Any problem with Chapel Hill council elections does not come from private contributions to candidates. There has been no credible evidence presented to show that money has corrupted either the process or the candidates in any way.

Rather, the problem comes from the near-total disregard with which Chapel Hill politicians view voters.

For evidence of that, read the Chapel Hill News report about how most candidates in the recent election missed deadlines to disclose their campaign finances before election day or ignored the deadlines altogether. Message to voters: “It is none of your business.”

The most important campaign information voters can have before any election is an accounting of who gives what to who and how it is spent.

Lack of transparency may be the most corrupting factor of all in elections and Chapel Hill has lack of transparency in abundance.

Elements of reform

Thus, useful reform would be hard reporting deadlines before election day, with tough legal penalties for any candidate who does not comply. Reports should be timely. They should be a complete accounting of spending and contributions. Hard copies should be on file at Chapel Hill government offices and at the Orange County Board of Elections. Additionally, reporting should be online via the NC State Board of Elections and reporting should be timely and up to date. There should be no way for candidates to hide behind “postmarks” or the fact a web reporting site is down for a few hours. There should be no grace periods for reporting that extend past election day.

Those are simple requirements. They do not represent a burden on candidates. These requirements, in fact, are in place in most other elections around the country.

The goal here is simple: give voters information and trust them to make a decision.

But instead of trusting voters, or working to get information into their hands, the Chapel Hill council has fiddled with taxpayer financing of candidates while railing against candidates who are able to raise their own funds to inform voters.

How much spending is too much?

Council members apparently believe only they are equipped to judge how much campaign spending is too much.

Defeated candidate for mayor Matt Czajkowski raised $30,000 and spent $27,000. Winning council candidate Penny Rich says that is too much, according to the Chapel Hill News:

“This is what voter-owned elections are supposed to curb,” said leading Town-Council vote-getter Penny Rich, who spent about $4,300 on her campaign. “$30,000 to become mayor? It’s just an outrageous amount of money.”

But maybe someone else would consider her $4,300 an “outrageous amount of money” and seek to prevent her from doing it again.

That is exactly why the U.S. Supreme Court has guarded closely the connection between campaign spending and free political speech.

Good elections do not result from forcing a limit on the right of candidates to speak,

Good elections start with transparency of the process and end with trust of the voters. Posted by Leroy Towns

When it comes to ethics and confidence in public institutions, appearances of propriety are just as important as whether public officials are in fact acting honestly and ethically.

Thus, the messages that public officials send should inspire confidence in governmental institutions.

It is a lesson that North Carolina has been slow to learn.

The latest example comes in a Daily Tar Heel story revealing that UNC System President Erskine Bowles “leads the board of directors of the company that was chosen to develop University Square through a closed process.”

The University Square property in downtown Chapel Hill was recently purchased by the UNC-Chapel Hill Foundation, a private group that manages assets and property for UNC. To develop the property, that group hired a for-profit group, Cousins Properties, whose board is headed by Bowles. Negotiations and contracts in the deal are private and not subject to public scrutiny or review.

And when asked about the appearance of propriey, the answer was, “trust us.”

“He has recused himself from any involvement in any doings related to the University,” said Joni Worthington, vice president for communications for the UNC system. “He will have no impact and no involvement,” the DTH reported.

Bowles has served North Carolina honorably and without scandal. And while the University Square arrangement appears to be cozy, as pointed out by the DTH, no one is suggesting that anyone involved is doing something wrong.

But “trust us” is not a political message that inspires much-needed confidence in North Carolina’s public institutions, especially given the track record of state government officials over the last several years.

In governmental ethics appearance is everything. Posted by Leroy Towns

The news value of any piece of political journalism must be judged on how it informs the community and whether it gives citizens information on which to make decisions.

The N&O recently published a breathless page one expose revealing that State Highway Patrol Commander Randy Glover had an extramarital affair 22 years ago. The young trooper was given another assignment in the wake of the the affair. The strong implication of the story is that Glover should be disqualified from serving as commander of the scandal-plagued patrol. The N&O also criticized Gov. Beverly Perdue for not disclosing Glover’s affair.

Does the N&O story meet the basic test for political journalism?

Absolutely not, says Governor Perdue, who strongly backs Glover. Further, she is highly critical of the N&O’s journalistic judgment in publishing the story, as reported by the Charlotte Observer:

She noted that the affair happened “nearly 25 years ago” and that Glover was serving as a lieutenant colonel at the time she appointed him.

