Annexation Study Committees_ the end game

So here "we"* are....
(*those in the effort to put an end to forced annexation)
And where is that?

"We" have, collectively, over the last ten years or so, been working toward putting an end to forced annexation. Yes, at least ten years. That is how long it's been since the New Hanover Good Neighbors group started the effort to go beyond battling their offending local City Council and took the battle through the courts to the Federal Fourth Circuit.

During the time frame when this GNU group poured their hearts and souls and resources into this judicial odyssey, the General Assembly had a Committee working on a study of municipal annexation. This study was authorized in 1996, and it took two years before the resulting Bill and legislation came forward in 1998.

Some type of outcry for reform has actually been ongoing for over thirty years. There were studies done in the 1980's also. You can find the records of the 1980 study and more at the School of Government website, where new pages of information have been added, dedicated to the history and current events in the annexation legislation battle:
http://www.sog.unc.edu/programs/annexation/history.php

The New Hanover Good Neighbors found the time and the commitment to attend all of those Study Commission meetings, in addition to pursuing their case through the courts. They presented recommendations to the committee that reflected the wishes of affected landowners. So what did the 1998 Commission do with those recommendations?
To read the record of these meetings should be quite enlightening to anyone today who feels equally committed to getting the law changed.

For starters in the lesson on how "annexation studies" have gone and what they have produced in changes to the law, take a look at the report from the 1980 study: LINK HERE

If nothing else, just look at the table of contents.
What do you see? Does it look familiar??
As Solomon lamented in Ecclesiastes, "There is nothing new under the sun."

As you read through this document, notice that this Committee, authorized by the Legislature, was comprised entirely of members from the League of Municipalities and the County Commissioners Association. You might also note that the tone and conclusions are dominated by the Municipal League's point of view. The County Commissioners Association folded in 1980 and failed to really stand up for what is right. We now have signs that some of our County officials are pushing back.

In this early study, you can also read ALL of the very same arguments for forced annexation that we continue to hear today over and over. When you read the city boosters claim that the NC annexation law was judged the best in the nation, know that the "authority" that they fall back on is an opinion from the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations on the merits of consolidation.
The ACIR opinion that they hold onto is an OLD opinion; based on an early view that urban areas should be consolidated. The cities were well represented on the ACIR Commission in the 50's and 60's. The ACIR has since revised their opinion on the benefit of consolidation, as evidence to the contrary has become apparent.
But the NCLM lobbyists know that they can conveniently skip over inconvenient facts, and continue to spew propaganda, because it has worked for them every time so far.

Well__Don't you feel like the time has come to say "ENOUGH"!! ?

ENOUGH with the studies!
ENOUGH with the NCLM approved tweaks to the law!
ENOUGH with throwing aside the input and recommendations from the landowners who have been run roughshod over with laws that enable predatory annexation by municipalities!

Enough with trotting out the same pro-city presentations by David Lawrence from the School of Government and half hour presentations by the Director of the League of Municipalities and City Attorneys, while shutting out presentations from policy experts who think the annexation law has serious flaws.

ENOUGH with "Annexation Studies" PACKED with known city apologists for keeping the law intact. Names and faces that show up on the roster of the Committees over and over again. Names like Clodfelter and Wegner to name a couple.

"WE" should be students of history in the annexation debate and savvy enough to learn from it. "We" should be able to recognize when the "dog & pony show" is being trotted out for the benefit of the record and the cities while the people are once again being run off into the weeds with a sham.

It should be abundantly clear that this 'Joint Legislative Committee on Municipal Annexation' is, and was always meant to be, a SHAM.
I, for one, will take no comfort out of being able to say "that's what I thought would happen" _after it is all over with.

The House Select Committee, the one that the Joint Committee swallowed up and disarmed, was born out of some sincerity towards reforming the law, and to moving the conversation in the right direction, but that Committee has been cut off at the knees. The members are still at the table, but they have been outnumbered. The defenders of city power are swaggeringly confident that they have everything, including the outcome, well within their control. The evidence of this is screaming at anyone paying attention:

1) The Senate had been refusing for over a year to participate in another study. When they felt the overwhelming outcry from all of us, they jumped in at the last minute with this Joint Commission as 'damage control'.

2) The timing gives them no time to legitimately study what should be done. Lots of available excuses for why they won't meet more than once or twice; _the elections, _the holidays, _the legislative deadline on the lifespan of the committee.

