Wake County Taxpayers Association following these issues

The fight is on.

As many Wake County Taxpayers Association (WCTA) members know, for the past year we have been collecting signatures on a petition requiring the City of Raleigh amend to City Charter to require voter approval, via a referendum, before borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars. On April 5th, we presented our petition, with almost 6,500 signatures, to the city council. Russell Capps, WCTA President, made comments pointing out the need of action, and how the City has refused us the right to vote on many bond issues in recent years in violation to our right to vote as established by the State Constitution. Attorney Kieran Shanahan represented the Association in handing over the stack of petitions and addressing the legal rights to call for a referendum on the issue.

The North Carolina Constitution Article 5 Section 4-2 states

Authorized purposes; two-thirds limitation. The General Assembly shall have no power to authorize any county, city or town, special district, or other unit of local government to contract debts secured by a pledge of its faith and credit unless approved by a majority of the qualified voters of the unit who vote thereon, except for the following purposes:

(a)to fund or refund a valid existing debt;
(b) to supply an unforseen deficiency in the revenue;
(c) to borrow in anticipation of the collection of taxes due and payable within the current fiscal year to an amount not exceeding 50 per cent of such taxes;
(d) to suppress riots or insurrections;
(e) to meet emergencies immediately threatening the public health or safety, as conclusively determined in writing by the Governor;
(f) for purposes authorized by general laws uniformly applicable throughout the State, to the extent of two-thirds of the amount by which the unit's outstanding indebtedness shall have been reduced during the next preceding fiscal year.

(Article 5 Section 3 uses the same words to refer to state debt.)

We believe the practices of state, city & county violate the spirit and words of our constitution. Unfortunately, our state and local governments have managed to create a loophole by inferring the words "faith and credit" do not apply if the "general fund" is not pledged to secure the debt. The State Supreme Court was complicit in this deception by ruling in favor of the county in Wayne County Citizens etc. V. Wayne County Board of Commissioners etc. January 10, 1991.

The specific authority for our petition rest in the North Carolina statutes G.S. 160A-104. The statute requires at least 5,000 signatures of the registered voters in the city to force the city to hold a referendum on the issue. The N.C. statutes are somewhat at odds with the City Charter, which requires 10%, about 26,000, of the voters' signatures. We believe the N.C. statute requirement will prevail in this case, but it is likely we will have to take this to court to get that decision. Taking the case to court will be expensive

Last August the city council authorized a $48 million "Limited Obligation Bond (LOB)" for remote facilities, and had intended to issue $205 million for the Lightner Center, and $212 million for a transit center using LOBs. (The original plan called for combining the Lightner Center and remote facilities into a single $458 million LOB) These are in addition to the more than $400 million bonds already issued WITHOUT voter approval.

We believe city borrowing is out of control and hope to bring some sanity to the situation by requiring voter approval, before LOBs, Certificate of Participation (COPs) or other debt financing is used to increase our debt. We know, as taxpayers we will be required to pay back these debts. Last June the City Manager wrote to the city council that Raleigh could only issue an additional $135 million of LOBs without a need to increase property taxes.

It clearly is time to take the credit card away from our elected officials. We have to pay it back, so if there is a real need for the borrowing the city council must make the case to the voters. If the case is convincing the voters will approve the borrowing, but if they cannot make a good case, the voter will rightly reject it.

Our elected officials are very jealous of the power this unrestricted borrowing gives them. We expected the City would attempt to deny our right to bring about the referendum. We are prepared to move forward with a lawsuit seeking a Declaratory Judgment from the Court as to the validity of our reading of the State Statute on which have based our efforts. We know we are going to have a tough fight - but it's worth it.

Petition

1. We believe our city, county and state governments are in violation of the spirit of the North Carolina Constitution, which requires voter approval for virtually all government borrowings, with only a few exceptions. To address this misuse of their borrowing authority we have initiated a petition to require -
   
   All borrowings of the City of Raleigh (Wake County) shall be approved by the voters except for the following purposes.
   
   • Petition for bond referendum
   • Without Voter Approval you tube version issue
   
   
   

TIRED OF TAX INCREASES?

