What you think you see is not what you get in today's government | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    Typically, only about half the people in the United States who are eligible to register to vote actually do so. Of those who register, we consider it a "good turnout" if half of the registered voters actually cast a ballot. This is unlike many other developed countries, some of whom get nearly most of their eligible voters registered and turnouts of 90% are not uncommon. So what gives ith the American Voter?

    The answer to that question is complex. Some blame it on not having good candidates running. Others blame it on apathy on the part of voters. Still others blame it on "the system" and if you drill down into what they mean it usually has to do with the two-party system. There is, in fact, a high correlation between voter participation and the use of a parliamentary electoral system as opposed to direct election of individual candidates which we use in the American republican system. (In a parliamentary system the voter selects the party candidate at the local level and those elected then elect the prime minister and other top officials.)

    But what we are suggesting is that one reason voters don't vote is because they have little or no confidence in their government in all too many instances. How often have you heard someone say: "why vote, it won't make any difference." And often they are acutally correct, even if wrong. The Beaufort County Board of Commissioners is a perfect example. Our board is schizophrenic.

    The schizoid nature of politics can be seen right here in Beaufort County. On our County Commission we have 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Yet more of the important votes--and nearly all votes that turn on ideology--are 5 to 2. How can that be? One can understand on rare occasion that a member of one party would see an issue the same as members of the other party, but that is actually not the case in Beaufort County. Over 90% of the votes are either 5-2 or 7-0. Only very rarely will Ed Booth (D) vote with Stan Deatherage (R) and Hood Richardson (R). In recent years we can't recall either Bob Cayton (D) or Jerry Langley (D) ever having voted with Deatherage or Richardson on anything of significance when the other Democrats voted the other way.

    But the greatest anomaly is the voting record of Al Klemm and Jay McRoy. Both are Republicans. But they not only more often than not vote with the Democrats. In fact, a recent review of the minutes of meetings over the last two years found only one issue that causes McRoy and Klemm to vote with the other two Republicans--immigration issues. For the last eight budgets they have both voted with the Democrats and against the other two Republicans.

So if you are a "smaller government, less spending" advocate, for whom do you vote in Beaufort County? You certainly cannot decide based on the party label.

    So which party a member represents does not predict how that member will vote if they are a Republican, but conversely it does almost always predict how they will vote if they are a Democrat on the Beaufort County Board of Commissioners.

    The above statement is not an opinion statement. It is a fact based on recorded minutes. Ponder it for a bit. It is probably the most profound fact influencing county government. What does it mean? What does it say? Does it say more about Republicans than it does about Democrats? Does it mean that one party is splintered and the other not? Does it say more about splintered ideology than splintered partisan politics? Or does it simply say more about two anomalies--Klemm and McRoy?

    The first temptation is to choose the easy answer. That is, to divine your answer based on personalities. In a recent unscientific poll, the Observer found that a majority of those asked to explain the dichotomy within the Commission, and then the same question of the dichotomy within the Republicans on the Commission, responded by talking about the difference/similarities among the personalities. The more considered responders usually contrasted the voting blocks against their own proclivities on particular issues. It was rare to find one who assessed the composite configurations of the board. In plain language, most did not even attempt to explain why the 5-2 votes are so consistently predictable, nor why Klemm and McRoy are such anomalies.

    One way to look at the predictability of the voting patterns on the Commission is to consider what might be expected. Regardless of the individuals on a seven member board, you would expect those from one party would more often vote together. You might also expect other classifications, such as race or geography, to sometimes drive the voting. On some boards such classifications often trump party.

    If you assume that each members casts their vote on the basis of considerations of the merits applied to each issue you would expect more diversity in the voting pattern. For example, one would expect those who view their constituency as being more prone toward wealth or socio/economic status would divide along those lines on the issue of property tax vs. sales tax. (Advocates of the poor, particularly the "property poor," tend favor greater reliance on the property tax to support county government. They tend to believe that higher sales taxes hurt the poor. On the other hand, those who view their constituency being more prone toward the business community and wealthier residential property owners would favor lower property taxes and higher sales taxes. But that is not true of the Board of Commissioners.

    It was the Gang of Five (Cayton, Langley, McRoy, Booth and Klemm) who voted for shifting the tax burden from the property tax to the sales tax in spite of the fact that one would ordinarily expect to see the liberals (Cayton, Langley and Booth--all three Democrats) oppose shifting the tax burden from business and wealthy property owners to the poor.

    Of those who voted for the shift, only McRoy and Klemm voiced a rationale and that was that "everybody pays sales tax." But consider that position for a minute.

    Everybody pays property taxes also, whether you own property or not. If you rent/lease you pay the property tax levied against that property in your rent. Likewise, if you make a purchase of a product or service from a property owner/leasee you pay property tax in the price of what you purchase. The incidence of the tax (where it comes to rest, or who ends up paying it) is the same, whether it is property or sales. So how could you explain that two conservatives voted with three liberals against two conservatives to raise the sales tax?

    We would suggest that if you can explain that anomaly you can explain how this board functions, and thus you would have a better chance of predicting future votes on any given issue.

    For example, if this board is actually driven by the "conservative-liberal" continuum how would you expect them to vote on solving the vexing jail issue?

