Is Commissioner Rodney Graham #PositivelyDavidson? That's a question he doesn't "wish to answer"

Many people in the Davidson area have noticed a new Facebook page recently that has attracted hundreds of likes, a page called Positively Davidson.  The site provides a laundry list of great things about living in this wonderful town.

Davidson is a great place to live.  Those of us who have spent years fighting to preserve that small town character and those who are relatively new to that fight know this intrinsically.  If this is the only point Positively Davidson is trying to make, then we whole heartedly agree.

However, a close reading of the page's "about" section shows that might not be the case.

It sounds good and very "positive", but there is also a hint of uncomfortableness with the pushback "official Davidson" has been getting in social media these days.

Unlike the other Facebook pages or groups around town (Paradise Lost, Save Davidson, Citizens for a Safe Davidson Hotel Location) nobody knows who is behind this new incarnation of Positively Davidson.  It is a "page" not a "group" and that allows a higher level of anonymity if the page admins so desire.

Oh, people have asked who is behind it.  To be sure people are curious about that.  However, only vague responses are given in reply.

So, aShortChronicle did a little digging to see if it could be figured out.  First though a little history.

You'll notice that above it stated this page was a "new incarnation of Positively Davidson".  The name Positively Davidson has a little political history in town going back to the last time citizens pushed back against Town Hall in any significant way.  That was during the 2011 election season.  A group by the same name, circled the wagons around Town Hall.  They held meetings, wrote letters to the editor, and generally worked to preserve the political status quo.  Here are some links to stories from back then when the group was clearly political. See here, here, and here.

So, who is behind Positively Davidson now?

Well, the first time aShortChronicle noticed the new incarnation was from Davidson Commissioner Rodney Graham with these posts on his "Rodney Graham, Davidson Town Commissioner" page.  This is his political campaign page.  The link is www.facebook.com/VoteRodneyGraham/

That was back in early June.  It raised the political antennas a bit because it was a reference to a political group that didn't exist anymore.  It was also in the aftermath of the May 23rd Board meeting where the town had been exposed for its clear mishandling of the Beaty Street property and the Luminous project, a project Commissioner Graham strongly supports.

So, with that in mind aShortChronicle just went ahead and asked Commissioner Graham if he was involved with the new Positively Davidson.  Here is what he had to say.

"I appreciate the question but don't wish to answer it.  That shouldn't be inferred as a "yes" or a "no" but just wanting to separate my private life from my public life.  I've set up multiple facebook pages and websites over the years for various organizations, frankly because it is something I enjoy doing, both creatively and just to help out organizations that I support.  But I don't wish to publicize whether I'm involved with those pages because (a) it's irrelevant, and (b) I don't wish for them to have any political overtones.

The Positively Davidson page you reference appears to be completely apolitical, which is good.  Regrettably many sites out there - NextDoor is a good example - have become forums for people to express frustration and anger.  There are appropriate forums to do that - although there is never an appropriate forum for slander - but I think certain forums should be off limits."

aShortChronicle thought that was an interesting response from an elected official.  Particularly, it was interesting for an official in a campaign season where transparency is the overarching theme for many issues citizens have with Town Hall.

With that answer, of sorts, in hand a little more digging shows data points that may shed some light on this situation for readers.  aShortChronicle noticed the following similarities between the Positively Davidson FB page and Commissioner Graham's campaign page.

1.  June 1st, the date Graham first used #positivelydavidson on his campaign page, is the same date the Positively Davidson page published its first posts.

2.  The two Cover Photos on Graham's campaign page are the same two photos Positively Davidson has used as its Profile pics until a third profile pic was added just yesterday.  You can tell the two with Summit in the photo are the exact same photos if you look closely.  Variables such as the cars on the street and the shape of the flags are exactly the same.  They are the same exact photos, not two different photos taken from the same locations at different times.

Graham Campaign
Cover Pics

Positively Davidson
Profile Pics

3.  Multiple other photos appear on both pages as well - a home in the Town Affordable housing program, a picture of Davidson College Presbyterian Church (DCPC), a picture of what appears to be a field at Fisher Farm etc.

