The state of things

We've gotten a number of letters recently about issues before the General Assembly that were simply too long to run. One writer would like the state to rethink its expenditures on computers in schools, one offers his take on whether judges should be appointed rather than elected, one takes issue with the idea of Sunday blue laws, one offers a real-life experience that reflects on the Marriage Amendment and another takes on the annexation issues in the state:

Gov. Perdue and the legislature could solve funding problems facing North Carolina public education by doing what many would, at first blush, consider unthinkable: terminating North Carolina's ill-considered, 20-year experiment to put all schools, students and teachers online.  

The most critical question, given this era’s obsession with
accountability, is simply this:  How much money has the state spent 1989-2009 on the computerization of schools, on hardware, software, consultants, maintenance, personnel, and training,  and how have students benefited?   

I don’t seek testimonials glorifying technological use by students or teachers, but rather the same statistical analysis by which teachers and schools are evaluated. Then, and only then, can we understand whether the gains justify the expense.

I taught history for 28 years in public schools and appreciate
computers enough to have bought a Kaypro, a 25-pound portable, in 1984, long before school systems contemplated buying them for teachers. By the time I retired, in 2004, computers were the rage of educational bureaucracy, creating the path, it was said, to a 21st century, world-class work force.

I had come, by that point, to regret their introduction. I write this letter on a laptop and will send it via e-mail to The News & Observer, so my regret is not per se linked to any core disdain for technological progress.

But I know snake oil. The North Carolina political and educational establishment, on all levels and under the guise of advancement, has poured millions, perhaps billions, into an ever-demanding maw from which primary profits stream out of our state and nation. This scam has infected even our universities. A useful tool has been repositioned as the sum and substance of education, and most of us have bought this
preposterous notion without a pause. In the meantime, computerization has driven up utility expenses, forced costly architectural adjustments and played a role in rising tuition costs. Quite an achievement, given its primacy as purveyor of entertainment.

The times demand clear-eyed examination of the past, present, and future of this endeavor. What has been gained, what has been lost and do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Al Baldwin

----------------------------------------------------------

Rep. Jonathan Rhyne is to be commended for courageously introducing a bill to appoint judges. And he is correct that the present elective process is like walking down a highway in the dark. It’s plain risky because the average voter operates in a knowledgeless vacuum about the competency of judicial candidates.

I am a retired lawyer from Massachusetts, which in the minds of some, I suppose, disqualifies me from commenting about North Carolina’s elective system. But allow me to offer for consideration, at least, the appointive process where I practiced. It is a process introduced by Michael Dukakis while he was governor.

Recognizing that the appointive process had become weighted heavily by political influences with appointments to judgeships of lawyers often lacking experience, judicial demeanor and temperament and, in some instances, I regret to add, even limited intellect, Dukakis set about to change that practice to the consternation of many politicos in the House, the Senate and the Governor’s Council who were zealous about the
patronage a judicial appointee wrought.

He established a Judicial Selection Committee comprised of proximate, accomplished and successful lawyers from across the state whose charge was to recommend to him three candidates for each judicial post. They began the search process by seeking recommendations from the presidents
of local bar associations. Then recommendations from proximate, respected lawyers in that community who were also asked to comment upon the competency of those named. Following that vetting process, a handful of highly recommended selectees emerged and were individually
interviewed by members of the Judicial Selection Committee. By majority vote  three of them  were recommended to the governor.

Unequivocally this selection process, while involved and tedious, met not only with approval of the bar, but with the respect and confidence of the public in a rejuvenated judicial system and selection process.  

And I will add that the quality and competency of judges was instantly recognized. Politics was taken out of the equation and a stronger judiciary resulted. I respectfully commend this appointive process to you

Robert E. Kubicek, J.D.
Burlington

---------------------------------------------------------

I read your article on Sunday liquor sales with great interest (“Bill to OK Sunday liquor sales,” March 25) but was distressed by the comment by the chair of the N.C. House committee overseeing alcoholic beverages, Rep. Ray Warren, who stated, “Sunday is a day set aside for worship, family time together and the sale of alcohol on that day is not warranted or needed.” Warren’s view on the sanctity of Sunday from a religious perspective is enormously unfair, bordering on insulting, to a great number of N.C. residents who observe Sabbaths other than Sunday, or just as acceptable, no Sabbath at all.

Sunday blue laws interfere with commerce and create a privilege for one ideological class (Christians) and essential disadvantage for the non-privileged class (those who observe other Sabbaths, which are not commercially limited by law), and these are two of three main tenants our forefathers were actually protecting our country against when they wrote about a de facto establishment of a state church.