This commission is legislatively required to end the moment that the 2009 Session begins. Extension of its existence is not up for negotiation. Another Commission would have to be formed. Consider that State Law does not allow study commissions to meet while the General Assembly is in session. Even Standing Committees must meet between sessions and during recesses.

The writing is on the wall that the Joint Commission's "recommendations" are already written, hatched behind the scenes, and ready to launch.

The first meeting on December 4th is already scheduled to be taken up by another rerun of having David Lawrence explain NC Annexation Law. Every legislator on the Commission has heard this presentation before, but it's a handy time filler.

The Senate leadership clearly intended to stifle the conversation, not help it along. They clearly wanted to control what came out of any Annexation Study Committee and not to honestly listen to any arguments against forced annexation. Remember the arrogance with which they blocked the Moratorium Bill!

The friendly Legislators on the Commission need to hear from you encouraging them to stand up for what is right and for what the people want.

The unfriendly Legislators need to hear what the "line in the sand" is for the people and that anything less will be vocally opposed by the people! Tell them you know they are 'cooking the books' as to what comes out of this Commission!

Let them all know that no matter what they do, WE ARE ALL WATCHING!

REMEMBER that it was the increasing outcry from growing numbers of people across the State that made the House take action and the Senate scramble to regain control of where the annexation issue was going!!
THAT IS OUR STRENGTH!!
THAT IS OUR AVENUE TO SUCCESS in achieving the end of forced annexation!

We should learn from history and not let ourselves be led down a path to repeat it. The people need to take control of this issue in the General Assembly. This strategy requires more than just a couple of citizens on the Study Commission. It is going to take all the same efforts and response that hundreds (thousands?) of people took that pushed the Moratorium Bill through the House successfully and restored it from a gutting. That kind of grassroots outcry multiplied several times over is our strength and what is needed.

WE all need to enlist our friendly legislators to submit and sponsor one Bill that spells out what we, the affected people, really want. Then WE need to focus ALL of a unified grassroots outcry, like the outcry evident last session, toward the General Assembly, behind that one Bill.

Joint Annexation Study Committee

Well... Hackney and Basnight finally got around to appointing the members of the Joint House & Senate Study Committee. The Senate decided at the last minute they wanted to be involved in the discussion of annexation reform.
So here it is.

The last minute move by the Senate to jump into this "Study", (after they refused to have anything to do with it in 2007), looked real suspicious when the plan was announced at the end of the '08 Short Session. I suspect they aren't jumping in to be helpful to the people.

Daren Bakst has some interesting comments about the Committee makeup on the JLF Locker Room Blog.

It has taken the Leadership so long to appoint the members that it was starting to look like they were delaying on purpose.
AND SENATOR TONY RAND WAS APPOINTED!!

There is very little time left for the Committee to meet before the end of the year. The Long Session of 2009 begins in January.

Between now and then, we have the Holidays and a major election season to deal with. Many of these Committee members are up for re-election. It doesn't bode well for having any serious debate or analysis of the problems with the current annexation laws_ or any recommendations that resemble anything close to what the hundreds of people who spoke up for while the House Study Committee was looking at the laws and problems.

After playing this game with "Study Committees" for nearly a year, it might be time to change focus. Like I said, there are a good number of Legislators on this Committee who we already know are against the people ever being heard over the city advocates.

Some of them have good people running against them who could use more support from the people.
Check the "Candidates Page"

This election needs to send a message to the General Assembly. A message that rings louder than the outcry they heard at the Public Hearings and Rallies.A message that entrenched incumbents understand!
"YER OUTTA HERE!"

In the meantime, the contact information for all committee members is provided for the annexation reform warriors to use. These people should hear from us right away and regularly.
Get ready to push hard on the Legislators in 2009.
We know what we want and so do they.
The Legislators have studied this before many times.
It's time to act.

A Picture of Predatory Annexation...

Fayetteville Forcibly Annexing Again!!

(click here to view)

Dennis Draughon Freelance Aug 3, 2008 EditorialCartoonists.com

State of Annexation Reform

After all the activity and effort put into trying to get the one recommendation that came out of the House Select Committee to Study Municipal Annexation to pass into law, it has been fairly quiet as far as further action from the General Assembly.

