The History of At-Large voting in Hickory - The HDR articles and Council Minutes Documents

The following are the documents related to the changing of the municipal elections for Hickory City Council from Direct Ward to a Modified At-Large system as referred to in the articles: 

1961 -- A lesson in Hickory's History
1967 - How we got where we are today

Left Click the Images below, then right click and choose view image, and finally click the magnifying glass to see image in full size. And remember Ctrl+ will further increase image size.

Changes in Hickory Charter Discussed at Kiwanis Meet - Hickory Daily Record - 3/1/1961

2 Changes made by Board - Hickory Daily Record -February 22, 1967

Hickory Charter Revision Discussed For County Bar - Hickory Daily Record - 3/1/1961

At -Large elections Included - Hickory Daily Record - March 6, 1967

Hickory Charter Revision Wins Uphill Approval - Hickory Daily Record - May 12, 1967

Hickory City Council Minutes - Special Session - Monday March 6, 1967

Hickory City Council Minutes - Regular Meeting - March 7, 1967 - Starts at bottom of 471 and Rhyne vote changed during second reading on page 472.

City Council Regular Meeting - March 21, 1967 - Wards in the City of Hickory

Economic Stories of Relevance in Today's World -- November 13, 2011

For Bank Of America, Debit Fees Extend To Unemployment Benefits - Huffington Post - Janell Ross | Nov 10, 2011 - CORDOVA, S.C.-- Shawana Busby does not seem like the sort of customer who would be at the center of a major bank's business plan. Out of work for much of the last three years, she depends upon a $264-a-week unemployment check from the state of South Carolina. But the state has contracted with Bank of America to administer its unemployment benefits, and Busby has frequently found herself incurring bank fees to get her money.          To withdraw her benefits, Busby, 33, uses a Bank of America prepaid debit card on which the state deposits her funds. She could visit a Bank of America ATM free of charge. But this small community in the state's rural center, her hometown, does not have a Bank of America branch. Neither do the surrounding towns where she drops off her kids at school and attends church.          She could drive north to Columbia, the state capital, and use a Bank of America ATM there. But that entails a 50 mile drive, cutting into her gas budget. So Busby visits the ATMs in her area and begrudgingly accepts the fees, which reach as high as five dollars per transaction. She estimates that she has paid at least $350 in fees to tap her unemployment benefits.          "It really boggles my mind," she said. "This bank is taking little bits of money out of thousands of pockets, including mine."          Bank of America recently aborted plans to charge ordinary banking customers $5 a month to use their debit cards in the face of national outrage. But the bank has quietly continued to mine another source of fees: jobless people who depend upon the bank's prepaid debit cards to tap their benefits. Bank of America and other financial firms -- including U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase -- have secured contracts to provide access to public benefits in 41 states. These contracts typically allow banks to collect unlimited fees from merchants and consumers.          In short, the same banks whose speculation delivered a financial crisis that has destroyed millions of jobs have figured out how to turn widespread unemployment into a profit center: The larger the number of people who are out of work and dependent upon the state for sustenance, the greater the potential gains through administering their benefits.          "It's absolutely ridiculous," said Sue Berkowitz, director of the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, a Columbia nonprofit that represents low-income people facing foreclosure, food insecurity and other problems. "It should not cost you any more to use a debit card than if they had issued you a check."         For the state, handing Bank of America responsibility for unemployment benefits secured cost savings, said Berkowitz, but they have come at vulnerable people's expense.          "When it comes to ordinary people getting the benefits they have earned, the benefits they need, they don't seem to spend a lot of time worrying," she said.          Bank of America asserts that its prepaid debit cards are a good deal for everyone -- from state taxpayers to people drawing unemployment benefits.          "We have provided prepaid card programs to government agencies for many years," said Jefferson George, a Bank of America spokesman based at the company's Charlotte headquarters. "Clients value the cost savings and increased efficiency and individuals appreciate the ability to receive their benefits payments more quickly and securely."              South Carolina officials say their state's current arrangement with Bank of America, launched in July 2010, has proven a good value for taxpayers. The South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, which oversees unemployment benefits, expects to save as much $5 million in check printing and mailing costs annually through its contract with Bank of America, said an agency spokeswoman, Adrienne Fairwell. She said the state was also attracted to the debit cards as a means of helping jobless people who do not have bank accounts avoid the fees they must pay to cash checks. Roughly one tenth of all South Carolina households -- about 182,000 families -- did not have a bank account as of last fall, according to a recent Pew Research Center report. But some banking experts say the relevant cost savings are accruing to the banks themselves. New federal regulations cap what banks can collect from merchants when consumers swipe ordinary debit cards at store cash registers. The new swipe fee limits will cut Bank of America's revenues by $2 billion this year, according to Richard Bove, an analyst who follows Bank of America for Connecticut-based brokerage and research service Rochdale Securities. "Most banks are aiming to recoup 30 to 50 percent through other methods," which include prepaid card fees, said Nancy Bush, an analyst with NAB Research, LLC, a a New Jersey-based investment consulting company, who monitors Bank of America.          Those limits do not apply to most prepaid debit cards, making them particularly attractive to banks, say experts. Prepaid cards are still a small business for banks, but the sector is quickly growing, experts say. South Carolina now distributes half of all unemployment benefits using Bank of America prepaid debit cards, according to the state department of employment and workforce, with most of the other half delivered through direct deposit.          Neither the state nor Bank of America would disclose the details of their contractual arrangement. A bank spokesman termed the deal "confidential." When The Huffington Post asked the state for for the details of the contract, the spokeswoman required the submission of a formal Freedom of Information Act request. Yet one week after that request was lodged, the state has not provided the contract terms. But The Herald, a Rock Hill, S.C. newspaper, reported in 2009 that South Carolina pays the bank a 3 cent fee for each transfer it facilitates on a prepaid debit card. The bank collects the same fees from the state for handling direct deposit of unemployment benefits, a state spokesperson said. Banking experts say the real money lies in the fees the bank collects for a range of services. When the state first contracted with Bank of America, the list of potential fees the bank was allowed to collect included a $1.50 charge when a customer visited a bank ATM or teller more than once per week, a $1.50 charge for use of an out-of-network ATM, a $1.50 charge for speaking to a customer service operator more than once per month, and 50 cents for entering the wrong PIN number at an ATM more than four times or requesting more funds from an ATM than remained on the card......


