Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:27:43 -0400
From: Tom West
Subject: Sally Kost frequently sought to fiddle with meeting minutes.

Seems like Chatham Coalition member and Chatham County Commission chairman has a problem with what she says being put in the public record.

Sally Kost frequently sought to fiddle with meeting minutes.

You can read the entire article in Cary news at http://www.carynews.com/2010/06/19/18690/joint-committee-record-gets-a.html

Below are some pertinent points

“The minutes are the official documentation of meeting bodies,” said Cary Councilman Erv Portman, a committee member. “It’s important they reflect what was said and not what someone might have thought they said.”

Switching to verbatim minutes makes it nearly impossible to challenge accuracy. The change will bring a more accurate reflection of the meetings.

Since the committee began regularly meeting again a year ago, Kost has suggested comprehensive edits to the minutes for at least four meetings: June 1, 2009, Aug. 31, 2009, March 18, 2010 and April 15, 2010.

In December, the committee had an extensive discussion over the Aug. 31 minutes. Kost said she wanted to clarify several points of the conversation, leading Rowland to prepare a special set of verbatim minutes.

In the preliminary minutes for the August meeting, Kost is reported as saying that the county would work on design standards and an overlay district for the area after the land use plan is adopted. In the December review, Kost said, “I never said that. I didn’t say it’s after the land use is adopted because I think they need to be concurrent and  it’s probably a point we need to discuss.”

But in Rowland’s verbatim minutes of the August meeting, Kost said: “One of the things that we were going to propose is perhaps we direct staff to start working – once we have a land use plan – to work on design standards and then have an overlay for this area.”

The comment stayed in the approved minutes.

After the April 15 meeting, Kost wanted to delete this from the preliminary minutes: “Kost said that she wanted to make a decision after absorbing the better information,” referring to new data on environmental impact of a proposed development near Jordan Lake. Kost says she’s concerned that the switch to verbatim minutes will create a larger workload for staff.

Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:22:15 -0500
From: Wallace Kaufman
Subject: Whiners and winners: Recession brings Chatham golden choices

A recent article in The Independent about thousands of acres of failed, stagnant or bankrupt development obscures several golden opportunities by the writer’s choice to whine about the past rather than think about the future.  

The Independent writer quotes Chatham County Commissioner Sally Kost, “who worked for more than 20 years as a government budget professional” as saying,  “Chatham County is not in this subdivision business. Eventually, someone will buy them.  I know there are many Chatham citizens that wish we would buy Westfall but our real dilemma is that of ensuring the county’s infrastructure keeps up with its growth.”

If that is the way a government budget expert and commissioner thinks, it’s a good demonstration of why the county should not be in the land business.  For the past 40 years it has been the extension of infrastructure by government that has provided the subsidy from taxpayers that made all the development possible.  (Of course, we have only the Independent’s word, often unreliable, for what she said.  Disclosure: I used to write for the Independent.)

Wade Barber, Sr. who practiced law in Chatham from the 1920s for almost 70 years warned that the county in the 1960s that it should not be leading development by extending water and sewer lines, especially when it could not pay for them. Mr. Barber was also the prime mover in greatly expanding the tax base by creating and populating an industrial district with relatively good wages in southeast Chatham.

For 40 years commissioners, liberal and conservative, ignored the warnings and enticed development by their water and sewer extensions and permissions. We might note that as the Independent writer continues flogging old demons, she tells us “all [the failed subdivisions] were unanimously approved during the Morgan era by the Chatham County Commissioners and the planning board.” 

“Unanimously” means all the commissioners and board members, including those supported by the anti-Morgan forces.  So either she’s wrong, or she’s being disingenuous blaming only the conservatives.  I pointed out for decades that none of the county boards would pass a real planning ordinance that set realistic standards forcing development to pay its own way.

The writer goes on to whine about the losses to the county’s tax base, but all the boards fell short of developing the tax base.  But as recently retired county planner Keith Megginson once pointed out, it is in fact true that houses over a certain value pay more into the tax base than they take out. 

