#WeAreNotThisEither

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “#WeAreNotThisEither”.

by Nancy Oates on April 4, 2016 • Permalink

Posted in Council Members, Elections, Ethics, Politics

Tagged campaign contributions

Posted by Nancy Oates on April 4, 2016

http://chapelhillwatch.com/2016/04/04/wearenotthiseither/

52 Comments

Bruce Springsteen
/ April 4, 2016

Bill Strom Lives.
plurimus
/ April 4, 2016

The hypocrisy of Bell and Klienschmidt (and I suspect others) is pretty stunning in light of their well practiced reputations. I guess this is what the term “progressive” has been reduced to in Chapel Hill.

Turns out you were more correct than anyone thought in your piece last year “The price of doing right”.
http://chapelhillwatch.com/2015/01/19/the-price-of-doing-right/ I wonder what Cam, DOM and Fred Black have to say about the subject of correlation-cause now?

I wonder what the endorsements in the INDY, DTH CHN etc. will look like next time around.
BikesBelongInCH
/ April 4, 2016

Nancy, you are surprised that developers would put their money behind candidates more aligned with their vision of Chapel Hill and so you are implying corruption here… while upper class (yes home owners in CH, look at your appraised home values/taxes) white single family home owners pooling their money into an anti-development PAC is somehow just a good clean grassroots effort?

Give us a very large break.
Nancy
/ April 4, 2016

Bikes, I’m not implying any corruption. All of us candidates — those elected and those voted out — said we supported transparency, but not all candidates reflected that in their behavior. Perfectly legal, but disappointing nonetheless.
plurimus
/ April 4, 2016

Bikes, don’t forget the council is elected to represent the interests of the voters, not out of town developers.

Candidates should also obey the reporting rules, not report out of convenience. I am sure voters would have preferred not have to form a PAC in order to be heard.

This is what is not OK with Bell and Kleinschmids behaviour.
Don Evans
/ April 4, 2016

Bikes
Don’t go all Trump on us — get your facts straight. Not once before, during or after the fall election campaign did anyone associated with or representing CHALT state that the group was anti-development. Not in the literature, not on the stump, not in any interview.
There were plenty of folks who mischaracterized CHALT’s philosophy, which is that the town should approve responsible development that benefits the whole community as well as the builder.
That mischaracterization usually came from the folks who stood to lose the most if a few conscientious and responsible candidates got elected — snatch-and-run developers, short-sighted business interests and members of the Kleinschmidt-Bell regime.
Donna Bell
/ April 4, 2016

If you have something to ask me or say to me, say it. Innuendo is just that. If my financials are not transparent enough, ask me a question. See you on Wednesday,
plurimus
/ April 4, 2016

Heh. I see nothing allusive or oblique about what Nancy wrote at all. I think she said it pretty well. in fact rereading it, what Nancy says is much clearer than your or Marks’ campaign rhetoric……or……reporting.
Nancy
/ April 4, 2016

No innuendo, Donna. I sent you an email Sunday asking about the disbursements that weren’t clear. Let me know if there is something you’d like me to clarify, and I’ll update the post. We can talk on the phone before Wednesday, if you’d prefer.
Chas
/ April 4, 2016

Bikes:
If you compare the typical gift to CHALT’s PAC it was around $100. Compare that to the former mayor’s report where they are in the $250 to $300 range. If CHALT is a bunch of upper class folks, the former mayor’s fans are triple upper class. Perhaps more importantly, CHALT’s donors are all from Chapel Hill. Most of the former mayor’s donors – at least from his later reports – are from out of town. Haven’t finished organizing the councilors’ data yet but will be interested to see how many of them also live away from here. So much data!
CitizenWill
/ April 4, 2016

Donna, I have questions, will you answer them within this post?

Here’s the first one.

Did anyone or any organization – like the Chamber of Commerce, East/West Partners, etc. – facilitate getting those many developer related contributions? If so, please let us know who helped.

I will post the remaining detailed questions based on your response.
Cindy
/ April 5, 2016

Thanks for bringing us current on those PAC contributions. Transparency seems to be easy for all to say they support, not so much for some of those same people when it comes to walking the walk.

Keep up the good work, Nancy!
Del Snow
/ April 5, 2016

I believe that contributions can be said to be about supporting visions. When a large group of similarly minded people make large contributions to campaigns, it is because they believe that what they are in favor of would be supported by the candidate. That is not innuendo – it is the basis of the political contribution system. The decisions of the past council illustrated that the out of state and in state developers were, from their perspective, correct to support the candidates that they did.