As such, the Christian Sabbath argument for the upholding of our state’s remaining blue laws is a clear violation of church and state, and it is about time someone in our state government has the gravitas to stand up to the Christian establishment and say no.

We should choose freedom over religion. We should not limit commerce based upon the beliefs of one group at the expense of others. If Christians do not feel that it is prudent, or acceptable, to buy liquor on Sunday, then they simply should not. But if I want to buy a bottle of Makers Mark bourbon on Sunday, do not limit me. And for the sake of our state coffers, do not limit potential tax revenues from the sales. Your Sabbath, Mr. Warren, is not my Sabbath.

I applaud Tony Rand and hope others stand up in support of the bill.

Natalie G. Knowles
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

My partner and I recently attended an amazing performance of “Fiddler on the Roof” in the beautiful new DPAC. The show is set in Russia in the early 1900s. The old versus new or the changing of or reshaping values that is prevalent within this show is so very similar to the gay marriage debate we face in our society today.

The fact of the matter is that society changes. Arranged marriages are no longer acceptable in many parts of the world. In Fiddler, Tevye battled with the notions of his daughter’s bucking this tradition; however, it did not stop them nor was it easy for anyone. All of society will probably never accept or understand homosexuality and that is OK; however, simply because something does not fit into your world view does not make it wrong nor should it automatically not be legitimate.  

The simple fact of the matter is that my relationship — one based on mutual respect, love, honesty and monogamy — is the same gender.  We do not have the same “rights” afforded to heterosexual couples who may legally enter into marriage. As a result we must spend a considerable amount of resources with the mere hope of securing rights that heterosexual married couples take for granted based on a marriage
certificate, which is a government issued document, not a religious one. My partner has an illness that she will have for the remainder of her life. Since our relationship is not recognized or legitimized, we do not have any rights, we must protect not only her well being but my access to medical information, visitation, etc.   

The symbolism that I saw and felt within this show touched me. I am not some great political activist; I am your neighbor, your daughter, your customer and maybe even your friend. I implore fellow readers to think about this from a logical and empathetic point of view and perhaps you can see the benefits of affording all citizens equal rights, not
special rights.

Jessica Wood
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

I have seen a number of articles recently on annexation issues — both for and against the current system — but would point out that they are only part of the larger issue of the abuse of citizens by municipalities using the state-sanctioned authority of eminent domain.

I own fully forested property in Guilford County that the city of High Point wanted to use for a new sewer line that served its citizens. High Point used the authority of eminent domain to obtain the land and paid for specific permanent and construction easements.  Over the course of the project, it became increasingly apparent that they were exceeding
their bounds but were remiss to respond to numerous complaints of impacted landowners. They merely proceeded and were content to publicly discount the complaining landowners as malcontents or trouble- makers!

After the end of the construction, the city was requested to resurvey the property to ascertain if indeed it had exceeded its legal bounds, which it ignored. I and other property owners paid a surveyor to fully survey the construction area, and the results were startling. The city had paid for 1.14 acres on my land but had illegally seized, denuded of vegetation and left unusable another 0.24 acres — illegally seizing and destroying almost 25 percent in excess of its legal authority. Other
nearby property owners were even more dramatically impacted.

Repeated attempts to get the city to pay for this trespass, illegal seizure and destruction of private property have gotten no action by the city. I have written the Attorney General on six occasions citing the consumer fraud perpetrated under the state authority of eminent domain by a municipality and also have gotten no results.  I have written the legislators for this area, and they have gotten no results from the city. Since the city is self-insured and has no outside liability carrier, the only way to file a claim for damages is to use the courts and personally incur the entire cost of doing so.

It simply is not right that the State of North Carolina delegates
carte- blanche authority to local governments and then does absolutely nothing to hold them accountable when they abuse the authority and to make the impacted landowners incur all of the expenses to attempt to correct the problem. The overpowering financial and administrative size of the local governments makes this problem almost impossible for
individual property owners to fight.

What is needed is a place within state government where the use of eminent domain, once given and used,  will be controlled and the citizens have equal standing with municipalities over grievances and restitution when abuse has been undertaken. The city of High Point should not be able to blatantly abuse property owners because it thinks it can get away with it without recourse. The legislature needs to
address this problem and restore the equity in this delegated
authority! Granted, the budget crisis lawmakers are currently
addressing is dire, but the budget crisis that the City of High Point has imposed on me and other property owners under the state’s authority is also dire!          

Steven R. Moore
Chapel Hill