The writer also laments that, “Last year, the homebuilders lobby succeeded in persuading the state legislature to pass House Bill 1490, which prohibits counties, including Chatham, from imposing new, more stringent development standards on these old, bankrupt subdivisions for at least three years.”

I admit I don’t know the provisions of the bill, but I wonder if its defeat is so bad?  The writer complains that the county is stuck with “fallow” developments.  Putting more regulations, making it more expensive to do something is not likely to add value to the tax base or solve any of the environmental problems. 

What should happen is that the people in Chatham who so much want to preserve land should get together and form a tax exempt land acquisition group and start buying up these properties.  They could at least break even and finance themselves by then reselling the least sensitive portions for lots or farms or homesteads with conservation easements. (Chatham has many such examples, some started by former commissioner Phillips, and some 2,000 acres in places like Redbud, Saralyn, Harland’s Creek done by me.) 

Unfortunately most people who want to save the environment want to do it with someone else’s money.  Call ‘someone else’ Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.  The golden opportunity that Chatham now has to reshape these large stalled rural subdivisions also offers what many Chatham activists have wanted for decades-more affordable housing.  (Disclosure: at the behest of the commissioners I once chaired an affordable housing task force and put on their desks a menu of options to meet the goal.)

When a builder says, “We spent $600,000 on these homes’ construction line. We might be able to sell the house for $250,000, leaving us liable to the bank for $350,000,” that’s unfortunate for the builder, but a 60% reduction in the home price certainly means more affordable housing. (It’s not cheap housing, but as someone moves up, a less expensive house becomes available.)

Isn’t this a good example of how the market re-prices houses to make them more affordable.  (Chatham should encourage the Obama administration not to step in with subsidies to help people buy these places at higher prices or give the developers lower priced credit.)

We also read that “Briar Chapel has fallen short of expectations, its builders switching to townhomes in order to fill out Phase Four of the construction.” Isn’t that also a good example of the market at work?  Aren’t the townhomes more affordable, and don’t they use less land per resident? 

Rather than seeing the opportunities, the Independent writer goes on to whine, “High infrastructure costs, coupled with the housing bust, have saddled Chatham County with thousands of fallow acres. Yet the county can’t buy the bankrupt developments. “That’s not something we’ve ever done,” said Chatham County Commissioner Sally Kost.  Here we see the writer’s ignorance of history, perhaps willful.  Former chairman of the Commissioners, Gary Phillips, led his fellow commissioners into paying a million or more to buy a landlocked, distressed property behind Walmart by Siler City.

Isn’t now the right time for the county to land-bank sites for future schools and parks and preserves? They have a golden opportunity and it seems the best they can do is say, “No, we can’t.” (Isn’t this the era of “Yes, we can?”) Truth to tell, it’s private action, for profit or nonprofit, that really says “Yes, we can.” So where are the “Yes, we can” people in Chatham now that opportunity is begging them to do their thing?

Don’t look to government. Commission chair George Lucier, one of the highest IQ’s in the county, is quoted by the Independent as saying, “We do not have a written plan to remedy the situation.” Perhaps it’s smart to leave the remedy to private citizens and the market.

So we must ask, where are the people who talk so passionately about “preserving rural Chatham for posterity”? They’ve written some version of that phrase into every planning document since 1968, then left the fate of the county to government. Chatham has unusual brain power, a surplus of academic degrees, and wealthy residents. Would they rather be whiners than winners?

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:23:52 -0500
From: Lesley Landis
Subject: Pittsboro/Chapel Hill Bus Service

by Tim Keim

Getting around in Chatham County without a car is difficult. With little employment to anchor Pittsboro residents to their home turf, folks scatter in all directions every morning to earn their daily bread. About 13% of the workforce at UNC and UNC Hospital travel the 15-501 corridor to reach Chapel Hill. Some carpool, but most jump into their shiny metal boxes solo and inefficiently burn hydrocarbons  to get to work. But a ticket to ride may soon replace the solitary commute.