Mark Kleinschmidt’s contribution report generated an article in the newspaper, and I would imagine that Ms. Bell realized that the same questions would be raised when she filed her report.

Using her children as an excuse for the late filing however, is an insult to all of the professional working Moms and Dads out in the world. CH has been and is currently fortunate enough to have active parents on council. If the responsibility of parenthood interferes with attendance or report filing, one’s children should always come first.

For the record, I contributed to Nancy’s campaign because of 3 things: her ardent support of workforce housing, her belief in a data based approach to decisions, and her integrity and courage. That is why I wanted her on council.
anon
/ April 5, 2016

If I understand it correctly, Town employees running elected officials campaigns in a paid capacity seems more troubling to me. seems like in theory that could cause a lot of issues.

Do any laws prevent for example the head of the planning department being a campaign manager?
CitizenWill
/ April 5, 2016

Anon

Controlling ordinance https://www.municode.com/library/nc/chapel_hill/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH14HURERURE_ARTXIUNJOPEDEPECO_S14-108NOSU

Sec. 14-106. – Detrimental personal conduct defined.

Detrimental personal conduct includes behavior of such a serious detrimental nature that the functioning of the town may be impaired, the safety of persons or property may be threatened, or the laws of the government may be violated. Examples are listed but are not limited to the following:

(a) Fraud.

(b) Conviction of a felony or the entry of a plea of nolo contendere thereto.

(c) Falsification of records for personal profit or to grant special privileges.

(d) Willful misuse of town funds.

(e) Willful and wanton damage or destruction of property.

(f) Willful and wanton acts that endanger the lives and property of others.

(g) Possession of unauthorized firearms or other lethal weapons on the job.

(h) Brutality or threats or intimidating behavior in the performance of duties.

(i) Engaging in incompatible employment or servicing a conflicting interest.

(j) Acceptance of gifts in exchange for “favors” or “influence.”

(k) Engaging in political activity prohibited by this chapter.

(Ord. No. O-75-53, § 1, 9-16-75; Ord. No. 95-1-23/O-1, § 1)
anon
/ April 5, 2016

who’s the judge?
“(i) Engaging in incompatible employment or servicing a conflicting interest.”
plurimus
/ April 5, 2016

It might be covered under “(k) Engaging in political activity prohibited by this chapter.”, since fund raising and perhaps even managing a campaign might not be considered “employment” unless being paid. Advocating for a particular legitimate candidate would not be a “conflicting interest”.

When restricting political activity you have to be careful not to step on free speech. I think that advocacy or fund raising might be exempt.

Sec. 14-56. Political activity.

No administrative official or employee of the town shall:

(a) Use official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or nomination for office;

(b) Directly or indirectly coerce, attempt to coerce, command, or advise a state or local officer or employee to pay, lend, or contribute anything of value to a party, committee, organization, agency, or person for political purposes; or

(c) Be a candidate for elective office under the town Charter.

(d) No Town employee shall be appointed to nor serve on a Town Board or Commission when such appointment or service would create a perception by a reasonable person of conflict of interest or influence over the work of the employee’s operating department. This shall not apply to any special or ad hoc committees appointed by the Council.
Nancy
/ April 5, 2016

I don’t believe Mark McCurry was a town employee when he ran Bell’s campaign. He had been mayoral aide for a few years, but Jeff DeLuca was mayoral aide in 2015. Of course, the $2,000 campaign manager fee would have to be reported on McCurry’s tax return as taxable income.
plurimus
/ April 5, 2016

Donna said “If my financials are not transparent enough, ask me a question.”

Will Raymond did.

Crickets……
Mark McCurry
/ April 6, 2016

I have responded to this article in Orange Politics
CitizenWill
/ April 6, 2016

Mark, I don’t read, comment or post on OP anymore.

Why not carry on the conversation where it started?
David
/ April 6, 2016

Here is Mark’s response.

Begin–

This entry is a response to Nancy Oats commentary on her blog, entitled #WeAreNotThisEither.

In response to the question asked by Council Member Oats regarding why I was paid 2,000 USD to be Mayor Pro Tem Bell’s campaign manager:

This was the sum agreed on between Mayor Pro Tem Bell and myself for my services contingent upon campaign resources as the election cycle unfolded. Pure and simple. I guess you could write, “sum agreed upon based upon verbal contract” in the box, but that seems a little nit picky.

It is a fair question to inquire about campaign finance and elections, but aren’t these questions better suited for the press?