Yes...they adjourned the Short Session, and allowed Senator Rand to file the Moratorium Bill in the round file under his desk, but the Senate as a whole responded to the pressure from all of the calls and letters from people across NC. In response, the Senate decided that they would now have a joint committee to take over what the House Select Committee had decided to accomplish on their own. This is an 'about face' after the Senate flatly refused to have anything to do with an annexation study at the end of the 2007 Long Session.
Without the tireless and committed efforts of so many networked people over the last year or so, I doubt that the Senate would be joining the conversation right now.

But let's not pop any champagne corks over this turn of events just yet. Let's take a cold hard look at other possible motivators for this move by the Senate. The devil is going to be in the details with this Study Committee and we have to be realistic about the potential pitfalls. A look at the potential pros and cons would be useful:

Pros:

• We have both the House and the Senate studying the issue.
• We have a targeted opportunity to educate the Senate about what the cities are doing from our perspective and front line experience.
• Resulting changes to the law might move more quickly through to passage.

Cons:

• The size of this Committee will increase the time spent in debate.
  
• The membership of the Committee could end up weighted in favor of the cities.
• Much of the discussion that has already taken place with the House Committee will have to be repeated.
• The opinions of the House Select Committee members will be diluted and possibly outnumbered by the additional members.
• Consensus will be more difficult to achieve.
  

Most of you are probably familiar with the quote "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes". That is why we need to understand what has been done and what has been said on both sides of the issue before today. If we think that we are breaking new ground and bringing new information to today's discussion, when in reality we are simply re-inventing the wheel, we give our opponents the advantage in this discussion more than they already have. We can't afford to kid ourselves about the level of skill that our opposition has acquired over the years in defending itself against possible arguments we bring to the table.

The NCLM has been down this road many times before. Their counterparts in other States have gone through these challenges before also. They are networked on a National scale to hone their skills together against the waves of protest that build to the point where the State lawmakers react with a 'Study'. The National League of Cities is the umbrella for the defense of annexation laws that favor cities and the NCLM Director holds a key position in the NLC. They collectively have lawyers and staff by the legion and dedicated funding just for this kind of defense.

On the reform side of the battlefield, the troops are often outnumbered Legislators who believe that forced annexation is wrong on principle, along with varying numbers of people from a new crop of citizen activists; people who have been recently handed the task of absorbing laws and historical facts about municipal annexation in a crash course time frame. Valiant efforts have been undertaken by some of these groups, progress made, and small successes achieved at times, but the goal for true reform remained.
It's a tall order to drink all that in and put it all in historical perspective in order to effectively take the conversation and the effort for reform to a higher level of success, but I believe we can do it if we are informed, realistic, and committed to an extended effort.

We have already spontaneously created a new element in the annexation battle in North Carolina, and that is the connected, coordinated activity, information sharing, and brainstorming between all the various groups across the State. This has never been achieved before.
Less than four years ago, the groups of property owners who rose up and organized to fight against forced annexation were fighting in isolation, unaware of similar efforts being waged in some other part of the State. Each group focused singularly on what seemed to be the logical target for their efforts; the offending City Government; not realizing until it was nearly over that the laws on the books in Raleigh were stacked against their success. Taxes were saved, lawyers were paid, but eventually new city residents were forced to accept their new status and they moved on the best that they could. We now refuse to leave it at that and that is progress in the right direction!

Let's use a knowledge of history and arm ourselves to take the battle to a higher level.
After spending some time researching and looking at the past committees on annexation, useful information is revealed. The goal was to see how the membership of these past studies were decided, what prompted the study, who was involved, what was said, and what the resulting changes to the annexation laws were.

There was one significant study in 1983 that produced law changes and another in 1998.
The 1983 Study produced significant changes to the law, and some changes that all of us who've had to fight forced annexation have come to know. The 1998 study has some interesting details regarding what prompted it, the public involvement, and what it accomplished.

I'll be posting the related information that I have found regarding these studies to the StopNCAnnexation "Resources" page soon.

For now, for our side of this effort for reform, the immediate task at hand is to continue to contact Senators and Representatives about who is going to selected as members for the Committee. The NCLM has been given two seats at the table and that will be in addition to the one member of the House Select Committee that they had in Judith Wegner. Past studies have allowed the NCLM to choose city officials for members, but the language in the current study is written in a way that would allow Ellis Hankins himself to be a member.
Two seats will go to the County Commissioners Association to choose, and they are likewise open to seating direct members of their organization. This is another place where we need to try to steer the selection toward members who aren't "in the pocket" of the city advocates.