“That’s pretty close to the top, and so regardless of the articles you continue to write, this is a man who is lieutenant (colonel) of the Highway Patrol, he had an affair nearly 25 years ago, he’s married with two beautiful little daughters, and I really, really am disappointed in this kind of journalism,” Perdue said. “And did I disclose it? I will have to be very honest with you, I never once in any interview for any position ask anyone about their sexual preference, their sexual orientation, or their past marital history.

“I didn’t figure it had a thing to do with the job they could do for the people of North Carolina.”

That response is something rather rare these days in politics: Here is Governor Perdue, a public official with the courage to defend an action and call out a newspaper for a serious lapse in news judgment.

While news judgment often boils down to the whim of an editor, it is difficult to defend the placement and tone of the N&O’s original story and its dogged attempts to keep the story alive by insinuating Perdue did something wrong in not disclosing the officer’s long-ago affair.

Even in this sex-obsessed world, it is difficult to make the case that a simple affair, conducted a quarter century ago, should disqualify anyone from a job.

If extramarital affairs are a new standard of disqualification, businesses, state government and even the N&O newsroom, it is presumed, will empty out in a hurry. Posted by Leroy Towns

There seems to be no end to the addled thinking about the current state of American journalism. The latest comes from a lofty perch at the Columbia Journalism School in a report entitled “The Reconstruction of American Journalism.” As reported by the NY Times, the report (available here) was written by Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of the Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a professor whose background is sociology and who is noted for work in civic life and journalism.

Like too many old media types, the authors cannot even entertain the possibility that accountability journalism can exist without traditional–make that newspapers–news gathering operations. (Read Jan Schaffer’s Columbia Journalism Review First Read take on the report. She makes excellent points.)

Thus, they present six recommendations, all designed to prop up traditional media. While the report presents an interesting analysis of the total current media landscape, it downplays emerging models of journalism that have at least the possibility of providing useful news for citizens. And They pretty much ignore the concept that readers and advertisers have deserted traditional journalism. Let’s take recommendatons one at a time.

Six recommendations

1. The report suggests revamping tax laws to encourage more nonprofit news operations. There are many ways that could work, but one might be to allow newspapers to spin off their money-losing newsrooms into nonprofit operations. Such a plan would certainly make the rest of the media company more valuable.

2. The report suggests raising more money from individuals and foundations for nonprofit journalism. Foundation money is not without limits. More charitable giving to new journalism ventures most certainly would be felt in other areas, such as education. The short answer here is that there is not enough money in America to make enough difference in local, state and national reporting.

3. The authors want universities to supply more students to do reporting for news organizations. Newspapers long have regarded journalism schools as employee training operations. Now, apparently, news media would have students doing most of their reporting for free.

4. Better data base access to make reporting easier. This one makes sense.

5. Because they claim public radio and television do little local reporting, the authors want increased funding with increased mandates and control by government. Additionally, they suggest using existing and new fees on commercial broadcast, internet and telecom companies so that the government could:

6. Subsidize news reporting, most probably for newspapers.

In these last two recommendations, the authors illuminate both their biases and their lack of understanding about the 21st century knowledge-based economy.

Public radio and public television provide little local news coverage? Don’t tell that to Laura Leslie of WUNC, one of the best statehouse reporters in North Carolina. Don’t tell that to UNC TV, which provides extensive coverage of local issues and elections. Or don’t tell it to the many other public radio and television stations covering their states and communities. Indeed, some of the evidence presented in the report about public broadcasting contradicts their own recommendation. Print people never have had a high regard for electronic media. This is simply an extension of old thinking.

Government subsidized news media? This one flunks both civics 101 and journalism 101. The benefits of an independent press are so obvious, the dangers of a government subsidized press are so clear, that they won’t be discussed here. But those benefits and dangers apparently escape the authors. The NY Times quotes Downie as saying:

“We are just suggesting that certain kinds of reporting are a public good and should be funded as such,” Mr. Downie said. “There are plenty of precedents and I don’t think that government support necessarily means government control.”

The press and government

That statement is most ironic, coming from an editor whose stump speech always has been the virtues of separating government and media. In fact, Downie has opposed even the notion of reporters voting in elections, lest such action taint their objectivity. Additionally, he has adamantly held the position that news organizations have no stake in the government they cover, notwithstanding the fact the media’s franchise comes from constitutional freedoms–and thus their stake in democracy is huge.

This is a report that should be viewed for what it is: just a couple of old media types wishing the world could be the way it was in their youth. Posted by Leroy Towns

The late Jesse helms must be smiling. He might get his fence around Chapel Hill, after all.

Helms, the conservative U.S. Senator, once quipped during debate on whether the state should build a state zoo, ”Why build a zoo when we can just put up a fence around Chapel Hill?”

