| Blog and Media Roundup - Tuesday, October 27, 2009; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 27 2009, 04:48 AM (344 Views) | |
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 04:48 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Bonfield+expects+more+OT+fallout%20&id=4153089-Bonfield+expects+more+OT+fallout&instance=homefirstleft Bonfield expects more OT fallout 10.26.09 - 10:35 pm By Ray Gronberg gronberg@heraldsun.com; 419-6648 DURHAM -- City Manager Tom Bonfield said Monday he's anticipating that there will be more fallout from the Durham Police Department's overtime scandal, beyond the forced retirement of a deputy chief and the firing of a desk officer. The manager said that while he's not ready yet to discuss details, policy changes and "organizational- and leadership-development" efforts are likely to emerge in the coming weeks. An announcement hasn't been immediately forthcoming in part because Bonfield hasn't fully decided on some points, and because he wants to confer with Police Chief Jose Lopez first. Bonfield said he and Lopez "have talked" about the follow-up work, and will "talk further" when the chief returns from a vacation. Among the likely changes the chief has already alluded to: New policies to govern so-called "secondary employment" or moonlighting assignments for police officers. The scandal involved overtime claims by the former coordinator of that program, since-fired Officer Alesha Robinson-Taylor. She received $62,583 in overtime -- more than double her annual salary -- in the year or so before an early September tip prompted Bonfield to order an audit of her claims. A Police Department committee is supposed to make recommendations about the secondary-employment program next month. Bonfield said he intends to review what the department proposes and will decide at that time whether any changes go in the books only as an internal Police Department policy, or one from his office that would require city manager approval to change. He also said there's "probably room for some discussion" on whether senior commanders in the department will continue to be allowed to moonlight, and that it's generally "not a helpful situation" when they do. His comment on that front came in answer to questions about a June 2008 report, released by city officials Friday, from the Police Department's staff inspector that found the moonlighting program was at that time rife with favoritism and the potential for abuse. Among other things, the inspector found that former Deputy Police Chief Beverly "B.J." Council personally involved herself "at an extremely detailed level" in decisions about moonlighting, that it looked like there was racial bias in command-driven assignments, and that Council and several other officers took moonlighting jobs that weren't widely advertised to the department's sworn staff. The group who benefited from those practices included Robinson-Taylor, who in late 2007 and early 2008 was backing up another officer who was in formal charge of the program. That finding prompted a kerfuffle Monday between city officials and a local blogger who questioned why Lopez allowed Robinson-Taylor to become the program's actual coordinator later in 2008. City attorneys tried to redact parts of the report before allowing its release, but they only blacked out the text in the electronic file officials e-mailed reporters Friday. The actual text could be uncovered by copying the blacked-out sections into another program. The blogger, Kevin Davis of Bull City Rising, did so over the weekend and found that Robinson-Taylor, before becoming the coordinator, had been among a group of five officers the staff inspector singled out as having been unusually well positioned to capitalize on moonlighting opportunities. That finding, Council's known firm hand on the program and staff inspector Sgt. Duane Hampton's advice to put a civilian or sworn sergeant in charge of it all prompted Davis to wonder why the chief and other commanders instead gave the coordination job to Robinson-Taylor, a line officer. "The entire affair calls into question the strength of the department's leadership, a leadership already under scrutiny after the [2006 Duke] lacrosse scandal," Davis said in a Monday morning posting on his blog. Officials quickly made it clear they weren't happy about Davis' cut-and-paste work. Public Affairs Director Beverly Thompson, after speaking with officials in the city attorney's office, e-mailed Davis before lunch to suggest he consult state privacy statutes and "remove the instructions on how to view the redacted information as soon as possible." Davis took the post offline, but after checking with his attorney Monday afternoon said he would put it back up. A lawyer for the N.C. Press Association and The Herald-Sun, Amanda Martin, concurred that Davis had done nothing wrong. The statute in question, G.S. 160A-168(f), makes it illegal for a person to knowingly and willfully access confidential information, provided it's "in its official filing place." That means only that "you and I don't have a right to break into the file cabinet at the Durham Police Department and rifle through their files," Martin said. Martin said the onus had been on city officials to redact the document properly. "If the city releases information, they're subject to the possibility that information will be read and released," she said. She added, "There are ways to clean documents [of redacted information] before releasing them. We're accustomed to doing that in the legal profession." City Attorney Patrick Baker acknowledged the error. "We'll know next time, if we're going to do this electronically, [to] scan the document so the [file] is a photo of a document," he said. Both Baker -- the former city manager who hired Lopez -- and Bonfield said they hadn't known of Hampton's report until about two weeks ago, when local media outlets started asking for it. Before that, "no one in the Police Department shared it with me," said Baker, who was still city manager when Hampton was probing the moonlighting operation at Lopez's request. |
 |
 
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 04:51 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.bullcityrising.com/2009/10/08-secondary-employment-report-raises-more-worries.html October 26, 2009 '08 Secondary Employment report raises more worries on Lopez's leadership in OT scandal Update: This story has been reposted, modified slightly from its original form. Details here. BCR may take the weekends off, but we expect our readers don't -- which means you probably already know that there were more follow-up stories on the Durham P.D. overtime scandal on Friday night and Saturday morning than you could shake a stick at. Chief The new twists in the case came after the City released a 2008 report that was only briefly mentioned in the recently-released audit of overtime excesses alleged on the part of the department's Secondary Employment Coordinator (SEC), Alesha Robinson-Taylor. Robinson-Taylor was fired after the report's belief, while deputy chief BJ Council -- whose role as the OT approver came under a great deal of scrutiny -- unceremoniously left the department with early retirement. (Robinson-Taylor was placed into the SEC role in summer 2008, amidst this earlier investigation into secondary employment; according to the N&O, she served as the back-up SEC coordinator at the time of the 2008 report.) The 2008 report raises a number of new questions, including concerns over favoritism and possible racial bias in off-duty work assignments that led to the restructuring and full-time posting for the SEC role in the first place. But the biggest question that arises in this observer's mind after reviewing the 2008 SEC report -- which made its way into the public eye on a Friday after multiple media requests -- comes down to the leadership Chief Lopez did, or should have, provided on the matter when the issue of questionable overtime claims arose in the spring. Lopez was aware