The rest of the members are at the discretion of Speaker Hackney and Pres. Pro Tem Basnight. The language doesn't specify legislators only, but selecting legislators has been the tendency in the past, unless otherwise specifically stated that a citizen or delagate from an interest group was to be chosen, assurances from legislative staff not withstanding.

Let's continue to weigh in with the Legislators about this Committee, because they need to start picking the members and get down to work. How much can they get done before the elections and Holidays even if they start ASAP? Let's not stand idly by and let them use delay tactics without a fight.

Fate of HB2367

Today the General Assembly worked on wrapping up leftover business between the House and the Senate with an eye on adjourning the Short Session for the year.

One somewhat surprise for the annexation reform citizens was thrown into HB2431 at the last minute. I have no details yet on who was behind the scenes negotiating, but a Joint Study of Municipal Annexation was authorized in this Bill today.

You can look at the language authorizing the study in Section 46 of HB2431

I don't know if it matters who were the original sponsors and co-sponsors of the Study Bill that was used as a vehicle for additional studies, but it might be worth noting. The most important thing to note is who will be on the Committee and who will appoint them.

You will see a number of things that do not bode well for our side of this issue.

• First, there is the fact that the members of this Committee will be chosen by Speaker Hackney and President Pro Tem Basnight. They have shown us that they are more interested in what the NCLM has to say and wants than what we are interested in seeing done with the annexation laws.
  
  
• This Committee is HUGE. And the NCLM has TWO SEATS at the table directly! Never before in any study has the NCLM been given direct members ON the Committee. They have always been given priority time to present and clearly have open back room access to Legislators on Committees that are discussing issues important to them.
  
  
• There is NO direct input or membership on this Committee from any other non-governmental unit. No Citizens! No Annexation Policy Experts critical of the current law!
  
  
• The time that the Committee has from now until December 31st is short and filled with distractions like the Elections and the Holidays.
  
  
• This Committee will replace the House Select committee that was much more favorably seated with reform minded legislators. The Select Committee members will be moved to the Joint Committee.
  

But here is a point to consider; IF the Senate had cooperated last year at the end of the Long Session of 2007, the Study committee that would have resulted would not have looked much different. It would have been stacked with pro-city legislators, and it would not likely have had any citizen members. It might have been smaller in numbers, and it might not have had NCLM members appointed to it.

Some in the annexation reform effort had set their goal toward working for another study of annexation rather than rally the effort behind some or one of the many Bills to enact actual change that have been introduced in the last several years. Some believed that to ask for more than a study was a losing game. Perhaps it would have been. Perhaps not.

So here we are.

It's time to decide if we have enough committed people to step up and put heads together to come up with a strategy to defeat this obvious attempt to high-jack and railroad the people's demand for real reform instead of into a repeat of the past where not much changed in favor of the affected citizens.

Share your thoughts on this with me.

Cathy Heath
StopNCAnnexation

A REAL Moratorium Passes the House!

GOOD NEWS TODAY!

This skirmish in the battle for reform was a BIG winning step forward!

When HB2367 was heard on the House floor for the Third Reading, it was another wrestling match between the People and the City Lobbyists, and this time the People prevailed.

The NCLM was there in full force and they were doing all they could with their insider tricks to defeat any attempt to restore the Bill to the status of a REAL moratorium. It was quite a show that they put on, passing notes to their friendly Legislators on the floor and watching over them.
Ellis Hankins was texting away on his PDA nearly the whole time. At some point, he did not look happy. Maybe that was when Speaker Hackney left the session early, so did not Chair when H2367 was open for debate.

I watched out in the lobby as Hankins and Romanet dictated some notes that were written on what looked like a copy of HB2367. This was promptly delivered by a House Page to Rep. Carney. She was soon consulting with Rep Ross, Rep Lucy Allen and some others.

Carney made excuses for voting FOR the intact Moratorium Bill when it was heard in Finance! Allen made a last ditch effort to block the amendment by telling the House members that they could vote against the amendment and then would still be able to vote for a moratorium. Your letters to the Legislators informing them that the Committee subsitute was NOT a moratorium made sure that statement didn't fly. I'm wondering if Lucy Allen could speak if the NCLM didn't tell her what to say. And she represents a largely unincorporated District. ??