Americans' Ability to Afford Food Nears Three-Year Low - Overall access to basic needs also declines to a new low - Gallup - by Lymari Morales - November 10, 2011 - WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans reporting that they had enough money to buy the food they or their families needed continued to decline in October, nearing the record low seen in November 2008. The percentage who did not lack money for food in 2011 fell to 79.8% from 80.1% in September, continuing a decline that began in April. This is only the second time since Gallup and Healthways began tracking this measure as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index in January 2008 that less than 80% of Americans reported that they had enough money to buy food throughout the past year. The record low was in November 2008, at the start of the economic crisis, when 79.4% reported that they had enough money to buy food for themselves or their families. This measure -- which asks if one had enough money to buy food in the past 12 months -- has decreased to its lowest level of the calendar year each October since 2009. The reason for this pattern is unclear and does not appear to be related to world food prices. In 2008, fewer Americans reported that they had enough money to buy food in August and November than in October, likely affected by high gas prices in the former case and the onset of the economic crisis in the latter. Still, this October finds fewer Americans saying that they had enough money to buy food over the past year than in each October for the past three years.          Further indicating that Americans are facing mounting economic strain, the percentages saying they have enough money to provide adequate shelter or housing and healthcare and/or medicines for themselves or their families have also declined each October since 2009. These percentages did show slight improvement between 2008 and 2009. ...


Thanksgiving Meal Cost Jumps 13% - Bloomberg - Jeff Wilson - Nov 10, 2011 -  The cost of a Thanksgiving dinner in the U.S. will jump 13 percent this year, the biggest gain in two decades, as prices rose for everything from turkey to green peas to milk, the American Farm Bureau Federation said.
A meal for 10 people on the holiday, which falls on Nov. 24 this year, will rise to $49.20 from $43.47 last year, the biggest increase since 1990, based on foods traditionally served including stuffing and pumpkin pie, the farm group said today in a release. Turkey was the most expensive and had the biggest gain, with a 16-pound bird up 22 percent at $21.57.                “Our informal survey is a good barometer of the rising trend in food prices this year,” John Anderson, a senior economist at the Farm Bureau in Washington, said in a telephone interview. “We are starting to see the supply response to higher prices, but there are substantial lags.”                Thanksgiving meal costs are up more than the pace of food inflation in the U.S., where the government forecasts prices will increase 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent this year, the fastest since 2008. Rising commodity and energy prices boosted the cost of food eaten at home by 6.3 percent in September compared with a year earlier, according to data from the Census Bureau.


Median home prices fall for 3Q in most US cities - AP - By DEREK KRAVITZ, AP Real Estate Writer - November 9, 2011 - WASHINGTON — Home prices dropped in nearly three quarters of U.S. cities over the summer, dragged down by a decline in buyer interest and a high number of foreclosures. The National Association of Realtors said Wednesday that the median price for previously occupied homes fell in the July-September quarter in 111 out of 150 metropolitan areas tracked by the group. Prices are compared with the same quarter from the previous year. Fourteen cities had double-digit declines. The median price in Mobile, Ala. dropped 17.7 percent, the largest of all declines. Phoenix and Allentown, Pa., Atlanta, Las Vegas and Miami also experienced steep declines. Eight cities saw double-digit price increases. The largest was in Grand Rapids, Mich., where the median price rose 23.7 percent. South Bend, Ind., Palm Bay, Fla., and Youngstown, Ohio also saw large price increases. The national median home price was $169,500 in the third quarter, down 4.7 percent from the same period last year. Most analysts say prices will sink further because unemployment remains high and millions of foreclosures are expected to come onto the market over the next few years....