of the excessive overtime reports dating back to April of this year, but didn't take any action on the matter until a complaint reached the city manager's office, leading to the audit and staff changes. Robinson-Taylor earned over $60k on top of a $52k salary in one year's time. Our eyebrows went up a couple of weeks ago after Lopez told the N&O that these excessive-hour issues "were not anything we could have known on a regular basis unless we conducted a full investigation ourselves." But there's a few problems with Lopez's assertion: * The 2008 SEC report came after Lopez received a letter in January of that year alleging impropriety in the management of the program. * That report singled out BJ Council (as part of the former SEC's chain of command), noting "that it appears that there is an extremely detailed level of involvement at the (then) Bureau Commander level of the chain of command. Due to a lack of policies and procedures, there seems to be a constant stream of small decisions that are being made by this top level, including how to staff certain job pools, who to assign as coordinators, and how to open and run individual jobs. The immediate supervisor in the chain appears much less involved." * The 2008 report details concerning biases in who received attractive, well-paying off-duty positions, including how many different officers received them. The report focused on jobs created and assigned same-day by a system administrator, those positions that had the least opportunity to be requested and bid upon by multiple people. Out of 79 people who took these jobs, 18 people received five or more jobs -- with the then-SEC, her backup, and her chain of command. * And a racial bias may have existed: In particular, 26 white and 53 African-American officers received job postings -- but black officers received an average of 5 postings per, versus 2 per for white officers in a sample group of about 313 fast-assigned jobs. So Lopez knew -- after himself initiating an internal investigation into SEC practices -- that there were significant concerns over favoritism and appropriateness in off-duty work assignments. Yet when overtime concerns were raised with the new SEC, concerns that should have raised red flags and action on the part of the DPD's chain of command, Chief Lopez sat on the issue for months, defending the assertion of then-deputy chief Council that Robinson-Taylor deserved the extra hours since she was now prohibited from accepting off-duty work (something recommended by the 2008 investigation.) The Herald-Sun goes into more details about some of the challenges and problems found in 2008, including the fact that the report's recommendation to have a civilian or more senior sworn staff member take over SEC duties (so as to have more experience in supervision), whereas Robinson-Taylor was a line officer. But to our analysis at BCR, there's one additional, very big reason why Lopez's judgment seems very appropriate to receive further scrutiny in this matter. The 2008 report released by the City, you see, lists 62 officers in its Appendix 5 who were "found in one or more of the possible favoritism categories" -- by appearing in ten or more job pools, having five or more open jobs assigned, or being listed as a coordinator on three or more open jobs. Of those 62 employees, only five of them appeared in all three categories of possible perceived (if not necessarily actual) favoritism -- the officers who, the City report alleged, most benefited from the troubled overtime system Lopez had set to investigate in the first place. Among those five: One "Alesha Taylor," according to the PDF released by the City and made available by WRAL on Friday. Robinson-Taylor was the backup SEC at the time of the 2008 report, later assigned to the full-time SEC role. The 2008 report notes that the backup (Robinson-Taylor) had received "numerous compliments" from officers on her work and that she was working towards a fairer work distribution. Yet, by name and by role, the report notes that she was among the employees receiving a substantial number of assignments relative to other officers granted off-duty work hours through the City program. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Now, as the DPD report notes, many of the issues that surrounded the SEC program in 2008 dealt with perceptions of impropriety, not actual violations of policy; in fact, the report called for better and more comprehensive policies to avoid such perceptions. Still, when one of the five found by the report to be most clouded by concerns of possible favoritism (and who was already the back-up SEC in a troubled program) herself gets appointed to the SEC role, that seems like it raises a whole new range of perception issues. When that officer is still in the chain-of-command of Council, whose role had already been scrutinized and questioned in the previous report -- that, too, raises a whole new range of perception issues. And when, in that context, questions of excessive overtime were raised in April about Robinson-Taylor... well, one would think that, with the benefit of the background information found in the 2008 report, a certain police chief might find it useful to, you know, look into the situation further. If anything, far from quelling concerns over this whole incident, the 2008 report raises even more reasons to have concerns and worries over the state of the department's leadership. The public and the media have just learned about 2008's allegations. But the fact is that Chief Lopez knew about them -- and the concerns raised in them about members of the department -- long before 2009's overtime problems began. Ultimately, public impressions are importance in law enforcement, a governmental function where public trust and confidence must run high for the department to have the support and backing of the community. In that context, even while the report asserts that Robinson-Taylor (in the unnamed "backup" role) was receiving compliments, the perception problems created by the high assignment of work duties to her then-position certainly seems like it ought to have led to more scrutiny on the chief's part when the overtime mess began back in the spring of this year. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Tom Bonfield has played his cards close to the chest on the Lopez issue. But given his hard-line approach to personnel management, it's impossible to believe that Lopez is on anything other than a short leash. If there's a concern that extends beyond the financial hit taken by the City on the overtime, it's the fact that the entire episode calls into question the strength of the department's leadership, a leadership already under scrutiny after the lacrosse scandal. The 2008 report -- and, more importantly, the DPD's actions in the 2009 overtime mess even in wake of the 2008 findings -- doesn't give a lot of new reasons to have more confidence in where that leadership stands today. In urban neighborhoods, Operation Bulls Eye has been a success, though there's not signs of a clear direction in areas to which crime may have been displaced, a set of outside-the Bulls Eye districts that range from the McDougal Terrace public housing complex near Durham Tech to more prosperous neighborhoods like Northgate Park and Duke Park. Crime rates are down, but the distribution of crime has changed. And even if that distribution has changed in a net socially positive way -- to the extent crime is displaced to neighborhoods with more social capital and money, it's more likely to be reported and squelched -- the resultant fracases over public safety would take every ounce of credibility from DPD leadership. To say nothing of the well-publicized complaints over neighborhood speeding. It's in that context that strong leadership is necessary... and it's in that context that the current overtime mess seems to this observer to leave the DPD vulnerable at a time when community support and trust is so greatly needed. Edited by abb, Oct 27 2009, 04:54 AM.