Your property tax will increase by 2%.
If this bond is passed.
VOTE NO
ON THE RALEIGH ROAD BOND ISSUE
ON Tuesday, October 11TH, 2005
see tax rate and fees

The Wake County Taxpayers Association reminds you that it is your money when liberals raise taxes and spend more instead of setting priorities. Bond issues for road improvements should be among funding priorities in the budget..not tacked onto unnecessary spending and causing another tax increase. We say taxes are high enough. Send the message vote NO on the bond issue on Tuesday. Priority spending is the better way. (See ROAD BOND ISSUE for details)

TRAFFIC CALMING
- THE END OF THE AUTOMOBILE?

There was a time when traffic calming was designed to promote safe driving on streets and roads. Now, traffic calming is used to encourage walking, cycling, and public transportation. It is also the primary method to discourage automobile use. Although some people consider radar, stop signs, and educational efforts to be traffic calming, the term usually applies to physical measures that either slow traffic speed and/or reduce traffic volumes. One of the most popular themes of traffic calming is the narrowing of streets (skinny streets). Another objective is to limit the field of view for the driver because when a driver can not see far ahead, driver speed must be reduced.

Although traffic calming does have some safety benefit, it creates a greater harm to life by delaying emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances. One study "concluded that each bump or circle would delay fire trucks by up to 10 seconds - seconds that can be critical when people's lives are involved". Another study "found that traffic calming loses 37 lives to heart attacks caused by a delay in emergency service vehicles for every life saved due to auto-pedestrian collisions". (1)

TRAFFIC CALMING METHODS

• CONVERSION OF ONE-WAY STREETS TO TWO-WAY STREETS (Increases traffic congestion and driver stress)
• CONSTRUCTION OF YIELD STREETS (Produces traffic congestion and blockage)
• ON-STREET PARALLEL PARKING (Narrows the street to increase congestion)
• RED-LIGHT CAMERAS (Increases safety but intimidates all drivers)
• INTENTIONALLY BADLY-TIMED TRAFFIC LIGHTS (Increases traffic congestion and driver aggravation)
• INTENTIONALLY BADLY-REPAIRED STREETS (Promotes automobile damage and driver frustration)
• PLANTING TREES ALONG THE SIDES OF THE STREET (Street appears narrow)
• REQUIRING THAT BUILDINGS BE CONSTRUCTED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE STREET (Street appears narrow and prevents street widening)
• ERECTING SHARE THE ROAD WITH BICYCLES SIGNS (Planned to encourage driving slower and preparing drivers to accept the coming bicycle age)
• CREATING BICYCLE ONLY LANES (Increases traffic congestion)
• CREATING BUS ONLY LANES (Increases traffic congestion and frustration)
• PAINTING LINES ON STREET EDGES (Narrows the street)
• REQUIRING 90 DEGREE ANGLE TURNS AT INTERSECTIONS (Increases driving difficulty over softly curved yield turn lanes)
• SPEED BUMPS (Produces driver aggravation and automobile damage)
• SPEED HUMPS (Produces driver aggravation)
• SPEED TABLES (Produces driver aggravation)
• RAISED PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS (Slows traffic and increases congestion)
• TEXTURED SURFACES AND RAISED INTERSECTIONS (Slows traffic speed)
• TRAFFIC CIRCLES OR ROUNDABOUTS (Increases traffic congestion by limiting a driver's view)
• CURB EXTENSIONS (Street narrowing)
• CHICANES (Creates street curving, narrowing, and driver stress)
• BULB OUTS (Street narrowing and traffic congestion)
• NECK DOWNS, NUBS, OR KNUCKLES (Double bulb outs - extreme street narrowing and increased congestion)
• CHOKERS OR CHOKE POINTS (Causes extreme street narrowing and congestion)
• MEDIAN ISLANDS (Street narrowing)
• MEDIAN BARRIERS (Needed for safety in some areas, when not needed it blocks traffic, creating congestion)
• DIVERTERS (Blocks a lane of traffic creating congestion)
• FORCED TURN LANES (Increases aggravation for those caught in this lane by mistake)
• REMOVING RIGHT-TURN ONLY LANES (Creates traffic back-ups)
• REMOVING LEFT-TURN ONLY LANES (Backs up those behind you who are not turning and creates a traffic mess)
• PARTIAL STREET CLOSURES (Gives you a hint: stop driving your car)
• COMPLETE STREET CLOSURES (Clear message: sell or junk your car)

ANALYSIS

Of course, traffic calming has some valid uses. However, it should be kept in mind that anything can be used constructively or destructively. Traffic calming advocates intend only to use these measures in a manner destructive to automobiles. This is because of the "Living Streets" philosophy which believes that automobiles violate the streets, owned exclusively by pedestrians. A similar philosophy is based on the book "Livable Streets" written by Donald Appleyard (1928-1982), a professor of urban planning at the University of California-Berkeley. Appleyard's plan called for recruiting activists named stakeholders to sell traffic calming to unsuspecting neighbors on "streets where residents requested help to reduce speeding and accidents" (2). After the neighborhood streets are calmed, the techniques are applied to busy corridor streets, leading to traffic congestion madness and eventually the ultimate goal of calmers: create cities completely free of automobiles, leaving walking, cycling, and government-controlled mass transit as the only means of transportation.