Ten Million American Families Sliding Towards Foreclosure - Sherwood Ross - Infowars.com - November 8, 2011 - Of the 55-million families with mortgages, 10.4-million of them “are sliding toward failure and foreclosure”—a tragedy that will depress the U.S. housing market for years to come, a result of too many houses for sale and too few buyers.                     That’s the blunt conclusion of distinguished economics journalist William Greider, to be published in an article in the November 14th issue of The Nation magazine. America’s “Economic recovery will have to wait until that surplus (excess houses) is gone, because the housing sector has always led the way out of recession,” Greider says. “The more housing supply exceeds demand, the more prices fall. The more prices fall, the more families get sucked into the deep muddy. The vicious cycle is known in the industry as the death spiral. So far, there’s no end in sight.”                     Greider says the solution is to forgive the debtors: “Write down the principal they owe on their mortgage to match the current market value of their home, so they will no longer be underwater. Refinance the loan with a reduced interest rate, so the monthly payment is at a level that the struggling homeowner can handle.”                  Forgiving the debtors is the right thing to do, Greider continues, “because the bankers have already been forgiven. The largest banks were in effect relieved of any guilt for their crimes of systemic fraud or for causing the financial breakdown—when the government bailed them out, no questions asked.”                 Far from a show of gratitude, Greider notes the response of the banks has been ugly. “Right now, these trillion-dollar institutions are methodically harvesting the last possible pound of flesh from millions of homeowners before kicking these failing debtors out of their homes—the story known as the ‘foreclosure crisis.’”                   The largest and most powerful banks are standing in the way of the solution and the Obama administration “is standing with them,” Greider adds, “because bankers and other creditors would have to take a big hit if they were forced to write down the debt owed by borrowers. The banks would have to report reduced capital and their revenue would decline if homeowners were allowed to make smaller monthly payments.”



12 FactsAbout Money And Congress That Are So Outrageous That It Is Hard To Believe That They Are Actually True - The Economic Collapse Blog

#1 The collective net worth of all of the members of Congress increased by 25 percent between 2008 and 2010.
#2 The collective net worth of all of the members of Congress is now slightly over 2 billion dollars.  That is "billion" with a "b".
#3 This happened during a time when the net worth of most American households was declining rapidly.  According to the Federal Reserve, the collective net worth of all American households decreased by 23 percent between 2007 and 2009.
#4 The average net worth for a member of Congress is now approximately 3.8 million dollars.
#5 The net worth of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi increased by 62 percent from 2009 to 2010.  In 2009 it was reported that she had a net worth of 21.7 million dollars, and in 2010 it was reported that she had a net worth of 35.2 million dollars.
#6 The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, saw his wealth grow by 29 percent from 2009 to 2010.  He is now worth approximately 9.8 million dollars.
#7 More than 50 percent of the members of the U.S. Congress are millionaires.
#8 In 2008, the average cost of winning a seat in the House of Representatives was $1.1 million and the average cost of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate was $6.5 million.  Spending on political campaigns has gotten way out of control.
#9 Insider trading is perfectly legal for members of the U.S. Congress - and they refuse to pass a law that would change that.
#10 The percentage of millionaires in Congress is more than 50 times higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general population.
#11 U.S. Representative Darrell Issa is worth approximately 220 million dollars.  His wealth grew by approximately 37 percent from 2009 to 2010.
#12 The wealthiest member of Congress, U.S. Representative Michael McCaul, is worth approximately 294 million dollars.

Insider Trading by Nancy Pelosi - The appearance of impropriety is impropriety!!!

Judge Napolitano: Feds Fix Economic Numbers

1967 - How we got where we are today

The following is a furthering of the discussion of how the City of Hickory came to the point where municipal elections, relating to City Council, were changed from Ward specific to the Modified At-Large system that we have today. Following the 1961 Charter revisions, you have had two municipal elections that have taken place in 1963 and 1965 as we come to a special session, which took place on Monday, March 6, 1967 at 9:00 o’clock a.m.

In Context, let me explain the City representatives at that time. Mayor – Julian Whitener / Ward 1 - Neill Clark Jr. / Ward 2 – Oren Cline / Ward 3 - John Watts / Ward 4 – Mildred Rhyne / Ward 5 - Hugh Abee / Ward 6 – Robert Shores Jr.

Consideration was given to two bills to be introduced to the North Carolina General Assembly to amend the 1961 Charter Revision. The City Attorney read the two bills after which discussion ensued particularly in regard to holding Municipal Elections At-Large.

Alderman Hugh Abee strongly opposed the “at large” elections, stating, “Hickory politics would return to a machine system with “Old Hickory” running the Highland and West Hickory Sections.”

The Mayor read parts of a letter to the Council from the League of Municipalities, which pointed out that 78 out of 106 cities with more than 2,500 populations elected their governing bodies at large, Only Hickory and six others have ward elections such as ours, he added. He pointed out further that it was incumbent upon Council to keep the population within the wards as equal as possible, because of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in regard to the “one-man, one vote” issue.

Section Four of the document presented to the General Assembly states, “The aldermen to be elected in the year 1967 shall be nominated fro m Wards 4, 5, and 6 and shall initially hold office for a period of 3 years; thereafter they shall be nominated and hold office for a period of four years. The alderman elected in 1968, and every four years thereafter, shall be nominated from Wards 1, 2, and 3. The Mayor shall be elected for a term of three years at the election held in 1967, and thereafter shall be elected for a term of four years.

The Recorded vote shows Mayor Julian Whitener, Alderman Neill W. Clark Jr., Oren L. Cline, Mildred R. Rhyne, and Robert M. Shores Jr. voting aye and Hugh H. Abee and John W. Watts voting no.

