "dummy" website
not included in work specified in County purchase orders
on a time line other than what was initially agreed upon
for the purpose of showing Guilford County’s Management and Commissioners?

If…the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus
and in reality the result was grossly less,
Winston’s job was to change previous versions
so the old version would agree with the new one.

George Orwell

Why would the Guilford County Information Systems Department
spend taxpayer dollars on what may be a nonfunctioning website carcass?

The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance
as though they were realities,
and are often more influenced by the things that seem than those that are.

Niccolo Machiavelli

If so, was what could have been a dummy website
considered part of the project
authorized by the second purchase order?

Never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end,
with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality.

Admiral Jim Stockdale

Was the time frame for the work outlined in the second purchase order
limited, reduced or retarded by what may have been a request
for what could be a fake website?

Half the work that is done in this world,
is to make things appear what they are not.

Elias Root Beadle

Should what may be a fake website have been billed for separately,
if not specified in the purchase order,
and was the matter discussed between Mrs. Weaver and Mr. Williams?

Not to transmit an experience
is to betray it.

Elie Wiesel

Why wasn’t the job put out for bid?

Who else in Guilford County Management
was aware of what may be a request to build a fake web site?

Zugzwang is when a chess player at a disadvantage
is forced to choose between two or more moves,
all of which end in a severely weakened position.

Mark Hartzman

Were Guilford County’s Commissioners made aware
that the website shown to them may not have been real?

Everybody sooner or later
sits down to a banquet of consequences.

Robert Louis Stevenson

Why would Calvin Williams Jr.,
who has agreed to take a polygraph,
disclose what may be a request by the Information Systems department
for what may be a fake website,
not documented in Guilford County purchase orders?
.
George Hartzman

Letter to Guilford County Commissioners about Tax Increase Authority, by Jeremy Williams

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

"...In a news interview that aired on Fox8 on Friday January 21, 2011,
Commissioner Alston spoke of his support for a recommendation
to allow county commissioners
to decide on tax increases without voter consent.

In a time when a tax increase has appeared on the ballot 3 times
and 3 times the citizens of Guilford County have voted it down,
I would have thought the will of the people would have been clearly understood.

...This is not a Republican or Democrat issue it is a people issue.

...The people have spoken on this issue time and again
and now it seems the answer
the State Association of County Commissioners and Commissioner Alston
have come up with
is to simply bypass the people and take on that authority themselves.
.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
.
Thomas Jefferson

.
...do you support taking away the citizens right to vote on tax increases
and granting that authority to the county commissioners?...

Sincerely,

Jeremy Williams
High Point

Two kinds of morality.

One which we preach but don’t practice,
the other which we practice but seldom preach.

Bertrand Russell

A Plan for Redistricting Reform in North Carolina by John Hood

With permission from John Hood of Carolina Journal and John Locke Foundation CLICKHERE  . It is time for all in North Carolina to understand the ramifications of what is going to happen in the next few months in regards to redistricting of the whole state.


                                                           John Hood's Daily Journal



                                                       A Plan for Redistricting Reform


                                                                   By John Hood


                                                              December 21, 2010



RALEIGH – For decades, Republican lawmakers in Raleigh complained that their numbers were kept artificially low by Democratic gerrymanders. For decades, many supported reforms of the redistricting process in North Carolina to improve voter information, foster competition, and break up the insularity of the state’s political class.

Then, in 2010, the GOP overcame a Democratic-skewed electoral map and other barriers, thanks to favorable national trends, unprecedented success at candidate recruitment and fundraising, and the unpopularity of Democratic tax increases and politicians. For the first time since the 19th century, Republicans took control of both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly.

They will now feel a temptation to try to use the redistricting process to keep themselves in power. They should resist it, both on principle and political grounds.

The principle is straightforward: voters must retain ultimate sovereignty in any representative government. Because American polities are organized around winner-take-all districts, rather than a parliamentary system of proportional representation, policymakers should avoid drawing district maps that create large gaps between vote totals and political power.

Electoral gerrymanders aren’t just opportunities for political mischief. They do real damage to self-government. When counties, municipalities, and other geographical communities are shredded into bits of thread and stitched into weird paisley designs on a map, it robs voters of basic information – who represents me? – and makes it harder to ensure effective legislative representation.

I know plenty of politicians and activists, on both sides of the aisle, who agree with these objections to gerrymandering in principle but fail to act on them. Don’t assume they are just power-hungry miscreants. While they may value a fair, competitive electoral system, they are loathe to imperil other goals they value more highly – such as protecting certain government programs or passing new ones they have long favored.

Again, it’s an understandable temptation. But human beings are always surrounded by temptations. Ethical behavior consists largely of resisting temptations and foregoing immediate gratification for the sake of some greater benefit in the future.


So, redistricting reform is a worthy cause. The details are critically important, however. Some brand-new converts to the cause – certain Democratic politicians who have just lost power, for example – seem to think that creating an independent commission to draw districts is redistricting reform. They are mistaken. I favor the use of a carefully constructed commission to apply neutral rules for redistricting. But the rules are the key here, not the process for applying them.