Does all that definitively prove Commissioner Rodney Graham is behind Positively Davidson?  Not necessarily, but it is a number of coincidences .  So, you can take those coincidences and Commissioner Graham's non-answer for what it is worth.

The Positively Davidson site does appear to be reaching a milestone of sorts as it approaches 1000 likes.  Per the below, the content of the site is possibly about to change, so we'll see if the non-political tone changes with it as Davidson enters the heart of election season.

Catalyst Project up for discussion Monday night

About twenty residents gathered at the the Allen Tate office on Davidson's Main Street Monday evening to discuss their concerns with the proposed Catalyst Project to remake the town owned property on and around Town Hall with a potential mixed use development.

Also in attendance were Davidson Commissioners Rodney Graham and Beth Cashion.

After host Rusty Knox kicked off the meeting with his recollections of what it was like growing up in Davidson when it was much smaller place, he quickly outlined what are the major concerns with the project held by many in attendance - the project's size, location, and perceived rapid schedule.

The last item, concern with the schedule for the project, definitely rang true with many in the room.  It also brought out some of the evening's more interesting comments.  With one participant citing a media report saying the project was anticipated to be completed in the "next for years", Commissioner Cashion responded with "we're not sure where that came from".

Where that "four years" came from was a WSOC TV report that hit the airwaves last week.  The report featuring Mayor Woods can be seen here.  The accompanying article concludes with the following line:

"While there are no set deadlines yet, the town spokesperson says the goal is to try and get the project finished in the next four years."

Interestingly, that line is not actually in the video report.  It is only in the accompanying article.  Also, the "spokesperson" is not specifically named.

In a follow up conversation with Commissioner Cashion to find out what she meant when she said "we're not sure where that came from", Cashion indicated that both town public information officer, Christina Shaul, and economic development manager, Kim Flemming, denied telling WSOC that schedule.

The good news for opponents of the project is that regardless if anyone actually said that or if the WSOC report simply got it wrong, it does not appear to be the case.

Graham and Cashion also attempted to clarify what Commissioners really endorsed in their last meeting with consultants.

Much has been made of the introduction of the possibility of adding a 128 room "boutique" hotel to the plan - an idea that first appeared during the last discussion with the UNC SOG consultants.  What the commissioners "endorsed" during that meeting was not a plan that would definitely include a hotel, but rather the idea that plans for further investigation would include tearing down the current town hall rather than simply trying to modify/expand town hall and adding some parking.

The difference may sound subtle, but considering that much of the recent angst surrounding the project involves be inclusion of the hotel, it could be significant.  While the consultants indicated there was a lot of developer interest in a hotel project, if that concept generates a lot of community discontent, it seams that it could end up being a deal breaker.

There was also a good bit of discussion about other potential developments along South Main, the increase in traffic any development in that area will cause, and concern of the town getting into the development business.

The Commissioners indicated the town will have another public meeting on the project.  The tentative schedule for that is October 20th.  They also indicated the possibility of other community meetings to ensure all concerns are sufficiently aired.

As the first hour of the meeting wrapped up, this blogger had to head home, but one thing was clear - there will be a LOT more discussion before anything happens with the Catalyst Project.

How Davidson Failed to Have a Special Meeting on HOT Lanes

There's been a lot of activity and swirl around the I77 HOT lanes project the past week - activity generated by the release of additional information from NCDOT - prior to Thursday's signing of the Commercial Close of the deal.

Here in Davidson much of that activity was around the request for a Special Meeting of Davidson's Town Board to discuss seeking a possible delay in signing the Commercial Close on the project until this new information could be clarified.  The need for the special meeting (if one was going to be had) stemmed at least in part from a post on this site last week.  Since we reported that this special meeting was not going to be held, aShortChronicle has obtained emails from the Town of Davidson detailing how that decision was reached.

There is much more in the documents received than the below set of emails, and it does appear there will be a sincere effort to hold a joint meeting with NCDOT and other area elected officials - possibly in early July 7th in Cornelius. Also, as part of the documents received, a list of detailed questions was compiled primarily by Commissioner Anderson and submitted for response to NCDOT.   Both of these are very good things towards getting clarification and updated information.