Moving forward to the next evening, Tuesday, March 7, 1967, the Mayor remarked to the Council that when the vote was taken on Monday morning on the proposed Bills that were to be introduced into the General Assembly, it was first suggested that each item be taken separately; however, in order to expedite the matter, they were voted on as a whole on first reading. On second thought, it is felt that perhaps it might be better to vote on each item separately on second reading, as when the Bills are presented to the General Assembly, it might be necessary to inform them which of the items were unanimous and which were on split votes.

Alderman Shores moved, seconded by Alderman Cline, that Section 1 of the Bill entitled "An Act to Amend Certain Sections of the Charter of the City of Hickory as Contained in Chapter 323, Session Laws of 1961", relating to candidates being voted on "at large", be approved, and that said proposed Bill be forwarded immediately to the General Assembly.

Upon vote being taken on the motion, the following vote occurred:

Voting Aye: Mayor Julian G. Whitener, Alderman Neill W. Clark, Jr., Alderman Oren L. Cline, Alderman Robert M. Shores , Jr ., Voting Nay: Alderwoman Mildred R. Rhyne, Alderman Hugh H. Abee, Alderman John W. Watts

Whereupon, the Mayor declared the foregoing passed on second and final reading.

Alderwoman Mildred Rhyne stated that at the previous meeting, she did not vote, and she assumed it was counted "yes", but that she would have to vote "no" on the issue because she had been contacted by many people in her ward to do so. She said they have made progress under the ward system. She added that with the recent Court ruling regarding "one-man, one-vote", it may be that in the future there will need to be a change made, but that she was in favor of "crossing that bridge when you came to it". She felt the Aldermen could be of more service to their wards under the present system, not that she or a single one of the other Aldermen are not interested in the City as a whole and have supported all measures for the whole City.

Alderman Abee said he had talked with people throughout the City and in no case has he found anyone who favors the "at large" system.

The Mayor remarked that to him the City of Hickory is a corporation and every citizen a stockholder, and the stockholders should have the right to elect their Board of Directors. As it now stands, only one-sixth of the stockholders have the right to vote on each Alderman. It has been his feeling, without trying to be disagreeable, that this is one of the ways with which to meet the "one-man, one-vote" rule. He felt it was long past due that each citizen have the right to say who serves in each ward.

Alderman Abee remarked that if the matter were put to a vote of the people, he believed the people would vote against it. Alderman Clark said he would have to go along with what 75% of the municipalities in North Carolina are doing.


In a March 6, 1967 article from the Hickory Daily Record entitled “City Charter Changes Sought – At-Large Elections Included,” by Glenn Sumpter, the situation is summarized. The City Council by a 4-2 vote today at a special meeting approved a motion to ask the North Carolina General Assembly to amend the City Charter to provide for at-large election of aldermen.

Under the resolution adopted, the General Assembly will be asked to approve a change that would require Hickory to have six aldermen, one from each of the City’s six wards, however the Aldermen would be elected at large. If more than two candidates announce from any of the six wards, a primary will be held within that ward to select the top two candidates. The top candidate would then be chosen by the voters of the city at large…

The article goes on to state how Aldermen Abee and Watts voted against this amendment to the charter and addresses Mr. Abee’s assertion that it would give a group of politicians a chance to build bloc votes in other wards to defeat the candidate that would best represent a ward.

Another article two months later in the Hickory Daily Record dated May 12, 1967 entitled “Home Rule an Issue - Hickory Charter wins uphill approval, “ states A change in the Hickory Charter making way for the election of Alderman at large has been approved by the General Assembly. The old ward system of electing aldermen will be junked in 1970.

An amendment proposed by Representative J. Reid Poovey, which would have put the charter changes before residents in an election was defeated. Ratification of the Charter Bill is expected today.

Representative Lloyd Mullinax today issued a statement on the Hickory Charter, referring to it as “strictly a local issue,”… “I am a strong advocate of ‘home rule’ in matters of this kind rather than in ‘rule from Raleigh.’ I voted in favor of the State Draft of proposals sent to us by the duly elected body of Hickory and I opposed any changes that the city had not requested for this bill. For me to have done otherwise would have been for me to impose ‘Rule from Raleigh’ on the people rather than to vote ‘rule by local governments.’”

“I regret any controversy that has been generated over this matter, but I do not believe that neither I nor Representative Poovey nor Senator (Adrian) Shuford should try to force our own personal opinions on the good people of Hickory over the objections of the governing body of the city and contrary to their directions"…

The Hound: What is striking about the March 1967 meetings is that a special meeting was called in which this issue was addressed. There was a first reading and it appears that Ms. Rhyne wasn’t prepared for that meeting and so she didn’t vote, as she states, and then she comes back and votes no the next night.

In 1967, you were going to have a municipal election in November, so in brainstorming discussions with others, we have felt that Mayor Whitener wanted this issue pushed through, because he knew that he had the votes with the Council that had been elected in 1965. How could he be sure that he would have the votes after another election? He couldn’t and so he probably thought it was a now or never moment to finish what had been started in 1959, with the commissioning of the committee that had brought forth Charter Revision recommendations in 1961, which included At-Large voting for City Council races. You also need to remember that 1959 was Mayor Whitener’s first year in office, so this system was something that he was very involved in and he had every intention of shepherding through.

In reading this information from 1961, what strikes a chord with me in looking at the purpose of all of this are the words of Mr. Geitner, when he states, “the elected man would be responsible to the city-at-large and not just to a small section with no political status.” And then couple this with what Alderman Abee discusses, when he states, “Hickory politics would return to a machine system with “Old Hickory” running the Highland and West Hickory Sections.”