Chatham County (CC), The Town of Pittsboro (PBO), Chatham Transit Network (CTN), and Chapel Hill Transit are close to commencing express bus service from Pittsboro to Chapel Hill and back three times a day. But the local mass transit process hasn’t been without its fits and starts; and financial details between Pittsboro and Chatham County remain unresolved.

In August 2004, two Siler City grassroots groups, Mujeres Mejorando El Futuro (Women Improving the Future) and Voices for Action (VOA), issued a transportation draft proposal that stemmed from a survey they conducted of 368 subjects about travel needs. Both groups were trained in data collection techniques by UNC Chapel Hill. Their proposal was written in painstaking detail with suggested routes, times and frequency. Some of the route recommendations were implemented by Chatham Transit, but communication to the community and execution of the new routes was poorly handled and the plan failed.

Chatham Transit Network (CTN) now has a new executive director and advisory board. Board member, Marcia Perritt, happily relates that CTN hopes to revive the work done by Mujeres and VOA for the routes in Siler City. Additionally Ms. Perritt mentioned that new Executive Director, Dale Olbrich, is in consultation with Chapel Hill Transit to determine the need for a feeder route from Siler City to Pittsboro.

Eventually, County Commissioner Tom Vanderbeck and Pittsboro Mayor Randy Voller, chairman of the Regional Planning Organization, want to extend service through Siler to Lee County and along the Hwy. 64 passage as well.

With so much energy and good will among the team members, what could possibly prevent this plan from success? Of course, you know it’s going to come down to the money.

Half the cost for the eighteen month experiment will come from a federal grant. Negotiations between Pittsboro’s Town Board and Chatham County Commissioners will settle the disposition of the $176,356 balance. This figure doesn’t include the estimated fares contributed by riders, which are proposed to be $3.00 dollars one way or an unlimited pass for $65.00 a month. The current negotiations have Pittsboro kicking in about a quarter to a third of the cost and the county two-thirds to three-quarters.

Chatham County Commissioner Sally Kost, who is “totally committed to mass transit for Chatham”, did some number crunching and estimated that if only 103 people per day rode the bus paying the $65.00 monthly fare, Pittsboro would contribute about $1,000 a month to the enterprise. That assumes Pittsboro’s share at 25%.

Because of Pittsboro’s commendable frugality, an adequate surplus of municipal funds exist to make this investment.

From what I can gather, a favorable consensus has developed on the county commission, but the thrifty Pittsboro Town Board is hesitating. PBO Commissioner Gene Brooks admits that the county “has made a generous offer,” but he hasn’t made up his mind yet. Mr. Brooks says that there’s been “surprisingly little discussion about the proposed service”.  Commissioner Chris Walker told me, “I’m not opposed to mass transit, but you’re talking to a conservative banker. I’m not in favor subsidizing transit now. If it’s not a necessary function, now is not the time to do it”. Fellow PBO Commissioners Pamela Baldwin and Clinton Bryan echoed Mr. Walker.

It is inconceivable to me that local elected representatives would allow such an opportunity to slip through their fingers.

“This is a very limited financial exposure” as Dale Olbrich, Executive Director of CTN points out. Furthermore, Olbrich argues the case that “this service will make jobs in Chapel Hill accessible to Chatham citizens without cars, thus acting as an economic stimulus”. Besides, any party can pull out of the agreement with a 90 day notice.

I would think a federal grant to pay half the cost would be eagerly seized.

Gasoline is sure to eclipse its most recent pinnacle in the near future, so this is the perfect time to get mass transit working for Chatham County. The bus would also reduce air pollution in Chatham by taking a significant number of cars off the road. This is a win win situation across the board.

This transit proposal has wide support from the public and potential partners all over the region. If Pittsboro and Chatham County are unable to summon the will and cooperation to invest in our transportation infrastructure future, we will be less able to participate in the thriving economic intercourse of the greater North Carolina Piedmont. We’ll consign ourselves to a backwater, bedroom community status that will leave us limping into limitation rather than striding confidently into prosperity.

