Recent editorials from North Carolina newspapers:
___
Aug. 10
The Charlotte Observer on Republicans releasing a report about a state House candidate:
The GOP sure has the goods on Erica McAdoo. … NC House Republicans released a 35-page report - known as “oppo” to political insiders and observers - on the NC House 63 candidate from Alamance County. “Meet Erica McAdoo,” the @NCHouseGOP account said in a midday tweet with a photo of McAdoo holding a beer (gasp!) and having a good time at an outdoor event with friends. That same photo was in a news release that described the Democrat’s “radical agenda” and invited people to click an ominous red button to “learn more about Erica McAdoo.”
We did, and we have to say we’re not sure McAdoo will recover from the revelation that she (checks notes) got a speeding ticket 15 years ago.
Yep. That’s the dirt. …
If you didn’t know where it came from, the Republican report sort of reads like a campaign flier - for McAdoo. It says she lives in a modestly priced 100-year-old farmhouse with her husband, daughters and “a menagerie of animals.” It says that she manages a law firm and teaches while pursuing a master’s degree at East Carolina University. It notes that she and her husband have no debt concerns. “Their property taxes have been paid on time in all years,” the report says, adding: “we found no indication that they paid personal property taxes late.”
This is oppo?
About that speeding ticket: It was in 2003. She was cited for traveling 18 mph over the speed limit but was convicted of going 9 mph over the limit. That’s it.
As for McAdoo’s politics, the report affirms what McAdoo gladly displays on her website and social media: that she’s a middle-of-the-road Democrat. She attended the Women’s March and thinks the NCGOP is trying to “suppress” voters with restrictive laws. She opposes the Trump administration policy of separating children from parents, and she calls for “sensible gun laws” and expanding Medicaid as most states have done. The report did note that she posted a picture and supported a local veteran who was selling T-shirts with guns on them. “We shouldn’t be tearing each other apart,” the report quotes McAdoo saying later about that post. “I support our veterans and I support local businesses.”
How radical.
All of which got a good chuckle on social media…, turning the oppo report into a political self-own. Still, there’s a good chance most of the GOP’s intended audience didn’t actually click on the “learn more about Erica McAdoo” button. They saw the beer photo and all the references to “radical” and just assumed the rest. Which was exactly the idea.
It’s another example of how sour political discourse has become, and how much of it is untrustworthy. Make no mistake: There’s nothing unusual with doing oppo on a candidate. It’s also common to go public with damaging stuff because, well, that’s the point of trying to find it. But to release the oppo when it shows nothing, yet characterize it in an ominous way? That shows how little NC House Republicans think of voters, and how little they think of the truth.
Online: https://www.charlotteobserver.com
___
Aug. 14
The Fayetteville Observer on all five living former North Carolina governors campaigning against two constitutional amendments on the November ballot:
It was a group that would have a hard time agreeing on where to eat lunch, or even on a good color for wallpaper. They certainly aren’t of one mind about politics.
But there they were Monday, all five living former governors of North Carolina, two Republicans and three Democrats, together on the same stage for the first time ever, singing in perfect harmony. They used words like “devious” and “mischievous” and “hijacking our constitution.” They talked about the shredding of gubernatorial power and the checks and balances that are built into the North Carolina constitution.
And they were right. They perfectly characterized two amendments that will appear on the ballot in November, one addressing appointments to judicial vacancies, the other establishing how members will be placed on the state elections board. In both cases, the power to do those things is being taken from the governor and given to the General Assembly. But if you haven’t studied the amendments’ background before you walk into the voting booth on Nov. 6, you won’t know that. The lawmakers who wrote the ballot questions took great pains to conceal their power grab.
This provoked the ire of former governors Pat McCrory, Bev Perdue, Mike Easley, Jim Martin and Jim Hunt. The five held a press conference in Raleigh Monday and then met privately to plan a campaign against the two amendments. Current Gov. Roy Cooper has already filed suit against the amendments, seeking to block them from the ballot. A three-judge panel will hear his request this week. The former governors say they intend to continue their campaign, hoping to raise $250,000 to finance it. We hope they raise more, and that they raise an even bigger ruckus too.
The way these amendments were written and then railroaded onto the ballot is the embodiment of what’s wrong with our General Assembly. The former governors are right: It’s time to take a stand.
Online: http://www.fayobserver.com
___
Aug. 13
The News & Observer of Raleigh on publicly naming finalists for university chancellor jobs:
In Tom Fetzer’s defense of his recent actions as a member of the UNC Board of Governors, he was right about one matter: Secrecy is not paramount in the search for a new chancellor at one of our state universities.
Fetzer, in a column published by The News & Observer, defended his involvement in the search for a new chancellor at Western Carolina University. In our view, his actions were meddlesome and indicative of the larger problem of some board members being too involved in campus matters. We agreed with some current and former board members that Fetzer’s handling of the matter did not represent good board governance.
But we agree with an important point Fetzer made involving the misplaced and almost obsessive desire for secrecy when searching for the leader of one of our state universities. Fetzer noted that UNC President Margaret Spellings had been quoted recently as saying, “Confidentiality is paramount in the search process.”
“Respectfully, she’s wrong,” Fetzer wrote. What is paramount, Fetzer wrote, is abiding by the board’s oversight responsibility and hiring the best chancellor possible. He is right about that.
Fetzer appears to be right about another point: The vetting process for at least one of the Western Carolina chancellor candidates didn’t work. Fetzer wrote that UNC officials and its search firms “failed to notice a glaring misrepresentation on page 1 of the candidate’s application.”
There’s a simple fix to that problem, and it would solve other issues UNC has when hiring chancellors. That’s to publicly name two or three finalists and bring them to campus to meet with students, faculty, staff and members of the university community.
This has been done at times in the UNC system and it’s been effective. There’s no better way to check the qualifications of a candidate than to post the candidate’s name and resume online. That UNC hasn’t embraced the digital power of crowdsourcing shows it’s stuck in another era.
There are other benefits in naming finalists and bringing them to campus. The candidate ultimately selected has a chance to get buy-in and support from the university community. This lack of prior interaction with the university community has hurt ECU Chancellor Cecil Staton, who has struggled to win the support of stakeholders. That process went so poorly that the search firm returned its $110,000 fee.
Naming finalists is a prudent way to manage risk. And it’s effective. That’s why Wake commissioners announced finalists in choosing their county manager this year and why Raleigh and Durham named finalists in selecting their current police chiefs. Yes, some possible candidates might not be willing to be named. But the benefits of naming finalists outweighs the costs.
In his column, Fetzer took the news media to task for being hypocritical: “The same news media that have wrongly accused me of jeopardizing candidate confidentiality often make it their mission to disclose finalists - and vet them independently - before any hiring.”
But in criticizing Fetzer’s handling of the Western Carolina incident, The N&O did not criticize him for jeopardizing candidate confidentiality (although we did quote a board member who made that point). In fact, The N&O has longed pushed for finalists for high-level public jobs in the UNC system and elsewhere to be named.
We’d like to support Fetzer on this issue. We hope that he will vigorously make the case to the UNC board that finalists for all chancellor jobs be named publicly and that the candidates visit the campus to discuss their qualifications and ideas. If the board is serious about improving its search process, it would support naming finalists.
Online: https://www.newsobserver.com
Please read our comment policy before commenting.