As it happens, North Carolina has already been through a round of redistricting reform, thanks to the Stephenson v. Bartlett litigation of 2001-03. The state supreme court ultimately ruled that, as much as possible, lawmakers were required to harmonize their obligations under the federal Voting Rights Act with the state constitution’s requirement that county lines be respected when drawing districts. The resulting maps were far from perfect, and retained a Democratic tilt, but they were a clear improvement over the egregious gerrymander initially passed by the legislature in 2001.

No such precedent binds lawmakers when drawing North Carolina’s congressional maps. And within populous counties such as Wake, Mecklenburg, Guilford, and Forsyth, county-based constraints are irrelevant. That’s one big reason there are more competitive legislative districts in rural areas than in urban ones.

Democrats now suddenly say an independent commission should draw the 2011 maps. Republicans say the timing is problematic, and they are right. To create a true commission system would require amending the state’s constitution, which currently allocates sole redistricting authority to elected lawmakers. To set up some kind of commission-lite by statute would invite chaos, delay, and likely litigation. Keep in mind that every step has to be approved by the U.S. Justice Department, and that lawmakers could still reject a statutory commission’s maps and start over if they didn’t like them.

Here’s how I suggest the new General Assembly proceed with redistricting reform:


• Leaders of both houses and the new redistricting committees should commit themselves to neutral, binding constraints such as compactness and respecting jurisdictional lines. The goal should be to devise rules that limit the degrees of freedom any political cartographers would have, be they elected or appointed. The leaders should also hold open hearings and welcome suggestions from individuals and organizations of all political stripes.

• Next, they should prepare and vote on maps within the first four months of the 2011 legislative session. That should be enough time to get them cleared by Washington and in place so candidates can start planning their 2012 campaigns.

• Finally, lawmakers should prepare a constitutional amendment codifying these rules and creating a commission system. It should be submitted for voter approval in the 2012 general election, to allow for careful design and deliberation, ensure the highest possible turnout, and remove any doubt as to the public’s preferences.

I mentioned earlier that principle isn’t the only reason why Republicans should avoid the gerrymandering temptation. There’s a political reason, too. As Democrats have recently learned to their dismay, favorable districts are no guarantee of future success, particularly in the latter elections of a decade of rapid population growth. There’s no way of knowing who will be in charge of the General Assembly in 2021.

So think of redistricting reform as an insurance policy. It may cost you a bit up front, but it can protect you against catastrophic loss in the future.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation

Guilford County Commissioner Linda Shaw VS. Property Management Director David Grantham , Video Embedded

Triadwatch wanted to show you a small clip of the back and forth between Guilford County Commissioner Linda Shaw and Property Management Director David Grantham from the 1-13-2011 Guilford County Commissioners meeting. Commissioner Shaw asked for a listing of  real estate agents who have done business with Guilford County. It seems like David Grantham only provided a listing of the companies but not the exact real estate agents.

The Rhino Times and Scott Yost  provided a lenghtly account of this situation with a title of the article "Shaw Upset by Alphabetizing", CLICKHERE

If you would like to see the whole back and forth of the exchange which last about 10 minutes CLICKHERE then proceed to the 1 hour mark of the January 13, 2011 video which last about 10 minutes.

Below is a short youtube back and forth between the 2 which as you see at end of video where the commissioner says to David Grantham that " i don't like the attitude,  i am through with you". It is so nice to see how our county commissioners are so cordial to Guilford County employees. Check out the video below

On Joe Killian's comment

"No one is asserting that Williams got "paid off" after the meeting with Alston.

His company had already been paid the money that they'd been paid months earlier.

The meeting was to determine whether they would be paid any more,
would do any more work and/or would be able to finish the project to the county's satisfaction.

So Mr. Williams has only been paid for finished product

that was correctly completed?

The county is now saying they approved the work they paid for
but without it having been finished
and with the bugs in the stuff that they do have it might not be salvageable.

On what has already been paid for,
or what has not been paid for?

It might be correct to say (as commentary) that Alston's meeting could have had the effect
of making the county attorney and SI director decide to give him more time
and put the "walk away" deal on the table
rather than going to court to recoup some or all of the money paid to that point.

Was what was paid for sub par?

Was the initial work evaluated before the next work was approved and initiated?

Alston has said he intended the meeting to forestall that possibility
as he didn't see the point in the county going through that
if it could be resolved in another way.

What is Skip Alston's view of what occured at the meeting?

But he demonstrably didn't influence the actual, initial payout
-- at least according to all the principles in the negotiation and the aftermath."

Joe Killian

Guilford County Web Site and Cow Linkfest: Yow, Alston, Williams, Killian, Clark, Fec, Roch, Johnson, SamH, Yost, Cone

What's race got to do with it?

