As we've noted over the past week, the politics of the UNC system's Board of Governors is changing.
A Republican majority is now running things in Raleigh, and has put its imprint on the UNC system by thoroughly re-making its governing board.
After a slew of new appointments over the last two weeks, Republicans now out-number Democrats 18-13 on the board.
Does it matter?
Well, maybe. We'll see how ideological the board becomes when its new members are seated in July. It hasn't been too political in recent history.
Though the board itself is rarely openly partisan in its decision-making, the process to get there sure is.
Take, for example, the case of Clarice Cato Goodyear.
Goodyear, of Charlotte, is a current board member, named to the board in 2007 on the nomination of a Democratic State Sen. Daniel Clodfelter.
She has been active on board committees and has represented the board in an official capacity at commencement ceremonies for 16 of 17 campuses in the system.
She concludes her first four-year term later this year, and in recent months has clearly fought hard for reappointment.
The nomination packet she submitted to legislators was far more robust than many; it extols her accomplishments at length and makes the point several times, often in bold print, that while she used to be a registered Democrat, she's now registered as an unaffiliated, and brings the backing of many influential Republicans.
She notes that she's a fiscal conservative who has spent more than 30 years as an executive with the Cato Corporation, a women's fashion retailer.
She enlists 23 influential movers and shakers to offer endorsements. Several happily point out that she's seen the light by abandoning the Democratic party.
Her four pages of endorsements include these snippets:
From Alan Dickson, co-founder of the Ruddick Corp: "I realize Clarice is a former Democrat and now Independent, but, as a life-long Republican myself, I think her objective and sound judgment, reflected in her past service to this Board, is beyond Party loyalty."
From Neill McBryde, partner with the Moore & Van Allen law firm: "I should note at the outset that I am a strong Republican who has financially supported the North Carolina Republican Party, particularly in the last election...but this letter is really not about politics."
"Although I note with great pleasure that Clarice has now seen the light and is officially unaffiliated for voter registration purposes, based on my direct contact and relationship with her, I know Clarice brings a depth of knowledge about the University system and its needs and shortcomings and a perspective that is transparent, reflective, and grounded in good policy and common sense."
Former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot: "Although Clarice is an Independent and former Democrat in this new (hallelujah) 'Republican Era', I know her to be a thoughtful, committed, independent-minded person, and to have been an excellent member of the UNC Board of Governors."
Even Former Gov. Jim Martin, a Republican, chimed in on Goodyear's behalf.
"Clarice," he wrote, "I will be happy to help. Tomorrow morning...I will be in Raleigh to meet with Speaker Tillis, and will tell him my support directly."
And then there's the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, the right-leaning think tank long a thorn in the side of the UNC system. Its president, Jane Shaw, praises Goodyear for taking the Pope Center's writings seriously, notes that one of its reporters "spoke well" of her in a meeting with House Speaker Thom Tillis, and offered her own endorsement.
"I am certainly willing to write a fairly simple but positive letter, noting that you have been interested in the Pope Center positions, more than most Republicans on the board have been, and that, for that reason, I would recommend you for re-election," Shaw wrote.
None of this praise mattered. When the House voted Wednesday, she got just two votes from the 70 completed ballots cast.
(House Democrats upset with the nomination process submitted blank ballots in protest)
She'll leave the board at the end of June.
Comments
Two wrongs...
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 18:24 — uBnicedo not make a right. The Democrats were wrong when they excercised "might makes right" and the Republicans are following suit. So merit just doesn't count. It is not if you are the best for the position, but more of a political affirmative action in the worse way: you don't have to be qualified, just be in the political group of power.
The people have grown weary of Us (Republican, Democrat) vs Them (Republican, Democrat). Some segment of the "people" will and always will lose out in that battle.
It is supposed to be about the "people", not the parties. I am saddened that supposedly enlightened people accept this as just business as usual. Just because it happened before?!
What a tribal mentality!
Ub did you ....
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 20:24 — AgentPierceUb .... did you feel so strongly on the subject prior to last November?
Absolutely...
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 21:44 — uBniceI cast my vote to help rid ourselves of the corrupt leadership of the Democratic machine in NC. I was hoping that the Republican leadership would offer us the right thing.
This is not it.
Republicans have a unique opportunity to lead. Instead, it appears that we will simply follow suit. Yuck!
Absolutely...
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 21:39 — uBniceI cast my vote to help rid ourselves of the corrupt leadership of the Democratic machine in NC. I was hoping that the Republican leadership would offer us the right thing.
This is not it.
Board of Governors Selection
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 18:15 — SweetsieIt is a very good sign that Clarice only got two votes. She would offer up more of the same rubber stamping of all things liberal and further prepetuating unaccountability in system spending. RINOs we don't need either. They are part of the problem that has existed for decades. Bill Friday and his crew has had the key to the state treasury for too long and have never had to exercise real financial responsibility. I hope that is changing. That pompous old gasbag has always been able to unduly influence the democrat party hacks into giving the system all the tax dollars they wanted and they have sucked the $$$$ up like a vacuum cleaner for as long as I can remember and I am a high mileage model. Maybe some positive changes and better management are on the way.
Compared to .....
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 16:09 — AgentPierceEric: I'm curious. How does the circumstance you describe here compare with other BOG nomination processes over the past 12-20 years. Its my understanding that Marc, Tony, Black & Their Gang never even offered up nominating slates.
They simply issued press releases (eagerly gobbled up by "you guys") that said which of their deep-pocketed cronies were being rewarded for their generous contributions. SURELY that info is in the N&O archives .... no?
As non-partisan journalists, aren't such relative comparisons of interest to you?
BOG nominations
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 16:27 — eferreri (author)Agent Pierce - No, I don't have two decades of BOG nomination forms in front of me with which to provide you an apples-to-apples comparison. Sorry about that.
The nomination process is a political one regardless of majority party.
This post was simply intended to illustrate that point.
Was that ever in doubt?
Thu, 03/31/2011 - 17:04 — AgentPierceE: Thanks for the reply. Did anyone think it WASN'T political? I will challenge The N&O that the process is attracting more media coverage than in past years for "whatever reasons".
FWIW .... a good friend of mine did not make the final slate cut because of certain demographic elements beyond his control. He was quite qualified but gender, ethnicity, residency and alma mater all worked against him .... a reverse discrimination from a recent N&O article on the BOG process.
Perhaps they need an RPI or Sagarin "power" ratings like the NCAA uses for BCS and March Madness ????