    We will predict here and now that, unless some other intervening issue comes up, the vote will be 5-2. The issue upon which we base that prediction is an assumption that what will drive the final decision is the total cost. If the project includes a new sheriff's office, and particularly if that new facility includes such things as a gym/exercise room or other amenities that are viewed as not being absolutely essential for the basic operation then we will call that the "high dollar" option. On the other hand you can count on this: The two conservatives on the current board and the conservative candidates running in November, will favor a "low dollar" option for both the jail itself and certainly for a new "administrative center" for county law enforcement.

    Now this issue may play out in other preliminary votes, such as whether a new facility should include new furnishings or whether the current furnishes will simply be moved to the new facility. It could play out on what the current sheriff's office will be used for if a new facility is built. It could play out on what kind of amenities will be included in the jail itself, either for the benefit of staff and/or inmates. There will certainly be a tangential issue on how much space (number of beds) should be included.

    But the driving issue will be financing. If the Gang of Five can finance the project without having to submit it for a vote of the people then they will do as they have done in the past on such matters as the school construction projects (which they allowed to go $6.4 million over what the people voted for) and economic development (on which they have spent over six million with little in the way of results to show for it).

    We would suggest it will go like this: The two conservatives (Richardson and Deatherage) will push for spending less and for using general obligation bonds (which require a vote) because that will be the least expensive financing option. The Gang of Five will push for spending more and for using financing that will not require a vote of the people, but will cost more in interest. In fact, we think the Gang of Five has already decided that a new sheriff's office will be included in the project, if the Manager can possibly find a way to finance a "high cost" option without having to submit it for a vote of the people.

    The pivotal issue to watch to see how it will ultimately turn out will be the size of the jail. Everyone will agree in the beginning that the capacity should be larger than the current need. That is a rational way to plan such a facility. You don't build such a facility to meet current needs, but rather to meet the needs further down the road. Most planners would say you build to meet the projected need at the "half-life" of the facility. But some will suggest you build such a facility in "phases," whereby you construct a large core facility but you don't necessarily "finish off" the excess capacity until it is actually needed.

    When this board confronts that issue here is what we will predict. The Gang of Five will want to spend as much as they can finance. This will be on both the jail and the sheriff's administrative facility. The two conservatives will oppose that. If the Manager can find a way to finance the facility without a vote of the people the vote will be 5-2 to proceed with the "high dollar" option. If the financing is not assured then some cuts will be made. The two conservatives will push for cuts in the amenities first. Then they will push to cut the administrative part of the facility. And finally, consideration will be given to reducing the capacity and amenities of the jail itself. All of these decisions will, if it goes like this board has functioned before (i.e., school bond spending) then the votes will be 5-2 at each step of the way (with the possibility that Ed Booth may opt toward the lower cost option) but regardless of whether it is 5-2 or 4-3 the final decision will be a version of the "high cost" option.

    But what makes this issue so interesting is the fact that it may have to be voted on by the people. The advocates of the "high cost" option will not want that and will do everything possible to find a way to finance the project without allowing the people to vote on it. That is because they know the majority of those who actually go to the polls and cast a vote on the jail will most likely vote against it and will certainly vote against it if the proposal is seen as having "unnecessary costs" involved.

    Now the way government is "supposed to work" is that the board would reach a compromised position and the final option would be something between what the "high cost" advocates wanted and what the "low cost" advocates wanted and it would be a unanimous vote. Nobody would get what they wanted but everyone would get some part of it such that they could feel they "won."

    If this board functions the way it has in the past (i.e., school bonds, economic development, funding external agencies in the operating budget and selecting the "high cost" option in settling the hospital issue, etc.) there will be no real compromise. There will be an attempt to avoid letting the people decide the issue and if that is successful the end result will be a 5-2 vote for the higher cost option. The sheriff will get a nice, new office out of the deal.

    The sleeper issue here is Robert Cayton. He has, in the past, always been a Big Government/Big spender commissioner. But he is running for the State Legislature against a fiscal conservative who is sure to make an issue of the jail if Cayton comes down on the "high cost" side. If Cayton plays it as a savvy politician usually does he will vote, or at least make it appear, that he favored a more conservative approach. But Cayton's record has been the opposite of that. He has always voted for more spending, higher taxes and more government, even when doing so hurt his base (the poorest section of the county).

    But it will take only four votes to give the Sheriff what he wants. So the Gang of Five will permit at least one renegade vote, but not two, if they can help it.

    In the end, if they do as they have done the last few years, they will end up voting 5-2, or 4-3 for the High Cost Option without letting the people vote on it.

    So the question becomes, when looking at the Big Picture: How can two commissioners who present themselves as "conservatives" be a part of a charade that produces more spending and higher taxes...whether it be building school facilities, economic development, advocating for higher sales taxes, confiscating 20% more in property taxes in five years when they know the people don't support it?

    In the second article in this series we will examine that question. We will suggest that what we have in Beaufort County is very much like what we have in Raleigh and Washington, DC with a bunch of politicians who say one thing when running for office and then act entirely different once elected....and how they can get by with it, and why it is an accurate conclusion for anyone to reach that says: "there is not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans."

    We will also draw a parallel between the Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and Barack Obama. In anticipation of that you might want to read this. The parallel we will explore in the next article is how both Obama and the Gang of Five have consistently operated the opposite of how most of their voting base believes. Some will suggest they have gotten by with it thus far because the voters did not actually know (or care) what they were doing. We will suggest that is not the case and will explore what else may account for what we contend is a bastardization of representative government in both Washingtons.