Until the state Board of Elections decides on the issue, the District 2 school boar runoff is still set to take place on Nov. 3.
That's the message Wake County Board of Elections Director Cherie Poucher is telling people. She said this means that groups who'd file campaign finance runoff reports that are due Monday must still do.
In terms of Monday, the hope is that the state Board of Elections will decide at the start of their 11 a.m. public meeting at the Clarion Raleigh Hotel State Capital at 320 Hillsborough St., Raleigh. If the board goes into the Easley investigation first, who knows when the issue will be addressed.
Poucher said she can't imagine the state board ignoring the county's request for guidance on the runoff.
Comments
No big surprise - bury them with votes on Nov. 3
Sat, 10/24/2009 - 18:38 — kmisegadesThis should come as a surprise to no one. The government school industry will not let ethics and the law get in their way of maintaining the status quo. The answer of course is to bury the opposition with votes for Tedesco on November 3rd. But be forewarned - the thugs & goon squads will be out in force to intimidate voters.
Remember also that our current Governor gleefully cast the deciding vote a few years back during the underhanded, illegal passage of the Lottery with her infamous words: "We sure snuck [sic] that one by them, didn't we?"
NAACP
Sat, 10/24/2009 - 10:02 — SDR256Do all black people think alike? Make sure to read the banner on this online magazine.
http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1003/article/1040
OT-alert curriculum audit
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 20:37 — AngelaWsomeone asked about this not too long ago:
Hargens Reports On Curriculum Management Audit
The work on the curriculum management audit has reached the midpoint, Dr. Donna Hargens told the Board of Education at its Oct. 20 meeting. Dr. Hargens, the WCPSS chief academic officer, has led the school administration teams reviewing the 117 recommendations from the 2007 audit. Hargens explained the audit recommendations have served as a system wide “blueprint” for continuous improvement. The Superintendent’s Leadership Team members have direct responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the actions. Leadership Team members serve as Performance Goal Managers or Recommendation Managers. The action steps were placed by the Leadership Team to be implemented over seventeen quarters. At the midpoint of this process, Hargens reported that 44 actions items have been completed, 44 action items are in progress, 16 action items are on deck and 13 are to be scheduled
http://www.wcpss.net/curriculum-management/
This issue will devolve into
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 20:00 — red_balloonThis issue will devolve into lawsuits. The vultures are salivating.
Interesting
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 19:19 — SDR256It seems that Ms. Truitt's letter was worded in such a way that if the run-off would not be recinded she would remain as the other candidate. Interesting, eh?
Very!
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 23:14 — g88ky07Very interesting and I think you're onto it! I'm sorting through what she said Tuesday and what has been reported since. I'm not sure I've heard her tell people, I'm not running, don't vote for me or I will not accept this seat period. I believe her words to John were, I'm at your back. Again, a very vague statement.
Did anyone notice Mr. Norwalk standing behind Mr. Barber!
"I believe her words to
Sat, 10/24/2009 - 00:32 — CaryCurmudgeon"I believe her words to John were, I'm at your back"
... with a knife
It is not "interesting," it
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 21:54 — woodstockIt is not "interesting," it is a devious tactic that no one should be surprised by.
My questions to Keung several days ago were (1) what happpens if Truitt's request to rescind the run-off is denied, and (2) did she withdrawal?
Apparently she could be elected because she never officially withdrew...there aren't words to describe how sleazy I think this whole situation is.
The state Board of Elections
Sun, 10/25/2009 - 08:32 — KeungHui (author)The state Board of Elections members will ultimately decide the issue. But folks I've talked to think that that if the runoff moves forward that Truitt's letter would be interpreted as her dropping out.
Let's see if
Mon, 10/26/2009 - 08:59 — g88ky07they even take the time to address this issue today, or this week, with the Sleasley issue taking top billing!
But...
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 22:02 — Bob_SconceOn the off-chance that she gets the votes she needs to beat John, wouldn't you rather have her on the board than the candidate that the current board supports -- Horace Tart?
Wow
Sat, 10/24/2009 - 09:56 — SDR256Do you realize where this leaves us psychologically?
A choice between Tart and Truitt is NO CHOICE. And that's precisely why voters picked Tedesco.
Think of the fear and loathing in discussions here last week and how brilliant a move it would be if Truitt could sweep in and we would be relieved? Wow.
...
Sat, 10/24/2009 - 08:50 — SideburnsI'm not sure Tart can be appointed. Per NCGS 163-114:
I'm no lawyer but it seems to say Tart is ineligible?
Well.
Sat, 10/24/2009 - 10:44 — Bob_SconceBasically, the election code sets up a few different ways of running elections -- you're looking at the section for partisan primaries. But, the BoE elections are determined under a different method -- the "Election and Runoff Election" method -- so that section doesn't apply.
So, in a nutshell, here's the problem: GS 163-293 is the part that talks about how these elections are run. And, it differentiates between an "election" and a "runoff election."
Now, look at GS 163-294.1, which talks about what happens if a candidate dies or withdraws. Here, it lists what happens if a candidate withdraws before a "nonpartisan municipal primary," before a "political party nomination," before a "nonpartisan election," but NOT before a "nonpartisan runoff election."
So, do you say, "Well a nonpartisan runoff election IS a form of nonpartisan election, so do the same thing." Or, do you say, "Well, the law differentiates between nonpartisan elections and nonpartisan runoff elections, so we can't treat them the same"?
If we do the same thing, then the Board of Elections sees if there's enough time to reprint ballots. If there isn't, then the office is vacant and is filled "as provided by law."
In this case, that means that the office is vacant and we look to Section 115C-37(f), which says that "all vacancies . . . shall be filled by appointment of the remaining members of the board."
Note this last part -- the "Remaining Members." To me, this says that vacancy doesn't actually occur until the NEW BOARD is seated. At least in my opinion (and, I'm not an election lawyer, so my opinion isn't worth much), this means that the first thing the new board does is appoint somebody to the open seat.
Truitt and Tart are
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 22:19 — woodstockTruitt and Tart are equally unacceptable to me.
Well, smart
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 21:50 — Bob_SconceDo you know that for sure? If so, I think that'd be the smartest thing she's done during the entire campaign:
(1) It keeps the choice out of the hands of the current school board, who almost certainly would put Horace Tart back in. I'm not a fan of Truitt's, but she's better than Tart.
(2) It makes poignantly clear that the NAACP has its head up its collective ***.
Who is John Tedesco running
Fri, 10/23/2009 - 18:23 — woodstockWho is John Tedesco running against in the run-off?
As for the Board of Elections, the Wake County issue is a timely one. The Easley case can wait.