*****

To voice your opinion, citizens may speak at the beginning of the Pittsboro Town Board Meeting during the portion of the agenda called “Citizens Matters” at the Pittsboro Town Board Meeting at Town Hall on Monday, March 9th at 7pm.  More info: http://www.pittsboronc.org Or write: Mayor Randy Voller, randy@voller.org, Town Manager Bill Terry, wgterry@nc.rr.com; or Mayor Protem, Pam Baldwin, pamela_baldwin@dentistry.unc.edu

Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:14:10 -0500
From: Debra Henzey
Subject: Copy of statement from Commissioner Chair George Lucier to CCV

Commissioner Lucier asked me to forward this statement that he sent to the Chatham Conservative Voice today concerning the forum they are sponsoring tomorrow evening:

FROM COMMISSIONER LUCIER:

I had originally agreed to participate in a panel discussion sponsored by the Chatham Conservative Voice (CCV), scheduled for the evening of February 26. I did so with the understanding that this would  be a forum where local people could have a civil discussion about the 287(g) program as well as many other critical issues facing Chatham County, such as: school funding, the capital improvement program, budget priorities, economic development, revaluation issues, and implementation of the land use plan.

However, in the past week, several outside groups not affiliated with CCV have actively promoted this meeting with their own flyers and email lists, using inflammatory language.  For example, NCFIRE has widely promoted the meeting to a long list of state/national organizations, including ALI-PAC, NC Minutemen Patriots and the Asheville Action Club. They have stated in their flyers that the purpose of the meeting is “fighting back against Chatham County” and have declared that “most terrorists are also illegal aliens.” These communications have effectively undermined the efforts of CCV and local residents to have a civil discussion about various issues.

Given that the meeting is being used by outside groups and promoted as something not originally intended. I will not participate in the forum on Thursday evening.  However, as the chair of the Board of Commissioners, I am happy to talk with local residents individually or in other local groups, using a format that is not dominated and emotionally charged by outside influences. Sally Kost, vice chair of the commissioners, and I propose to meet with CCV and/or members of the local Republican Party to discuss their views on issues of importance to Chatham County.

A large number of people did attend the last Board of Commissioners meeting on Feb. 16 to share their views on the 287(g) resolution, with a substantial majority stating their support of the commissioners’ position. Based on the massive discussion on the Chatlist, it was clearly recognized by all sides that public input on this issue was slated for Feb. 16.

The 287(g) issue also has been covered widely by the local news media (TV, radio and newspapers) and I have given at least 15 interviews on the topic, including two that were detailed front-page articles.  Examples are the Feb. 5 issues of The Chatham News & Record and The News & Observer. By now, the reasons for the Board of Commissioners adoption of the 287(g) resolution should be clear.

Below is a statement on behalf of the Board of Commissioners, which summarizes the factors and statistics behind the county commissioners’ adoption of the resolution.

STATEMENT BY
THE CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Summary of the Reasons Why the Board of Commissioners Adopted a Resolution
Opposing County Participation in the Federal ICE 287(g) Program
*         It is costly. According to Sheriff Webster, we would have to build a new detention center to participate in ICE. The Johnston County sheriff is asking for $30 million to build a new jail. The Commissioners would rather build schools than jails. North Chatham Middle School is 40% over capacity. We could not afford the new middle school if we had to build a new jail in these difficult financial times.

Moreover, when undocumented parents are deported, the children left behind often must be placed in foster care, at a major cost to the county.

Because of difficult financial times, the Commissioners will have to cut some programs-we certainly don’t want to start new ones that are costly and ineffective.