To Helms, of course, Chapel Hill already was a “zoo” and he wanted to keep all the liberal creatures penned up. But now it is the Chapel Hill council that is talking up a fence around the town, this time to keep wild things out.

Council member Mark Kleinschmidt brought up the idea of a fence to keep deer out of town, said the Chapel Hill News:

“If the deer aren’t thinned they’re going to die in another way,” he said. If deer are traveling along certain corridor, the town could even consider a physical barrier like the “Rabbit-Proof Fence,” he said, a reference to the 2,000-mile long fence Australia built in the early 1900s to keep rabbits out of the western part of the country…

Deer represent a real problem for the council, which always is reluctant to disturb any creature with the possible exception of taxpayers. In addition to the fence, the council discussed deer birth control, presumably on a massive scale, and rejected the idea of an archery season.

Good fences, it is said, make good neighbors. What they keep out they also keep in. Ol’ Jesse would approve. Posted by Leroy Towns

Politico reports that the Obama Administration cut a secret deal with industry and business groups for a massive ad campaign supporting health care reform. See their work product above.

Working with your friends to garner support for a policy is message management 101. But the deal to put corporate money behind a pro-health care reform campaign raises two interesting questions.

First, it flies in the face of President Obama’s campaign promise to change things in Washington and make government more transparent. He apparently has made secret deals with the very lobbyists he promised to banish from White House influence.

Second, and more important, it raises questions about the relationship between public officials and lobby groups. The business groups involved certainly were potential opponents to the Obama health care plan. What did they get out of the deal?

Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, said he is troubled:

“What you’ve had was the Senate and the White House sitting down and cutting deals with special interests,” he said. “I don’t think that’s quite what the American people signed up for when the Obama campaign said that they were going to limit the influence of special interests in this White House.”

Players in the deal deny any impropriety. But with governmental ethics, it is not only the propriety of a situation, but the appearance of impropriety.  Leroy Towns

Nonprofit journalism, touted as the future of reporting that holds power accountable, was overcome with corporate greed almost before it got off the ground.

ProPublica, the nonprofit startup funded by a number of left-leaning groups, has a budget of about $9 million and a staff of 32. But Alan Mutter, who blogs as Reflections of a Newsosour, reports that ProPublica’s top two editors earn a combined salary of $866,000, nearly 10 percent of the total budget. Top editor Paul E. Steiger, the former managing editor the Wall Street Journal, was paid $570,000, Mutter says, and provides a link to the group’s tax filing.  That is an astounding sum, considering the number of good journalists who make far less.

Given the number of excellent journalists thrown out of work in the last year, there is no question the half-million-dollar salary is far above the market rate for editors.

Outlandish salaries are not limited to Wall Street, it appears.

So what is being produced for the money? While it is too early to make definitive judgments, there certainly are questions about the group’s reporting. One highly hyped story published in the NY Times Sunday magazine dealt with a hospital and one of its doctors during hurricane Katrina. The story has received exhaustive news coverage in the last few years, but the ProPublica story struck a tone of breathless expose.  One physician/journalist told me he believed the piece was more advocacy than reporting. “It was written with a viewpoint.”

Two recent stories on politics also raise similar questions.

One was an “investigation” of leadership PACs used by members of Congress to raise money for their parties and to assist the re-election efforts of their colleagues. While a case might be made for changes to these leadership PACs, the ProPublica story did not make that case. Instead, its use of selective data and facts painted a picture that was misleading at best and flatly inaccurate at worst.

Disclosure: I have served as a consultant to the leadership PAC operated by Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, my former boss. While it could be argued that affiliation colors my view, it also can be argued the experience gives me unique insight into the workings of leadership PACS.

Along similar lines, a recent ProPublica article criticized Arkansas Congressman Mike Ross for sale of his family pharmacy, implying it was a sweetheart deal that impacted his vote on health care. But in an extensive investigation, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette concluded there was no such link, that the price he received was fair for the industry, and that the sale happened three years ago. (no link to the story can be provided because the Gazette is locked behind a pay wall). Ross responds here.

At the least, these stories raise questions about ProPublica’s gotcha brand of reporting and about the group’s judgment in paying huge salaries to top editors. The nonprofit model may yet contribute to the nation’s flow of news and information. But nonprofit organizations no less than other institutions must have oversight and accountability, which long has been lacking for nonprofit endeavors. Posted by Leroy Towns

If the true test of a society’s freedom is the limit placed on police power, America is failing.

