Chatham Coalition grades County Commissioners Barnes and Cross

By Jan Nichols, Chatham Coalition Chairperson
Posted Wednesday, February 13, 2008

 E-mail this page    Printer-friendly page

Pittsboro, NC - The Chatham Coalition’s first Accountability Report Card gave poor grades to County Commissioners Patrick Barnes and Mike Cross, based on their track records in office in four key areas: open government, land-use planning and the environment, economic development and education. When averaging their grades in all four areas, Barnes received a C overall and Cross a C-minus.

After completing the Report Card, the Coalition, a grassroots political action organization that supported Barnes and Cross for election in 2004, said it would not endorse either of them for re-election in 2008.

Barnes and Cross nearly failed in the open government category, the area that has been most important to the voters who elected them. Barnes rated a D-plus average and Cross scored a D.

Barnes fared much better in land-use planning and the environment, his strongest area, with a B average, while Cross received a C average in that category.

They both received low grades for their positions on county schools, each averaging a C-minus, and they both rated C averages in economic development.

“Our support for political candidates involves a three-part process,” explained Coalition Chair Jan Nichols. “First, we develop an issues platform based on input from a broad range of citizens and organizations. Then we endorse and actively campaign for candidates whose positions most closely reflect our platform. Finally, we hold those candidates accountable for their positions by reviewing their actions in office. This is a promise we made to the voters who supported our platform, which Barnes and Cross supported in 2004.”

One or more Chatham Coalition volunteers have been present at every meeting, work session and public hearing conducted by the County Commissioners since Barnes and Cross were elected in 2004, Nichols reported.

In calculating the average grades for Barnes and Cross in the four issue areas, the Coalition reviewed about 70 votes, decisions and deliberations since December 2004. What follows is a summary of their grades and highlights of key actions.

“To evaluate their performance, we reviewed our notes from all of the commissioner meetings as well as the official minutes of every session and vote since Barnes and Cross took office,” Nichols said.

“While both Patrick and Mike have made important policy contributions and given many hours of public service, they have fallen short in keeping their commitments in areas that are crucial to the voters who supported them,” Nichols said. “For this reason, the Chatham Coalition will not be able to support their re-election. We will announce our 2008 endorsements based on the candidates commitments to our platform for the campaign.”

Secrecy earned failing grades in key open government issues

In the wake of concerns about how former Chair Bunkey Morgan ran the Board of County Commissioners, both Barnes and Cross pledged to be open and responsive to citizens in all of their deliberations. The two also made a commitment to live up to their campaign promises and to explain their votes in the open. But once in office, they often made decisions without seeking public input, sided with the Morgan majority on key issues without explaining their votes, went along with decisions that may have violated the Open Meetings Law, and engaged in an unseemly power struggle with three commissioners who were elected on a similar platform with Coalition support in 2006: George Lucier, Carl Thompson and Tom Vanderbeck.

Barnes and Cross surprised their supporters and campaign volunteers when they decided to back Republican Karl Ernst in the fall 2006 general election contest against Democrat Vanderbeck. Ernst’s positions on the role of government in land-use planning, economic development, and district voting ran counter to the platforms on which Barnes and Cross were elected.

Barnes and Cross told supporters they feared that if Vanderbeck was elected, Cross would not become chair of the board. The Coalition gave Barnes and Cross F’s for putting their personal political interests ahead of the public policy concerns of the voters who elected them.

Barnes and Cross also got failing grades for voting along with the Morgan majority in September 2006 to support a costly plan to purchase water from Harnett County. Barnes was the lead advocate for the proposal. Lucier, Thompson and Vanderbeck had raised fiscal questions about it and asked the board not to make a decision until they took office in December. The decision was made without a public hearing and with most discussions occurring during afternoon work sessions attended by few members of the public. It was also made without developing a long-term strategic water and sewer plan in conjunction with land-use planning and economic development, which was a specific platform promise Barnes and Cross had made in their 2004 campaign.

Barnes rated a D and Cross got an F for their actions associated with giving the county manager an airtight four-year contract, making it extremely costly for the commissioners to dismiss him if his performance was not satisfactory. Cross received an F for his role in the closed-door contract negotiations and for failing to understand the terms of the contract that he personally promoted and negotiated with the manager. Moreover, when the actual terms of the contract were released and they contradicted his original assertions to citizens who had asked about them, Cross tried to blame the three new commissioners who did not have a vote or say on this contract.

Barnes and Cross both received F’s for rushing to place the Land Transfer Tax proposal on the fall 2007 ballot despite calls from supporters asking them to wait until at least the spring primary when there would be more time to launch an effective information campaign. The two also ignored the results of the publicly financed poll that indicated it would be a tough sell for the fall ballot.

Barnes received an F and Cross a D for agreeing with the new county attorney‘s initial refusal to release minutes of the commissioners’ closed-door discussions about a proposed development moratorium. Cross also received an F for engaging in improper closed-door negotiations with a Newland Communities representative over the specific conditions of Briar Chapel.

Barnes received an A and Cross earned a B for speaking out against the payment of $10,000 to attorney Jennifer Andrews for legal work associated with the county-owned business park in Siler City. Andrews had agreed to do the work as a volunteer, but later Chair Bunkey Morgan decided she should be paid, without much public discussion. Both Barnes and Cross voted against the payment. Barnes also got an A for demanding that the Economic Development Corporation follow legal requirements for open meetings and public records as a condition of receiving county funding.

