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.


The search for the next president of the University of North Carolina system is moving along quickly, with a search committee now looking at individual candidates.

UNCsystemAn announcement came last night that the presidential search committee will meet three times over the next week for “candidate review.” The meetings will be held on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, on SAS’s Campus in Cary.

“They are down to the point where they are considering individual candidates more closely,” said Joni Worthington, a spokeswoman for the UNC system.

The meetings begin at 8 a.m. on Sunday, and at 8:30 a.m. Monday and Tuesday, according to a meeting notice distributed to media.

(Ann Goodnight, wife of SAS co-founder Jim Goodnight, is a former UNC Board of Governor member serving on the presidential search committee).

The current UNC President Tom Ross will stay in his job until January, and the governing board has indicated it hopes to have his successor announced this fall.

The presidential search committee will present its choice to the full Board of Governors, which is meeting next week in Winston-Salem. The following meeting will be at the end of October, in Chapel Hill.

The presidential search meetings next week have to be publicly announced and are considered public meetings, though the bulk of the meeting will be held in closed session, in line with the board’s decision to keep the search for the next UNC system president confidential.

Other states take different tactics when it comes to confidentiality, with the names of final candidates for public higher education posts sometimes released to the public or opportunities for candidates to meet with major stakeholders like faculty and staff.

That was the case this month in Iowa, where the new head of the that system, former IBM executive Bruce Harreld, is now facing resistance from faculty, staff and student groups worried about his lack of higher education experience.

Harreld, when he met with faculty during the interview process in Iowa, also rankled faculty with a comment he learned about the University of Iowa system from Wikipedia.

Here in North Carolina, the UNC Board of Governors fired its current president Tom Ross last January, for reasons that still have not been fully explained other than a general desire for change and new direction.

Ross, a Democrat, has led the UNC system since 2011, a time when the system contended with significant funding cuts from the state legislature and while higher education rapidly underwent changes overall.

The current 32 members of the UNC Board of Governor all received their appointments from a N.C. General Assembly dominated by Republicans.


It’s certainly not the highest-profile issue, but the new $21.74 billion state budget (whenever it does get passed) could usher in a new approach to higher education in the state.

Earlier House and Senate versions of the budget endorsed giving Western Governors University, an online-based higher education system, a bigger footprint in the state, and one propped up with taxpayer money.

At this point, there are more questions than answers about what will end up in the final state budget, with House and Senate lawmakers now two months behind issuing a budget for the next two years.


WGU headquarters in Utah

Western Governors University, or WGU, is a non-profit online college, started in 1995 by a bipartisan group of governors in the western part of the country. It specializes in reaching out to “part-way home” students, those that had taken some college courses but because of life or family choices before obtaining a degree.

(Click here to read a previous article about WGU’s foray into North Carolina.)

It costs students approximately $3,000 for unlimited classes during a 6-month period and uses a competency-based model, where students can get credits for classes if they already know the material and can pass a test showing that.

Here in North Carolina, Gov. Pat McCrory is in favor of bringing WGU to the state, and had a meeting at the Executive Mansion in November with Robert Mendenhall, the CEO of the Utah-based University.

In their proposal, House members suggested letting students attending WGU to tap into a $90 million pool of state money used for need-based aid to students attending private colleges in the state.

The Senate took a different approach, and would give the Utah-based college $2 million in state money to set up shop here, with the possibility of drawing down $5 million more if private funds are also raised.

As expected, WGU has both proponents and critics.

It’s hailed by supporters as a fairly low-cost way for older students who may be busy working to finish their degrees, while critics say it offers an inferior education and undermines existing offerings at universities and community colleges.

The $6,000 annual cost for a year at WGU is much lower than what for-profit online colleges like the University of Phoenix and Strayer University can cost.

But it is on par, or close to what UNC system institutions charged this year in tuition and fees, which range from $4,655 a year at Elizabeth City State University to $8,407 at N.C. State University for the 2015-16 school year.

WGU currently has a six-year graduation rate of 38 percent, a rate they hope to increase, which is much lower than the 63.1 percent that graduate from UNC institutions in six years.