In addition to the intimidation, frustration, and increased possibility of an accident, the techniques can be very harmful to your car. It is possible to damage the front-end alignment, parts of your car under the body (such as exhaust system), and even the frame of the vehicle itself. Also, remember that this is not a complete list of traffic calming techniques. The number of possible methods is limited only by the imagination of your local traffic engineering department.

Advocates claim that they want to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution; but, traffic calming increases both traffic congestion and air pollution.

Advocates believe that increased congestion will torment drivers enough to encourage them to reduce their driving and switch to walking, cycling, or public transportation. Increased congestion also gives justification to the Federal Transit Administration to provide federal funding for government-controlled light-rail public transportation projects.

Advocates also know that increased air pollution will allow the Environmental Protection Agency, using the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, to take over transportation planning for a region. This law gives the EPA the authority, if air pollution exceeds a certain level, to stop funding for road construction and require that funding be spent on government-controlled mass transit.

USEFUL RESOURCES

NOTES

1. Randal O'Toole, The Vanishing Automobile and other Urban Myths, How Smart Growth Will Harm American Cities, (The Thoreau Institute, Bandon, Oregon, 2001), page 352.
2. Ibid page 113

TRAFFIC CALMING CAN COST LIVES

37 lives lost. A quote from the book, The Vanishing Automobile and other Urban Myths by Randal O'Toole. "Fire districts and other emergency service providers often have serious objections to traffic calming devices that slow traffic. The Portland Fire Bureau studied speed bumps and traffic circles with video cameras and concluded that each bump or circle would delay fire trucks by up to 10 seconds - seconds that can be critical when people's lives are involved. Political considerations muted the fire bureau's objections. But some analysts believe that traffic calming could end up costing far more lives than it could possibly save. Traffic calming devices are a tradeoff of the perception of increased safety from speeding vehicles for the real risk to citizen survivability from delays to emergency response, says Boulder resident Kathleen Calongne. According to calculations by physicist Ronald Bowman, the deaths from impediments to emergency services are likely to far exceed the lives saved by traffic calming. An analysis by an assistant fire chief in Austin, TX, found that traffic calming loses 37 lives to heart attacks caused by a delay in emergency service vehicles for every life saved due to fewer auto-pedestrian collisions."

TRAFFIC CALMING CONSUMES MORE GAS

Since we are experiencing a fuel shortage, We need to do some thinking about the effect of traffic calming on our fuel supply. There are over 600,000 vehicles in Wake County. It is estimated that 400,000 of those are in Raleigh. Of these 400,000, at least 100,000 will be affected by traffic calming. Each of these vehicles will probably use an extra .1 gallon of gas per day (1/10 gallon) due to traffic calming. This means that an extra 10,000 gallons (100,000 x 1/10) will be wasted each day, an extra 300,000 gallons will be wasted each month, and a whopping 3.6 million gallons of gas will be wasted each year in Raleigh due to driving slower. In light of the current shortage, we can not afford to waste that much gas. It could mean the difference between running out of gas or having an adequate supply. This does not consider the vehicles that come to Raleigh from the other cities in Wake county, the other counties in the state, and out of state vehicles. Thus, the 3.6 million gallons of gas wasted is a very conservative estimate.

Lightner Public Safety Center Misinformation
Feb 3 2010 email to Matthew Eisley and Ruth Sheehan N&O columnist
From: Anthony Pecoraro
I read your columns today with great interest. It appears you have been intentionally misinformed regarding the Lightner Building.

Attached is some information & comments you may find useful

The first attachment is the presentation given to the council in February 2008. As far as I could tell there has been no update or change to it. The building plan shown on sheet 5 indicates the city data processing center, including traffic management, and IT staff will be located above police and fire. In my opinion this is a dangerous strategy. The data center should be in a stand-alone, hardened site with sufficient duplicated facilities to ensure continuity of operations in any event - natural or - man caused- disaster.

