THE DEATH of HB 2367, ANNEXATION MORATORIUM
The basic NC League of Municipalities’ legislative strategy regarding
reform of North Carolina’s annexation laws, as carried out in the NC Senate,
is: Deny, Delay, Discourage, and Defeat.
Deny (as in denying there is a problem, and denying access to
change), Delay (by pigeon holing bills and forming study commissions), Discourage
(as to wear down the citizens and legislators seeking reform), and Defeat (by
extensive use of the Deny, Delay, and Discourage tactics.)
1. To understand this strategy, a brief review of previous attempts
at annexation reform is useful.
~The current law was passed in 1959. There have been
several attempts at reform since.
~ In 1983, a Legislative Research Commission recommended
20 changes and 10 were enacted. Those enacted were minor in character, such as
increasing the amount of time between the passing of the Resolution of Intent
and the Public Hearing. Proposals not enacted which would have brought
more balance to the law: the requirement for certified mail notices, a method
for de-annexation if services were not delivered as required, a ban on future
“local” acts concerning annexation, and a deadline for the changes to take
effect (essentially a “moratorium”).
~ Following two years of failed
attempts to amend the law, in 1998 another Legislative Research Commission was
established. The membership of this Commission clearly shows the lack of
influence exhibited by the citizens of North Carolina. In addition to the
Representatives and Senators, the Commission included the Mayor of Washington,
NC, a Councilwoman from Greensboro, NC, and the City Attorney for Charlotte,
NC. There were neither citizens nor citizen groups represented on the Study
Commission.
* Changes proposed
during the Commission’s hearings: 35
* Changes proposed
in the Commission’s report to the General Assembly: 23
* Changes proposed
which actually became part of the law: 14
* Percent of
changes endorsed by NCLM which became law: 80% (8 of 10)
* Percent of
changes proposed by two citizens groups to the Commission which became law:
ZERO (0 for 12).
2. This brings us to the most current
application of the Deny, Delay, Discourage, Defeat strategy. We need to
return to the summer of 2007, at the adjournment of that year’s legislative
session. The House sent to the Senate a resolution concerning adjournment,
including a number of proposed joint select committees, one of which was a
study of municipal annexation. The Senate returned this resolution, but omitted
the proposed Joint Select Committee on Municipal Annexation. This deletion did
not go unnoticed, and the House unanimously voted to put that Joint Annexation
Select Committee back in the resolution and returned it to the Senate.
~Unfortunately, the Senate had
already adjourned for the year and “had left the building.”
~This missed opportunity will
be important later in the 2008 “Short Session.”
~Late in 2007, Speaker Joe
Hackney, a man of his word, did as he had promised and established the House Select
Committee on Municipal Annexation, which, for the first time, included citizen
representation.
~This Select Committee, having
a mix of Republicans and Democrats, met numerous times in 2008 before the start
of the “Short Session.” The Committee recognized that (1) Reform of this 50
year old law was needed, (2) An in-depth study would be required for
substantial reform, and (3) Municipalities had been and are, abusing the law
with impunity, as there is no oversight. The Committee produced HB 2367, Annexation
Moratorium, which was to put a halt to new annexations and a hold on existing
ones for nine months while the Committee could develop specific recommendations
for change.
~This bill passed the House by
a 98-18 vote on July 2, 2008 and was sent to the Senate.
3. The death of HB 2367:
~Senator Rand immediately
placed HB 2367 in the Rules and Operations Committee of the Senate (he chairs
this Committee), where all bills the leadership do not like go to die. It is
important to know Senator Rand’s stated reasons for doing so.
~“The Senate rules do not
allow the Senate to consider this bill.”
~To begin with, Senator Rand
has acknowledged, to two different groups who met with him, that “He sets the
Rules” for the Senate. He could have easily allowed the bill to go forward
since he has that authority (another, different, story.)
~Furthermore, the Senate Rules
did allow consideration of HB 2367. Senate Joint Resolution 1573 (2007)
specifically states that bills implementing the resolutions of study
commissions and select committees may be heard. It does not differentiate
between a “House Only” or “Senate Only” or “Joint” select committee. Further,
Senator Rand allowed HB 2188, a product of a House Select Committee to
go forward. It was passed by the Senate and signed into law by the Governor.
~It is interesting to note that
25 of the 50 Senators signed a form requesting Senator Rand move HB 2367 to the
Senate floor for debate and vote. Another 8 Senators verbally requested such a
move, making a total of 33 to support the request. Senator Rand’s refused to
move the bill out of Rules.
