ASU faculty are regularly and sternly warned not to campaign for political parties or political candidates using university resources.
Yet AppState administrators went to town advocating for the passage of the Connect NC bond issue, something that NC election law explicitly prohibits: Chapter 126-13 of the North Carolina General Statutes prohibits any state employee from using “the authority of his position, or utilize State funds, supplies or vehicles to secure support for or oppose any candidate, party, or issue in an election involving candidates for office or party nominations, or affect the results thereof” (emphasis added).
In fact, ASU is on record as spending $70,000 urging passage of the bond referendum.
Did ASU break election law? You bet it did. What other notorious state employee also broke the law? Governor Pat McCrory, who traveled across the state to dozens of events where he explicitly promoted the bond issue.
Friday, March 18, 2016
AppState Administration v. Electioneering Laws
Labels:
Appalachian State University,
Pat McCrory
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
What on earth did App State spend $70K on with regard to NC Connect?! A couple of emails from the chancellor... and what else? Very curious to know how this money was spent!
The bond needs to be overturned.
Yard signs, for one thing. I saw them all over the place in the Triad and Triangle before the election.
The money was pooled from a few different universities in the university system - all of them stood to benefit directly if the measure passed.
I voted against the bond.
From everything I read, it appeared to be borrowing money to pay for a host of projects that should have been paid through the normal state budgetary process - bonds are typically used for large special projects and infrastructure, not ongoing expenses.
It was basically a way for Pat and the legislature to cover up their mismanagement of NC's state budget.
I'm wondering if there's some kind of Federal corruption laws that cover these types of situations.
Agree entirely with anon 9:27. But it's also a way for the thieves in Raleigh to crow about how they've lowered taxes (for the wealthy) while they saddle NC with debt that will take a generation to address. Remember how the Iraq war was funded "off the books." Seems a common GOP budgeting technique.
Firstly, I voted no on this issue. Your own post states "not to campaign for political parties or political candidates". The bond referendum was neither of these. This is not an issue of one party over the other - or of one candidate over another. This is no different than having the University Advancement Office. The University needed money for a new building - they campaigned for it. You need to acknowledge the difference here. This is no different than churches and their political activity. Campaigning for marriage to stay man/woman or not does not indicate political activity. Promoting one party over the other - or one candidate over the other based on that value crosses the line and the church should lose their tax exempt status. Once again, I voted for equality. Our country, state and region suffers greatly from divisiveness. A lot of that has to do with accusations made just because you did not get your way - as in this case. The law should be the law - and should apply equally. The University did nothing wrong here. You were wrong in your accusation. Straight form the statute: Otherwise use the authority of his position, or utilize State funds, supplies or vehicles to secure support for or oppose any candidate, party, or issue in an election involving candidates for office or party nominations, or affect the results thereof. The allocation of monies is not a political issue - it is a function of government. No different than ASU having a legislative liaison that pushes assembly members to allocate more money for the university.
Patrick, you quote the statute language and then ignore it: "...any candidate, party, or issue in an election involving candidates for office or party nominations..." The word "issue" has generally meant a referendum or constitutional amendment. "In an election involving candidates for office." Well, that's what the primary election was ... an election involving candidates. Combine that with putting the "issue" of a bond before the voters, you've got a no-no for using state funds to electioneer.
JW - the verbiage "issue in an election involving candidates for office or party nominations" links a problematic issue to partisanship. The intent is to not spend money on partisanship. Your suggestion would indicate that if they had an independent special election for this one issue on any other day that ASU would have not done anything wrong. The date of the vote becomes irrelevant in this case. I am glad NC did not elect to waste taxpayer dollars holding a special vote in order to try and separate this issue. It is important to look at the intent as well as the specific language.
Post a Comment