The staffing chart on sheet 33 indicates they will run out of space in the building in 2017.

It also seems imprudent to centrally and singularly locate police, fire and emergency communications in this one location. The plan also does not seem to account for the 24/7 nature of the functions with only one shift in the building at a time. A single problem could likely put the building out of commission either permanently or temporarily. These could include terrorism, vandalism, natural disaster or construction accident. We often hear about accidental cuts of communications cables which can put entire neighborhoods out of service.

The presentation also seems to include some inconsistencies regarding the "green building" concept.

The second attachment( shown here) is a summary of the costs I put together to illustrate the per square foot costs.

This is the same information provided in the City Council presentation modified to combine all true building costs before adding fixtures, relocation, etc.

The presentation included $42 million for "escalation and owners contingency". It is likely this has been omitted from the totals presented by Meeker. However, contingencies are normally provided because it is thought they are probably needed. This should be included in any discussion of costs.

There are four major issue areas that should be considered.

Issue Area 1: Constitutionality and legal issues

Issue Area 2: Financing alternatives.

Issue Area 3: Construction cost.

Issue area 4: Centralization of Emergency services.

Jan 18 2010

Russell Capps scheduled to appear on the Bill Lumaye Show this afternoon during the 3 o'clock segment. Discussing the waste in the proposed new Public Safety Center downtown. Maybe some of you can plan on calling in with your comments. Russell Capps

Wake County Taxpayers Association Press Release- January 10, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - January 10, 2010

FOUR IMPORTANT REASONS TO STOP HASTY ACTION ON PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER

There are at least FOUR important reasons to reject the hasty push for the proposed Clarence Lightner Public Safety Center minus further thorough review, and a vote by taxpayers.

1.The proposed cost per square foot

2.Check the figures... do the simple math... which Mayor Meeker calls a bargain. $205 million dollars for a 17 story tower with 300,000 square feet of space (figures from N&O article December 22, 2009). Simple calculation reveals a cost of $653 per square foot. What kind of bargain is that? Does it not appear extremely excessive? According to developers we consulted, a cost of $100 to $150 per square foot is the range for standard public facility construction. We are advised of two recently constructed public facility buildings. One, an exceptionally nice private high school and the other, an exceptionally nice church sanctuary facility, were constructed at a cost of $60 and $100 per square foot respectively. We checked with a church committee currently requesting bids for construction of a large church facility in Raleigh with a tall structure and lots of steel. Their bids are in the range of $150 to $200 per square foot. Compare these costs to the huge $653 per square foot cost projected for the proposed Public Safety Center Tower . Surely some cost comparison demands further study and greater light to be shed on the Public Safety Tower plan. Do we not need a prudently designed, efficient, top-notch facility rather than perhaps an expensive, not-so-functional monument with apparently extensive non-usable, decorative components including $750,000 "mandated art"?

3.The proposal needs thorough review and public airing

4.Is there wisdom in bringing all of our strategic emergency operations together in a single 17 story tower in a downtown location? Has the danger of a terrorist target for such a facility been considered? Sadly, in our day there is the increasing possibility that radical Muslim or other insurgent groups or individuals are looking for just such targets to do major harm. If such a tower were housing all of our fine police and fire personnel and headquarters operations were together in a single 17 story tower, all could be lost through one terrorist act. No one is more supportive of our fine Police and Fire personnel and operations than we are. We want them protected both for their safety and ours.

5.Alternative planning is needed to assess the costs and the need to disperse police operations

6.The current Police Headquarters Building should be remodeled and renovated to a first class standard for a headquarters operation. Scattered sites should be sought out away from downtown areas where land costs and construction cost would likely be less. The concept of several scattered operations facilities needs to be carefully analyzed. We urge forward thinking and considerate knowledge to provide safety through alternative operations locations in light of possible devastating events. These precautions and the probable positive effect against crime by dispersed headquarters locations deserve consideration.

7.Raleigh taxpayers DO NOT NEED ANOTHER 8% TAX HIKE!

8.Most important of all, the taxpayers can not shoulder an even higher tax burden.

The Wake County Taxpayers Association strongly urges the Mayor and City Council to slow down and re-assess based on the important reasons listed above.

Contact; J. Russell Capps, President, 919-846-9199.

Jan 9 2010 Letter to N&O
From: Anthony Pecoraro

It's not surprising that someone has finally asked for a referendum on the new public safety center.