As for how Davidson's Board decided to not have a special meeting on the subject, that's a different matter.  There is definitely some room for improvement there.  Below are the relevant email selections on that.

Emails in time sequence starting with Comm Cashion's original request.
 

 Comm Jenest's response to Comm Cashion's original request...

Comm Fuller's response to Comm Cashion's original request...



 

Mayor Woods's response to Comm Cashion's original request...



Comm Graham's response to Comm Cashion's original request...

Comm Jenest's response to Comm Graham...

Comm Anderson's response to Mayor Woods (There was no direct response to Comm Cashion's initial request in the documents received)...

Without commenting too much on the individual responses, it appears that Mayor Woods had the strongest objection to having a special meeting to discuss this issue of a delay.  The extensive use of bold and underlining in his response being the clear indication of that.  Readers are strongly encouraged to go back and read that one a second time paying attention to the tone of it.  His frustration at even being asked for a meeting and having this conversation is palpable.

As for the Commissioner emails, readers can decide for themselves who gave this issue the most thought.

We'll leave our comments at that on the responses to the special meeting request.  We here at aShortChronicle would not want to be accused (again) of spreading misinformation or engaging in hyperbole.

Bonus Observation: Davidson's adopted Rules of Procedure require the Mayor or any three commissioners to call a special meeting.  This appears to be in conflict with the North Carolina general statute GS 161A-71 governing these meetings. That statute says the Mayor, the Mayor Pro-Tem, or any two commissioners can call a special meeting.  If Davidson was following the General Statute on this issue, both alternatives for who can call a special meeting were met.  Commissioner Beth Cashion is Mayor Pro-Tem and Commissioner Stacey Anderson provided the second needed request.

To eliminate the kind of heavy-handed response exhibited here by the Mayor against reasonable requests from Commissioners to call these meetings if needed, the Board should update their rules of procedure to be in line with State requirements.

In rare event for Davidson, Commissioner recuses from a vote. (VIDEO)

Photos from Planning Board Meeting

Wednesday night finally saw the vote on the proposed CHS sign change for the new mental health facility on highway 73 near Summers Walk.   As reported here, this approval seemed to be a foregone conclusion after the Davidson Planning Board unanimously approved the change last month.

While it does appear that CHS gamed the system to a degree in pursuing this zoning change and it likely sets an unwelcome precedent for signage on the East Side of town, the truly important thing for good government is what happened just before the vote.

For the first in recent memory at a Davidson Town Board meeting, there was a detailed discussion about allowing a Commissioner to be excused from voting because of a conflict of interest.  More importantly, a Commissioner was actually allowed to be excused from voting by his fellow Board members - removing the façade that somehow Davidson's Board is beyond reproach and that members' business dealings never collide with their responsibilities as elected officials.

As we've been very strongly encouraging in these pages (here, here, and here), Commissioner Brian Jenest requested and was allowed to not vote on the CHS sign - a sign he designed.  He did not disclose how much money his firm made on the project.  He did not disclose any information about when the need for the zoning change was determined.  He reversed the logic and said that he'd actually get more work if the zoning change was not approved - meaning if he was allowed to vote and he voted for it, he would somehow be voting against his own best interest, thus minimizing the issue to a degree.  However, in the end Commissioners agreed that voting on a project where a Commissioner's firm is directly involved is in fact a conflict of interest.

The vote to allow the recusal was unanimous (4-0) by the remaining Commissioners, but it was not completely without reservations.  Town Attorney Rick Kline described allowing this particular recusal as exercising an "abundance of caution".  (Commissioner Jenest designed the sign?!?!?  How much more clear a situation could there be???) Commissioner Graham said he was concerned about setting the bar too low for allowing recusals - meaning making it too easy to recuse.  His stated reason was that he might not be able to vote on future changes to the Town's affordable housing policy because he's a builder.  (Really?!?!?  If any proposed changes to the affordable housing policy would impact an in-flight, previously approved affordable housing plan including one of his projects, then no, Commissioner Graham should not vote on such a change.  However, if they would just impact future projects and require a separate vote to impact his project, then he could vote on the ordinance changes but NOT vote on any change directly impacting his project.)