Not everyone’s thrilled at the prospect of WGU coming to the state.

John Fennebresque, the chair of the University of North Carolina’s Board of Governors, says the state’s existing higher education institutions can do more for North Carolina-based students than WGU can.

He attended the November meeting McCrory had with WGU in November.

“We can do all that within the (UNC) system,” Fennebresque said in an interview this week with N.C. Policy Watch. He added, “I saw nothing that they offer that we don’t or can’t do.”

NC Budget and Tax Center

Amid major differences between the House and Senate respective budgets, public schools across the state wait to see what level of state support will be provided for public education. The final decision doesn’t just matter for the education of our children but the attractiveness of our communities and the long-term potential of our economy to grow together.

Funding may not solve every challenge in public education, but it certainly can make a difference in ensuring that a quality education for every child can be provided. As I’ve previously highlighted, smart allocation of public dollars can ensure that regardless of where they live in the state, every child receives a quality education, and in so doing an opportunity for them and in turn the economy to do well in the future.

Here are six trends that highlight the impact of state-level budget decisions on public education in North Carolina.

  1. Total state funding for public schools remains below pre-recession level

State funding for public schools has not yet reached its peak level for FY 2008 prior to the Great Recession. For FY 2015, total state funding for public education was $8.04 billion compared to $8.6 billion for FY 2008 when adjusted for inflation. This decline in state funding equates to $578 million in less funding for public schools.

Total Pub Ed Spending

Note: For this blog post, state funding for teacher pay increases are included in total spending for public education. BTC normally backs this particular funding out of the public education budget, as it has historically been included in the Reserves section of the state budget. Accordingly, figures in this blog post may differ from BTC’s other analyses of the state budget.

Read More


Today’s the day for former state Rep. Stephen LaRoque to report to prison.

LaRoque, 51, a former high-ranking Republican in the state legislature from Kinston, was sentenced to two years in federal prison in July, after pleading guilty to criminal charge in connection with the theft of $300,000 from a federally-funded non-profit. He is expected to serve his term at a federal prison in Butner.



In the days prior to today’s prison report-in date, LaRoque issued a five-page statement to select media (N.C. Policy Watch not among them) stating that he had been targeted as part of a “witchhunt” in retaliation for his political views and his calling Rev. William Barber of the state NAACP a racist.

He accused the chief prosecutor and IRS agent who conducted the criminal probe of misconduct. He also accused N.C. Policy Watch of unfairly attacking him when a 2011 investigation into his management of the non-profits was published.

(We deny that accusation, and stand by the reporting that has been done.)

From the full text of LaRoque’s statement, published by the Kinston Free Press:

During my last term in the N.C. House in 2011, I received a ranting racist email from William Barber, President of the N.C. NAACP. I replied to the email asking that they discontinue sending me any email from a racist like William Barber. This is the same William Barber, who in 2014 in another racist rant, referred to South Carolina U.S. Senator Tim Scott as a “Ventriloquist’s Dummy.” Shortly after my comments about William Barber, I was smeared by N.C. Policy Watch, an offshoot of the partisan left-wing organization known as the N.C. Justice Center whose Board of Directors included William Barber. This organization colluded to smear me, along with attorneys John Marshall and John Archie of the Kinston law firm of White & Allen, who were representing my political opponent from the previous year’s election.

I believe my actions in advocating for my home town’s non-partisan elections and calling out William Barber as the racist he is was why I was targeted by the DOJ.

Federal prosecutors presented evidence that LaRoque used the federal-sourced funds from two economic development funds he ran to help buy himself cars, a Greenville ice skating rink and jewelry and replica Faberge eggs for his wife.

The federal investigation was opened after a 2011 investigative report was published by N.C. Policy Watch that pointed out LaRoque’s excessive salaries for managing the small non-profits, which were governed for years by a board made of his immediate relatives, and his loaning of money to close associates and political allies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which provided the funds for the non-profit business lending groups, provided scant oversight of LaRoque’s dealings for several years.

Both federal and IRS rules governing non-profits have strict rules about how the money could be used, and directors of non-profits are specifically prohibited from using their non-profits for personal benefits.