According to Mayor Meeker, one of the reasons for pushing the construction now is to take advantage of low construction costs. But past issues of the N&O have shown the costs of the Clarence E. Lightner Public Safety Center as $205 million with approximately 300,000 square feet of space.

The N&O could do readers a tremendous service by doing the simple math on these numbers. My simple math shows the cost to be $683.00 per square foot. Is this what the mayor calls low cost? Sounds rather expensive to me!

Let the taxpayers decide if this is a justified project!

Looking back on this past year presents many successes and opportunities to grow. While not usually shown in the media, the Wake County School Board has produced measurable gains in several key areas. We continue to focus on student achievement. The many positive things accomplished in our first year may have been easily missed; many accomplishments of which we can be proud.

Often our Board is portrayed as being 5-4 with a great chaos and divide, but in reality I believe that more than 80% of the literally hundreds of votes we have taken have not been 5-4. This would include many substantive issues. Proudly we voted to recommend that the General Assembly lift the cap on charter schools, we tightened budgets, cut administrative overhead, and protected classroom teachers. None of these votes were 5-4.

Admittedly, there are some 5-4 votes on matters of strong debate, and as we represent different districts with broad values it can be expected. In the recent State of the Union, the President noted, The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that's a good thing. That's what a robust democracy demands. I agree.

Ultimately, I respect all my colleagues, even when we disagree. I believe we all care greatly for all children. I truly believe these heated debates have sparked a meaningful conversation among our community on equality, equity, and access. It is a conversation that is reviving our commitment to our most underserved children.

I am proud of our good schools. We have thousands of dedicated teachers, staff, and parents that work tirelessly. Thank you all for your commitment to our 144,000 students. Still as a community there is a lot more we must do to make our schools great and even more if they are to be truly world class.

The Wrong Direction

To go from good to great we have to acknowledge where we have fallen short. Prior to me joining the board this past year we saw 5 years of a consecutive decline in graduation rates for all students, and a 54% graduation rate for low-income children (less for some other minority subgroups) - this is wrong. I credit former Superintendent Bill McNeal who had previously made gains in closing our achievement gaps because of his personal commitment to this mission, but for the 5 years following his departure the gaps broadened again.

This year we looked at the academic performance of children who were bused out of Southeast Raleigh to see if they were being served well. They had a 46% reading proficiency in 3rd grade, and those who had been bused for 5 more years held a 47% reading proficiency by 8th grade. That means 53% of them still cannot read. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. At some point, we have got to teach these kids how to read.

Due to institutional barriers, greater than 70% of minority children who qualified for advanced placement and tested level III & IV were actually kept out of advanced classes and wrongly placed into remedial courses simply because they were labeled low-income. Sadly, 21,000 kids were suspended in Wake County we were a national leader in suspensions. We were exacerbating a school to prison pipeline. I know there are strong challenges for our economically disadvantaged students, but I also strongly believe that poor does not equate to lower academic potential. For those who do have challenges we need to be there to help our children succeed, but as a system we need to have high expectations for ALL students.

Prior to the SES (socio-economic status) busing policy being implemented, Wake had 5% of our schools cross that high poverty threshold. Today we have over a third, or more than 50 schools, that exceed that threshold. Some schools had been steadily climbing toward 80% poverty and the district had done little about it other than re-shuffle the student body. Student distribution is not the most appropriate strategy to ensure student achievement. I am certain that we can and we MUST do better by our children.

For Our Most Vulnerable Children

Proudly, I pushed for and established the Board's first Economically Disadvantaged Child Task Force to look at the comprehensive array of issues impacting our most vulnerable children and to engage our community. I was honored to be appointed to chair and assemble a committee of community leaders. We pressed for a new math placement criteria that challenged more kids with rigorous academics. We advocated for new discipline practices and alternative education opportunities; we pushed for discussions of program equity, funding equity and fairness.

This year I introduced the Full Service Community School model to district leaders. We then introduced this model to the County Commissioners. The pilot model will be offering extended day learning, wrap around support, early intervention, and a better alignment of existing county resources. Using public schools in challenged neighborhoods as hubs these community schools bring together many partners to offer a range of support opportunities to children and families. More can be learned at www.communityschools.org

Personally I pushed to establish a reform model for underperforming schools. Thanks to Dr. Hargen's help this year we introduced the Renaissance School model. We selected 4 schools based on the lowest rates of performance with some of our highest rates of poverty.