|
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 04:53 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Campbell+testifies+on+Easley+flights%20&id=4153085-Campbell+testifies+on+Easley+flights&instance=homesecondleft Campbell testifies on Easley flights 10.26.09 - 10:35 pm By GARY D. ROBERTSON Associated Press RALEIGH -- A political ally of former Gov. Mike Easley testified Monday at a State Board of Elections hearing investigating Easley campaign finances that he provided scores of unreported campaign-related flights to Easley valued at nearly $88,000. McQueen Campbell, also the former trustee board chairman at N.C. State University, also told election board members Easley asked him to pay for about $11,000 in repairs at the governor's home in Raleigh, which he rented to someone else while living in the Executive Mansion. Campbell, the first witness to the board in its public hearing investigating The Mike Easley Committee and the state Democratic Party, testified Easley suggested Campbell would be reimbursed with campaign funds and to use some unreported flights to pay them. "He asked if there were unbilled flights," Campbell told elections board Chairman Larry Leake, who questioned Campbell as to what he believe Easley wanted him to do. Campbell responded: "For me to bill the campaign for unbilled flights to uncover those amounts." Campbell said he filed two invoices through his aircraft company for undesignated flights that totaled $11,037.50. The campaign paid his company for them, according to campaign records. The unreported flights and alleged falsified repair payments through the campaign would appear to be campaign finance law violations. But Easley personal attorney Thomas Hicks of Wilmington challenged Campbell's testimony under cross-examination. Hicks painted Easley as a busy chief executive who had little involvement in his day-to-day campaign finances and questioned why he didn't file invoices to seek reimbursements for actual flights that Campbell piloted between October 1999 and October 2004. "He never told you to file a false invoice to this committee, did he?" Hicks asked Campbell. "Not specifically, but I understood what he meant," Campbell responded. During a break, Hicks told reporters that the ex-governor would have never authorized Campbell to submit a false invoice. "If I was doing work for somebody and spending money and had to pay for my gas and my insurance I'd sure send an invoice," Hicks said. "The governor wouldn't do anything intentionally to violate any of the election law." Bob Hall, executive director the campaign finance reform group Democracy North Carolina, said Campbell's testimony was "a bit of a bombshell" and said Easley's campaign committee, which handled millions of dollars, should have known to resolve Campbell's flights. "I don't know if it can be explained away," Hall said. As for the flights, Hall said, "they're much more extensive than they thought of it before." Campbell, 38, testified he had known Easley for about 20 years and that he had provided flights to Easley's campaign and for personal use going back to the late 1990s, when then-attorney general Easley was running for governor. Campbell said his records showed he flew Easley on 61 flight legs from October 1998 to November 2000, when he became governor. When asked if he knew the flights could have violated campaign laws limiting donations to $4,000 per election, Campbell said he believed the campaign would let him know if he needed to report something. "I enjoyed flying. I enjoyed politics. My family had a relationship with Gov. Easley," he said. "I don't remember thinking much about the details." The board has subpoenaed about 30 people to appear some time before the board, including Easley, who didn't appear as the hearing began Monday morning. The board -- three Democrats and two Republicans -- could issue fines or reprimands, refer the case to a district attorney for criminal charges, or exonerate the party and The Mike Easley Committee. |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 04:54 AM Post #4 |
|
http://www.bullcityrising.com/2009/10/a-special-note-to-bcr-readers.html October 26, 2009 A special note to BCR readers The most regular of BCR readers will note that a story published earlier this morning on the Durham Police Dept. overtime scandal, and the 2008 City report that led up to it, is not currently published on the site. It has been temporarily removed after correspondence from the City of Durham's public information officer. BCR's attorney (you wondered where those ad dollars go to, didn't you?) is currently reviewing the matter. Any reposting of the article, in an original or modified form, will occur after that review is complete. Thanks as always for reading BCR. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ An update on this rather unusual situation. The story in question has been republished, with a minor change on a technical point -- and some (frankly, needed) improvements to the overall thrust of the argument. Writing blog posts at 6am isn't always the most conducive path to fine writing, or completeness, two issues resolved in the updated version. The temporary removal of the story came about during a re-examination of one of the sources cited in the story: information contained in the 2008 Secondary Employment Coordinator (SEC) report released to the news media by the City on Friday. That report, a PDF document, contained information that the City thought it had redacted -- when, in fact, it had not been completely cleansed. A substantial amount of material in the document released to the media could be accessed through any of a half-dozen or more commonly-used methods, none of which require any technical forensics skill. The City expressed a concern that redacted materials were used in the reporting of the story, material that (it was said) had been removed from the report before its release. Not so, we asserted: if the material had been redacted, it wouldn't have been present in the file in the first place. That said, I've opted to remove from the original story (and from one comment therein) the methods of accessing the material -- the only lingering removal of information from the post -- because it's not germane to the argument. In fact, the point made in today's BCR post (that Robinson-Taylor was one of the officers who had allegedly benefited most substantially relative to possibly "favored" categories of off-duty assignments back in 2008) is made even in the non-redacted part of report, with the City's document asserting that the backup coordinator (Robinson-Taylor) received the most job assignments among those scrutinized by the DPD's internal report. Instead, the area of interest that emerged during the re-check of the story was the curious nature of this report, released to the media in a redacted fashion that didn't really redact everything. And at the end of the day, that may be the headline that ends up emerging from this entire episode: that the City goofed in releasing a report that had intact material it didn't want to release in the first place. Not that the City of Durham is the first governmental or private sector body to have this problem. (The Pentagon made headlines for this some years back.) And it certainly won't be the last. Honest mistakes happen, and that seems to be the case here. Far better that this would come up on a document with names, rather than Social Security Numbers or other sensitive data. And ultimately, the real point of this post -- in BCR's hybrid objective-analytical-opinion style -- is to argue that the 2008 report raises real questions about Chief Lopez's leadership... an argument that would be made with or without the not-so-redacted information. We're all human, and we all make mistakes. At BCR, when there's a possibility a mistake was made, I'm happy to err on the side of caution in holding back or pausing a story in order to recheck the blog's grounds for reporting. After consulting with our attorney, and making the change described herein (plus those good ol' make-a-better-argument changes with the luxury of reflection), the story has been reposted. |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 04:56 AM Post #5 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Poll-+Two-thirds+of+residents+say+they+feel+safe%20&id=4153087-Poll-+Two-thirds+of+residents+say+they+feel+safe&instance=homethirdleft Poll: Two-thirds of residents