*         It is ineffective in crime prevention. Sheriff Webster and Chief Tyson do not recommend that we participate in ICE because it is not effective. Sheriff Webster and Chief Tyson join with many other law enforcement officials across the nation in believing that 287(g) undermines the trust that law enforcement agencies have worked so hard to establish with the immigrant community. The National Major Cities Chiefs Association has opposed 287(g) participation for these and other reasons.
We would rather put our resources into crime prevention programs that work, like gang prevention. We commend Sheriff Webster and Captain Gardner for their outstanding gang prevention programs. Since Wake County implemented ICE, crime has increased and most of the increase is attributable to gang activities. The BOC also urges the Sheriff to continue efforts to reduce drunk driving and our resolution does nothing to deter his efforts. Moreover, there is evidence that the immigrant community is reluctant to report crimes in areas where ICE has been implemented.

*         This resolution does not keep law enforcement from enforcing the law. We fully support Sheriff Webster’s enforcement of the law and his efforts to prevent crime. Those committing crimes should be prosecuted and punished. We have an outstanding Sheriff’s Office and we are proud of the initiatives that have improved law enforcement in Chatham County.

Our support is embodied in the adopted commissioners’ resolution, which states:  ”Be it resolved that the Board of Commissioners supports local law enforcement in the execution of their duties in the constitutions and laws of the United States, North Carolina, and Chatham County. Be it also resolved that, in continuing its belief of controlling its own destiny… while proudly preserving diverse cultural heritages, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners stands in strong opposition to any local governmental agency contracting with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws.”

*         There is considerable evidence that participation in the 287(g) program increases the risk of racial profiling. Please remember that racial profiling is, in fact, a crime. No person should live in fear because of his or her ethnic background. Based on 2008 statistics from participating North Carolina counties, the vast majority of people detained have been those arrested for non-violent and non-felony offenses, especially minor traffic violations (i.e. offenses other than DUIs and other serious traffic violations). This was confirmed by a North Carolina report released in February 2009 by UNC’s Immigration/Human Rights Policy Clinic and the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, which found that racial profiling is one of several major problems resulting from participation in the 287(g) program in North Carolina.

*         This is a voluntary program. Voluntary means that a county can choose to participate or not participate in 287(g). The fact is that 92 out of 100 counties do not participate in 287(g).  So the assertion that Chatham County would be a sanctuary county for undocumented immigrants is unfounded.
*         Why would the Chatham County commissioners work to participate in a program that is costly, ineffective, increases the risk of racial profiling?

*         We think that everyone can agree that the federal government’s immigration policy has been a failure and is dysfunctional.  We believe that it is wrong to pass that failure on to local governments, which are not equipped to handle federal immigration laws.
*         We adopted the resolution in an open, transparent and deliberate manner. We can assure you that of the 100 counties in the state, Chatham County has dealt with this issue in a more open and transparent way than any county in this state. None of the other 92 counties opting out of the 287(g) program have held a public hearing on the issue. Of the eight counties participating in 287(g), we have heard back from six (two have not responded) that they did not hold a public hearing on the issue before opting into the program and, in some cases, the Board of Commissioners and the public were not notified of law enforcement’s participation.
The Human Relations Commission (HRC) worked on the resolution over a 10-month period and their meetings are open to the public. Moreover, the ICE resolution was part of our Jan. 5 agenda. This agenda was placed on the county website ahead of time and the agenda included the proposed resolution as well as background materials. The HRC talked with the Sheriff on multiple occasions during the 10-month period. He was aware that we were considering the resolution at our Jan 5 meeting and he did not indicate opposition to it. When the BOC considers significant ordinances, which are laws or decisions, we hold public hearings–examples would be subdivision ordinances, budget ordinances, etc. The ICE resolution is not an ordinance; it simply is a statement of our opposition to participating in ICE for the reasons indicated above.
*         Chatham County is a diverse county. Our biggest challenge is to take advantage of that
wonderful diversity. Our biggest failure would be if we did not take advantage of that diversity. In Chatham County, we want to honor the diversity we have, not disrespect it.

For these reasons, the Chatham County commissioners have no intention of revisiting our opposition to the 287(g) program.