Carney and Allen were the most vocal opposition to amending the Bill back to a real moratorium, right behind Rep Dan Blue's impassion plea for the Cities. Whoops...he forgot the people!

But Earl Jones gave an excellent rebuttal to Blue's defense of the cities. He pointed out that they were elected to represent the people, not the cities. He also pointed out that Blue's argument for exempting the larger cities "that do it right" would be unequal treatment and unfair to all the other cities in NC.

Please check the Roll Call Vote on the NCGA website:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=H2367

Rep GoForth, Leubke and all the Study Committee members should be thanked for all that they went through to get this moratorium through. With your help, they pulled it through.

Representative Bruce Goforth, Co-Chair Bruceg@ncleg.net
Representative Paul Luebke, Co-Chair Paull@ncleg.net
Representative Larry R. Brown Larrybr@ncleg.net
Representative Nelson Dollar Nelsond@ncleg.net
Representative Earl Jones Earlj@ncleg.net
Representative Louis M. Pate, Jr. Louisp@ncleg.net
Representative Edgar V. Starnes Edgars@ncleg.net
Representative Fred F. Steen, II Fredst@ncleg.net

HB2367 - "NOT A Moratorium" Bill

HB2367, the Moratorium Bill, now The "NOT A Moratorium" Bill, is on the House schedule for Monday. The Monday session starts at 7:00 pm. The word going around is that the session is expected to be kept short so the 'Not a Moratorium' Bill might be pushed over to Tuesday.

What will be the fate of HB2367? Why is it's fate critical to the annexation reform effort as a whole?
We have all known that this battle for meaningful reform was going to be a David vs Goliath struggle between the people and the City Lobbyists. We also quickly realized that the Leadership of the House AND Senate are resisting the citizens calls for real reform. Whether the Leadership has decided to align itself with the City Lobbyists over the people or not, this is how it appears.

Speaker Hackney told The Asheville Citizen-Times that "the current annexation law that we have in North Carolina has been good for North Carolina."
It sounds to me like he was quoting the Director of the NCLM. When some citizens at the 2007 Rally spoke to him about annexation reform he suggested that they take their grievances to the NC League of Municipalities. Was he telling us who is in charge of The Peoples House by suggesting this course of action?

These facts have made the fate of HB2367 a critcal skirmish in this battle for reform. WE must push back hard on the House and Senate Leadership as to what is happening to the very first Bill to come out of the House Annexation Study Committee.
WE CAN NOT LET WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO THIS BILL STAND!

When this Moratorium Bill went into the Judiciary II Committee is was intact. When it came out it was a toothless sham. It doesn't merit the Title of a Moratorium Bill because it is NOT a moratorium as it is. WE have to get that changed before it is voted out of the House.

Watch this short video of the Judicairy II meeting where the teeth were pulled: Judiciary II Meeting Video

There was no discussion of the true impact of the amendment. It was not explained clearly. The Committee was told that the proposed amendment would "just allow the cities to plan" during the moratorium. The Committee members did not question the details of what they were being asked to vote for. The amendment was rushed through to a voice vote. Did any of them know that this was going to be the fate of the Bill ahead of time? Can we blame them all for what happened? We will never know for sure.

On the later second amendment that changed the moratorium dates, Rep. Folwell was the lone no vote.

But this we do know; the damage to the Bill must be reversed before the Bill is passed out of the House. If not, the Bill will be a victory for the City Lobbyists. If they win this skirmish, how much harder will it be to stop their efforts later when meaningful reform is on the table?

Here is what I suggest that we, the people, do:

Every member of the House must hear from all of us immediately. Every email should copy Speaker Joe Hackney. What we say should be concise and firm.
House Contact information

*********************************************************************

Dear Representative,

The Judiciary II Committee Subsitiute for HB2367 is a gutted Bill. It has been amended to where it is no longer a moratorium at all.

We are asking you to restore HB2367 to 'Version I'. This version was overwhelmingly voted out of the Finance Committee in a bi-partisan show of support for the recommendations of the House Select Committee to Study Municipal Annexation.

The Judiciary II Committee substitute for HB2367 is NOT a moratorium.