say they feel safe 10.26.09 - 10:35 pm By KEITH UPCHURCH kupchurch@heraldsun.com; 419-6612 DURHAM -- About two-thirds of Durham residents asked say they feel safe or very safe, according to a poll commissioned by the Durham Convention & Visitors Bureau in cooperation with the Durham Police Department. The poll, released last week, shows a dip from record highs in the number of residents who feel safe, but is still well above the low of 30 percent reported in an earlier poll, the report said. The proportion of those polled who think Durham has a gang problem dropped from a margin of 7-to-1 to just slightly more than 1-to-1. Ten percent of those who say the city has a gang problem based that on personal experience. Nearly 66 percent, or two-thirds, feel safe or very safe, up from a low of 30 percent in 2005 but below the highs of 76 percent and 79 percent in 2006 and 2007, respectively. In the survey, which polled 400 Durham residents in August and September, 61.3 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the Durham Police Department is doing a good job of protecting and serving residents. Shelly Green, chief operating officer for the Convention & Visitors Bureau, said she was encouraged by the findings. "Historically, Durhamites have great pride in the community,'' she said. "They have a strong image and they do feel safe overall.'' Green said the bureau has done similar polls annually for the past 15 years. ''I think the most important thing for Durham residents to know is that sometimes, people think that Durhamites are not very proud or pleased with their community. And all the way back 15 years ago, people from Durham have always been very pleased and proud and had a great image of Durham.'' Mike Shiflett, past president of the Durham InterNeighborhood Council and past co-facilitator of Partners Against Crime, lives in Northgate Park, which has had a rash of break-ins this year. But he said his experience with the Durham Police Department has been positive. "I think one of the benefits over the last couple of years with the Durham Police Department has been the cooperation we've had,'' he said. "Even though we have had a number of break-ins in Northgate Park, we're not unusual. But it helps that we get responses back from the Police Department with increased patrols, having undercover cars drive by and being a bit quicker to respond when you have a community person call 911 and report suspicious activity.'' As for feeling safe, Shiflett prefers the word "secure.'' "I feel secure,'' he said. "Safety is something you think about when you're being threatened. Do I feel unsafe? No. Do I feel unsecure? No. I feel pretty secure in both where I live and where I drive in Durham.'' But Shiflett said it's important for people not to depend on others for their safety. "You have to take a little bit of ownership in that,'' he said, citing community involvement and knowing your neighbors as examples. _____________________________________________ How safe do we feel? By KEITH UPCHURCH kupchurch@heraldsun.com; 419-6612 DURHAM -- Newcomers to Durham feel safe by a margin of 3.2-to-1, the same as those who have lived here between 11 and 20 years, according to the Durham Convention & Visitors Bureau poll on how Durham residents feel about their safety. Other findings: - Durham residents who have lived here three to five years feel safe by a margin of 7.8-to-1, six- to 10-year residents by a margin of 6.2-to-1 and those who have lived here over 21 years by a margin of 5.7-to-1. - By more than 8-to-1, Durham residents have a positive image of the community. - Durham residents remain proud of Durham by a margin of 6.2-to-1, and 85.8 percent are now proud of Durham instead of the 81.3 percent who were last year. - By more than 5-to-1, Durham residents are pleased with the community as a place to live, with 74.1 percent being proud or very proud, 12.3 percent undecided and 13.8 percent not proud. - Whites are most likely to believe that Durham does not have a gang problem. But nearly 89 percent of blacks believe the city has a gang problem. - The percentage of those who think the Durham Police Department is doing a good or very good job are: blacks, 63.4 percent; whites, 61.4; Hispanics, 57.7 percent; and Asians, 55 percent. The poll was conducted by NanoPhrades, based in the Wake County town of Holly Springs. |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 04:58 AM Post #6 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story_news_durham/push?article-Prosecutors+negotiating+plea+deal+in+child+sex+case%20&id=4152303-Prosecutors+negotiating+plea+deal+in+child+sex+case&instance=main_article Prosecutors negotiating plea deal in child sex case 10.26.09 - 08:54 pm By Neil Offen noffen@heraldsun.com; 419-6646 DURHAM -- Federal prosecutors are negotiating a plea deal with the former Duke University administrator charged with soliciting adults over the Internet to have sex with his 5-year-old adopted son. "We have said that in open court, that we are involved in discussing a plea agreement," said Ben Friedman, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. "That doesn't mean there will be a successful resolution to the discussions, but they are ongoing, they have been happening." Friedman emphasized, however, that the negotiation process was still in its early stages. "There are a whole series of events that have to happen before things would get resolved," he said. Frank Lombard has been held in the Washington, D.C., jail without bond since his arrest June 24 in Durham for sex offense with a child and persuading someone to cross state lines for illegal sexual activity. If convicted on the charges, he could face up to 20 years in prison. Friedman said that typically in negotiations for a plea agreement in such a case the defendant would be required to plead guilty to the lead charge and accept responsibility for the crime. "If that happens, in such an agreement, the prison time then could be lowered," Friedman said. Keith Becker, the federal prosecutor in the case, would not comment Monday on the details of the negotiations. He did say, though, that Lombard's next day in U.S. District Court would be Nov. 10. The court appearance would be to update all sides on the status of the case. Christopher Shella, Lombard's lawyer, did not respond Monday to a request for comment on the case. Lombard, who worked at Duke for 10 years, was associate director for the university's Health Inequalities Program. Duke initially put him on unpaid administrative leave after the arrest and then severed all ties with him in mid-July. His arrest came following an elaborate sting operation that included the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Bureau of Investigation and an Internet Crime Task Force as well as police in both Durham and Washington. The undercover investigation began when a confidential source told a Washington police officer that he had been in contact via an Internet-based video chat program with an individual who had been sexually molesting a child and broadcasting that molestation using a Webcam. Police said they discovered the account holder for the video chat program was Lombard, who also fit a physical description given by the confidential source. According to the arrest warrant, Lombard allegedly told an undercover police officer that he had sexually molested the child himself multiple times. The warrant said Lombard invited the undercover officer to fly to Durham in June to have sexual contact with the child and that "there would be no limits on the sexual activity he could engage in." The child involved in the alleged crimes was one of two adopted children in Lombard's home, which he shared with a live-in partner who did not participate in the abuse, according to the affidavit. The affidavit did not say whether the other child, whose age was not revealed, was abused. It also did not say how long the abuse of the 5-year-old went on. |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 05:00 AM Post #7 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Police+overtime+reforms+overdue%20&id=4149981-Police+overtime+reforms+overdue&instance=editorial Police overtime reforms overdue 10.26.09 - 02:55 pm Once again, hard on the heels of the overtime scandal, the Durham Police Department is facing serious questions about the administration if its "moonlighting" program. A report detailing the latest round of revelations actually was