I believe that the two statements ring true. Mr. Geitner seems to be inferring that whoever is elected is going to be more statesmanlike and represent the best interests of the city as a whole and not necessarily look towards the interests of a smaller section of Hickory that carries no gravitas (stature/importance). Mr. Abee is addressing how Candidates/Representatives of one ward would be making deals with Representatives/Power Brokers of another ward in order to first get elected and then to maintain power, while looking out for the interests of their ward constituents would become a secondary interest.

Alderman Abee, in 1967, gets into the issue of Bloc voting, in which voters from a represented interest (whether common or geographical) can determine the outcome of multiple candidates. He states his firm opposition, “that it would open up ways for a group of politicians to build up bloc votes in other wards to defeat particular candidates.” Alderman Abee was the Alderman who represented West Hickory. I believe he understood the intentions of the “Powers That Be” in Hickory. The intention was to keep the working class people in Hickory in their place. And if any candidate ran, who was going to represent the interests of the working class man, then the people from what Alderman Abee states as “Old Hickory” would make sure that the voting bloc would get the “Radical” defeated.

In the article "1961," Mr. Geitner goes into his summation of the city as a corporation and I agree with what he states, but I think he carries it out to a conclusion that I can’t agree with. I agree that every citizen is a stockholder and deserves a right to choose its Board of Directors, but I don’t think that means that the people of one Ward should be determining who is the representative of another ward.

Why? Because too many shenanigans can take place to manipulate the wards towards the outcome of the so called Board of Directors and unlike with a Business Corporation, we have to abide by structures set forth within the charter granted by the State of North Carolina. Residents aren’t the only shareholders within the City of Hickory. You have many other varied interests within Hickory (such as business and property owners without established residency) that don’t have voting rights. Are they to be granted voting rights? No. You can only vote if you live on a piece of property within the City of Hickory Proper as set forth by Statutes of the North Carolina General Assembly.

The different wards of Hickory have a multitude of socio-economic and cultural differences and this diversity needs to be and should be represented.  Just because someone doesn’t represent a notion, idea, and/or mindset you understand doesn’t mean that it is invalid or radical. Different layers of thought lead to more creativity and thus ingenuity and innovation. Most of you will see past the interjection of the "One Man, One vote" issue. That has to do with apportionment and this issue had nothing to do with apportionment. If we were/are all the same, then why even have wards? They knew this. It was about control.

Look at the vote and it relates to much of what we see today. Wards 3, 4, and 5 voted against the At-Large system. That is Kenworth, Ridgeview, and West Hickory. Wards 1, 2, and 6 along with the Mayor voted for the change. That is Historic Hickory, Northeast Hickory, and Viewmont. Do you see the pattern?

The final thought that I would like to leave you with in relation to this article is the travesty that people weren’t allowed to vote on this issue. Representative Poovey wanted to make that happen, but Representative Mullinax talked about Home Rule. This is a technicality of words, because this wasn’t about changing a budget or some other administrative issue. This was about the structure of how people vote being changed by the people who are recipients of those votes. Hickory’s Charter is its Constitution and it should have been representative of the wishes of the different segments of the city. As you can see it wasn’t a cut and dried issue and thus the citizen’s will should have been taken into consideration after debating the issue thoroughly… Hmmm… The more things change. The more they remain the same!!!

The current City Council could do the right thing and schedule this Special Election and let the citizens debate this issue and have the vote and maybe rekindle some interest in Hickory's politics and governance.

Let the People Vote!!!

But if the Council won’t do the right thing, then please

Sign the Petition!!!

1961 -- A lesson in Hickory's History

Over the last year my attention has been drawn to the issue in the City of Hickory involving Ward specific voting versus Modified At-Large voting in relation to representation of the Hickory City Council. When Harry Hipps ran for City Council in 2009, I honestly thought it was to our advantage to run City Wide against the incumbent Jill Patton, because I thought that he stood a better chance of people throughout the city getting tired of what many consider kowtowing to Viewmont interests. Little did I know what we were up against.

I want to preface all of this by saying that I have nothing against Viewmont. This is not about Viewmont. Viewmont is a fine community. I currently work in that section of the City. I was vocal about the upscaling of the area around Lowe’s Home Improvement and I honestly believe that the development in that area has proven beneficial to us all.

The issue that I am addressing is the overall general well being of the City of Hickory. When I look back to that 2009 election, the issue that bothered me most was the ambivalence of the vast majority of the citizens of Hickory. Most of the people did not vote. The turnout ended up being around 8.5% and nearly half of that vote came from the the precincts interwoven with the Viewmont area and Northwest Hickory, while those precincts only represent less than one-third of the city

We are not here to chastise the people of Viewmont for voting. They should be applauded for doing so. What the aim of this discussion is about is to examine why so few people vote in City elections and why those that do are disproportionally weighted towards less than one-third of the City of Hickory.

I remember going to a prospective Candidate forum at the Chamber of Commerce and there was a gentleman from Ridgeview and he kept talking about the fact that we needed to see Ward specific elections… how the people of Ward 4 (Ridgeview’s Ward) kept nominating Larry Pope only to have him defeated in the “General Election,” and how they weren’t having their issues represented. I hadn’t really looked at it from this point of view and I can tell you that most of my compatriots in the room thought this guy was being radical.