~As citizens inundated his
office with protesting e-mails and calls, Senator Rand said that he
thought the Senate should have been a part of the House study, and since it
was not, then he advocated forming a Joint House and Senate committee to study
possible changes to annexation reform.
~Please refer to the “missed
opportunity” noted in paragraph 2, above. Before the Senate headed home for the
summer in 2007, they had had a perfect opportunity to join the House in
studying the issue of annexation reform, but the Senate leadership specifically
removed the annexation study from the proposal. The Senate did not participate
in 2008 because they specifically chose not to participate in 2007.
4. So, at the end of the 2008 “short
session,” as Senator Rand wanted, a Joint Legislative Study Commission on
Municipal Annexation was formed.
“The Commission shall be composed of 28
members as follows:
(1) Twelve members appointed by the
President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
(2) Twelve members appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(3) One member representing the
North Carolina League of Municipalities, appointed by the President Pro Tempore
of the Senate.
(4) One member representing the
North Carolina League of Municipalities, appointed by the Speaker of the House
of Representatives.
(5) One member representing the
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, appointed by the President
Pro Tempore of the Senate.
(6) One member representing the
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, appointed by the Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
~Supposedly, these members were
to have been appointed in August and begin meeting in September. The reported
goal was to have specific recommendations for annexation reform by the time the
new Legislature was seated in January of 2009, as that is the “drop dead” date
of these appointments.
~There is an election in
November, a Thanksgiving, a Christmas, and a New Year’s Holiday between now
and then.
~And what is this Commission
supposed to study?
"As a part of its study, the
Commission may examine issues related to:
(1) State law governing involuntary
annexation, voluntary annexation by petition, and voluntary satellite
annexation.
(2) Municipal compliance with current
annexation procedural standards.
(3) Provision of services to persons in
areas subject to annexation.
(4) The effect of creation of an
independent review procedure for municipal annexation decisions.
(5) Current standards for judicial review
and appeal of municipal annexation decisions.
(6) The impact of current annexation law on
municipalities and the state of a whole.
(7) Whether the state's current annexation
law should be amended.
(8) Any other issue related to annexation
deemed relevant by the Commission."
~Note the use of “may”
in the lead sentence.
~The Commission appointees were
not announced until September 15, 2008.
~Senator Tony Rand was
appointed to this Commission as a member by Senator Basnight. (Initially
surprising, this appointment now makes perfect sense.)
~On September 30, 2008, as a
citizen appointed to the Commission by Speaker Hackney, I e-mailed all four
co-chairs of this Committee asking for a schedule of meetings and also for an
agenda for each meeting so I could prepare properly.
~As this is written (Oct 14),
2008) I have had no reply to my request for information to the four co-chairs.
~On October 7, 2008, I asked
the Speaker’s office if they knew of any schedule.
~On October 10, 2008, the
co-chairs announced a meeting for October 22, 2008, during which David Lawrence
would make a presentation on annexation law in North Carolina.
~On October 11, 2008, the
October 22, 2008 meeting was canceled.
~Remember, the Commission’s
appointment terminates no later than the opening of the 2009 Legislative
Session in January 2009.
~Obviously this Commission will
never be able to cover these subjects in the time it has been given.
~It is patently obvious what is
going on: Deny, Delay, Discourage, Defeat.
~So, what are the citizens of
this state to do?
I URGE YOU TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:
1. Communicate with all candidates for the
General Assembly you will be voting for and let them know how critical their stand
on annexation reform will be their obtaining your vote.
Results in the upcoming election may affect the leadership's thinking on this
issue.
2. Write the current Senate leadership and
share your thoughts on their actions to date. Remind them they represent the
entire state in their leadership roles, not just special interests.
3. Write your local newspapers
and insure they are aware of the what is going on (or, more properly, NOT going
on) with this Commission. Alert them to the Deny, Delay, Discourage, Defeat
strategy being used by the NCLM and the Senate.
We have come this far by actively keeping
focused on the goal of annexation reform. That is what we must continue to do,
and we will work with anyone committed to that goal, be they Democrat,
Republican, Independent, or Libertarian. We must continue to communicate to our
elected officials that we are going to be here until these annexation laws are
fixed, and we will be back next year, and the year after that and the year
after that. If we get minimal reform in 2009, that will NOT be the end of our
efforts.
We are not going away.
Period.
Doug Aitken
President, Fair Annexation Coalition