The state House of Representatives tacked on a provision last night to a bill requiring public disclosure of three finalists for the ongoing search of the University of North Carolina’s next president.


The amendment, proposed by state Rep. Grier Martin, a Raleigh Democrat, was added on to a bill that would cap the terms members of the  UNC Board of Governors could serve. (Click here to read more about the term limits, and scroll down to watch video of Martin’s comments.)

It passed the House handily, 97 to 11.

Update,: The House, in another amendment, opted to strip the transparency measures out of the bill late Wednesday night. It also allowed the board to “appoint an interim President” for the UNC president.  

The bill now limiting the term limits of board members but without transparency measures went on to pass the House and Senate, and is now headed to McCrory’s desk. 

In addition to the posting of resumes and names of the candidates 10 days before any final decision, the amendment (click here to read) would also now require holding a public meeting about the final candidates.

A second vote on the proposal is scheduled for when the House convenes again at 11 a.m., and then Senate lawmakers would need to give their okay to the bill before it would head to Gov. Pat McCrory’s desk to be signed.

The UNC Board of Governors is in the midst of a search for a new system president after dismissing current president Tom Ross last January, for reasons that have not been fully explained but speculation has pointed to political motivations.

Ross, a Democrat, had led the state’s higher education system since 2011, but the UNC Board of Governors he reported to changed drastically during his tenure, after Republicans took over both chambers of the legislature soon after Ross took the job.

The 32 members of the UNC Board of Governors now consist entirely of appointees from a Republican-controlled legislature.

Up until now, the search for the next UNC president has been cloaked in secrecy, despite faculty requests to open up the process and allow final candidates to meet with members of the faculty.

Read More


Planned ParenthoodAs the General Assembly gives approval today to legislation based in part on phony-baloney allegations against Planned Parenthood, advocates for women’s health and  reproductive freedom will rally at the General Assembly tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. as part of the national “I stand with Planned Parenthood” movement.

This is from local organizers:

“Here’s what’s going on in North Carolina.

Just last week, NC lawmakers attacked sex education although it’s proven to be effective – teen pregnancy rates are steadily dropping.

Our students need more than that and to let our legislators know, we are holding a People’s Assembly, complete with a sex-ed teach in on Tuesday, September 29.

We’re thinking, if they don’t support sex education, we’ll bring it to them!

Let’s show our legislators that our students deserve to learn what’s healthy.

So wear Pink, come to the legislative building and show our lawmakers that we are not backing down!”

Click here to RSVP and get for more information.


Another day and another lead editorial in Raleigh’s News & Observer rightfully blasting lawmakers for heartless and shortsighted  cuts to people in need:

“North Carolina’s Republican legislators leave no stone unturned when it comes to cutting the state budget to make possible tax cuts most benefiting the wealthy and businesses. Then, they roll that stone toward the disadvantaged and people of modest means.

The latest action will cut $110 million from the budgets for the state’s eight regional mental health centers. The GOP solution? They say the centers can just use their savings to fill the gap, rather than use the money saved to look for new treatments and innovations.

So, while those who are able to afford private care can have access to new treatments that might improve or even save their lives, those who depend on state-assisted care will be denied those treatments.”

But, as the editorial concludes, we shouldn’t be surprised:

“The shortsightedness, the lack of any kind of sympathy for constituents in need of mental health care, would be astonishing were it not part of a disturbing pattern designed by Republican lawmakers to pound the defenseless poor at any opportunity.

And without new treatments that might help, those who depend upon the state for mental health treatment will hold the line at best and perhaps suffer more severe problems should their difficulties persist.”

Click here to read the entire editorial.


University system leaders are happy with how they emerged in the state budget, saying they were grateful lawmakers opted to fund enrollment growth and other asks they had.

UNC system president Tom Ross (left) and John Fennebresque, UNC Board of Governor, in file photo.

UNC system president Tom Ross (left) and John Fennebresque, UNC Board of Governor, in file photo.

John Fennebresque, a Charlotte attorney who serves as the chair of University of North Carolina’s Board of Governors, called the $100 million overall increase for the university system “the best budget” since the Recession began in 2008.

Among the things lawmakers opted to fund in the two-year budget signed into law this afternoon by Gov. Pat McCrory were annual enrollment growth costs of $49 million, and earmarked dollars to vshore up East Carolina University’s medical school and Elizabeth City State University.

Chancellors will also be able to carry over financial savings they might find on their campuses to future years, in order to fund other priorities.

Those words of praise about the budget came despite the UNC system being handed $64.4 million in discretionary cuts over the next two years, and following nearly $500 million in cuts the system has weathered since 2010.

UNC system staff and faculty, like all state employees, also received a $750 bonus in the budget instead of any type of permanent salary adjustment.

Tom Ross, the president of the UNC system, said that he viewed the budget overall as a positive for the UNC system in comments he made during Friday’s meeting.

“Our enrollment was fully funded for both years,” Ross said, referring to the additional $49 million each year allotted to cover increasing numbers of students. “We’ve got to have the resources to educate the students when they come.”

Read More


News reports this morning continue to advance the notion that state lawmakers will come together on a state budget prior to the expiration of the current continuing resolution next Friday. As most reports have noted, the issue is made more complex by a House rule that requires 72 hours of public notice prior to the final votes on the budget. This means that lawmakers have to cut their final deal and get it published by the beginning of next week in order to meet the deadline.

While this may, indeed, be possible to pull off, it is worth noting that another House rule could impact the timing of next week’s process as well.

House Rule 44(b) (click here and go to page 21-22) reads as follows:

(b) The conference report may be made by a majority of the House members of such conference committee and shall not be amended. If the Senate has a similar rule, only such matters as are in difference between the two houses shall be considered by the conferees, and the conference report shall deal only with such matters. If the Senate does not have a similar rule, a conference committee report which includes significant matters that were not in difference between the houses, shall be referred to a standing committee for its recommendation before further action by the House.

The matter at issue with this rule is the question of inserting new items into the conference report that were not in the versions of the bill passed by either body. The common sense principle is that conference committees established to work out the differences between the two houses ought not to be adding completely new provisions out of thin air that were never in either version of the bill.

Not surprisingly, the wild and crazy Senate has no rule barring such shenanigans, but the House (see above) does. The clear impact of this rule is to require, at a minimum, an additional House committee meeting (presumably of the Appropriations Committee) to consider the new provisions added by conferees.

This means that if, for instance, the final conference report has a provision on the construction of terminal groins along the coast (something that was not in either version of the budget) the House must have a committee meeting to consider and approve such an addition. And while such a meeting could, presumably, be put together in relatively short order, it does offer the prospect of at least some minimal public airing of the details of what is sure to be a massive, secretly negotiated document.

Let’s hope House Speaker Tim Moore does the right thing and enforces this rule.