Alston seeking investigation into Yow, farm arrangement

Questions for Calvin Williams Jr. on Guilford County's Website Deal

Wrong about Yow

Answers from Calvin Williams Jr. on Guilford County's Website Deal

XMG head quotes Bible in response to county website accusations

Faulty website could cost county $47,000

XMG Online is WordPress

Alston's latest beef with Yow

Skip fires back

XMG Press Conference

If your mother says she loves you, check it out

Weaver Conducts Damage Control

County Saddled With Old Website, Out $41k

404

Unsalvageable

Clark's support for Yow, Gibson supported by ignorance of the facts
.
404 Update
.
Artful Dodgers
.
Crisis management
.
A demo of the County's "unsalvageable" web site

"Greensboro anticipates county, state budget impacts": Remember what happened last year?

"Six months out from the next fiscal year, Greensboro’s already $7 million in the hole,
City Manager Rashad Young told council members today.

Should Greensboro borrow $40,000,000 and spend down $4,900,000 of reserves
in the same year?

It’s a budget gap that may only get larger – perhaps by more than $25 million
– as the state and county governments decide whether to hit the city up for money
to balance their budgets.

Is GSO’s City Council suggesting we borrow $19,000,000
to build a ritzy swimming pool while cutting summer activities at 14 city parks?

...Council members also asked Young to make recommendations for up to $18 million in budget cuts,
to brace the city for the state withholding revenue or the county charging more for services."

Amanda Lehmert

If Greensboro’s City Council approves a profligate debt expense
for a swimming pool
as Greensboro’s tax revenues fall,
will our community create jobs for what some want,
by eliminating needed civil service employment
as unavoidable budget cuts become necessary
to support overleveraged principle and interest obligations?

Answers from Calvin Williams Jr. on Guilford County's Website Deal

Would you be willing to submit to a polygraph
concerning questions on your business dealings with Guilford County?

"I have no problem submitting a polygraph.

Who nominated you for a board appointment at A&T?

I was first appointed to the Board of Trustees in a ex officio role in 2004 - 2005
when I was voted Student Body President by the students of North Carolina A&T.

Commissioner Alston did not serve on that board with me.

The Board in question
is the ICEEB (Interdisciplinary Center for Entrepreneurship and E-Business) Board
within the School of Business at NCA&T.

I was nominated to that Board by the organizer, Dr. Thaddeus McEwen,
a past professor in 2005.

I stayed on that board until last year when I resigned
to dedicate more time to my company and future academic aspirations.

Please detail your website programming credentials.

I began programming when I was 12 years old.

I learned how to make basic websites through a WYSIWYG browser called Netscape.

I began making websites for friends and my local church.

Then in high school, I took AP Classes and learned C++. When I applied to NCAT,
my AP credit transferred and I skipped several classes, so I have always been a geek.

My programming languages are HTML, XHTML, CSS, PHP, Perl, C++, Flash Dev,
and many others.

When I started my company in 2004,
I realized that it would be best not to be the best programmer at my company.

Therefore, I began to develop relationships and acquire some of the top talent that I could find.

Please specify the entirety of your relationship
with Commissioner’s Chairman Alston.

The relationship between Commissioner Chairman Alston and I
pertains only to the ICEEB Board, with no exceptions.

Please state for the record whether or not your have ever called Mr. Alston
your personal “mentor”.

My definition of a personal "mentor" is an individual who invests time with a mentee,
examines their progress, sees opportunities and helps them achieve them,
and corrects them when they make mistakes.

By my definition of a mentor,
Commissioner Alston and I neither have nor have we had that type of relationship.

Have you had any interaction with the County Manager?

The County Manager was involved in one or two design presentation meetings
where the County approved our work.

What were Mr. Alston's reasons for providing more time?

During the contract,
we spent many man hours of work that were outside the scope of the contract
(moving content, re-naming PDFs, etc),
therefore we requested more time to work on the actual programming of the project.

If Guilford County only paid for portions “acceptable to them,”
why do the preceding two passages contradict each other, and why is there a billing dispute?

There is not a billing dispute but a misunderstanding of the scope of the project.

During the course of the project, we spent many hours working on requests
that were outside the original scope of the project
(moving content, reformatting content, and re-naming PDFs).

Therefore, the deadline of the contract was extended.

When it became apparent to both parties that we were not going in the direction we wanted to,
we agreed to close the project.

Deliver the work that was completed to date
and not bill for the remaining portion of the purchase order.

Who are “we”?

We is XMG.

"We" are the individuals that make up XMG.

In this project, we had a project manager, creative director, lead developer,
and designer working actively on the project.

If as you say everything was hunky-dorey
when you turned it over to Guilford County
then what were all the "system bugs" the News & Record referenced?

Beau

I did not say that everything was hunky-dorey
when we turned over our code to Guilford County.

I said that we delivered the source code that we completed to date
and that we did not seek to collect the final payment of the purchase order.

It was an unfinished purchased order."

Calvin Williams Jr.
.