As Council Member Oats correctly pointed out, as did the Herald, we received contributions from developers. When I ran the Mayor’s Office the philosophy of the Council was about using data-driven smart growth to mitigate the impact of future population growth to ensure maximum quality of life (in terms of traffic mitigation, walkability, affordable housing, healthy tax balance sheets, and so on). News flash, we need developers to make these things happen. Our interests happened to be aligned in the past election cycle over the options put forward by CHALT. This drew the support of the development community because they wanted to help candidates they thought they could work with in good faith. I will maintain smart growth (high density, designed to promote walkability) is the best game in town for future development. This took the form of projects like Obey Creek, Ephesus Fordham, 140 West, and University Square. CHALT was in opposition to many of these projects, often vehemently so. The opposition was so strong, in fact, it was often in the air that Council was somehow bought or owned by developers. I haven’t seen a kickback from East West Partners, or any other developer, and I am certain neither has former Mayor Kleinschmidt or Mayor Pro Tem Bell. I firmly believe the constant return to the narrative of the shady Council that is in bed with developers occurs, because CHALT supporters are unable to win an honest argument on data about the impact of development. They continually need to attack or draw insinuations about character rather than honestly discuss the impact of growth in Chapel Hill. The arguments they put forward remind me of the conservative conspiracy theories that surround the opposition of United Nations Agenda 21.

Nancy Oat’s article is a good reflection of the problem that advocates have once they have a seat at the table. It can be challenging for some to get rid of old habits, as they feel the best contribution they can make is to engage in political behavior more appropriate for a campaign cycle. The questions Council member Oats raises are fine questions, but we do have the press to report on these issues. There was an article in the Herald, if something illegal or shady happened, it will be uncovered. We also have a Board of Elections that makes these reports available to the public, and Mayor Pro Tem Bell has an email address and phone if a citizen has concerns. The Town of Chapel Hill is a multimillion dollar entity with hundreds of employees with many challenges that need addressing to ensure the future quality of life of Chapel Hill residents. I suggest Council Member Oats turn her attention to the problems facing Chapel Hill’s future, rather than raising questions that do nothing but distract from honest arguments about policy.

–End

Mark, you seem to have missed the point of Nancy’s post, which was about transparency, not about whether candidates should accept campaign contributions from developers.

You wrote, “When I ran the Mayor’s Office the philosophy of the Council was about using data-driven smart growth to mitigate the impact of future population growth to ensure maximum quality of life (in terms of traffic mitigation, walkability, affordable housing, healthy tax balance sheets, and so on).”

The failure of the previous Council to deliver on this goal largely explains why Mark Kleinschmidt is no longer mayor. Traffic congestion, housing affordability, and town finances are all worse than before he—and you— took office, and the decisions the previous council made seem likely to exacerbate, rather than remedy, these challenges. The election was not about philosophies of town planning, but about competence and responsiveness.
CitizenWill
/ April 6, 2016

Wow. Just wow.

What a disappointing – but quite telling – response.

Still ready to move forward asking Donna those questions, just waiting on her to respond to my first one.
Bonnie Hauser
/ April 6, 2016

It’s Councilwoman Oates (not Oats).

Wow just wow is right.
plurimus
/ April 6, 2016

I expected a rambling, dissembling. excuse ridden, smoke screen, but you Mr. McCurry, have exceeded all my expectations! You have the unmitigated gall to accuse Nancy Oates of an inappropriate criticism as if Kleinschit and Bells behaviours are within the bounds of appropriateness and they are the parties being wronged! Very funny.

I agree with David’s comment that the election was mostly about competence and responsiveness, but there are other issues too.

The issue of campaign contributions has never been one of outright quid pro quo. No, it’s a question of integrity. Both candidates routinely gave lip service to transparency and local funding as if it was something they support, then they reveal after the election and late by law, that they accepted money from out of town developers with projects before the council. Worse the out of town donors were the same sources and in the same time period indicating coordination. Other candidates that were true to what they espoused were defeated. As a voter I feel betrayed and lied to.

Then we get to the concern about year long secret meetings regarding the Legion property and agreements were rushed through in the 11th hour after the former mayor lost the election. That was underhanded.

I will say I expected more from the press but the bottom line is that this column is responding to a press article. Sounds like you just want it swept under the rug, Mr. McCurry.

I suggest Council Member Oates continue raising questions that go to the competence, responsiveness AND integrity of the process and people in government. In that way she honestly represents the electorate and begins to restore integrity to the bruised politics in this town.