Debra J. Henzey
Director of Community Relations
Chatham County Manager’s Office
919-542-8258

From: Gene Galin

Apologies about the chatlist coming out late today. After standing out in the rain all day yesterday at the polls I just crashed when I go home in the evening.

Below are the results for the 2008 Local Chathamcentric races

COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 1
Sally Kost 18044
Jeanna Bock 12757

COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 2
Mike Cross 16709
Andy Wilkie 8734
Bob Knight 5998

SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICT 1
Flint O’Brien 12894
Mia Munn 12209

SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICT 2
David M. Hamm  9248
Pete Rubinas 8750
Gene Galin 6929

I would like to congratulate David Hamm and Flint O’Brien on their wins in the school board race. I wish them the best of luck in their endeavors as school board members.

Congratulations also to Mike Cross and Sally Kost

Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:39:19 -0400
From: Judy Hogan
Subject: I support Galin and Munn for School Board

Hi, all.  I thought I’d put in my thoughts on the county races.  I was a member of the Chatham Coalition back in 2004-6 and I felt good about all the candidates I worked to elect which the Coalition supported in those elections.

I will be voting Democratic across the board in the partisan races.  I believe both Mike Cross and Sally Kost to be competent, concerned for the county, and able to do the job of a county commissioner wisely and well.

In the school board non-partisan race, it seems to me that we have four very qualified and dedicated people, but I disagree with the Coalition’s endorsements.  I believe Gene Galin will be an excellent member of BoE.  He knows Chatham well and obviously cares about improving both our general quality of life as well as our schools and our children’s education or he wouldn’t have dedicated 10 years of free time to the chatlist, the Bulletin Board, and his newspaper, The Chatham Journal.  He also goes regularly to Chatham events taking photos and publishing them both in the paper and on line.  He seems open to everyone, welcoming of the diversity that makes us up here.  I’ve noticed a persistent thread in his handling of the chatlist, that of focus on our schools.  I think he’d be a fine addition to the three remaining members of the school board, Kathie Russell, Gerald Totten, and Deb McManus, all of whom I supported in 2006.  I’m sorry to see Holly and Norman leave, but they’ve done excellent jobs, too.  I would care about our schools in any case, but I also have grandchildren in Perry Harrison, and I’ve taught creative writing in Moncure, Silk Hope, and Virginia Cross, and I was impressed with morale and teaching quality in all those schools.  We did not have this same standard, as I remember, when I first moved to Moncure 10 years ago.

I’m also supporting Mia Munn.  I’ve never met her, but I like her passion about education that comes through in a post she wrote on the bulletin board.  She sought excellent education for her children, and wants to do that for all our children.  I don’t hold it against her that she put a child in Woods Charter because Northwood didn’t respond well to her child’s needs.  I remember that Holly Duncan was discouraged by her teaching experiences in a Chatham School and went to work in Orange County.  But she then ran for school board to correct what she’d seen was wrong, and it did get better.  With Mia on the board, I expect the academic standards to rise in our schools.  She strikes me as being satisfied with nothing less.

As to the Coalition, I feel sad that they seem to have lost perspective.  I see no conflict of interest between being on the school board and running a chatlist or a newspaper.  Conflict of interest means that you might make money or benefit from your political position for your other business.  Hardly.  But I urge everyone to learn all they can and to vote.  We’re lucky, so lucky, to have good BoC and BoE boards, and good and good new candidates running.  Judy Hogan

Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 14:49:10 +0000
From: Doug Nicholas
Subject: Open Thank You to Patrick Barnes

I’d like to thank Patrick Barnes for his service to Chatham County.

I voted for Patrick in 2004 but I didn’t vote for him this time. Nothing against him at all, no disappointment in his work on the board. I just thought Sally Kost’s experience would be great to have on the board.

But I’m so glad Patrick (and Mike) was there when we needed him. He was a big part of turning the tide and changing the direction the county was headed. For that I have nothing but gratitude.

Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 08:14:20 -0400
From: Austin Lybrand
Subject: Why I support Sally Kost

As a taxpayer, I want a county commissioner experienced in creating lean county budgets based on careful priorities and long-range forecasting. Sally Kost has that experience.

As a citizen, I want a county commissioner who understands — really understands! — that the well-being of our community and the fiscal health of county government require balanced and sustainable growth. Sally Kost’s career in county budgeting and her exemplary service as chair of our planning board have given her that understanding.

As a Democrat, I want a county commissioner for whom openness and responsiveness are core values rather than empty campaign rhetoric.  I know that those are Sally Kost’s core values; she has lived and breathed them through her service to our county.

I am pleased to support Sally Kost for Chatham County Commissioner.

Austin Lybrand

Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:53:11 -0400
From: Dee Reid
Subject: Tim Keim on Kost and Starkweather

Our email box is full of personal endorsements for Sally Kost and Jeffrey Starkweather. Here’s a recent example from Tim Keim, who works as a weekend announcer on WUNC public radio and as a cheese expert at Chatham Marketplace:

I know Jeffrey Starkweather personally. I’ve never seen anyone who lives and breathes his devotion to community the way he does. It is not merely a recent affectation, it’s his nature, his character to be a steady, consistent voice for sensible strategies that will lead to a green, progressive Chatham County.

Sally Kost’s years of successful experience as a municipal finance manager and civic planner give her an expansive view of both Chatham’s past and the exciting possibilities for our common future. It’s been too long since Chatham had a strong, seasoned, feminine sensibility on the county board. Sally’s continuous involvement in Chatham County politics will serve all of us as we face intense development pressures and the challenges ahead to make Chatham a model for sustainable community.

As truly progressive leaders, Jeffrey and Sally will make educated decisions while we and the world learn to deal with the local effects of global climate change. They are head and shoulders above the competition in their grasp of climate change, what it means for us and how we can use innovative strategies to thrive in the face of such adversity.

Finally, I’ve witnessed Jeff and Sally epitomize the word cooperation. They both look for every opportunity to extend a helping hand to those reaching out. They know that a disagreement on one issue does not an enemy make. Constantly shifting political alliances offer innumerable opportunities to work together for positive policies. Jeff and Sally get this!

– Tim Keim

Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:56:45 -0400
From: Gene Galin
Subject: IW – Campaign financial info for the BOC candidates

Chatham: Incumbents vs. coalition of challengers

Read the entire story at http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A257148

Scroll to the bottom of the web page to see pdfs of the actual financial documents

As of the April 28 reporting deadline, Patrick Barnes had raised $4,017, primarily from individual donations of $250 or less. His opponent in District 1, Sally Kost, had raised $4,147.

In District 2, Mike Cross raised $6,014 in individual donations and one loan from himself for $600. His opponent, Jeffrey Starkweather, had raised $5,236 in donations and also reported $1,400 cash on hand at the beginning of the election cycle, for a total of $6,636.

Both Kost and Starkweather turned over a significant percentage of their donations to the Chatham Coalition PAC for joint signs, mailings and stickers. The PAC reported $12,849 in total donations, including $6,746 from their candidates’ campaign chests: $3,361 from Kost and $3,385 from Starkweather. The other $6,103 in income came from individual contributions to the PAC, whose donors included current District 4 Commissioner Tom Vanderbeck ($100) and his wife, Laura Wimbish Vanderbeck ($250), Chapel Hill Mayor Kevin Foy ($75), and Lesley Landis, a member of the Coalition’s steering committee and the wife of Pittsboro Mayor Randy Voller, who gave $500.

In the District 2 race, an incomplete report for a third candidate, Armentha Lee Davis, shows she has raised $5,611 from individuals, including her largest donor, New Hill resident Paul McCoy, who gave $1,200 this cycle. Davis’ report lacks full addresses and occupation/employer for most donors; Elections Director Dawn Stumpf said she would ask Davis’ treasurer, former Pittsboro Town Board member Max Cotten, to correct the report.