Note: Mr. Williams verbally explained that Guilford County's IS department
made the initial contact with XMG,

meaning that Mr. Williams was solicited by County staff,

as opposed to the opposite set of circumstances in recent real estate contracts.

.

George Hartzman

.

Please put any other questions for Calvin in the comments.

Questions for Calvin Williams Jr. on Guilford County's Website Deal

Mr. Williams,

“Alston denies bringing the company, XMG Online, to the county or helping it win the contract. Alston said he does know XMG CEO Calvin Williams Jr., who went to Dudley High with Alston’s son. Alston also serves with Williams on a board at N.C. A&T.”

Who nominated you for a board appointment at A&T?

Please detail your website programming credentials.

“Williams said he decided to call Alston, not because he wanted Alston to exercise influence on his behalf, but because he thought he should go straight to the top."

Please specify the entirety of your relationship
with Commissioner’s Chairman Alston.

Please state for the record whether or not your have ever called Mr. Alston
your personal “mentor”.

If you deny referring to Mr. Alston as your mentor,
please offer an explanation of why more than one person, from more than one source,
would lie about you saying you said so.

How did you become aware of the Chamber of Commerce business?

“Information Systems Director Barbara Weaver said Williams got the contract because people in her department liked his Web design and he impressed them in a meeting in October 2009.”

What “people” referring to what design?

What led to the initial meeting with Barbara Weaver?

Were any members of the Information Systems department aware
of your relationship with Skip Alston?

Have you had any interaction with the County Manager?

““The way we billed our project was in phases and milestones,” Williams said. “They only paid us for portions they received that were acceptable to them.””

“Williams said Alston arranged a meeting at which it was agreed that XMG would get one more week to finish the project."
.

What were Mr. Alston's reasons for providing more time?

.
If it couldn’t, the company would take its payments to that point and turn over what had been completed. “We weren’t able to complete the content-management system,” Williams said. “But we gave them what we did complete.””

If Guilford County only paid for portions “acceptable to them,”
why do the preceding two passages contradict each other,
and why is there a billing dispute?

“We never thought we would be loading hundreds of pages of content for them after we built it,” he said. “But we realized that was what they expected. Our expectations were different.”

Who are “we”?

Would you be willing to submit to a polygraph
concerning questions on your business dealings with Guilford County?

George Hartzman
Emailed to inbox@xmgonline.com

City of Greensboro Information Request sent on January 21, 2011

City of Greensboro Information Request

Please provide the total of all fund balances for all City of Greensboro's savings accounts
at the end of the last 5 fiscal years.

George Hartzman

Emailed to:

bill.knight@greensboro-nc.gov
nancy.vaughan@greensboro-nc.gov
danny.thompson@greensboro-nc.gov
bellamy.small@greensboro-nc.gov
jim.kee@greensboro-nc.gov
mary.rakestraw@greensboro-nc.gov
trudy.wade@greensboro-nc.gov
robbie.perkins@greensboro-nc.gov
zack.matheny@greensboro-nc.gov
paul@rhinotimes.net
w@rhinotimes.net
john@rhinotimes.net
scott@rhinotimes.net
amanda.lehmert@news-record.com
jordan@yesweekly.com
allen.johnson@news-record.com

To send this information request to the City of Greensboro,
please send the same words with your name in the place of mine
to Cindy Briggs at cindy.briggs@greensboro-nc.gov

Looking for Summer Camp Information in Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Triad, Look No Further

Greensboro Summer Camps CLICKHERE and also Winston-Salem Summer Camps CLICKHERE are looking for some kids in the triad area to enjoy their summer participating in a camp setting.

 Some of the more popular or small camps fill quickly, so savvy parents know to plan ahead to get the best for their children. There are camps that focus on Arts, Sports, Church, Academics, Residential (where you stay overnight), and other specialty camps!

Time is now to start looking for your camp experience.

Newsbusted is New for 1-21-2011 Please Enjoy The Embedded Video Compliments of Newsbusters

Newsbusted is new for 1-21-2011 please enjoy the embedded video above compliments from our friends at newsbusters CLICKHERE

Words George Hartzman Intends to Deliver at Mimi's Cafe on the morning of January 21, 2011

"At the Tuesday, Jan. 18 councilmeeting, a motion made by Councilmember Trudy Wade
that the council revise a resolution passed on July 2, 1973
that allowed the city budget director to move money all over the place
without council approval passed by a 6-to-3 vote.

Councilmembers Robbie Perkins, Dianne Bellamy-Small and Jim Kee
voted against the council having more control over how the city spends money.

...Wade noted, ...the council has no say in the staff transferring money
from one account to another because of the resolution passed in 1973.

...She said the budget just set the total amount
but the manager could move it all over the place without notifying the council
until after the money had been moved and spent.

[Nancy] Vaughan said, however, "It's very frustrating when the staff finds money."

And she gave the example of the $43,000 that the staff found for the skating rink.

Was Greensboro's City Council apprised of the $40,000 taxpayer dollars
given to the Ice Skating Championships?

