Here is what I took to the commissioner meeting, though I paraphrased some of it at the meeting:

Good evening, commissioners.  My name is Mark Peters.
 
Tonight I would like to comment on open and respectful government. 
 
Hopefully, we all agree that elected representatives should go out of their way to seek public input.  As an elected body, the county commissioners have an obligation to include the public in the decision making process.
 
I had read the agenda for October 25th as well as the attached materials beforehand and was quite surprised with the stealth attempt to set capital funding targets.  Attempting to pass a resolution of this importance on the same night as it is proposed without it being on the agenda and without disclosing the text of the resolution in advance is shady and wrong.  This resolution has SERIOUS implications on capital projects in Orange County.  Many questions need to be asked and answered.
 
Q: With all of the commissioner focus on collaboration, why were the two boards of education not consulted for their input?

Q: Why was there an attempt to pass this prior to having staff input?

Q: What is the disposition of ES #10 school construction in light of this proposal?  Is it going to be taken out of the budget plan completely or will it be explicitly deferred to a later date in the budget?

Q: Is the 60% schools, 40% non-school capital spending figure arbitrary or calculated?  What was the basis for the calculation?  When is Orange County going to create a comprehensive long range plan so we can see if this percentage fits in that plan?
 
Q: Is the spending target a multiyear and/or a target in any given year?  Obviously, capital spending varies greatly from year to year.

Q: Does this proposal take precedence over or in any way affect SAPFO?

Q: Where is the text of the proposal?  It still does not appear to be on the Orange County website.

Q: How can the public reasonably study the staff responses which are due on the 16th before a vote takes place on the 16th?

Please adjust your timetable so that these questions can be answered.
 
One final note: During the discussion, an accusation was made by Barry Jacobs that Alice Gordon would give preferential treatment to one school system despite her solid public record of support for both school systems. It is unacceptable and against the charge stated on every BOCC agenda (see below) for a public official to berate another public official, particularly the chairperson.  An apology is in order.

===========

This was sent to the commissioners and staff:

Commissioners,

Here is the starting list of questions that I asked last night regarding the Capital Spending Target Proposal.  I would like to restate my request that adequate time be allowed for public questions and input following the staff reports.

 
Q: What is the disposition of ES #10 school construction in light of this proposal?  Is it going to be taken out of the budget plan completely or will it be explicitly deferred to a later date in the budget?
Q: Why was there an attempt to pass this prior to having staff input?
Q: Is the spending target a multi-year target and/or a target in any given year?  Obviously, capital spending varies greatly from year to year.
Q: Does this proposal take precedence over or in any way affect SAPFO?
Q: Where is the text of the proposal?  As of 4 days after the meeting, it did not appear to be on the Orange County web site.
Q: How can the public reasonably study the staff responses which are due on the 16th before a vote takes place on the 16th?
Q: Is the 60% schools, 40% non-school capital spending figure arbitrary or calculated?  What was the basis for the calculation?
Q: Will this affect any current Pay-as-you-go debt?
Q: Why were the two boards of education not consulted for their input?

 
I respectfully request that matters of this nature be posted on the agenda and disclosed on the web site with sufficient time for the public to digest the information, ask questions, and give input prior to the conclusion of commissioner consideration.

Sorry I could not stay longer last night.  I had a conference call for work to attend.

Sincerely,
Mark Peters

===========

Here is what is being circulated via email:

PLEASE FORWARD TO OTHER PARENTS, particularly your school PTA and SGC officers.

Parents with schoolchildren beware, there was a stealth attempt to change capital spending habits in Orange County which could WORSEN OVERCROWDING in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Orange County schools or have other detrimental effects on school construction and renovation.

HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO:
  1.  Email your name to support@orangecitizens.org so that we can add it to the list of people who share the concerns below
  2.  Attend and/or speak at the November 16th BOCC Meeting at the Southern Human Services Center (I spoke on 11/3)
  3.  Write, call, and email the commissioners about these issues.

ISSUE #1 - County Commissioner business should be conducted in a public manner: Attempting to pass a resolution of this importance on the same night as it is proposed without it being on the agenda and without disclosing the entire text of the resolution in advance is shady and wrong.  This resolution has SERIOUS implications on capital projects in Orange County.  Many questions need to be asked and answered. Elected officials should go out of their way to get public input.

ISSUE #2 - The proposal itself:   There are currently no capital spending targets. In the past 15 years, an average of 77 % capital funding has gone to schools and 23% to county government.  This proposed target would cap school capital funding to 60%.  Elementary School #10 has already been approved by voters. 

Q: What is the disposition of ES #10 school construction in light of this proposal?  Is it going to be taken out of the budget plan completely or will it be explicitly deferred to a later date in the budget?
Q: Why was there an attempt to pass this prior to having staff input?
Q: Is the spending target a multi-year target and/or a target in any given year?  Obviously, capital spending varies greatly from year to year.
Q: Does this proposal take precedence over or in any way affect SAPFO?
Q: Where is the text of the proposal?  As of 4 days after the meeting, it did not appear to be on the Orange County website.
Q: How can the public reasonably study the staff responses which are due on the 16th before a vote takes place on the 16th?
Q: Is the 60% schools, 40% non-school capital spending figure arbitrary or calculated?  What was the basis for the calculation?
Q: Will this affect any current Pay-as-you-go debt?
Q: Why were the two boards of education not consulted for their input?

ISSUE #3:  During the discussion, an accusation was made by Barry Jacobs that Alice Gordon would give preferential treatment to one school system despite her solid public record of support for both school systems. It is unacceptable and against the charge stated on every BOCC agenda (see below) for a public official to berate another public official.  An apology is in order.

Related Articles:
   http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-537250.html
   http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-537640.html

-----

Here is what happened at the meeting:

County Manager John Link suggested looking at a delay for elementary #10.  He stated it would be a possibility that if #10 moves out some years, then
that funding could be used for shortfalls in capital projects.

Without notice, Barry passed out a resolution that in the future, a target of 60 percent of the CIP would be dedicated to school projects and 40 percent to county government projects. That is a change from the past 15 years average of 77 % to schools and 23% to county government.  There is currently no policy guiding capital spending targets.  (This is alarming because Chapel Hill-Carrboro City schools are still in need of several presently non-funded capital projects in the near future (for example, another middle and elementary school, renovations of Lincoln Center and a new administrative office building) and this artificially limits the spending that will be available for those projects.)

Alice objected, Barry restated the motion and there was a second. Alice stated that there is no community input and no knowledge by the BOE in either district and that the board has a statutory responsibility to build schools and judicial facilities. Steve and finally Moses agrees that it needs public input, Barry backed off and placed it on November 16 meeting. Steve, Moses and Margaret all gave verbal support for the measure.

Alice stated that she is concerned about using elementary #10 funding for shortfalls because the building could be lost. Barry stated that Alice "wouldn't be so concerned if it were the Orange County Schools", Alice reacted with indignation and spoke of her record of supporting both districts and requested an apology from Barry who dismissed her and recognized Margaret.  Barry did not apologize.

------

PUBLIC CHARGE ON BOCC AGENDAS:  The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens.  At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.

-------

There are some WCHL commentaries coming up on this.  Please write letters to the editors.

Thanks,
Mark Peters