Still we have crickets from Donna………..she obviously reads the blog. Earth to Donna, come in please.

Need to change the hashtag to #WeAreNotAmused
Deborah Fulghieri
/ April 7, 2016

It should have been Mark McCurry’s duty as campaign manager to file Donna Bell’s campaign reporting forms accurately and in a timely manner. He cannot blame anyone else for late filing or omissions on the form.
Bonnie Hauser
/ April 7, 2016

Technically, the campaign treasurer is responsible for the late filing – but the decision to delay disclosing contributions lies with the campaign leadership, including the candidate.

The sloppy accounting for the manager, signs, phone banking and mailing is also a treasurer issue. Now that its been identified, the campaign could respond with an amended filing.

The BofE decides what fines/penalties are appropriate – but someone may have to file a formal complaint.

Chapel Hill voters have a bigger issue – deciding whether voter-owned elections are working as expected. Maybe the development community can agree to fund campaigns up front or not at all. Of course we see these antics in the county too.

Maybe it’s time to include questions about campaign finance policies in forums. It would be a decided improvement over feel-good questions about transparency and such.

It should be an honor to openly support a candidate that you believe in – even if you’re a developer.
CitizenWill
/ April 7, 2016

Well it has been several days without a response from Donna or Mark (directly).

I plan to keep checking in over the next few days before moving to a more formal process for getting those campaign questions answered.
CitizenWill
/ April 12, 2016

Well, still waiting to hear from Donna’s campaign.

While we wait, here’s a fun tidbit all the way from 2003.

From Democracy North Carolina, “Campaign Costs Skyrocket in Chapel Hill”

http://nc-democracy.org/downloads/archive/campaigncosts.pdf

Time for an update Democracy NC!

Contact Bob Hall at sprc@mindspring.com or 919-489-1931.
David
/ April 12, 2016

Thanks Will. Here’s an excerpt from the 2003 report:

“Many local citizens are worried that the big-money influence of developers, such as in Cary, Chatham County, Durham, and Raleigh, could be headed to Chapel Hill elections.”

A dozen years later, the big-money influence of developers is no longer headed to Chapel Hill elections; it’s here.
rucker
/ April 13, 2016

I’ve never seen the winners of an election whine so much about the rules. CHALT brought Citizens United and the PACs they legitimized to Chapel Hill, kicking out 3 of the 4 candidates they opposed in the process. I don’t hear Mark, Jim or Lee complaining about it in any public forum. It appears that the only surviving incumbent candidate’s contributions all came from individuals giving within the limits set by local election rules and without a third party PAC endorsing and supporting her. You might not like how some of those individuals make their living, but that method of campaign finance is generations old. From what I’ve read, the only objectionable thing Donna did was file a report in March instead of January, after the election was over either way. Good grief.
CitizenWill
/ April 13, 2016

Rucker, this will be my only direct response to you as you appear to trolling.

It is beyond ludicrous to draw a line between CHALT and Citizen’s United.

CHALTS-PAC was not the first PAC in Chapel Hill’s history.

For an informative the abuse of local PACs – in the sense of the spirit of election reporting – look at Cam Hill’s last minute “mystery” bashing of Matt Czajkowski.

If Donna (or other candidates) solicited bundled monies from special interests, as it appears she did, while not illegal certainly has the effect of creating a SuperPAC like approach to campaigning.

And, contrary to what Jim Ward says, the diverse residents of the town wide neighborhoods that supported CHALT are not a “special interest”.

I’ve helped run a few campaigns, ran 3 of my own, and find the excuses from Mark and Donna disingenuous.

I also think Lee Storrow’s campaign contributions have been at odds with democratic local values over his last two cycles. I’ve commented about that before so will not go into greater depth here.

I believe Lee, George C. and other recent candidates have set a very poor precedent in raising (relatively) large sums from groups that have specific business before the Town.

Further, the candidates you cite supported not just the Voter Owned Elections but whinged on about it proudly. Donna and Mark both used VOE funds to power their campaigns.

Without a doubt, both turned their backs on the democratic values they touted as candidates.

Why is that important?

Because our Council members routinely pledge that they will disclose not just direct influences on their decisions but those things that create the appearance of influence.

Donna and Mark both broke that pledge as candidates AND sitting Council members.

Finally, I was one of many people who worked very hard to keep local elections local, to weed out the necessity for outside monies, to put the control of OUR community first in foremost in the hands of that same community.