Vaughan noted that the council was told
it should not cut the budgets for maintenance and repair in the current budget
but now it appears those line items are being used as places to hold money
until it can be transferred somewhere else.

She said, "If there is a contingency account, I wish it would be labeled a contingency account
and not put in something like maintenance and repair."

Wade said that the City Council was the governing body and
"not one councilmember can tell you what we are doing with the money."

She said the city needed some checks and balances.

Vaughan noted that money budgeted for rental of land was transferred to cover longevity pay
and other personnel expenses
and it was hard to understand the reason for such a transfer."

John Hammer
Rhino Times, January 20, 2011

What were the City's total fund balances at the end of 2008/9,
and at the end of 2009/10,
and what are the anticipated year end balances for 2010/11?

What is the statutory minimums for the fund balances for 2010/11?

If the City of Greensboro appropriated fund balances of $30,464,269 during 2010/11,
will the city have appropriated $85,633,808 of fund balances since the beginning of 2008/9?

Page 13, Adopted 2010/11 budget

33,421,883 + 21,747,656 + 30,464,269 = $85,633,808
.
Was 2008/9's net revenues minus appropriated fund balances $410,080,337?

Was 2009/10's net revenues minus appropriated fund balances $401,020,748?

Are 2010/11's expected net revenues minus appropriated fund balances $393,327,363?

George Hartzman
City of Greensboro Information Request
July 19, 2010

"The Senate had signed off on measures
to move about $4.7 billion of local government monies
into the state’s fund."

California Budget Deal Closes $26 Billion Gap
Jennifer Steinhauer
New York Times, July 24, 2009

If California can confiscate tax revenues from local governments,
can North Carolina take money from Guilford County
and The City of Greensboro?

George Hartzman
City of Greensboro Information Request
August 11th, 2009

Why would the City of Greensboro say local government tax revenues couldn't be confiscated
less than a week before they were?

"State cuts local share of beer tax

State cuts to local beer and wine tax revenue will easily remove more than $1 million from local budgets.

…The state is holding two-thirds of the expected revenue from municipalities in the beer and wine tax.

…Greensboro is expected to lose about $800,000 in beer and wine tax revenue.

Guilford County stands to lose about $250,000…

The money instead will stay in state accounts.

County departments know cuts are coming but don’t know what they will look like.

Social services and public health departments haven’t received their marching orders from Raleigh yet, either.

“Not everybody knows the full impact yet,” said Michael Halford, Guilford County budget director.

“My guess is there will be some big realignment.”"

Amanda Lehmert and Gerald Witt
Greensboro News and Record, August 14, 2009

If Guilford County, North Carolina can disclose Fund Balances,
why can't the City of Greensboro?

"...In May, I asked the city what the gap was
between The City of Greensboro’s 2009 spending and 2010’s expected revenues,
otherwise known as the budget deficit, and the information request has not been answered.

In April, the Greensboro News and Record reported
the city could afford $75 million worth of projects over the next two years
including a Library, the Aquatic Center and a recreation center
without a tax increase, by eliminating jobs and loose leaf pick up.

If Greensboro’s government believes a tax hike is unnecessary for the new debt,
how is anyone supposed to agree,
if the city won’t release information and/or the news industry won’t report it?

Why would who not want Greensboro’s residents to know
what the government shortfalls are expected to be?

In May, we were warned of shortfalls and closed or canceled libraries,
and the elimination of school crossing guards.

In June, we ended up with a tax cut and a bigger budget than the year before.

On July 6, I re-sent the information request to the City,
including questions about 2008 spending and 2009’s revenues,
and 2010 spending and 2011’s expected revenues.

On July 19, I asked for the City's total fund balances at the end of 2008,
and at the end of 2009, and the anticipated year end balances for 2010,
including statutory minimums.

None of this information has been released.

Should Greensboro’s press corps feel obligated to inform the public
as to how much cash Greensboro is spending?

Does Greensboro's press corps prohibit itself
from disclosing what the City of Greensboro's actual budget deficits are?
.
If not, why, and if so,
why haven't Greensboro’s actual deficits been reported by the press?

How can Greensboro's residents determine
if borrowing more money is a good idea, if the City of Greensboro
doesn’t release enough information for anyone to figure it out?

What happened to the crossing guards, loose leaf pick up
and the $9.26 million “shortfall”?

From what I think I figured out, Greensboro’s 2009’s net revenues
were about $9 million less than 2008’s,
and 2010’s net revenues are expected to be almost $8 million less than last year,
yet the city intends to spend a million more.

It is my understanding that to accomplish higher spending
with about $17 million less income than two years before,
Greensboro intends to use more than $30 million of savings in 2010,
after spending almost $22 million of savings in 2009,
on top of spending more than $33 million in 2008.