When I saw what happened with the City’s Swimming Pools issue, I woke up. I watched how the people on the City Council, basically through every step, railroaded the process to fit their own personal agenda and maybe those of a few supporters who have their ears bent. They didn’t follow proper procedures, then they set up these charettes and surveys and did not listen to the will of the public, they out and out lied to local media outlets, and then through the ring of acrimony that followed they defined this City Government by permanently demolishing the pool sites to try to bring a permanent end to the debate.

Then what followed was the mess over the redrawing of the ward maps. Mayor Wright took it upon himself to let this City be gerrymandered in an attempt to protect the current council. Going back to the 2009 election, the Mayor on several occasions made a point to promote the idea that the Council was “all of one mind.” This was true, with the exception of Alder Z. Anne Hoyle. Wards four and five were the only two legitimate races. Everywhere there was an event you saw how the current council was giddy over Hank, while Z. Anne was left to fend for herself. The current council did everything they could to keep a debate from occurring and the only way to attempt to get a message out would have been to buy expensive advertising on the radio, newspaper, or through telemarketing. And really, how effective is that?

Now we come to a point two years later where the incumbents from wards one, two, and three are running unopposed. In my opinion, this is a culmination of events that has been long in the making. Some of it falls on the current council and their desire for status and maintaining a status quo that will allow them to stay in office until they personally choose to leave; but much of this, I believe, stems from a system that my compatriots associated with the Hickory Hound have studied in association with and through the diligence of the Citizens for Equity in Government.

The Evidence - 1961

In a March 1, 1961 article in the Hickory Daily Record entitled “Changes in Hickory Charter discussed at Kiwanis meet,” we read about a presentation from the late R. Walker Geitner, who at the time was the President of the First National Bank of Catawba County. Mr. Geitner discusses the Charter Revision study that has taken place over the previous two years. It consisted of a five man committee that had been appointed by the Hickory City Council. He talks about how since some of the changes that were recommended were turned down during the February 21, 1961 meeting that his talk might be considered, in part, a eulogy.

It was in this speech that he stated, "A city exists by permission of the State. It is a municipal corporation -- not unlike a private corporation, particularly a public utilities concern. Citizens are stockholders in the municipal corporation and each one has a vote in the Board of Directors -- the City Council."

It was during that February 21, 1961 meeting that the Council approved the “Charter Revisions” that determined that City Council members would serve four year terms.

The committee submitted a report advising that voters in all wards be allowed to vote for candidates in all wards. This way, the speaker said, “the elected man would be responsible to the city-at-large and not just to a small section with no political status.”

The council, nevertheless, voted against the change and retained the old system of letting each ward elect its own alderman. In Stating his opposition to the present ward system, Mr. Geitner stated his personal belief that the needs of a section are also the needs of the whole city. He declared it is now time to do away with sections, as such, and to fight for the good of all citizens.

An article entitled “Hickory Charter Revision discussed for County Bar” from the same day (March 1, 1961) discusses Attorney Young M. Smith’s (another of the committee of five), address to the Catawba County Bar Association. In the article, he mentions that two of the five members of the revision committee were against changing to a “Modified At-Large” system. The two were fearful that if such a system were adopted it would lead to political agreements and maneuvering among leaders of wards. Atty. Smith stated that he was against “Wardism,” but the “Modified At-Large” system would be more harmful than helpful.

In another Hickory Daily Record article dated February 22, 1961, following the February 21, 1961 City Council meeting mentioned above, during which the Charter Revision was discussed, entitled “2 changes Made by Board,” Alderman Hugh Abee let it be known in no uncertain terms that he anticipated “a stink” if the election system were ever changed in Hickory. He charged that Hickory politics would return to a machine system with “Old Hickory” running the Highland and West Hickory Sections. The article goes on to speak about the tense atmosphere that occurred during this meeting. This was the first proposed Charter Revision in the City of Hickory in 48 years.

The Hound: This is Part 1 of this discussion about the issue of Ward Specific elections versus the current Modified At-Large system that we have today. How many people even know that in the City of Hickory, Council Ward Representatives used to be elected by their ward only?

When one reads the quotes from Geitner, Smith, and Abee, they will see that the origins of this issue were never cut and dried. The City Council in 1961 did not want to move in this direction. Sure they were worried about the issue of what Attorney Smith labeled “Wardism” and not looking out for the entire city, but one can also see that Attorney Smith knew that the Modified At-Large system wasn’t the answer and he probably would agree with Alderman Abee that the At-Large system would lead to “Block Voting” and machine politics where the Wards with Power and Influence would empower their will over the less advantaged wards where the working class and poor folks lived. Look at what Mr. Geitner says when he states, “the elected man would be responsible to the city-at-large and not just to a small section with no political status.”

I don’t want to submerge you, the reader, in all of this at once. I will follow up with what happened next and how we got to where the At-Large voting system came into being in the City of Hickory. This is the history of Hickory and some may say that it is ancient history and it is irrelevant to our present circumstances, but I will show you how we ended up on the path that led us to where we are today.