Barnes and Cross received an A and B respectively for their roles in openly discussing and promoting the hiring of a new public works director. Barnes also received a B-plus for questioning the hasty re-drawing of new County Commissioner districts by the Morgan majority in 2006 and voting against the proposed plan and district voting referendum. Cross, however, received an F when he voted with the Morgan majority to set up a biased process for drawing the district maps, although he did ultimately go along with his supporters in opposing the final plan and district voting referendum.

Barnes was strongest, Cross mediocre, in land use planning and environment

Barnes’ strongest area has been land-use planning and the environment, for which he received a B average. Cross’ performance was mediocre and rated a C average.

The biggest disappointment to voters who elected Cross was when he voted to approve the re-zoning and conditional use request for Briar’s Chapel, the 2,500-unit mixed-use development off U.S. 15-501 in north Chatham. Both Barnes and Cross had told voters they opposed the development. Cross went along with the Morgan majority, failing to provide any reason for doing so, earning an F. Barnes, the only commissioner who voted against Briar’s Chapel, received an A for his effort.

Barnes and Cross both rated A’s for their votes and actions against other proposed developments in north Chatham that they said did not live up to the county’s land development plan, including Booth Mountain (now known as Westfall), Crossland, Fearrington Place, and the proposed Home Depot at the Lee Moore Oil Co. site at the county line. Barnes also got several A’s for casting lonely protest votes against subdivision and rezoning proposals during the Morgan era and consistently providing specific environmental reasons for those votes.

Cross, on the other hand, received a number of C’s and D’s for frequently not opposing environmentally questionable zoning and development proposals during the Morgan regime. He also failed to consistently support Barnes and the new majority elected in 2006 when they attempted to oppose or mitigate environmentally questionable development proposals. For example, when Commissioner Vanderbeck sought to strengthen the moratorium authorization ordinance by including sketch design (the initial approval of a development), Cross opposed him, earning another D.

Cross also failed (F) to join Barnes (A) in opposing the elimination of requirements that require developers to pay all water availability fees up-front. Cross also failed (F) to join Barnes (A) in voting against four questionable residential developments that added 301 lots on 728 acres that were rushed through the review process get approval before the new board majority came into office

Barnes and Cross received A’s and B’s for supporting the initiative of the three new commissioners involving Green Building, Highway Corridor Ordinance, residential moratorium and restructuring the planning board.

Barnes and Cross both received D’s for pushing for massive increases in water and sewer capacity to be distributed countywide without any public discussion concerning its potential for encouraging residential sprawl, risking watershed impairment, and shredding the county land-use plan. Cross received an F for his listing among the potential capital expenditures that justified the real estate Land Transfer Tax $4.5 million each for anticipated budget shortfalls for the Southwest and Southeast water districts.

Bad grades for schools support

Barnes and Cross both received low grades in education primarily for their failure to live up to campaign promises about openness and citizen input in school facility decision-making and in not challenging the Morgan funding plan that left the northeast high school high and dry.

Barnes and Cross both received D’s for going along with the Morgan proposal to avoid public input into the scheduling, design and financing of new public schools and upgrading of existing schools. They failed to challenge Morgan and back citizen requests to put all of immediate school facility funding requests on a bond referendum. Instead, Barnes and Cross also went along with the more expensive bond financing method that does not require public support. The result was that the new Northeast High School was left to stand alone in a bond referendum.

Also, Cross received a D for suggesting that metal buildings, instead of conventional school construction, would save the county money. Cross justified that shortsighted suggestion by saying we cannot afford to buy everything we need, despite his campaign promise of quality educational facilities. Barnes also got a D for suggesting that we could delay the building of the northeast schools by student redistricting.

Additionally, Barnes got a C-minus for questioning the need for LEED certification (signifying high energy efficiency) for our new schools, opposing the recommendation of the Green Building Task Force.

Finally, Barnes and Cross received a D for suggesting that Northwood High School’s population could be increased by 100 students to 1,200 students total. This ignores the traffic problems already existing at that school and the recommendation of the “Goodschoolz” advocacy group in Northeast Chatham for smaller sized high schools.

Both Barnes and Cross received B’s for supporting funds to buy and “bank” land for future school use.

C students in economic development

Barnes and Cross each received a C average for mediocre performances on key economic development issues. They received D’s for their strong backing of the costly business park in Siler City. The tenants attracted so far will produce few new jobs and no additional property tax revenue.

Barnes and Cross received D’s for initially opposing the new majority’s plan in 2007 to seek assistance from UNC business school in developing a citizen-driven countywide strategic economic development strategy.

Another action rating both of them D’s was their support for a plan to finance extension of a sewer line to a proposed American Moulding plant in Goldston, even after they learned the company was in bankruptcy and county taxes would have to pay back the state grant if the company went belly-up. The assets the company claimed included a former factory now listed as a toxic waste site.Both Barnes and Cross received A’s for supporting the development of a green building task force and opposing county-financed tax incentives for the proposed ISP mining site near Siler City that was opposed by neighboring residents and a vineyard/winery business.