Many of those same supporters also supported CHALT.
David
/ April 13, 2016

“It’s hard to get people to write checks, so when they do it, I’ll take it,” Bell said.

That was not my experience as a candidate. I found Chapel Hill residents quite eager to contribute to my campaign and generous with their support. Most of the people who contributed to my campaign, however, did so via online credit card payments, in which the campaign receives the funds on the same day the donor makes the contribution.

Both Mark and Donna made the online contribution option available to their supporters, but Roger Perry and his business associates chose instead to pay by check, presumably to save Mark and Donna the 3% processing fee that Paypal charges.
plurimus
/ April 13, 2016

The complaint about CHALT PAC is a red herring to anyone who is an informed voter. Most if not all CHALT contributions came from within Chapel Hill in both number and amount. So who is whining again?

Donna, Mark, Jim and Lee all proclaimed their support for reporting contributions that create the appearance of influence and their support to keep election local . They failed on both accounts.

Donna and Mark agreed to abide by the election laws they failed.

I haven’t heard any of them apologizing to the community and voters they misled in any in any public forum either.

Good grief indeed.
plurimus
/ April 13, 2016

……….and furthermore, it appears according to Roger Perry that both Kleinschmidt and Bell both solicited donations from Perry and his partners. That’s even more egregious in light of their rhetoric. That means the issue isn’t just the appearance of some unsolicited influence………………..the candidates asked for the contributions from people who have projects in front of the council.

“…………..East West Partners founder Roger Perry said he took a more traditional route in asking colleagues and out-of-state partners if they wanted to help **when former Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and council member Donna Bell approached him for donations.**”

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/article71147487.html#storylink=cpy
anon
/ April 13, 2016

I have a suggestion:
rather than worrying about campaign money, stop voting for upzoned developments that lack preserved green space and affordable.

Also, the first behemoth of a building going up on Eliot does not fit in. I guess the plan is to make everything around it match it? I’m glad I don’t live near east franklin/Fordham… (ephesus/fordham)
CitizenWill
/ April 14, 2016

Money in politics is a big deal. For local self-described “progressives” it used to considered an anathema against small-d democracy.

The deafening silence from those “progressives” and organizations – like DemocracyNC and the IndyWeek – speaks loudly to the current state of local progressivism/liberalism.

If it’s someone they like then I guess anything goes…

A quick reminder it isn’t just a local concern:

On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress’ legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an “ ‘undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment’ ” and from creating “ ‘the appearance of such influence,’ ” beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships.

Corruption can take many forms…the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind.

And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.

Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics.
plurimus
/ April 14, 2016

“If you have something to ask me or say to me, say it. Innuendo is just that. If my financials are not transparent enough, ask me a question.” -Donna Bell
CitizenWill
/ April 19, 2016

Just a quick bump to note it has been 15 days since I asked Donna to respond.

She has also been unresponsive via Twitter as to whether she supports her campaign manager’s statements smearing her constituents as homophobic, racist and sexist.
plurimus
/ April 19, 2016

Will, you should also ask Donna to confirm the Roger Perry assertion that she and Mark solicited contributions from out of town developers that had business before the council in response to election polling results.
CitizenWill
/ April 28, 2016

While we wait another couple weeks for Donna to respond, here’s an excellent summary of why this issue goes well beyond a few campaign finance “mistakes”.

Firoz Mistry on how to take the high road on campaign finance
CitizenWill
/ September 28, 2016

It is now more clear than ever that Donna Bell hasn’t fulfilled her pledge to Chapel Hill’s residents to be transparent and above reproach in her conduct.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBOE) has fined her campaign $500 for a series of error laden campaign filings that consistently obfuscated the role of big development money in her 2015 election.

The $500 fine is the maximum. It is notable for being the only one levied and out-for-collection against a sitting Council member in Chapel Hill’s modern history.

This was not a one-off problem as Bell, even with a year to correct the record, continues to file incomplete and incorrect reports.

Worse, when called upon by her constituents, she failed to disclose further evidence of the timing of contributions, the disbursement of funds, the reasons for several very high and unusual expenditures and the apparent role her campaign played in laundering developer contributions to provide in-kind assistance to like-minded campaigns.

For Bell, who both praised and greatly profited from the Town’s short-lived Voter Owned Elections, to admit she deliberately delayed disclosing information required by law prior to the election is more than disappointing, it is disqualifying.

Beyond the problematic lack of disclosure, Donna’s campaign set a number of additional troubling and historically unique precedents that have no place in Chapel Hill politics.