Hickory’s leadership in the 1960s was definitely not "all of one mind" and they seemed to never hold back in voicing their distinctive opinions. The decision to change the voting structure in Hickory was not changed through Unanimous Consent. The similarity that will be shown is that, like many issues we have seen lately with the current Council, there was no integrity of process. The end justified the means. The system changed through political maneuvering and did not allow the people’s will to even be taken into consideration. If the people are going to have their wishes suppressed to appease the desires of a small minority, then why should anyone expect the governing structure to be successful, when it isn’t going to have the support of a citizenry that they constantly undercut.

Hickory City Elections: The Results are in

As though it really matters, the results are in and they were as expected:

I do find it interesting that you had over 10% write-in votes in each ward. Each Ward saw more than 100 right-in votes. Compare that to 2009, when there were 86 in the Mayor race, 50 in Alder Fox's race, 9 in the Hoyle-Guess race, and 4 in the Patton-Hipps race. And this was even though the turnout was 2.3 times what it was yesterday. In 2009 there was only a 8.5% turnout, but yesterday it dropped to a little over 4%. That means that 1 out of 25 people who are registered to vote in Hickory, even bothered to vote.

I think that those numbers show that people want a choice. The empirical evidence shows that.people want a choice and they want a debate. In 2007, there was a strong challenge in Ward 1 and you had over 3,600 people who voted in that election. And that vote total, available for all to see at the Catawba County Board of Elections, shows that in the unopposed Ward 2 race only 2,900 people voted. Hmmm... that sure is curious, isn't it? People want a choice and many people don't care about what is going on in other wards and they don't bother to even check a box that doesn't represent themselves. In my opinion, this shows that the system does not work and things are getting worse, not better.

The Questions:
When will people see that we have a problem here? What will it take? Is it going to have to be the dire circumstances of complete collapse as Harry has talked about? We are squandering our birthright.

Is Democracy important to you? Look!!! We don't have it on the local level. Without an open system and choices, we will eventually lose all of our freedom and liberty.

How can Democracy in Hickory be saved? How can we revitalize the overwhelming feeling of apathy toward City politics? How do we inspire buy-in and get people to realize that we are supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people. It is your responsibility to participate.

The solutions are right in front of you. We have introduced a petition to bring back ward specific voting and let each ward choose their representative. That is what we used to have in Hickory and it worked for nearly the first 100 years. You have that system in the School Board races, why not City Council. You have Alders on the City Council who don't even represent their ward's interest. They represent the people from where the votes come. I will point blank show you this.

The line has been drawn and it will soon be up to the “public” (you) to choose whether to be part of the solution (sign the petition and allow the people to vote on this issue) or part of the problem (status quo); that stench of apathy, that you can't find where it is coming from, which is right under your noses, and where we are today.

Election Day in Hickory -- November 8, 2011

Election day in the City of Hickory and one has to wonder how many people will show up at polling precincts when the three incumbents are unchallenged.

I would like to say that I do support the candidacy of Rebecca Inglefield. Last year when everything was going down with the city swimming pools in South Hickory, she and her husband Dr. Joseph Inglefield were very supportive towards the cause. I remember both of their addresses to the Hickory City Council pleading for them to first not shut down the pools and second to offer some form of aquatic recreation. Dr. Inglefield even participated in creating a plan to move the creation of a new pool facility forward, but the Council of Intransigence did what they aimed to do all along and the rest is history -- for now.

In talking to the Inglefields, one senses how much they care about this community and want to see it succeed. I think she would bring the compassion she displayed during those times of angst to the Hickory Board of Education.

The one thing I hope that everyone understands is that this election is an embarrassment to the City of Hickory. This is not to say that I do not support the unopposed candidates. What bothers me is a system where no one cares to run for office. It tells you that the system is broken and needs to be addressed. I supported these three candidates four years ago, but at that time at least they were challenged. I thought at that time that they would bring some energy to the table in relation to addressing the fundamental flaws Hickory has faced in its need to generate business and commerce. But, instead we got four years of coasting and general consensus towards a Hickory City Council versus the World Mindset.

In my heart, I know that the Council are not all of the same mind. I know for a fact that they are not. But, in the end the image that they project is Unanimous Consent, because they feel that this facade of unity is where they derive their power. What they don't realize is that their methods have led to a public that doesn't care about this City, except where it meets individual personal interests, and buy and large that public doesn't know who the City Council representatives are. The Council needs to understand that they can hold office, but without community support it is going to be impossible to turn the City's plight around.

Although I found it odd, I actually have had fellow employees tell me that they didn't know who the Mayor of Hickory was.  Folks, if they don't know who the Mayor is, then they certainly don't know anything about the Council, City Manager, City Staff, or how the city operates.

Operating in the shadows does not inspire a public that has seen this City not progress for a decade. What it creates is a community where the best and brightest leave. A community where the young people go away to college and don't consider coming back. A community where people have to leave to seek a meaningful and fruitful career. People cannot afford to wait for Hickory to turn around at the Powers That Be's leisure, they need to feel that there is a sense of urgency and that local leaders are devoted to fixing the negative issues that most of us are facing in our everyday lives.

The Council and City Government has been brainstorming over the last several months about how to restore Population and Economic Growth to the community. The first thing they need to realize is that it isn't like turning  a spigot on and off. Their inaction has been detrimental. The longer they wait, the further we fall behind. As I have said a million times before, they have abrogated their authority. They always put their eggs in all of these other entities' baskets and expect some kind of reward. Look at Conover, they are investing heavily in their own community development. Yes, it is risky; but in the end they are set to reap greater rewards and they can say that they have personally done something to move that community forward. If you had to choose partners, which community would you choose?

