When Gov. Mike Easley speaks of One North Carolina, some might be forgiven for concluding that the full phase should read “Number One’s North Carolina,” given the lengths to which his administration seems willing to go to prevail on policy issues and punish critics of the governor.
Those who have opposed the administration on several fronts have found their appropriations reduced or threatened. Others who probably spoke the truth and embarrassed the governor have lost their jobs.
The administration has denied that there is a pattern here. And on a case-by-case basis, a forgiving observer might give Easley the benefit of an overwhelming doubt. The sum of the parts, however, when fully assembled, does not portray the administration in a benign way. If this is merely an appearance problem, it is a serious one.
Consider State Auditor Ralph Campbell, a fellow Democrat. Audits performed by Campbell and his staff have uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps more than $1 billion, lost to the state because of mismanagement or malfeasance. His office has specifically questioned the management of the state’s Medicaid and Smart Start programs.
What was Campbell’s reward? Easley’s budget plan cuts Campbell’s budget by 2.2 percent in the next fiscal year — the largest such reduction among major offices.
Easley, whose administration has felt the sting of some of Campbell’s audits, denied that the cut was retaliatory. “We’re not playing games with the auditor,” he said. “It is a very important office and the auditor does a good job.”
Right.
A couple of years ago, the administration seems to have played the same kind of game with cities and counties that sued the state. The localities were attempting to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars in tax sharing and reimbursement revenue that Easley seized instead of distributing it to localities as required by law. Obviously miffed by the lawsuit, John Merritt, Easley’s senior assistant for policy and communications, called officials in New Hanover and Alamance counties to lodge a complaint that reasonably was construed as a threat.
The Wilmington Star-News reported that Merritt said that if New Hanover County won its lawsuit, the governor would have to reconsider state projects in the Wilmington region. Likewise, the Burlington Times-News reported that Alamance County Manager David Cheek received a call from Merritt, who told Cheek that state money earmarked for Alamance County might be spent elsewhere. Merritt reasoned that if an “economic engine of the state” like Charlotte doesn’t sue, how do you think [Charlotte] is going to feel?”
Merritt denied any bad blood. He said he called the local officials “to tell them when they sued, that it could not be viewed by the state government as a friendly act. I asked them to please think carefully before they did that. I didn’t tell them not to do it, and I didn’t threaten them.”
Right.
A former member of the State Board of Transportation, Frank Johnson, sent emails asking Statesville Rotarians to contribute to Easley’s re-election and indicating that Easley expected him to raise money. The message received loudly by many of the Rotarians was that if they didn’t contribute to Easley’s campaign, the governor might not put the Statesville area on his to-do list of highway projects.
Easley demanded Johnson’s resignation, and he got it.
Easley, of course, denied that he based the awarding of roadwork on whether contributors gave to his re-election campaign. According to The Charlotte Observer, five transportation board members also said there was no connection between contributions to Easley’s re-election campaign and state road projects.
Right.
These kinds of pressure tactics might be seen by some as an inevitable part of hard-ball politics in the real world. So be it, if North Carolinians want their government to be run that way. It’s doubtful that they do.
The collective weight of these conflicts expose an administration that is either systematically attempting to bully its critics or that, at the very least, seems little concerned about how its actions are interpreted by the broader political community and the voters in the state. When given opportunities to address serious problems or allegations, those in the administration have demonstrated an attitude of intransigence and arrogance.
We should be, truly, “One North Carolina.” Honest differences of opinion and credible revelations of questionable or embarrassing conduct might be difficult for those in political office to hear, but they are predictable elements of the democratic process. Pressure tactics and budgetary retaliation are the wrong response.