Consider the case of Elliot Madison, a social worker arrested a week ago in Pittsburgh. His “crime,” if there was one? Using Twitter to communicate with protesters at the G-20 summit meeting. Elliot’s house in Queens, NY, was searched for 16 hours after he was charged with “hindering apprehension or prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possession of instruments of crime,” according to the NY Times.

The arrest is astounding, considering the praise that has been heaped on Twitter and other social networks for their role in shedding light on government oppression around the globe. It was Twitter that brought us news of the violence against protesters in Iran. Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio, last year’s Nobel literature prize winner, wondered whether Twitter could have prevented the holocaust:

“Who knows, if the Internet had existed at the time, perhaps Hitler’s criminal plot would not have succeeded — ridicule might have prevented it from ever seeing the light of day.”

Yet, U.S. police are now arresting citizens only for communicating. The Times said Madison:

participated in the Tin Can Comms Collective, a group of people who collected information and used Twitter to send mass text messages describing protest-related events that they observed on the streets.

Among the items seized in the raid on his house were, “electronic equipment, newspapers, books and gas masks. The items also included what was described as a picture of Lenin.” Sounds like pretty dangerous stuff.

At some point we have to ask which is worse, a bunch of punks and wanna-be anarchists protesting a meeting or cops busting people for talking to each other?

Freedom can be taken from people at the point of a gun. But more often freedom is lost in little drips that wear away the fabric of liberty. This one pokes a big hole in the fabric. Hopefully, the courts will find a repair. Posted by Leroy Towns

This week’s First Amendment Day on the UNC campus was a success by any measure, giving wide exposure to the concept of free expression and the reasons it is worth defending. Exposure is needed. JOMC Prof Cathy Packer introduced the day’s liberty tree planting event by noting Americans are more familiar with the Simpsons than with the First Amendment.

The day provided two messages of optimism for free speech on campus along with one warning.

Positive message: Campus free expression requires public support at the highest level of the administration. Chancellor Holden Thorp gave his strong endorsement to free speech by joining the program in the Pit to read passages from Catcher in the Rye, a book that was once banned. Thorp spoke earlier to JOMC students and faculty: “Some days you might wonder why a chancellor would support a free press,” he said wryly. “But I do.”

Positive message: Nikhil Patel and Haley Koch, two adversaries in the resent campus flap over free expression, sat side by side for more than an hour in a civil discussion about free expression on campus. Campus security personnel were nervous, but there were no demonstrations of any kind designed to shut anyone up.

The sober warning was delivered by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), who delivered a lecture entitled, “Unlearning Liberty.” Lukianoff noted there is a continuing struggle to maintain free expression on university campuses and said:

“Students are learning they have a duty to silence speech they deem offensive and that doing so is noble. That is a threat to the health of democracy.”

Sure enough, not an hour earlier, Koch said she believed strongly there is some speech that should not be allowed on campus and that it is the moral duty of students to stop it. “I don’t feel their voices contribute to a civil debate or an intellectual climate,” she said. A fellow panelist, media lawyer Hugh Stevens, noted: “It must be nice to have all the answers at such a young age.”

Lukianoff documented numerous abuses of “speech codes” by university administrators and listed four reasons:

1. Political correctness. Students can’t handle words.
2. Increased bureaucracy at universities intent on “doing something.”
3. Fear of liability
4. Too many students and administrators not educated about the concepts of liberty.

“Free speech is a radical idea,” he said.

Here’s hoping First Amendment Day, sponsored by the center for Media Law and Policy and the campus Y, will become an annual event. The goal should be radical idea as a way of life. Posted by Leroy Towns

Journalists had better beware what they wish for. As Congress begins new efforts to enact a federal shield law, it is clear such legislation will, for the first time at the federal level, define who is a journalist.

One of the strengths of the First Amendment is that is gives rights to the people. Journalists enjoy no rights beyond what are conveyed to the rest of us. We are all entitled to free speech.

But a shield law begins to crack that tradition, singling out “journalists” for special privilege. So the definition of journalist becomes extremely important, especially in this age of journalistic transition where all kinds of journalism is being practiced by just plain citizens.

An amendment to the shield law bill in the U.S. Senate by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, narrows the definition of journalist to someone working for big, old media. In other words, bloggers, free-lancers, citizen journalists and similar 21st century scribes are given no protection. The development is reported by the Huffington Post.

Many of my colleagues in the ivy-covered tower and journalists working for big, old media will disagree, but a government definition of working journalists starts a dangerous journey toward government control of the press. It is a license of sorts. In this case, important conveyors of news and information are not granted the license.

The others, who work for big, established media, should pause. What the government gives, the government restricts and takes away.

Be careful with your wishes. At some point you use them up and have to live with what was granted. Posted by Leroy Towns