One year later, it is beyond doubt her concern lay not in her duty to preserve the integrity of the election process but in her own ambition to be elected.

At this point the only reasonable conclusion is Council member Donna Bell has and continues to deliberately engage in a pattern of deception to mislead the citizens of Chapel Hill.

Donna, for the citizens of our Town, for the integrity of the election process, for the ethics pledge you committed to uphold as a Council member, please step down immediately from office.

http://www.indyweek.com/news/archives/2016/09/27/chapel-hill-town-council-member-donna-bell-dinged-by-state-board-of-elections
CitizenWill
/ September 29, 2016

“Who would have guessed that Donna Bell would be the candidate in developers’ pockets?”

CHW, Oct. 2011, http://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/10/13/5-friends/

Nancy, looks like you were quite prescient.
Plurimus
/ September 29, 2016

So where is the petition?
CitizenWill
/ September 29, 2016

Plurimus, my preference is Donna steps down by her own volition.

While I’m fairly sure it won’t take that much effort to pull together the several hundred signatures needed to initiate the recall process, I do hope for both our community’s and Donna’s sake, that she recognizes the damaged to the integrity of the election process her continuing actions cause, that she remembers she has an ethical obligation she swore to uphold and that she will do what is best for the community by stepping down voluntarily.

If she doesn’t move forward on that, then it will be time submit an affidavit to the Orange County Board of elections and organize the petitions.
Plurimus
/ September 29, 2016

Citizen Will – My response was tongue firmly in cheek, making reference to Nancy’s latest post on the “Arab Spring”.

I seriously doubt that Donna Bell will step down voluntarily, but I do hope this issue is front and center if she decides to run for re-election.

I am pretty certain that if the proper paperwork had been filed and the voters knew of the out of town developer contributions Donna Bell would not be occupying a seat on the council today.
CitizenWill
/ September 29, 2016

Plurimus, you might have been kidding but I am not.

I’ve been involved in a number of county and municipal elections since 2001. Donna’s conduct is unique in my experience. As we can see from the maximum fine of $500 – or even the fact she was fined – the Board of Elections also recognizes the serious and continuing deficiencies.

We must recognize the integrity of our municipal elections are at stake. And without confidence in our elections, how are we to trust the decisions Councillors make?

This isn’t a simple case of a few math errors, both Donna and Mark seem to be running the clock out expecting the concern to eventually diminish.

Recall, it isn’t just the amazing amount of money gathered or how quick it came or the continuing attempts to deflect attention or the refusal to disclose reasons and timings for particular disbursements but the fact this flood of money came from developers that Donna and Mark were negotiating with on behalf of the community.

Donna pledged to avoid even the appearance of corruption yet so much of what happened in 2015 just smells rotten.

The media has – with the exception of Nancy and the Indy’s Hudnall – have really let us down.

I firmly believe that Donna’s multiple electoral transgressions are sufficient for the call for her resignation and, if necessary, a recall.

Both of these actions, unlike Donna’s historically unique misdeeds and fines, do have precedent in Chapel Hill.

Again, I hope Donna finally recognizes that she failed her sworn commitment to above board conduct in multiple egregious ways, that she has a duty to this community that is more important that her personal ambition, and that the only way to heal this breach in trust with residents of Chapel Hill is her absence from Council.
CitizenWill
/ September 29, 2016

An apology to CHN’s Tammy Grubb who just posted a more in-depth article which highlights the continuing issues with both Donna’s and Mark’s campaign.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/article104942301.html
David
/ September 29, 2016

Here is part of Donna’s comment on the 2011 blog post that Will linked to above:

“Citizens at the forum were raising legitimate questions about who and how local elections are funded. It is a conversation that is getting more and more attention on the state level also. The fact that Jason Baker, Carl Schuler, and I took the harder road of collecting many small donations to help keep our campaigns inclusionary and protect local clean elections is a decision that I am proud of.”

I think the contrast with Council member Jim Ward is instructive. Jim chose to remain true to his principles—i.e., not soliciting or accepting money from anyone—even if it cost him his seat, which it did.
Plurimus
/ September 29, 2016

I agree Bell is exposed as a hypocrite and in a perfect world would resign in disgrace. That said however, do you think that Bell will resign without a fight, or is it more likely for her to save face by not running next term?

I am torn because win or lose Chapel Hill has important issues to decide and the fight would distract from those considerations, dividing and creating bitterness where none exits right now. An unsuccessful attempt would probably result in bitter gridlock.