commissioned and completed before an internal audit uncovered egregious abuse of overtime by the officer handling the department's "secondary employment" program. The earlier report, by a departmental staff inspector, Sgt. Duane Hampton, pointed to apparent bias in the assigning of some of the overtime jobs, to excessive involvement by a high-level commander and even to some examples where it would appear top-level officers took some of the easiest assignments for themselves. To the credit of Police Chief Jose Lopez, he ordered Hampton's investigation in January 2008. He was responding to a complaint about "serious mismanagement" in the program. On the other hand, Lopez appears to have been slow in responding to key recommendations for improving that management, and the pace seems to have accelerated only after the overtime revelations erupted. Ironically, one recommendation was that the department assign a higher-ranking officer, at least a sergeant, to give the oversight of the moonlighting program more clout. At the time of Hampton's investigation, a corporal handled coordinating requests and assignments. Instead, the department headed in the other direction, assigning the responsibility to a line officer -- Alexsha Robinson-Taylor, whose excessive overtime cost her job. Another casualty of the overtime fiasco was Deputy Chief B. J. Council, forced into retirement by the revelations. Council, too, figures badly in the Hampton report, described as involved "at an extremely detailed level" in moonlighting decisions. The secondary employment program benefits both the public and officers. For the public, the ability to hire off-duty officers for tasks ranging from traffic control to providing security at events provides an extra measure of confidence. For officers, the opportunity to make extra cash is welcome -- indeed, part of the problems Hampton's report identified stemmed from the intense competition for jobs. Thus, the problems plaguing the program threaten not only a valuable tool for public protection but also, even more important, public confidence in the leadership of the department. Lopez has pledged reform. We think some of the proposed changes may be a aiming a bit low (in an op-ed piece in The Herald-Sun last week, he indicated that overtime of more than $800 to an employee in a pay period, a sum well above what would cause eyebrows to raise in most private entities). But we want to believe he is serious and committed to reform, and that he will move quickly to overhaul the program. And we expect City Manager Tom Bonfield to show little patience in achieving those ends. |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 05:01 AM Post #8 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Don-t+blame+-liberal+judges-+for+state+prisoner+release%20&id=4150711-Don-t+blame+-liberal+judges-+for+state+prisoner+release&instance=columnists Don't blame 'liberal judges' for state prisoner release 10.26.09 - 04:31 pm By NEIL OAKLEY Guest columnist On Thursday, the State of North Carolina is scheduled to release more than 20 inmates from the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction back into free society. [Gov. Beverly Perdue is trying to block the release]. The pending release follows a recent ruling by the N.C. Supreme Court upholding a decision by the N.C. Court of Appeals stating that these inmates were sentenced under an old law which defined "life imprisonment" as 80 years. Since the Supreme Court's ruling, people have been up in arms. The state wants to find a way to keep these inmates incarcerated. People are blaming "the liberal justice system" for letting violent felons go free. But let's take a look and see if "liberal judges" are really to blame. By law, our General Assembly has the right to define crimes and punishments within the limits of the state and federal constitutions. In 1974, a law written and passed by the General Assembly stated, "A sentence of life imprisonment shall be considered as a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 80 years in the State's prison." (For those of you keeping score, the Democrats controlled the General Assembly in 1974. The Republican governor, Jim Holshouser, had no veto.) When judges try to figure out what a law means, they look first at the actual words in the law. If the words are clear, they conclude that the Legislature intended the law to be implemented according to the plain meaning of the words. Looking at the 1974 law, it's clear as day that life in prison meant 80 years. In 1994, the General Assembly changed the law, and now "life" does mean "natural life" (Democratic General Assembly, Gov. Jim Hunt, no veto). In 1981, the General Assembly passed another law called the Fair Sentencing Act (Democratic General Assembly, Gov. Hunt, no veto). This law gave all inmates certain credits against their sentences for merit and good conduct. Therefore, some inmates saw their "life" sentences shortened. This law was repealed in 1993. (Democratic General Assembly, Gov. Hunt, no veto). In 1975, Bobby Bowden (not the football coach) was convicted for two murders and was given a life sentence under the old laws. In 2005, he discovered that under these laws, his original "life" sentence should be shortened to less than 40 years and he asked for his release. The trial court denied his request, and he appealed. Last November, a three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals looked at the words in the old laws and concluded that Bowden was right. (Scorecard: All three judges were Republicans) The N.C. Supreme Court unanimously upheld this ruling earlier this month. (Scorecard: Four Republican justices, three Democratic justices). The state cannot keep these inmates in prison without being sued for false imprisonment. The state cannot change the punishment for these inmates. Something called the "Ex Post Facto Clause" of the U.S. and N.C. constitutions prohibits that. "Liberal judges" are not the villains in this case. It is not President Obama's fault or Gov. Perdue's fault. The General Assembly is responsible. The lesson is that we must pay attention to what our state senators and representatives are doing in Raleigh. When they draft bills to be voted on, they need to read the bills and we do, too. Some of us do not even know who our state legislators are. To find out, go to http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/GIS/RandR07/Home.html . You can also go to the General Assembly's home page, http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/homePage.pl, and read all the bills up for debate. Next year, all members of the General Assembly are up for election. If you like what they are doing, keep them in office. If not, vote them out. But please, when it comes to deciding whether "life" means "life," don't blame liberal judges. Neil Oakley is a 2009 cum laude graduate of the Elon University School of Law and is a law clerk with Ann Marie Calabria on the N.C. Court of Appeals. |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 05:05 AM Post #9 |
|
http://dukechronicle.com/article/candidates-debate-durham-status-quo Candidates debate Durham status quo By Julius Jones October 27, 2009 Durham City Council hopefuls and incumbents participated in an on-campus forum Monday night where the divide between young and old, change and the status quo, dominated the discourse. The candidates in attendance were Mayor Bill Bell and his challenger Steven Williams; Ward I Councilmember Cora Cole-McFadden, who also serves as mayor pro-tempore and her challenger, Donald Hughes, 22; Ward II Councilmember Howard Clement and Libertarian Matt Drew, 35; and Ward III Councilmember Mike Woodard, Trinity ’81, and Allan Polak, a small business owner and technician. About 30 people attended the event, many of whom were members of the Duke community. The forum, which was co-hosted by Duke Political Union and Duke Student Government, allowed each candidate to give an opening statement before the floor was opened to the audience for questions. In response to the first question regarding former district attorney Mike Nifong’s re-election, Bell said he did, in fact, donate to Nifong’s campaign in 2006. “When Mike Nifong was appointed to that position, there were a lot of people who had positive things to say about him,” Bell said, adding that he believes the city handled the 2006 lacrosse case well. “We’ve never had the type of media exposure we had during the lacrosse case.... The leadership, in my opinion, did an awful lot to quell what could’ve been a really emotional altercation, framed by what the national media was trying to do.” Williams, who has been critical of how Bell handled the lacrosse case in the past, said the city council must do more to encourage civic engagement. “This current council, they don’t encourage involvement from the community,” Williams said. “They sit in City Hall and say, ‘We need you to come.’ But they don’t go out to the community and let you know what actually is going on.” Woodard rebuffed Williams’ statement, noting that he had been a member of his neighborhood watch for 19 years. Audience members also raised questions about the Durham Police Department overtime pay scandal that led to the termination of Secondary Employment Coordinator Alesha Robinson-Taylor. DPD dismissed Robinson-Taylor Oct. 14 after an audit revealed that she had received more than $62,000 in excess overtime pay. Bell said the responsibility for managing the police department falls to the city manager, who oversees DPD operations. Williams, however, criticized Bell’s approach to the issue. “This is this administration’s deal every day. They except themselves of responsibility on a daily basis,” Williams said. “Yes, there needs to be an overhaul of our police system.” Hughes, echoing Williams’ sentiment that the city council failed in its oversight role, said his opponent, Cole-McFadden, was chair of the Audit Oversight Committee and failed to keep a watchful eye on DPD. Hughes also said that after the scandal broke, the city removed a Web page that cited Cole-McFadden as chair of the oversight committee. Cole-McFadden said she has never served as chair of the committee and the Web page was removed because it was incorrect. Clement, coming to the defense of the police department, said DPD is one of the finest department in the state. “You know, it’s very fascinating to hear young people who ain’t been there and ain’t done that, come up with these solutions,” said Clement, who is 75 years old. “I’m afraid you just don’t know what you are talking about.” In many regards, the central issue in the forum was the contrast between the experienced council and the batch of young, relatively new politicians. “I’m often asked why I am so involved in politics at such a young age, and I often respond, ‘Why not?’” Hughes said. “But one thing I can assure you is our president reminded us about a month ago that we didn’t come here to fear the future, but we came to shape it.” The incumbents, however, said their experiences proved their worthiness to be elected to another term. “I’ve served 26 years as your city councilman for Ward II and I’ve come to the realization that experience does matter,” Clement said. “I’m not a ‘Johnny-come-lately,’ who on July 1 decided to run for city council or for mayor. I’ve been committed to being involved in Durham for over 26 years.” Many of the challengers used their remarks to draw contrasts between what they would do if elected and what they consider to be the status quo. Drew, a Libertarian, noted that since 2001, the city population has grown 11 percent and the government has grown 30 percent. In comparison, the city’s debt has increased 78 percent. “Durham is on an unsustainable path,” Drew said. “The things that you see in downtown—the big, shiny objects—these are things that we paid for with future taxes.... The bill is coming due.” The incumbents rejected any notion that they represent the status quo. “I’ve been a change agent my entire life,” Cole-McFadden said. “We have never been satisfied with the status quo.” |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 05:06 AM Post #10 |
|
http://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-offers-retirement-aid-professors Duke offers retirement aid to professors By Staff Reports October 27, 2009 To make way for the new professors it plans to hire, Duke is encouraging some older professors to retire. The University will offer extra money to some professors who are planning to retire and whose years of work at Duke and age sum to 75, also known as the “Rule of 75.” The financial assistance is designed to aid faculty whose retirement savings have been diminished by the down economy, according to a University statement released Friday. Based on the statement, it is unclear how much money will be offered or how many professors may be eligible to receive the aid. Professors in the School of Medicine and the School of Nursing are not eligible. Deans will discuss the retirement incentive with eligible faculty in the next few weeks, according to the release. Faculty who take the assistance must retire by June 30, 2011. “We want to ensure the deans have flexibility to assist our colleagues in realizing their goals for retirement,” Provost Peter Lange said in the statement. “In the process, we’ll enhance the resources available to continue the renewal and expansion of the faculty as a whole.” Duke is looking to fill 63 faculty positions this year at all schools other than medicine and nursing, a 20 percent decrease from the average number recruited over the last three years. According to the statement, Duke has received 325 applications for the faculty positions in fields ranging from history and economics to chemistry. The schools of medicine and nursing are also hiring, the release stated. |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 05:06 AM Post #11 |
|
http://dukechronicle.com/article/young-trustee-reform-discussions-see-low-turnout Young Trustee reform discussions see low turnout By Matt Chase October 27, 2009 Amanda Turner, special secretary for the Young Trustee process, has little more than one week to create a proposal for this year’s Young Trustee selection process. Monday night, Turner, a junior and Black Student Alliance president, held the fourth and final forum to collect student opinion about Young Trustee selection. After the student body voted to eliminate Duke Student Government’s position of vice president for the Inter-Community Council in September, Turner—who was selected for her position in the same election—ran the forums and met with campus leaders over the last couple weeks. Turner will present her findings Nov. 4 to DSG senators, who will then be in charge of deciding on a new process. “I definitely think that every opinion will be included in my report,” Turner said after the forum Monday. “The people that have come [to the forums], even if they just heard about it in passing, have valuable opinions to contribute.” Although the forums have not had strong turnouts—only two people attended Monday’s meeting and only 17 have attended the meetings in total—Turner said she has noticed that general themes and concerns have risen through all of the events. She said students are concerned about the diversity of Young Trustee candidates—most previous applicants have come from either DSG or ICC—and logistics, such as the length of previous applications. But senior Sam Halls, who attended Monday’s meeting, questioned the point of re-evaluating the process in the first place. “I think there are things wrong with it, but at the end of the day, if you’re happy with who comes out of it, what’s wrong?” said Halls, DSG treasurer and a former member of the ICC. Halls also asked if people have proposed incorporating the Board of Trustees into the Young Trustee selection process. In previous years, members of DSG and ICC have selected the Young Trustee. “The purpose of the Young Trustee is not to argue in front of students, but to be another voice on the Board,” Halls said. “And I think [the Board] would be the best to decide that.” Turner said she has received many questions similar to Halls’, as well as a wide variety of commentaries across forums and discussions with students. Turner added that DSG members have varied opinions on the future of the selection process, as some DSG members have proposed that the process remain the same and others have suggested that the process become a student body election. Some of the forum’s attendees noted, however, that opening the selection to the entire student body may turn the process into a popularity contest. Conversation also centered around some of DSG members’ advantages in previous selection processes. Halls said DSG officials often have access to top administrators, who could write strong faculty recommendations for a potential Young Trustee. “If [Executive Vice President] Tallman Trask writes a letter saying, ‘I think this person should sit on the Board,’ it will have a huge impact,” he said. Halls added that he is concerned about the selection of this year’s Young Trustee, as changing the process has been time consuming. “It seems like a total time crunch,” he said. “There seem to be so many things up in the air. I’m just really, really worried. At some point you need to choose something and try it.” After the meeting, Turner said it is easy to lose focus and debate one section of the process, but DSG officials need to discuss it as a whole. She said she hopes DSG will come to a conclusion about the process, and the student body will be better informed about the Young Trustee. One of the tasks of the special secretary for the Young Trustee process is to make the process more transparent. “If you come across a person and you ask them about the process, you have to start by describing it,” Turner said. “Hopefully, future students will get to a point where everyone knows what this process is and what this person does. But for now, it’s important to go through the basics.” |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 05:12 AM Post #12 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/159833.html Published Tue, Oct 27, 2009 02:00 AM Modified Mon, Oct 26, 2009 11:38 PM Easley lawyer might not testify RALEIGH Ruffin Poole, the lawyer who advised former Gov. Mike Easley during his eight years in office, persuaded a judge Monday to quash a subpoena calling him to testify before the state Board of Elections. The arguments and decisions were made in a judge's chambers, out of the public's earshot. A petition filed Monday morning by Poole's attorney, Raleigh lawyer Joseph Zeszotarski Jr., argued that Poole should not have to testify because he might be asked to divulge information from a protected attorney-client relationship with Easley. Judge Henry Barnette, a retired judge working in Wake County Superior Court this week, heard the argument behind closed doors, as Poole's attorney asked. Three lawyers from the state Attorney General's Office did not protest. "The rule provides for it," Barnette said afterward. The N.C. Board of Elections voted Monday afternoon to appeal. It was unclear when the appeal would be heard. Poole and the lawyers declined comment. Board Chairman Larry Leake said the board does not want to question Poole about anything protected by attorney-client privilege. Testimony on Monday indicated that Poole was part of an effort to persuade contributors to write checks to the state Democratic Party that later ended up in Easley's campaign fund. "We have a hard time understanding how fundraising would fit in that category," Leake said. Easley's lawyer, Thomas Hicks, said the former governor did not object to Poole's taking the stand. "The governor's not concerned other than getting these issues resolved and moving on," he said. Poole, 37, began his legal career in the state Department of Justice when Easley was attorney general. He was appointed special counsel to the governor in 2000. Poole coordinated operations within the governor's office including communications and crisis and "reputation management" initiatives, according to a profile on the Web site of the McGuire Woods law firm, which employs him. Poole later was senior adviser on economic development, environmental, transportation and regulatory affairs. Staff writer Dan Kane contributed to this report. anne.blythe@newsobserver.com or 919 932-8741 |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 05:12 AM Post #13 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/159839.html Published Tue, Oct 27, 2009 02:00 AM Modified Tue, Oct 27, 2009 04:38 AM Crusader wears tarnished armor RALEIGH After having spent much of his life as the hunter, former Gov. Mike Easley is the prey. Easley rose in politics as corruption-busting district attorney and a consumer-oriented attorney general, then as an outsider governor who didn't like good ol' boy politics. That image is a distant memory. On Monday, Easley's reputation suffered deep damage as the State Board of Elections opened several days of hearings into allegations of election-law violations that occurred during his eight years as governor. Gone were the stories of Easley as the young drug-busting prosecutor who kept a shotgun next to his bed and a revolver in his glove compartment, and sent his wife and young son to live with out-of-state relatives. Instead, there were allegations that he had a political pal fix up his Raleigh house, charged the cost to his campaign, then pocketed the insurance money. Gone were the days when he put two of his three local sheriffs in jail on corruption charges. Instead, there was testimony of him getting 61 free airplane flights worth $102,185 from McQueen Campbell, the Raleigh businessman Easley helped make chairman of the N.C. State University Board of Trustees. Gone were the stories of Easley going after the often-prosecuted Lt. Gov. Jimmy Green. Instead there were stories of incredible deals for him from a Fayetteville car dealer, and how campaign donation limits were avoided by fat cats sending money to the state party -- a common practice in politics. There was one bombshell moment when you could hear everyone in the packed downtown hotel room collectively suck in their breath. That was when the boyish looking Campbell explained how Easley twice asked him to make $11,000 repairs on his Raleigh house, which he was renting to tenants while he was living in the Executive Mansion. Easley then had him bill his campaign for airplane flights to cover the cost, according to Campbell. State election officials say they have documents that show that even though Easley didn't pay for the repairs, he went ahead and filed an insurance claim. Campbell's story was backed up by a secretary who worked for Dave Horne, Easley's campaign treasurer, who said she received a personal call from the governor telling her to cut the campaign check for the flights despite her reservations. For Easley, this has trouble written all over it. Easley can blame the prosecutors or he can blame the press. But Easley chose to swim in the swamp of easy favors and bendable campaign finance laws. As someone who knew Easley the young crusader, I think that is sad. We have yet to hear from him, so we have not heard the full story on the house repairs and the other issues raised at the hearings. We await further testimony to find out what laws, if any, Easley may have broken. One thing seems clear from the first day of testimony: If Easley came to Raleigh to clean up politics, he utterly failed. rob.christensen@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4532 |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 05:13 AM Post #14 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/159831.html Published Tue, Oct 27, 2009 02:00 AM Modified Mon, Oct 26, 2009 11:38 PM Two say money given to party was for Easley RALEIGH Six years ago, Wilmington developer Lanny Wilson laid out a five-point plan for Gov. Mike Easley to win a big campaign contribution from Wilson's business partner. Wilson wrote in an e-mail to an Easley campaign staffer that Gary Allen, a Charlotte-area developer, would like to keep his appointment on the state Wildlife Commission and needed the governor's help to get a permit to construct a boat ramp at a Brunswick County subdivision. Easley, he wrote, should take credit for helping arrange a meeting between Allen and a Progress Energy vice president to discuss land that Allen wanted. And Easley should ask an aide, John Merritt, for background information on Allen to help set him at ease. Easley was to meet with Allen the following day. By the end of the month, Allen had written a $50,000 check to the N.C. Democratic Party, a contribution that Wilson testified Monday was intended to wind up in Easley's campaign. Allen won the boat ramp permit, and Easley reappointed him to the commission in 2004. Easley appointed Gary Allen's brother and business partner, Randy Allen, to the commission the following year. Easley later got a $137,000 discount on a lot in the Allens' Carteret County development, Cannonsgate. The e-mail from Wilson to the campaign aide was released Monday by the State Board of Elections as part of its inquiry into Easley's campaign. Wilson and another Easley fundraiser and developer, Nick Garrett, testified that they were told