We identified a portion of our "Race to the Top" dollars to support these efforts. With those dollars we will be providing increased teacher trainings, teacher evaluations, and support networks. We will evaluate teacher effectiveness and recruit some of our most effective teachers and principals to work where the need is greatest. We will also use a lower student teacher ratio to ensure the children better personal support and time with teacher.

Advancing Opportunities for ALL

• We integrated a SAS data driven tool EVAAS (Education Value-Added Assessment System) into academic decision making to promote and support effective learning practices across the district.
• We are piloting an innovative expansion of AP offerings through a corporate grant to support video conferencing of joint classrooms between high schools at Knightdale and Green Hope.
• We have changed the math placement criteria to be income-blind and saw a marked increase just this first year in the number of students taking more rigorous advanced math in middle school.
• We digitized all the IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) across the district to share access to broader teams of support for our most vulnerable children and better aligned special needs services.

Safer Schools more Graduates

• We are revising nearly a dozen student discipline policies.
• We created more alternative education opportunities (I feel we still need to do more).
• We expanded online learning opportunities for students on suspension.
• We are developing a matrix of new sanctions, such as Saturday community service on campus as alternatives to suspension: now we are not just putting kids on the streets to join gangs and do drugs.
• We established a Discipline Review Team to review fair implementation of sanctions.

These efforts have combined for more than a 30% reduction in suspensions thus far this school year.

Supporting Our Community

• We made adjustments in node assignments to assign many children closer to home.
• We adjusted assignments to year-round schools to provide parental choice.
• We removed discriminatory barriers in the magnet selection applications. Combined these efforts have reduced parental appeal hearings by nearly 40%.
• We removed the "Wacky Wednesdays" while keeping our commitment to the Professional Learning Team that enhance the development of our teachers.
• We have noted significant increase in school volunteer applications this year with our new focus on community schools.
• We have broadened our support to be more inclusive of faith-based and community groups like the Boy Scouts and are seeing increased civic participation in our schools.

Keeping Dollars in the Classrooms

• When the prior board had to cut $35 million the previous year they immediately dropped hundreds of teachers. This year we had $22 million in budget cuts to manage and we did not cut any of our teachers.
• We trimmed administrative services and renegotiated service contracts. Such example would be the renegotiated contracts for cell phone district wide that saved $400,000 and human resource software for another $100,000.
• Additionally, we consolidated 5 administrative buildings into 1. This will be a projected $29 million more in savings over the next 10 years. This will also add those properties back to the county tax rolls.
• We saved an additional $338,000 for tax-payers by reducing senior administrator roles and sharing the posts of Chief Academic Officer and Interim Superintendent.
• We are spending more on education and less on administration. We are getting the limited dollars we have to the classrooms.

Ensuring Leadership and Supporting Teachers

Following the departure of Dr. Burns, we worked closely with Dr. Donna Hargens to serve as both Chief Academic Officer and Interim Superintendent. We saw no exodus of senior leadership and teacher retention remains high. I wish to personally thank Dr. Hargens for her commitment to our community. I am proud that she will be staying on as our Chief Academic Officer as we embark on a new age of innovation in Wake schools.

We continued our districts long standing commitment to supporting teachers in their quest for National Board Certifications. This year for the first time we became the number one district in America for number of teachers holding this honor.

As a board we spent months in a national search to bring in new Superintendent, General Anthony Tata. Mr. Tata is a high caliber leader that has gone from West Point to Harvard, and from Ft. Bragg to commanding over 30,000 troops and 91 bases in Afghanistan. He returned home as a leader in the D.C. Public schools where he was selected as 1 of only 62 Broad Superintendent Fellows in America since 2001. He has noted he will keep our system "laser focused on student achievement." We are proud to bring him to Wake County.

After several years of declining academics in the district, I am confident that these adjustments will produce gains this school year and beyond. As a Board our commitment has remained first and foremost to student achievement. We also share a strong commitment to our tax-payers, families, and communities.

While we have accomplished much in just a little more than one year, we can and MUST do even better for our kids. We have challenging years ahead with continued budget shortfalls, but I remained honored and humbled to serve the great people of Wake County and look forward to continuing on behalf of ALL of our children over the next 3 years.

Together, we will ensure the best is yet to come.

