#ncga: “It depends on what your definition of ‘PRESENT’ is.”
The county that gave us Fletcher Hartsell and Robin Hayes is attempting
to make one more, um, *significant* contribution to our state’s political heritage. Some folks in Cabarrus County are — with some help from the ‘honorables’ on Jones Street –– trying to surreptitiously redefine the word ‘present.’
We’ve all heard the expression ‘present in body, but not in mind.’
As a noun, ‘present’ can be taken as a synonym for ‘gift.’ (i.e., “I gave him that envelope full of 100s as a present.”)
As a verb, ‘present’ can be a synonym for the word ‘give.’ (i.e., “I will present him an envelope stuffed with cash.”)
As an adjective, the word ‘present’ can be taken to mean that someone or something is located in the immediate vicinity. (i.e., “The legislator was present at the meeting where the envelopes stuffed with cash exchanged hands.”)
A local House bill sponsored by two Republicans and one Democrat from Cabarrus – and inexplicably, a Democrat House member from Cumberland County – wants members of local governing bodies to be counted as ‘present’ at meetings even if they are not anywhere in sight or within ten miles of the meeting. Here are some of the details:
So —if this passes — if you are absent from the meeting, you can be counted as PRESENT for the sake of establishing a quorum for conducting business. EVEN IF your absence has not been excused.
*Don’t feel like attending your committee or board or council meeting? Don’t go. The record will show you are PRESENT and a quorum can still be established. What could go wrong here?*
Even better — if your colleagues want you there at the meeting, they can send the sheriff to go arrest you and drag your sorry butt to the meeting site.
The bill also allows for ‘remote voting.’ If you decide you don’t want to go to the meeting, you can STILL cast votes on items discussed during the meeting from the comfort of your secret hideaway.
I talked to a few Cabarrus moles to get an idea of exactly what spawned all this. Apparently, there is a county commissioner there who is very ill. Many questioned whether he should have run for reelection last time. The commissioner in question does not make it to meetings, from what I understand. So, some politicos – who appreciate how this ill commissioner votes – want to ensure he can still participate.
The right thing to do would be to encourage this guy to resign and appoint a replacement for him who is healthy enough to show up for meetings and do the job. But that can prove to be a hell of a wild card when you’ve already got a known quantity with a known voting record.
A more cynical observer might see this as a naked attempt by some local politicos to take advantage of a seriously ill politician to further their own nefarious ends.
Showing up at meetings is a major part of the job description for a county commissioner or any other elected official. Somebody down there in Cabarrus needs to step up and be the grownup here. Settle this the right way — respecting the official and his constituents.
This bill could be misused and abused in other Cabarrus County cases — or even in other counties, if others decide to copy this local legislation.
THIS is a bad idea.
You are right a local politician maybe like the Commissioner Chair trying to circumvent for nefarious ends. This was not approved or voted on by the commissioners, in fact until Tammy Pittman found it the residents of Cabarrus County were unaware.
Your explanation of this situation is accurate. Three DID’s (Democrats in Disguise) currently hold the 3-2 majority on the Cabarrus County Commission. They want to continue to control everything in accordance with their leftist perspective and agenda. One of them is too ill to show up at meetings, so they want to let him vote remotely. The Commissioners discussed this bill at a “retreat” but have not voted on requesting it officially. My impression is that this was intended to hide the fact that the two true conservative Republicans do not agree to it. As soon as Tammy informed me of this bill, I contacted Rep. Kristin Baker, lead sponsor of the bill, and let her know of our opposition to it. Then, I contacted several members of the Local Government Committee in the NC House to inform them that it cannot be claimed that there is no opposition to this bill, as I am sure that claim would have been made if Tammy and I had not alerted other Cabarrus Republicans to the situation. We are doing what we can to organize a clear expression from Cabarrus citizens of their opposition to the bill, as well, and a number of them have emailed the local NC House members and others in Raleigh about it. Some of us plan to be present to speak against this bill when it is heard in committee. As I told Rep. Baker, she has a charming tendency to think the best of people, and I doubt she realized the intent behind any request from the more leftist members of the County Commission for her to submit this bill. Having served in the NC House for over eleven years, and having been politically active in Cabarrus County since 1991, I know better than to take things or people at face value. When Tim Moore and Phil Berger allowed remote participation and proxy voting in the Legislature during the plandemic (no, I didn’t spell that wrong) I was rather vocal in my opposition to that practice. I am not going to be silent in my opposition to such a thing locally now, especially when the plandemic is officially over. Any elected official who cannot personally be physically present at a meeting should not be allowed to vote in that meeting, PERIOD! Every elected official should be required to be physically present in the face of the public when voting on matters that come before the body to which he or she belongs. If a person is too ill to do that, he or she should indeed resign and be replaced by someone who is actually ready and able to do the job. As I have said at the recent executive committee meeting of the Cabarrus GOP, if the Democrat Representative from Cabarrus County did not expect that this bill would help to further the sort of leftist agenda she supports, she would most likely not have been a primary cosponsor of this bill. I also told Rep. Baker the same thing. Now, if the bill only allowed for a member who could not attend a meeting to sign in online to observe and be aware of the business transacted in the meeting, but not vote, we would not be opposed to that. However, to vote when not present should never be allowed. If this means that an item of business cannot receive a majority vote at that time, and may have to be postponed to the next meeting, so be it.
Exactly Larry Pittman and now the County Commissioner Chair is trying to a work around with Rules Procedures on Monday at the meeting.