to contribute to the party with the intention that the money would go into Easley's campaign fund. Wilson's $10,000 check written Aug. 29, 2006, was made out to "NC Democratic Party -- Special Acct." Garrett wrote "Mike Easley Campaign" in the memo line on his check to the state Democratic Party. Easley had given both Wilson and Garrett plum appointments: Wilson to the state Board of Transportation; Garrett to the board of the Clean Water Trust Fund. Limits on contributions State political parties can accept unlimited amounts from contributors and spend unlimited amounts on candidates. But they can't secretly funnel money to candidates to evade individual contribution limits. "If you intentionally concocted a scheme to violate the $4,000 campaign contribution limit, that would be a criminal violation," board chairman Larry Leake said. Wilson and Garrett testified that they thought they were following the law. Allen has been subpoenaed to appear at the inquiry later this week. State Democratic Party attorneys suggested the contributions could have gone toward Easley's six-figure commitments to raise money for the party. Wilson and Garrett said they dealt with Easley campaign aides, not the Democratic Party. And Garrett said that as a former Republican, he would not have contributed if his money did not end up in Easley's campaign coffers. Wilson testified that he had also made a contribution in his fiancée's name, which would be another campaign violation. Garrett testified that an Easley campaign aide suggested he contribute in the names of his children. He did not. "I felt like I had already given enough money," Garrett said. dan.kane@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4861 |
|
|
|
| abb | Oct 27 2009, 05:14 AM Post #15 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/159838.html Published Tue, Oct 27, 2009 02:00 AM Modified Tue, Oct 27, 2009 06:08 AM Friend: Easley campaign paid for home repairs Gov. Mike Easley directed his campaign to pay for $11,000 in roof and bathroom repairs and other fix-ups at his personal residence in Raleigh, and he kept it secret from the public, according to testimony and records at a state elections board hearing Monday. Easley's campaign also did not pay for scores of political flights he took from 1999 through 2004, according to a star witness who flew him around: longtime friend and supporter, McQueen Campbell. Campbell, a pilot, said under oath that he provided free campaign flights for Easley that were valued at $87,895. Campbell said he also provided personal flights on his planes, such as a fishing vacation to Florida in 2005, that were valued at more than $14,000. The testimony offered a new and startling round of disclosures about Easley, a Democrat who left office in January. The information fit a pattern that has emerged since last year: A former attorney general and two-term governor who accepted perks in possible violation of laws and ethics rules. "It's about the stinkiest stuff I've heard," said Jane Pinsky, who leads a broad coalition of groups that has sought ethics and lobbying reforms in Raleigh. "It's all so distasteful." The revelations have included the free flights , free dues at an exclusive golf club, a $137,000 discount on a coastal lot purchase and the disclosure that Easley was involved four years ago in creating a job for his wife at N.C. State University. Not all of those were discussed Monday. Another perk was -- a vehicle owned by a Fayetteville dealer that Easley's son drove for six years. The dealer involved, Robert F. Bleecker, testified that he arranged to provide the car for Easley's son in 2002 or 2003 and that Easley said he would settle up later. About six years went by before Easley brought it up again, according to Bleecker. Bleecker said that Easley has now paid in full, with part of the money coming from Easley's campaign, which has previously said the car was used for the campaign from 2003 until the middle of 2005. When board member Bill Peaslee asked about what was a "normal lease," Bleecker interrupted him. "This is not a normal deal, sir," Bleecker said. Easley's lawyer, Thomas Hicks of Wilmington, said he would not immediately respond to all the allegations, but he said that Easley had not purposely violated the law. Easley did not attend the hearing Monday. Easley is expected to testify as soon as Wednesday. Other donors and campaign officials, including some who flew Easley, are among possible witnesses who could testify today. Campbell's testimony Campbell testified first. His allegations rocked the meeting room at the Clarion Hotel, just down Hillsborough Street from Democratic Party headquarters. Under questioning by Hicks, he acknowledged he never submitted an invoice for any flights. Campbell said he didn't think that was required. He thought the campaign, which knew about all the flights, was taking care of reporting. Campbell also said that Easley at one point asked him to compile a list of the flights he'd provided but was unsure exactly why. He said he doesn't remember giving it to the campaign. "I may have shown it to him at some point along the way," Campbell said. Elections board Chairman Larry Leake said each campaign must report what it takes in and spends and where the money goes. It's an essential part of modern elections law that requires transparency about campaigns. Individuals who give to campaigns, for example, are not required to file reports. In addition, campaigns must adhere to laws that limit a donor to providing a contribution of no more than $4,000 in each election period. Campbell's flights exceeded the limits in 1999, 2000 and 2004, according to records made public Monday. The house repairs By the end of 2004, after Easley had easily won a second term, the governor went to Campbell with a request, Campbell said. Easley, who had kept his home on East Lake Drive in Raleigh after moving into the Executive Mansion, needed repairs on the house. The governor asked Campbell to take care of them, Campbell testified. He said he oversaw about $4,000 in fixes that documents indicate included repairing the roof, trimming trees, washing sidewalks and cleaning dog feces from a bedroom and closet. Bills for untaken flights Campbell said he paid for the repairs but expected Easley to reimburse him. When the governor didn't, Campbell said he telephoned Easley. "I called Gov. Easley and told him how much the repairs were," Campbell said. "And he asked if there were unbilled flights." Leake asked: "What was your response to that question?" "I remember understanding what he was saying ... for me to bill the campaign for unbilled flights to cover those amounts," Campbell testified. Leake asked: "So the Easley campaign and its contributors actually paid for the repairs to Gov. Easley's home?" "That's correct," Campbell responded. He billed the campaign $4,777.50; a company he owned was paid in February 2005. A few months later, Campbell was contacted again about water damage at the home. He took care of the repairs, which cost him about $6,000. The campaign later paid a Campbell company $6,300 in August 2005, records show. A call from Easley That transaction raised questions with a campaign staffer named Rebecca McGhee, who worked for Dave Horne, Easley's finance director. She wrote in a memo and testified Monday that she asked about the $6,300 check because there was no back-up to support that flights had taken place. She then got a call from Easley himself. "The Governor said that he knows what the invoice says," McGhee wrote. "He instructed me that we should go ahead and pay the invoice." The publicly listed purpose of both flights was travel, but Campbell testified that no flights correlated to those payments. Records produced at the hearing also showed that Easley filed an insurance claim about the water damage. And the records show Easley accepted $5,451 in reimbursement from the claim. Leake asked Campbell: "That's for the repair work you did? Did you receive any of those monies?" "No, sir," Campbell said. "I did not." Leake, a lawyer from Mars Hill, said he views the payments as possible tax problems but did not elaborate. Separate state and federal investigations are continuing, and officials involved have declined to comment. After testifying Monday, Campbell left quickly with his lawyer, deflecting questions. acurliss@newsobserver.com or 919-829-4840 |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
10:30 PM Nov 26