John Tedesco
Wake County Board of Education
Representative District 2

May 1 2010


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

Both the Both Carolina general Statutes (§ 160A‑104) and the Raleigh City Charter (article II Sec. 2.16) provide for citizens to initiate a referendum to city ordinances by submitting a petition to city council.

We believe our city, county and state governments are in violation of the spirit of the North Carolina Constitution, which requires voter approval for virtually all government borrowings, with only a few exceptions. To address this misuse of their borrowing authority we have initiated a petition to require -

All borrowings of the City of Raleigh (Wake County) shall be approved by the voters except for the following purposes.

A.To fund or refund a valid existing debt originally approved by the voters. The General Statute requires a petition of 10% of the registered voters or 5,000, whichever is less, while the Raleigh charter requires a flat 10%. At the time of the last municipal election there were approximately 250,000 registered voters in Raleigh. So if the Raleigh charter were to prevail about 25,000 signatures would be required. However, we believe the N.C. general statute would take precedence over the city charter.

While voter initiated referendum are possible our city fathers are not going to make it easy. Federal law allows the use of "electronic signatures" in commercial contracts and the North Carolina General Statutes (§ 66) gives each public agency the option to accept "electronic signatures". If our city officials would accept them, it would greatly facilitate the gathering of the necessary signatures. However, Tom McCormick, the City Attorney, has responded to our query by deciding "the city cannot accept electronic signatures".

In addition to the hurdles put up by our representatives, the city charter also requires every collector of petition signatures to sign an affidavit to the effect that -

"Attached to each separate petition paper there shall be an affidavit of the circulator thereof that he, and he only, personally circulated the foregoing paper, that it bears a stated number of signatures, that all signatures appended thereto were made in his presence, and that he believes them to be genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be."

We have prepared a Signature Collection Kit containing a brief description of the issues, tables showing the amount of non-voter approved borrowing, petition forms and an affidavit form.

If you want to help collect the signatures click the download kit. Thank you for your consideration

Peoples Forum January 1, 2010
Jan 1 2010
Much publicity has been given to those opposed to the new Wake County School Board majority and "their agenda". The new Board members, when campaigning, openly and repeatedly made known their election platform and proposals. An overwhelming majority of voters elected them to office based on their platform ideas. Immediately the small and very loud opposition group began complaining and whining. I was saddened by the rude, boisterous behavior of those protestors, mostly, Enloe High students, teachers, and parents, who attended the recent School Board meeting. Self-appointed persons among them arrived early and reserved almost every seat in the Board room and filled them so that those who were there to show support for the new Board members had access to only a half dozen or so seats. Nearly all of the protestors signed up to speak and one after another repeated the same theme - "the new Board majority was out to destroy" their interests alone - to heck with what anyone else thought. They whooped, and clapped and yelled after each of the many speakers. When I finally had a chance to make a few comments, these students, teachers, and parents very rudely hissed and verbally denied the facts which I was sharing from a Poll released earlier that day which showed strong support for the new Board members. If this kind of behavior is what students at Enloe are being taught by their teachers, and parents, the school curriculum is far worse than we might imagine. An N&O Reporter who called to interview me admitted he observed the rudeness of the opposition group but refused to report it even though I asked that he do so. We can only hope for better behavior by the small group of poor losers.

J. Russell Capps
Former member, NC House

The Diversity Debate
Letter to N&O
From: Anthony Pecoraro

Dec 29 2009

Much had been said regarding the Wake County Schools "Diversity Plan". The debate has degenerated into a discussion about possible re-segregation. Many so-called community leaders chose to show off their "leadership" by making this an argument about politics or race. The real question should be "how successful has the plan been and are the kids really benefiting?".

According to the N.C. Schools report Cards web site the 2008-09 four year high school graduation rate in Wake County for white kids is 89.4% and for black kids 63.4%. State wide the graduation rates are 77.7% for white children and 63.2% for black. So Wake betters the state average by almost 12% for whites, but only 0.2% for blacks.

The "old" school board chose to make this a debate on "Economic Diversity" rather than race. Here the results are worse. In Wake the four year grad rates for Economically Disadvantaged (ED) kids is 54.2 % versus the state average of 61.8%. So, for the ED kids Wake is 7.6 points behind the state average.

Clearly, under either the race or economic diversity argument, what had been done for years is not working. Black and Economically Disadvantaged children are still being left behind.

Surely we can do better. The "new" school board deserves a chance to look for a better way to educate all the kids.

Get the argument back where it belongs. What's best for the kids?