Here's the point.

The Board did the right thing here.  This was a small victory for good government.  However, Commissioners and our Town Attorney should not continuously be looking for loopholes in how to vote on things where a Commissioner has a clear self-interest.
  
Incidentally, Commissioner Fuller was allowed to vote on the sign after admitting that his employer, the McIntosh Law Firm, does significant business with CHS.    However, that business is likely not related to building design, so he did not recuse himself as this vote did not directly impact his firm.  That was also the right thing to do.

Below is the video.  The whole meeting is only 25 minutes.  The discussion about recusals starts at the 6:45 mark.

Davidson Town Board Feb 2014 Meeting

With Filing Still a Month Off, North Meck NCGA Candidates Make Announcements

This past week saw announcements from local candidates regarding this year's NCGA elections.  With just a few weeks left before filing begins, things are sure to get interesting as the State and Federal election cycles ramp up.

On Tuesday, State Senator Jeff Tarte (Rep) sent out an email blast announcing a long list of endorsements - including endorsements from three Davidson Commissioners - Brian Jenest, Beth Cashion, and Stacey Anderson.  See here for the announcement and complete list. 

Not all that surprising is the absence from the list of Mayor Woods, Commissioners Graham, and Commissioner Fuller.  If they were to endorse anyone in the upcoming general election cycle for the NCGA, I'd put my money on Democrat and Davidson local, Natasha Marcus, in the NC House 98 race to replace Thom Tillis.  All three were pictured here at the campaign kick-off event in Davidson for Ms. Marcus with Mayor Woods doing the candidate introduction.  Interestingly, Mayor Woods was listed as a "supporter" of Republican John Bradford in this announcement regarding his recent Cornelius campaign, but he's missing from the list of elected officials endorsing Bradford for the NC-98 race.

Speaking of the NC-98 race and John Bradford, Bradford's campaign announced an important appointment this week.  Joshua Dobi will chair Bradford's election campaign committee.  That name may sound familiar to readers of this blog.  When Bradford announced his intention to run for this seat, we pointed out that local businessman Joshua Dobi had strongly urged voters to support Bradford in his recent run for Cornelius Town Board.

On Bradford's campaign site, ElectBradford.com, the campaign says of Dobi's selection to chair the campaign committee...

"Choosing a CEO in a successful Lake Norman area business is a calculated decision"

Seems like there are a lot of "calculated decisions" going on.  Then again, this is politics.

Davidson swears-in new elected officials. - VIDEO

There are a lot of great things about living in a small town like Davidson and being able to participate in your local government in an up close and personal way is one of them.  As the first of what will be a regular feature here at aShortChronicle, here is video of tonight's swearing-in ceremony for Davidson's newest batch of elected officials.  Call it our little contribution, free of charge, to openness and transparency in local government.  We won't be able to get every public meeting on tape, but we'll try to get the important ones!

Link to Video of Swearing In Ceremony




NOTE:  You may need to turn the sound all the way up.

This video contains:

1. The farewell to Commissioner Connie Wessner who was not re-elected this term.
2. The swearing-in ceremonies for Mayor and Commissioners.  With a nice small-town touch, these were all done by the family members of each official.
3. The election of Beth Cashion as Mayor Pro Tem and the assignment of commissioners to various nominating committees..

Will transparencey improve in Davidson with new Board members? - UPDATED

We'll see starting tomorrow...

Two seemingly small things are on the agenda for Tuesday's Town of Davidson Board meeting, but of course small things can have big impact.  What makes these interesting is that the first of these occurs with the current/outgoing Board and the second after the new/incoming Board is seated.