The House Study Committee recommended a MORATORIUM. We the people want a moratorium. Stand up and make this right when it comes before you on the floor of the House next week.

Thank you,

*******************************************************************
House Leadership, Joe Hackney 919-733-3451 Email: Joeh@ncleg.net
********************

Together, we ARE being heard in the General Assembly, and together we CAN push back against the undue influence of the City Lobbyists and sold out Legislators.

This recent blog post to the JLF Locker Room Blog illustrates what the City advocates want to do to this Moratorium Bill and to us:
"Moratorium Sham"

Cathy Heath
http://www.stopncannexation.com/

"Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that
can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government" -- Thomas Jefferson


Full list of House Member Email:
Almaa@ncleg.net; Kellya@ncleg.net; Marthaa@ncleg.net; Lucya@ncleg.net; Carya@ncleg.net; Marilyna@ncleg.net; Jeffba@ncleg.net; larryb@ncleg.net; Curtisb@ncleg.net; Danb@ncleg.net; Johnbl@ncleg.net; Aliceb@ncleg.net; Joeb@ncleg.net; Vanb@ncleg.net; Williambr@ncleg.net; Larrybr@ncleg.net; Brub@ncleg.net; Angelab@ncleg.net; Beckyc@ncleg.net; Waltc@ncleg.net; Debbiec@ncleg.net; Georgec@ncleg.net; Lorenec@ncleg.net; Nelsonc@ncleg.net; Lindac@ncleg.net; Triciac@ncleg.net; Jimcr@ncleg.net; Billcu@ncleg.net; Billd@ncleg.net; Leod@ncleg.net; Margaretd@ncleg.net; Jerryd@ncleg.net; Nelsond@ncleg.net; Beverlye@ncleg.net; Bobe@ncleg.net; Billf@ncleg.net; Jeanf@ncleg.net; Susanf@ncleg.net; Dalef@ncleg.net; Phillipf@ncleg.net; Kennethf@ncleg.net; Pryorg@ncleg.net; Mitchg@ncleg.net; Rickg@ncleg.net; Bruceg@ncleg.net; Melanieg@ncleg.net; Robertg@ncleg.net; Jimg@ncleg.net; Joeh@ncleg.net; Philliph@ncleg.net; Larryh@ncleg.net; Tyh@ncleg.net; Jimha@ncleg.net; Priceyh@ncleg.net; Deweyh@ncleg.net; Markh@ncleg.net; Hughh@ncleg.net; bryanh@ncleg.net; Georgeho@ncleg.net; Juliah@ncleg.net; Sandrah@ncleg.net; Path@ncleg.net; Verlai@ncleg.net; Maggiej@ncleg.net; Lindajo@ncleg.net; Earlj@ncleg.net; Carolynju@ncleg.net; Carolynj@ncleg.net; Rick@ncleg.net; Joek@ncleg.net; Jhl@ncleg.net; Davidl@ncleg.net; Jimmyl@ncleg.net; Marvinl@ncleg.net; Paull@ncleg.net; Grierm@ncleg.net; Marymc@ncleg.net; Dannym@ncleg.net; Patm@ncleg.net; Williamm@ncleg.net; Marianm@ncleg.net; Mickeym@ncleg.net; Anniem@ncleg.net; Timm@ncleg.net; Wiln@ncleg.net; Billo@ncleg.net; Earlinep@ncleg.net; Louisp@ncleg.net; Garlandp@ncleg.net; Raymondr@ncleg.net; Karenr@ncleg.net; Deborahr@ncleg.net; Ruths@ncleg.net; Drews@ncleg.net; Mitchells@ncleg.net; Tims@ncleg.net; Pauls@ncleg.net; Edgars@ncleg.net; Fredst@ncleg.net; Bonners@ncleg.net; Rons@ncleg.net; Culliet@ncleg.net; Charlest@ncleg.net; Thomt@ncleg.net; Joet@ncleg.net; Russellt@ncleg.net; Aliceu@ncleg.net; Williamw@ncleg.net; Trudiw@ncleg.net; Tracyw@ncleg.net; Edithw@ncleg.net; Rayw@ncleg.net; Jenniferw@ncleg.net; Rogerw@ncleg.net; Winkiew@ncleg.net; Larryw@ncleg.net; Michaelw@ncleg.net; Douglasy@ncleg.net;