Remembering Two Years Ago:

Harry Hipps - (The candidate who fully vetted a platform and tried to communicate with the people. He didn't talk about technology, he utilized it!)

Economic Stories of Relevance in Today's World -- November 6, 2011

Fed lowers GDP forecast, mulls more action - Reuters - Pedro da Costa and Mark Felsenthal - November 2, 2011 - The Federal Reserve on Wednesday slashed its forecast for growth, raised projections for unemployment and said it was mulling the possibility of buying more mortgage debt to spur a struggling recovery. While members of the central bank's policy-setting panel voted 9-1 to hold a steady course, one official urged more stimulative action now and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said Europe's debt crisis posed big economic risks. At a news conference after a two-day meeting, Bernanke said buying more mortgage-backed securities was an option to help the economy and added that the U.S. central bank was still looking for ways to give clearer guidance on its policy path. "While we still expect that economic activity and labor market conditions will improve gradually over time, the pace of progress is likely to be frustratingly slow," he said. "Moreover, there are significant downside risks to the economic outlook," Bernanke said. "Most notably, concerns about European fiscal and banking issues have contributed to strains in global financial markets, which have likely had adverse effects on confidence and growth."


U.S. Payrolls Rose 80,000 in October; Jobless Rate Fell to 9% - Bloomberg - Shobhana Chandra - November 5, 2011 - U.S. employment climbed in October at the slowest pace in four months, illustrating the “frustratingly slow” progress cited by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke this week. The 80,000 increase in payrolls was less than forecast and followed gains in the prior two months that were revised up by 102,000, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The unemployment rate fell to a six-month low of 9 percent from 9.1 percent even as the labor force expanded.


US retail sales miss expectations - The Financial Times through Yahoo News - Barney Jopson in New York - November 3, 2011 - US retail sales climbed 3.8 per cent in October, but missed market expectations as retailers prepare for a holiday shopping season of fierce competition and volatile consumer sentiment. Sales rose for the 26th consecutive month in spite of the weak US economy, but the 3.8 per cent rise fell below forecasts of a 4.4 per cent rise and marked the first miss this year. The figures did little to alter the prevailing outlook for end-of-year shopping, as consumers say they will spend less on gifts than last year while analysts forecast that once they hit shop floors they will end up spending between 2 and 3 per cent more.


Send Citi, BofA to 'Minor Leagues' for Breakup: Mayo - CNBC - Jeff Cox - November 1, 2011 - Big banks that haven't been performing should be broken up before they become a threat to the entire financial system, analyst and author Mike Mayo told CNBC.      Referring specifically to Bank of America and Citigroup , the managing director at Credit Agricole said the institutions are classic examples of banks where shareholders should be able to step in and remove ineffective executives. Bad corporate governance — and not fundamental weaknesses of capitalism — is at the heart of why so many people distrust banks, said Mayo, who called for accountability rather than more regulation. Mayo is author of the upcoming Exile on Wall Street: One Analyst's Fight to Save the Big Banks From Themselves.


Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker laughs at the great increase in wealth disparity over the past 10 to 15 years, and at Americans for not speaking out more forcibly against it - Faux Capitalism - November 1, 2011 - In an October 24, 2011 interview with Charlie Rose, former Fed Chairman and fellow Bilderberger, Paul Volcker, laughed at the great increase in wealth disparity in the United States over the past 10 to 15 years, and at Americans for not speaking out more forcibly against it (starting at 18:27).

“But there is a feeling — which I’ve been a little surprised has not been expressed more forcibly before — the distribution of income, which has changed very radically in the last 10 or 15 years. And you have a situation in the United States where there’s been almost no growth in real income for the average family for 10 or 15 years, but way at the upper end of the income distribution, there’s been an enormous increase, of a kind that didn’t take place in my lifetime or even in your lifetime. (laughs)“

Rose responded with “it’s unbelievable!” — which is only genuine if he’s referring to Americans not speaking out more forcibly against it, and not the fact that it’s taken place, since he holds the Triple Crown for membership in globalist organizations where policies are discussed and made, and he regularly features fellow members on his program.     Rose posted a short 4-minute YouTube clip from the nearly half-hour interview, conveniently omitting reference to fellow Bilderberger Paul Volcker laughing at fellow Americans.


GOLDMAN SUX - Giant Squid Strikes Again at Occupy Wall Street's Credit Union - Greg Palast - October 31, 2011 - Last week, Democracy Now! and The Guardian ran our story about Goldman Sachs yanking financial support from a community credit union for honoring one of its largest customers. The customer: Occupy Wall Street. Our report so enraged Goldman that, within days, it doubled down on its attack on the little community bank. Goldman had already demanded the return of its $5,000 payment to the Lower East Side Peoples Federal Credit Union. Now, sources say, the trillion-dollar Wall Street mega-bank sent the following message to the not-for-profit community bank: "You will never get a dime from any bank ever again." About those "dimes" Goldman is taking away: They come from you and me, the taxpayers who put up billions into the Troubled Asset Recovery Plan (TARP), usually known as the Bank Bail-Out Fund.

Mortgage Fraud and the Housing Market - October 28, 2011 - Max Keiser & Catherine Austin Fitts