An agenda item for new appointments to the Town Advisory Boards has be buried in the "consent agenda".  The consent agenda is where you send things that are unimportant, things that don't warrant any public discussion, things that the Board "just needs to get through" so to speak.  That hardly seems the place for important town appointments including replacement for new Commissioner Beth Cashion who serves on the Planning.  There are also several spots open on the Livability Board and the Design Review Board.  These are the three most important advisory groups for the Town, and yet, the names of the nominees are not even posted in the agenda a day before the meeting where they will be appointed. (These were added the agenda sometime Monday after this post.  See here for the list.)

Commissioners Jim Fuller and Rodney Graham serve as the Board members on the current nominating committee made up of Mayor Woods, senior Town staff, and chairs of the current committees.  It would serve the public interest and the ideal of government transparency if they did the right thing and asked to have this pulled from the consent agenda and voted on separately at tomorrow's meeting.

I'm sure the folks nominated are qualified.  I'm sure they will do a good job and know the town well.  Most will likely have completed the Town's Civics 101 class where they will have been indoctrinated in the "Davidson Way".  The only question is will they have been selected to truly represent a cross section of town residents.  Having their nominations buried in the consent agenda does not let the public know that.

The second and not-so-small small item to be voted on comes after the new Board is seated tomorrow night.  That's the new Board meeting schedule.  As discussed in the previous post, the new Board will vote on the Mayor Pro Tem.  However, after that they will vote on their meeting schedule.  One item that will improve town transparency actually appears to not be on this proposed meeting schedule.  That's the in-home meetings Commissioners have been having on the 3rd Tuesday to ostensibly discuss "team building".

However, the "special meeting" in March of last year seemed to be discussing actual Town business.  It was no longer just a wine and cheese fest but an actual meeting that really should be held in Town Hall.  While these in-home meetings do follow the letter of the open meetings law and citizens are invited.  They do not seem to fit into the spirit of being "open".  How many people are going to actually feel at ease going into someone's house?  Not too many, would appear to be the answer from reviewing the meeting minutes.

Let's hope removing this meeting is a sign of good things on the horizon from the new Board when it comes to being open and transparent.

UPDATE: The Advisory Board appointments were added to the agenda Monday after this post.  See here for the list.

UPDATE #2: At Tuesday's Board meeting in an updated agenda, these were pulled from the consent agenda prior to the meeting and voted on separately.  They passed unanimously.

Raleigh Meeting First Response... WidenI77.org Gathers Wednesday

The last post seems to have created quite a stir.  However, until this evening, no other attendees have commented.  (For the record, two WidenI77 attendees were contacted for the original post.)  Here's a comment from Davidson Commissioner Rodney Graham on how the meeting occurred.

From Commissioner Graham...

Rick, as you mentioned I was at the meeting. It was in no way an ambush as it has been characterized. Kurt Naas and the other 3 people with him were allowed to ask several questions. In fact, I asked one question and was told by Speaker Tillis that this meeting was for the purpose of allowing the Widen I-77 group to ask questions, so my question was not answered.

Speaker Tillis did invite one consultant (from KPMG) as well as two staff members and two people from NCDOT to the meeting. As he admitted, highway funding is very complicated and he wanted to make sure that he had people at the meeting who could answer questions. They did so. I felt this was a much more effective meeting than had Kurt, et. al. met privately with Speaker Tillis.

Yes, it was 'Town Hall Day' and since we were there, we went. It was a good meeting for elected officials as well.

That's certainly a different take on what happened last week, and I'm certainly glad to present the other point of view on what occurred.

However, that doesn't quite explain all of the other roughly thirty or so people who attended beyond those mentioned by commissioner Graham - including business interests, chambers of commerce and even media.  It also doesn't explain, as DavidsonNews.net pointed out, why all local media in the affected HOT lane area did not know about the meeting.

And while I can appreciate that elected officials have had multiple opportunities to learn about HOT lanes at public meetings and while I am glad they attend, I believe they also did have a closed meeting back in February where they heard from consultants on the subject.

One would think citizens could expect the same thing when meeting with their representatives.

But enough about closed meetings, who said what to whom, and which media was invited....

The WidenI77.org group is having another PUBLIC meeting this Wednesday, 7pm at Cornelius Town Hall.