If it’s true that 2008's net revenues were $410 million,
and 2009's net revenues were $401 million,
and 2010's expected net revenues are $393 million,
as the city draws down $85,633,808 of savings in three years
doesn’t it seem counterintuitive
that we are going to spent $1 million more this year than last,
and borrow millions more without a tax increase
as our income is falling?
.
Is it justifiable for a community’s elders
to spend millions on themselves for future generations to pay for?

Should we borrow more money to spend on what we don’t need?

Does most of Greensboro’s adult population realize
the city’s young will have to repay the principle and interest?

Is Greensboro’s City Council trying to temporarily stabilize the economy,
by borrowing from relatively younger voters and their children,
who may not reap the prosperity of their parents?

If Greensboro’s City Council is supposed to act in the population's best interests,
how can this debt be justified in the face of falling revenues,
with Guilford County facing what looks like a more than $85 million budget deficit,
while the State of North Carolina
faces somewhere between a $3.7 and $7 billion shortfall next year
as federal stimulus dollars evaporate?"

If $3.7 billion divided by 21,000 = $176,190.48 per job,
but $3.7 billion divided by $60,000 per job = 61,667 jobs,
and $3.7 billion divided by $50,000 per job = 74,000 jobs,
how did the N.C. Budget & Tax Center come up with 21,000 jobs?

George Hartzman
Greensboro's City Council, September 7, 2010

What were City of Greensboro's total savings balances
as of the end of September, 2010?

Information Request for the City of Greensboro
December 21, 2010

Redistricting in North Carolina from the Hickory Daily Record

A few days ago the Hickory Daily Record  CLICKHERE has a post titled "Redistricting Should Reflect Public Will". It is great to see other newspapers all over this state post articles on this important issue to citizens all over this great state of North Carolina.

In the post this was said:

"It’s not time for revenge; it’s time to realistically reshape the state.



If at all possible, counties should not be broken up into a hodge-podge of districts.


North Carolina is subdivided by counties. Legislative districts should reflect those divisions. Fashioning piecemeal districts to promote one party’s candidate has long been criticized by Republicans.


The GOP majority cannot forget that."

Could not have said it better myself. We will see what happens in the next few months and if the republican party will have a open process on redistricting but it is time to have reasonable districts that adhere to some geographic or county line provisions .

Congressman Brad Miller TIme To Get out of Guilford County

HT: Antics Road Show CLICKHERE

Please see the post by jon on this issue above. Redistricting is going to come and go as quickly as we can say go and it is very important for all involved to know how we feel. In the post at antics road show it shows the map of Congressman Brad Miller's district which goes from raleigh all the way dipping down into guilford county as well.

Here is a quote from the post

"The 13th district as drawn is an outrage and an afront to the citizens of Guilford County, that will hopefully be corrected by the current legislature."

Well said and agree 100%. It is time for Congressman Brad Miller to get out of Guilford County .

Newsbusted is New for 1-18-2011 Compliments from Our Friends at Newsbusters

Newsbusted is new for 1-18-2011 please enjoy the embedded video compliments from our friends at newsbusters CLICKHERE

Martin Luther King, Jr.

I speak for the poor in America who are paying the double price
of smashed hopes at home
and death and corruption in Vietnam.

I speak as a citizen of the world,
for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken.

I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation.

The great initiative in this war is ours.

The initiative to stop it must be ours.

Martin Luther King, Jr.,
The Trumpet of Conscience, 1967

North Carolina Redistricting Court Cases from the Past 10 Years, Pender County Case Was Huge

Below is a accumulation of the past 10 years in regards to redistricting court cases in North Carolina that are very significant and one of the most important cases was the Supreme Court case in Pender County which you will see below.
HAT TIP  National Conference of State Legislatures CLICKHERE

North Carolina


Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., Feb. 20, 2002)

On February 15, 2002, four days after the Justice Department told the State that its House and Senate district plans met the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, a state court ruled from the bench that the plans violated a provision of the North Carolina constitution that requires counties to be kept whole when drawing state House and Senate districts. The state court declined to enjoin use of the districts for the 2002 election, for which filings were to open on February 18, suggesting that new plans could be drawn by the General Assembly in 2003 to govern elections in 2004 and beyond.

On February 20, in its written order, the court did not discuss, distinguish, or mention the opinion of the federal district court in Cavanagh v. Brock, 577 F. Supp. 176 (E.D. N.C. 1983), that the North Carolina constitutional provision prohibiting dividing counties was unenforceable under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the 40 counties subject to that section because it was not precleared, and unenforceable in North Carolina’s other 60 counties because it was not severable. The court enjoined use of the districts for the 2002 election, but stayed its order unless and until the stay was removed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals or North Carolina Supreme Court, and also until the order was precleared under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The court requested the parties to submit a proposed deadline for the General Assembly to redraw the districts and offered to draw a remedial plan for the 2002 election if the deadline were not met and if so directed by the appellate court.


Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94P02 (N.C. Feb. 26, 2002)

Without lifting the stay of the Superior Court order holding the North Carolina State House and Senate plans enacted in 2001 to be unconstitutional as dividing too many counties, the North Carolina Supreme Court ordered an expedited appeal schedule. Oral arguments were scheduled for April 4 (candidate filing for the May 7 primary was scheduled to end on March 1, mail-in absentee voting was to be underway by late-March).


Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson I), No. 94PA02, 355 N.C. 354, 562 S.E.2d 377 (Apr. 30, 2002), stay denied 535 U.S. 1301 (May 17, 2002) (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, in chambers)

The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the superior court holding that North Carolina State Senate and State House plans were unconstitutional because of a state constitutional provision saying no counties could be divided, but said that the no-divided-counties provision has limited applicability. First, minority districts must be created to satisfy the Voting Rights Act. Then, counties with enough members for exact multiples of seats must be subdivided into single-member districts while respecting the outer boundary of the county. Then, groups of counties must be assembled and divided into single member districts that respect the outer boundary of the group of counties. The new plan must not cause the opportunities for minorities to regress, using the 2001 precleared plan as the benchmark. The district court was ordered to hold an expedited hearing on whether the General Assembly was capable of redrawing the districts in time for the 2002 election. If not, the district court was authorized to impose a temporary plan of its own for use in the 2002 election, subject to being precleared.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 1 CV 02885 (Superior Court, Johnston Co., May 31, 2002)

After the General Assembly enacted new House and Senate plans on May 17, Superior Court Judge Knox V. Jenkins threw them out and drew maps of his own. The court’s House plan was a modification of the one adopted by the General Assembly. The court’s Senate plan was a modification of one submitted to the court by the plaintiffs.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, No. 94PA02 (N.C. June 4, 2002)

The North Carolina Supreme Court denied the State’s request to stay enforcement of the Superior Court’s order and a motion to expedite hearing the State’s appeal. A hearing on the appeal was not likely until January, meaning that the 2002 election was likely to be run using the plans adopted by the Superior Court May 31, 2002.

Board of Elections v. United States, No. 02-1174 (D.D.C. June 27, 2002)

The complaint sought preclearance of both the North Carolina Supreme Court decision of April 30, 2002, in the Stephenson case and the interim plans adopted by the Superior Court May 31, 2002. In the complaint, the State took no position on whether the opinion in Stephenson or the interim plans should be precleared, but said that the federal court was the best forum to resolve those issues. On June 27, 2002, a three-judge court denied the State's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, saying there was no showing of irreparable harm, since the state court plan would not be implemented without Section 5 preclearance and the federal court for the Eastern District of North Carolina could further compress the election schedule to allow a second primary (presumably buying some time by having less than four weeks between the two primaries). The court declined to decide whether it had jurisdiction to issue the orders, saying that the federal court in two pending cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina, Sample v. Jenkins, No. 20-CV-383 (E.D.N.C. filed June 13, 2002) and Foreman v. Bartlett, No. 01-CV-166 (E.D.N.C. filed Nov. 13, 2001) would have authority to grant relief. The court noted that the Department of Justice would have a decision on the Section 5 submittals of the Stephenson case and the Jenkins plan by the week of July 8, 2002.

Sample v Jenkins, No. 20-CV-383 , (E.D. N.C. July 2, 2002)

A three-judge court unanimously denied the State’s motion for a preliminary injunction to conduct the 2002 state legislative election under the precleared legislatively-enacted 2001 plan, rather than an interim state court ordered plan that was still pending Section 5 preclearance at the Department of Justice.

On July 12, 2002, the Department of Justice precleared both the new interpretation of the North Carolina constitutional requirement to preserve whole counties announced in the Stephenson decision and the new legislative districts drawn by Judge Jenkins.

Stephenson v. Bartlett (Stephenson II), No. 94PA02-2, 357 N.C. 301, 582 S.E.2d 247 (July 16, 2003)

The appeal of the May 31, 2002, decision of the Superior Court holding unconstitutional both the Senate and House plans drawn by the General Assembly was heard on the merits by the North Carolina Supreme Court on March 10, 2003. On March 14, the court certified the matter to the trial court for additional findings of fact. On April 17, 2003, the trial court certified the additional findings of fact to the Supreme Court. On July 16, 2003, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court holding both Senate and House plans invalid. It noted the trial court had found that the House plan violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it did not create a second “VRA” district in Wake County, which plaintiffs’ plan showed it was possible to do, and that the Senate plan violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it did not create “VRA” districts in Wake, Mecklenburg, and Forsyth counties that were as “effective” as those drawn by plaintiffs. No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 8-9. The trial court had found that both Senate and House plans violated the requirement of the state constitution that “[e]ach . . . district shall at all times consist of contiguous territory.” N.C Const., art. II, §§ 3(2), 5(2). No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 10. The trial court had opined that “the mathematical concept of ‘point contiguity’ does not meet the Stephenson criteria for contiguity . . . .” and held that “the term ‘contiguity,’ as used in Stephenson, means that two districts must share a common boundary that touches for a non-trivial distance . . . .” No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 15. The trial court had found that both the Senate and House plans violated the whole-county provision (WCP) of the state constitution, N.C Const., art. II, §§ 3(3), 5(3), because plaintiffs’ plan showed that it was possible to keep more counties whole without violating federal law. No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 9. The trial court had found that both the Senate and House plans violated the direction of the North Carolina Supreme Court that “non-VRA districts shall be compact” (referring to Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 383, 562 S.E.2d 377, 397 (2002) (“Stephenson I”)). Finally, the trial court had found that both plans unnecessarily divided communities of interest, No. 94PA02-2, slip op. at 11-15, contrary to the mandate of Stephenson I that “communities of interest should be considered in the formation of compact and contiguous districts.” 355 N.C. at 384, 562 S.E.2d at 397.

Stephenson v. Bartlett, 358 N.C. 219, 595 S.E.2d 112 (Apr. 22, 2004)

On November 25, 2003, along with the new legislative redistricting plan it enacted in compliance with the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision of July 16, 2003, the General Assembly enacted 2003 N.C. Session Law 434, §§ 7-11, codified at N.C.G.S. §§ 1-81.1, 1-267.1, 120-2.3, and 120-2.4, which provided that venue in any action involving redistricting lies exclusively with the Superior Court, Wake County and that legal challenges to legislative redistricting plans must be heard by a three-judge panel appointed by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. No judge who had been a member of the General Assembly could serve on the panel. Redistricting actions pending in a court other than Superior Court, Wake County, had to be transferred to that court. If a court were to find a redistricting plan flawed, the General Assembly would have to be given an opportunity to correct any defects before the court imposed a substitute plan. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that: (1) the session law establishing three-judge panels for challenges to redistricting plans and placing venue for the challenges in Wake County could be applied to plaintiffs; (2) the three-judge panel requirement did not unconstitutionally create a new court; (3) the venue provision was constitutional; and (4) the three-judge panel requirement did not unconstitutionally infringe on the Chief Justice’s powers.


Pender County v. Bartlett, No. 103A06, 361 N.C. 491, 649 S.E.2d 364 (Aug. 24, 2007), aff’d sub nom. Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009)

The 2003 General Assembly enacted a new legislative redistricting plan, Act of Nov. 25, 2003, ch. 434, 2003 N.C. Sess. Laws (1st Extra Sess. 2003) 1313. Past election results in North Carolina had demonstrated that a legislative district with an African American voting age population of at least 38.37 percent created an opportunity for African Americans to elect a candidate of their choice. In the area that encompassed Pender and New Hanover Counties, it was possible to draw a House district with an African American voting age population in excess of that threshold. In accordance with what the General Assembly said were the requirements of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, chapter 434 divided Pender County between House District 16 and House District 18, with District 18 having an African American voting age population of 39.36 percent. Pender County sued various officials of the State Board of Elections, the General Assembly, and the executive branch, alleging that chapter 434 violated the whole-county provision (WCP) of the state constitution, N.C Const., art. II, §§ 3(3), 5(3). Defendants responded that the division of Pender County was required by § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which trumped the State Constitution. The Chief Justice appointed a three-judge panel to consider the case. The panel denied a motion to enjoin use of chapter 434 for the 2004 election. The panel found that House District 18 was a crossover district, where African Americans enjoyed reliable support from some members of the White majority who crossed over racial lines and voted for the minority’s preferred candidate, allowing that candidate to be elected. Therefore, the panel concluded that dividing Pender County was required by § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.


On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed. It recognized four distinct types of minority districts: (1) “majority-minority” districts, (2) “coalition” districts, (3) “crossover” districts, and (4) “influence” districts. It observed that the courts of appeals in five federal circuits (4th, 5th, 7th, 10th, and 11th) had held that nothing less than a “majority-minority” district, i.e., a minority population of at least 50 percent of the voting age population, was sufficient to make out a violation of § 2, and that no circuit had held that § 2 could be satisfied by the creation of a coalition, crossover, or influence district. The Court also noted that citizenship must be considered, so that a majority of the voting age population who are citizens is required. It found the use of a “bright line rule” to be more practical than one requiring an assessment of past voting behavior and a prediction of future voting trends. It would provide the General Assembly with a safe harbor when drawing districts and foreclose marginal claims by minority groups with smaller populations. In view of the fact that the General Assembly was not scheduled to reconvene until after the close of filings for the 2008 election, the Court stayed its order requiring the General Assembly to redraw the districts until after the 2008 election.


Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009)

On appeal, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, the Court held that § 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require creation of a district in which a minority population has a fair opportunity to elect a representative of its choice if the minority would constitute less than a majority of the voting age population in the district. On the other hand, the Court said that “Our holding does not apply to cases in which there is intentional discrimination against a racial minority.” Slip op. at 15. The Court also endorsed the voluntary use of crossover districts to comply with § 2 and to maximize minority voting strength. Slip op. at 19-21. Justices Thomas and Scalia concurred in the judgment. Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented.