AUGUSTUS CHO

 

November 27, 2009

"What would it take to heal the wounds of racism?"

 

The Town of Chapel Hill's Justice in Action Committee sponsored a forum to address the topic of racism in our community.

Here is the overview of various perspectives as presented.

No final solutions but another step forward...

 

 -Augustus

********** 

 

November 22, 2009


Thinking Ahead: A time to reflect, address issues & plan for the future of Chapel Hill

The Chapel Hill News raises an interesting observation in today's paper...

The Town Council is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the appointing of the fifth seat.

Of course, this could have been avoided.  One thing is for sure: whatever scheme Strom & Company had, it has not worked out quite the manner he/they had probably intended.

Still, when Chapel Hill is dealt lemons, then Chapel hill might as well make lemonade...

Under the circumstances, the time can be better utilized addressing issues challenging us.

The issues:

• Representation of minority populations in Chapel Hill
• Assured representation of areas of rapid and dense growth along the major corridors
• Assured representation of all geographical areas of Chapel Hill

This may be the time to create a ward system of representation in local elections to help ensure that minorities and all geographical areas are represented…particularly with the Carolina North and the East 54 areas of Chapel Hill growing with high density developments.  If not, Chapel Hill faces the possibility of having all  of its representatives from one ethnic group (the current scenario) and/or having all local representatives from one geographical area within Chapel Hill, which is not ideal.

This move will also help to create and insure a more true representation of the population and the geographical areas of Chapel Hill.

The options should be considered by the current council.

A suggestion to facilitate the drawing of wards is to follow the appointment of the fifth-place council candidate.  Then, prior to drawing the districts, appoint two "minority" council members*: one a two-year term and one a four-year term for staggering purposes (do the math: since the total minority populations represent anywhere between 21% to almost 25% of entire Chapel Hill population --[25% of 8 would be 2/8 or ¼ of the council]) to this current council.   That would present 10 council members and 1 mayor for a total of 11 members.  With this scenario, there could be 4 ward seats and 6 at-large seats with half of each elected every two years.  The council can continue with 11 sitting members or otherwise, appoint two minority members for two-year terms only and then return the council to 9 sitting members at the next election cycle.

(*To appoint just an African-American will not be perceived as being fair nor just, since the Asian population is larger than the former.  Otherwise, it appears that CH discriminates on race, giving preference to one segment of society over another)

The above solution will provide for equality in the representation to draw fair and equitable wards (political divisions).  In addition, there should be several at-large council positions as well.  Once that is accomplished, the leadership should be more representative of all the citizens of Chapel Hill.

Based on the number of approximately 40,000 voters in Chapel Hill and if you look at the map of precincts, two are in House District 54 [ Dogwood Acres/Mary Scroggs Elementary School (2,858 registered voters) and Kings Mill/Aldersgate Methodist Church (2,043 registered voters)] and the rest, 19, are in House District 56.  All precincts are in Senate District 23 and all are in House of Representatives District 4 at present.

One scenario is to divide the 40,000 by 4 to obtain 4 fairly equal ward seats and then to allow 4 at-large seats.  This will allow 2 ward seats and 2 at-large seats to be elected every two years along with the mayoral election...


The council should show some wisdom, creativity and leadership.  It doesn't have to remain between a rock and a hard place.

**********


November 5, 2009

 

A Response to Nancy Oates "Minority Leadership"

 

What makes America what it presently is, is the broad intellectual spectrum: from the ignorant to the well informed…to the simply presumptuous…

I do not know Nancy Oates personally; still I have no reason to think that she has anything but good intentions when she wrote her thoughts.

One thing is for sure: she wrote them from a white, female person’s perspective.

Having said that, I will share how her words come across to me, a non-white, male perspective…essentially, a minority (according to her definition)…

Foremost, I found her words quite revealing about the state of the mind of our community - or at the least a segment thereof – and…it’s disappointing.

There are four specific aspects that concern me about the writer's state of mind:

1. "Minority Leadership"

The label/description itself is distasteful: how does she determine who the "minorities" are?  What is her definition of a “minority”, much less minority leadership?

Deducing from her words, it is apparent that she is referring to one specific racial group: Blacks - no more, no less.  This is as simplistic as it gets.

While it is probably true that she may be in the racial “majority” in the area of Chapel Hill where she likely lives, I can drive her about fifteen minutes east of here where she will immediately become a “minority” that she refers to nonchalantly and cavalierly.

Additionally, if she is in the majority now, she will not be one for long: according to the world population data, the "whites" are already in the minority, numerically speaking: there are more Chinese alone than there is the white population - combined.  Also, the fastest growing population via immigration – both legal and illegal – and by birth is the Latin population.  At this rate, there is the distinct possibility that she will become a "minority" in the US in her own lifetime.

Categorizing the broad yet complex American racial identity to a crude simple majority/minority or black/white does not advance our society; in fact, it could be more detrimental than beneficial.   Call it what you will: the Melting Pot, the Salad Bowl, or any other latest sociological term, the fact is, it is getting more difficult to find the "pure" American.

Perhaps Oates is the exception that can trace her genealogy back to the days of 1700’s but the last time I ran into a DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution) was back in 1980 when I was a student at Carolina.  They are getting difficult to find - for better or for worse.

BTW, most "minorities" resent being labeled or being referred to as one...including me primarily because I do not consider myself a "minority" - just another Chapel Hillian who cares enough about our community to serve and to participate in the pro cess.

 

2. “Minority Leadership”

The reference and the juxtaposition of the two words, "Minority LEADERSHI P", are also troubling: it subtly implies that being a “minority” and being a “leader” is somehow an oxymoron.

The implication: there is the morally superior “majority (white) leadership” and then there is the inferior “minority leadership”.  Furthermore, the implication is that the minority leadership is to be practiced by the minorities for the minorities.  In other words, a white leader can lead other races but the converse is not applicable.  The leadership by whites can trickle down but “minority leadership” does not trickle upward.  The concept of human beings in leadership role – regardless of race - is evidently not workable.

It’s a good thing that the U.S. Armed Forces is not aware of this silly reality; otherwise, this Chapel Hill concept of “minority LEADERSHIP” would screw up something that works out quite successfully.

 

 

3.  Subconscious patronizing white attitude

Aside from the two inferences (MINORITY leadership and the minority LEADERSHIP), the rest of the points raise how narrow the dominant, white culture in Chapel Hill still see life in the community - in black and white.  The issue of a council appointment is the latest example: -discussed only from a black/white context.

Clearly, the rest of the human spectrum - the Asians, the Latinos, the Native-Americans, the Middle-Eastern, and those from the African continent communities does not exist in Chapel Hill (or at least in the life ethos of Nancy Oates).

This may come as a rude awakening for some: our town has more than just whites or blacks.  The fact is, Chapel Hill is racially and ethnically more diverse…and intricate.

However, I do understand that the "majority" race finds it easier to deal with life’s complexities by categorizing it into two simplistic and manageable categories of black and white, no matter how inaccurate or unrealistic they may be.

 

 

4. Selective application of equality & justice

I also found her views slighting in that the columnist chose to ignore and overlook an important historical aspect of this past election: this was the first time there were two Asian candidates - yours truly for mayor and Christine Lee who ran for a school board seat.

The fact that a well-qualified individual (personal background, her service to the CHCCS at different levels) by the name of Dr. Christine Lee was disregarded in the story - namely because she was neither black nor white - reveals a lot about the state of racism in our fair town of Chapel Hill.

So, I find it almost amusing when Oates refers to two African-American males and one white female elected as the two new school board members as a "a healthy multicultural and gender mix of leadership."  What is so “healthy multicultural” about two blacks and one white individual?  Hasn’t it been like this most of the American history?  Now, it’s called “healthy multicultural”?

It may be a shock to Nancy Oates, but there are a significant number of non-white and the non-black students in the district who feel they will have no representation on the school board.  If ethnic identity is important on the school board - or the community at large - for white and blacks, then the same applies to others as well.  Equality means equality.

The last forum I attended as a mayoral candidate was the Orange County Justice United.  It was a consortium of the local churches joined to advance “social justice” and it was truly eye-opening for me…and not for the reasons one might have thought.

On the back of the program, the organization stated their “ACTION AGENDA FOR THE COMMON GOOD”.

It went on and on.  Finally, under EDUCATION, subsection “Action” it stated the following:

“Justice United will bring African American, Anglo and Latino parents together to discuss potential and important policy changes”

There are a number of problems with this social proclamation, one of them is the glaringly absent Asian parents.  BTW, where is the Saxon part of the Anglo?  Perhaps the progressive society Chapel Hill claims to be is not so progressive…instead is actually discriminatory.

Perhaps things are not so just in the Southern Part of Heaven after all.

I find Chapel Hillians talks a good game of “diversity” disingenuous for when put to the test, they ring hollow to the rest of us - the Asians, the Latinos, the Native-Americans, the Middle-Easterners, etc…

Conceivably, Nancy Oates' limited perspective does not speak for all of Chapel Hill.

 

-Augustus

 

 

____________________

  

November 4, 2009

The Next Chapter of Chapel Hill

It's all said and done: the philosophical aspect of the election has been decided.

Congratulations to Mark: well done.

What remains now are the practical applications as to how those ideals will be implemented.

We will hope for the best.

 Also, congratulations to Penny Rich & Gene Pease: It's your time, now.

Democracy is not sustainable without citizen involvement, hence I wish to personally thank the

rest of the candidates:

• For running
• For wishing to serve
• For wanting to make a difference in people's lives

School Board candidates:

• Michelle Brownstein
• Susana Dancy
• Joe Green
• MaryAnn Gucciardi
• Christine Lee
• Greg McElveen

 

Council Candidates:

• Jon DeHart
• Laurin Easthom
• Ed Harrison
• Jim Merritt
• Gene Pease
• Matt Pohlman
• Will Raymond
• Penny Rich

 

Mayoral Candidate:

 

• Matt Czajkowski
• Mark Kleinschmidt
• Kevin Wolff

 

Your individual participation made this election possible...and special.

 

 

As for my campaign, we tried to be least invasive with respect to the individual privacy by:

• No mass mailing
• No robo-calling
• No push-polling
• No door-to-door campaigning
• No door hangers

 

In short, we ran as green a campaign as possible and be competitive.

 

 

We utilized the website so that:

• The individuals could access it at their convenience

• To serve as most cost effective method
• Be the least intrusive

 

Fiscally:

• Funded our own campaign, with the exception of individuals who chose to contribute
• (which was appreciated).
• Maximized every dollar

 

To the 226 voters who wished to see me seated as the next mayor I thank you and acknowledge that while your wish did not come to fruition, in the final analysis, your votes determined who would sit in the mayor's chair for the next two years.

 

Now, the next saga of Chapel Hill begins...no regrets :)

 

-Augustus

 ____________________

********

October 31, 2009

A Decade

Between Czjakowski and Keinschmidt, they have ten (10) years on the council.  If that is not enough time to make the necessary changes for the better on the council, then how many years is enough?

You have the chance to make the change this Tuesday by voting for change...

____________________

October 30, 2009

Matt Czajkowski's Financial Indicators

The following are companies that have employed Matthew E. Czajkowski as CFO and while under his tenure they have shared similar financial scenarios.

During his tenure at these companies, they have been initially profitable, only to lose huge sums of money for their stockholders.  There have been investigations and even law suits suggesting inappropriate financial management, opportunistic access to privy information that could influence the performance of stock and/or manipulation of stock value.

 

POZEN, Inc.

1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 400

Chapel Hill, NC 27517

(919) 913-1030

What CFO and CEO would sell stock prior to announcement from the FDA for approval on one of your four featured products, MT300, unless you had information that indicated the contrary?  The stockholders had no such information and therefore lost their money.

“Although POZEN made significant progress throughout 2003, we were disappointed to receive a not-approvable letter from the FDA for MT 300 in October 2003. While the FDA acknowledged that MT 300, POZEN’s injectable product candidate for migraine, achieved its primary endpoint in both pivotal studies, the incidence of nausea, one of the associated symptoms of migraine, was statistically higher following MT 300 treatment versus placebo at two hours. However, we and our physician consultants believe the data clearly show that, on balance, MT 300 has a beneficial effect for patients. We are committed to working with the FDA to address the issues raised in the letter”.

In September 2003, the CEO and the CFO (Matt Czajkowski) sold 250,000 shares and 20,000 shares of POZEN stock respectively, before this news became public in October, 2003.  The stock then plummeted and the shareholders were left to absorb the loss. 
The shareholders’ suit was dismissed on a technicality.

 

AaiPharma

Headquarters: 
Tel: +1.800.575.4224 
2320 Scientific Park Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405

 

AaiPharma files Chapter 11

 

AaiPharma comes out of Chapter 11

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2006/03/06/daily10.html

 

It's been a long, bumpy road to reorganization for Wilmington-based aaiPharma, but on Tuesday the pharmaceutical company emerged from Chapter 11 protection - albeit as a smaller, private company.

Ownership of the reorganized aaiPharma is distributed among a small pool of debt holders that includes JPMorgan Securities Inc. The company's prior common stock is now worthless.

As part of its emergence from Chapter 11, aaiPharma has obtained up to $45 million in exit financing that will be used fund all of the company's bankruptcy-related obligations, as well as general corporate operations.

Company spokesman Luke Heagle said Tuesday that the company's global headcount has dropped from about 1,000 before bankruptcy to about 862 now. But in the Triangle, employee numbers have actually increased from 40 to 62.

As part of a reorganization plan filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in May, aaiPharma will center its operations on its development services division. Just days after filing for bankruptcy, aaiPharma sold nearly all of its pharmaceutical assets to Kentucky-based Xanodyne for about $170 million.

AaiPharma's financial woes began when a number of financial analysts alleged that the company was involved in "channel stuffing," a practice by which a business attempts to manipulate its own earnings by dumping inventory on wholesalers and retailers to meet revenue and sales goals.
Triangle Business Journal revealed the story on these allegations in its Feb. 13, 2004 issue.

An internal investigation into the accusations revealed a number of questionable transactions and ultimately led to Chief Operating Officer David Hurley's guilty plea to charges of fraud and misrepresenting the company's financial statements. Hurley was the first in a string of executives to leave the company, including Chief Financial Officer William Ginna, former CEO Philip Tabbiner and founder and former Chairman Fred Sancilio.

AaiPharma makes change at CFO

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2006/03/13/daily2.html

““Less than a week after emerging from Chapter 11 protection, aaiPharma on Monday announced yet another executive shuffle.

Officials from the Wilmington-based pharmaceutical company said Monday that Rachel Selisker has replaced Matthew Czajkowski as executive vice president and chief financial officer.

AaiPharma spokesman Luke Heagle would not comment Monday on whether Czajkowski was fired and denied that the executive change has anything to do with the company's recent financial woes.

"Matt is leaving the company, and we have appointed a new CFO," Heagle said. "Matt came in before we went in Chapter 11 and he helped us work through our financial problems."”

After the companies raise initial capital, it seems to disappear leaving the stockholders empty-handed with the exception of one--Matt Czajkowski.

-Augustus

____________________

October 30, 2009

CZAJKOWSKI: PROMISES TO CUT TOWN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

 

He proclaimed it at a a pubic forum (see Sept. 24 entry below in color)...and he will do that.

Here is an example.

"Company stockholders’ shares are worthless" said the article.  There seems to be a pattern here.

Then, unlike the cowboys who ride away on their horses in the old western movies after doing good deeds, he sails away instead to Saint Lawrence Seaway...to perhaps save another distraught company from its legitimate shareholders...

 

[The Friends of Downtown hosted a candidate forum at the University Presbyterian Church on Franklin Street.

The forum revealed interesting aspects of my fellow mayoral candidates regarding leadership.

Mr. Czajkowski: Two observations -

First, he proposed the notion of two-year freeze on tax increases.  This thought comes from an individual who touts that he is a CFO.

What I saw: he stated to the audience what he thought they wanted to hear - pure political rhetoric.  Of course, after the two-year freeze, then what?  It is likely that to make up for the two-year freeze, the taxes might have to be doubled to compensate for the two years of deficit.  Is that the best judgment of a chief financial officer with years of experience as he claims?  Is "gimmick" Matt's way to address fiscal challenges that we will be facing?  The approach seemed immature.

Second, he proposed to further cut town expenses by REDUCING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS of the TOWN EMPLOYEES.  Wow.  That is a low blow.

What bothers me about this mentality - as a fellow mayoral candidate and citizen - are two things: 1) the dedicated town employees were not present to defend themselves (Matt knew that) because they were busy working and doing their jobs, 2) there are other ways to address fiscal matters without - right off the bat - sacrificing town employees.  They are not widgets to be manipulated; they are residents, citizens trying to raise and sustain their families like the rest of us.  How about taking care of our workers and finding other ways?

I thought that was a cheap shot.]

 

In my opinion, Czajkowski reminds me of a slick, used-car salesman...no sincerity or depth, just a deal.

____________________

October 30, 2009


Foy's Last Minute endorsement

I think I know what happened:

This is Foy’s last parting shot at Czajkowski for the latter forcing the former’s hand at Thursday evening's council meeting, the last meeting before the upcoming election.

Foy was right – what Czajkowski did was political.

Cz did what he does best: politicized an issue - in the process substantiating his “clashing” style as a councilman by putting the Mayor, and the rest of the council on the spot as he had done so in the past.

To save face, Foy did a 180-degree turnabout by changing his mind and endorsing his fellow councilman Kleinschmidt – who just happens to be the archenemy of…Cz.

This is an unfortunate turn of event for Foy for he has played right into Cz’s hands.

The Political Cost for Foy

Foy stated initially that he would not endorse anyone (probably because there were two councilmen in the race).  He likely did not want to appear partisan in a non-partisan election.  In another words, he wanted to stay out of it, which made sense - and safe.

Here is the story as covered by the Chapel Hill Magazine back on July 15, 2009.

What This Does

By going back on his word, what this does foremost is to re-raise (or is it re-confirm?) the suspicion of Foy/Strom/Kleinschmidt tag-team regarding Strom’s calculated resignation.  Now, it’s legitimately harder for Foy to distance himself from Strom’s political manipulation.

It also damaged Foy’s credibility at the present time and for his potential U.S Senate campaign.  Why?   His words are untrustworthy…more succinctly, worthless.

He has also managed to alienate a large segment of the Chapel Hill population.

Hence, Foy’s “endorsement” has no weight or influence now due to the timing of it - and his going back on his given word.

What it DOES do is to raise questions about his overall judgment on this - and other issues of the past.

In short, Mark gained little by the ill-timed & the ill-motivated endorsement; Foy has lost a lot.

How sad that this will be his lasting legacy…

This is the WCHL coverage on the matter and his rationalization and defense.

-Augustus

____________________

October 30, 2009

The Expected Biased Weekend Polling

Tom Jensen, the Democrat pollster, is suppose to do a scientific polling this weekend regarding the Tuesday’s mayoral race.

 

Based on the following entry, his personal bias in the polling is expected: from Orangepolitics.org

"I voted for Mark

Submitted by Tom Jensen on Sun, 10/25/2009 - 4:07pm.

I voted for Mark Kleinschmidt, Laurin Easthom, Ed Harrison, Jim Merritt, and Gene Pease.

Mark, Laurin, and Ed were easy picks. I changed my mind several times about who to give the last spots to but ultimately picked Gene because I have been on a board with him and seen that he works hard and thoughtfully and Jim because I think it's important we have someone on Council who has deep ties to the black community.

Interesting election- I think 7 of the Council candidates could plausibly win but don't think any of them will definitely win.  Quite a different story from past elections.)".

His spinning of the polling questions favoring the candidate whom he had voted is not unexpected.

-Augustus

____________________

October 28, 2009

Matt Czajkowski: Possible insider trading when he was a CFO?

Not surprised...

Here is the News & Observer story today.

This particular behavior is quite consistent with his mental patterns observed: engaged only in what's in it for him (that's what his run for mayor is all about considering he still has two years left on his council term).

Typically, genuine public servants always have the public's best interest in mind; not here.

Based on this story, it does not appear that he (or the rest of the executives) had the best interest of the public.

As the company CFO, he seemed to have had good indicators that their patent on the product, MT 300, would not be approved by the FDA.  As a result, on September 15, 2003, the CEO sold 250,000 shares and profited $4.25 million while the CFO (Czajkowski) dumped 25,000 of his 200,000 shares and made $425,000 before the stock plummeted on October 20, 2003.

Was the timing pure coincidence?  Not likely.

Consequently:

Czajkowski made $425,000 while the shareholders lost money.

Is there any difference between what Czjakowski of Pozen did versus what Kenneth Lay of ENRON & Bernard Ebbers of Worldcom - except the latter two did so on a larger scale?

In the final analysis, Czajkowski's CFO philosophy seems to be from the School of OPM (Other Peoples Money).

Is this indicative of how he will manage the Town's finances?

Is this the type of an individual who Chapel Hill needs/wants as mayor - one who betrayed the public trust with information privy to his position?

What's next?

-Augustus

____________________

October 28, 2009

Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Not Good Enough - for Czjakowski

So far, it has not received proper attention but it's important for the voters to know: I am the only mayoral candidate who has a child in our public school system.

The youngest one is presently a student at Smith Middle School on Seawell School Road.  The oldest just graduated from East Chapel Hill High School back in June.

Depending on whether there are three or four mayoral candidates, the two with children send theirs to private schools:

Wolff: he is very deceptive - he states in his infamous flyer that he "Has Had Children Attending Chapel Hill Public School System" (italicized mine).

If one reads his flyer quickly, or without paying attention, the reader will easily miss the operative word "Had" - which is what he is likely hoping for so one ends up reading "has children attending Chapel Hill school system."  At the same time, he had the gull to check "No" for Czjakowski on the checklist.

Facts:

Wolff: his two primary school aged children presently attend a private school located off US 15/501.

Czjakowski: he sends his middle schooler to a private school in Durham known as Trinity School.

I find it disingenuous for Wolff/Czjakowski for wanting to be mayor of Chapel Hill - but then choose to have nothing to do with the school system for their children.  In short, the two do not want their children to be part of the public schools.

What is clear is that the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools is not good enough for the two other mayoral candidates...despite their talk of how they love everything about our town.

Consequently, it is no accident that Czjakowski did not even bother with answering the questionnaire sent by the CHCCS PTA Council.

Why should he?  It doesn't affect him or his family in the least...so why care?

-Augustus

 

__________________

October 28, 2009

Czjkowski talks a good game...

...but, he has gone AWOL: he also did not bother answering the Neighbors for Responsible Growth questionnaire either.

The fundamental question is: If he can't even manage the basics of answering legitimate questionnaires by concerned citizen organizations of our community, then how can he find time to serve the Town as mayor - which requires more time and intelligence?

Still, this is in keeping with his lack of preparation for the council meetings.

So: where does he stand on the issue of Chapel Hill growth?

His degree from Cambridge, MA is misleading...

-Augustus

____________________

October 28, 2009

 

"Concerned Citizens Petition The Town Council"

Reflections on the Strom Appointment Process:

At last Town Council meeting, Mayor Foy - following legal guidelines - announced that he would recommend appointing the replacement council member on November 9, 2009 Council Meeting.  It seems that he is trying to honor the November 3, 2009 election choice of the citizens of Chapel Hill.

Remember: Bill Strom is the one who created this quagmire and no one else - even though others might have been aware of his intentions prior.  Strom is the one who established the timing and thus the responsibility of nominating and voting on his replacement.

Now, comes forth a petition (http://www.gopetition.com/online/31603.html) to have the Town Council on this Wednesday night’s meeting, requesting that one councilman make a motion to allow the new town council as a first act of business, appoint the replacement for Bill Strom’s seat.

Note:

1.  Matt Czajkowski is the one councilman - and candidate for mayor - who, on this last meeting prior to the election, wants to make a motion to allow the new council to appoint Strom’s replacement.

2.  Wonder if he will get a second.  I wouldn’t hold my breath as he has fielded a team to run with him to replace all incumbent council members.  Since Czajkowski is unable to work with council members, his goal seems to be to replace them all to his liking.

3.  Let’s say just to play the scenarios out….he makes the motion.  Then, comes the vote…. At most probably 6 to 2.  Motion fails.

4.  Now what?

Is this the type of leadership (Czajkowski style) the citizens of Chapel Hill want or deserve?

It should be recognized that:

1.  Mayor Foy has acted in a judicious and an accommodating manner in postponing the council recommendation and vote until after the election on November 9, 2009.

2.  By law, the current council can/should appoint the replacement; however, if the council does not act prior to December 7, 2009…then the new council will appoint the person anyway.

So, why have the petition, and why have the antics and gimmicks on the last televised Wednesday, prior to the election?

This is Matt Czajkowski’s attempt to get more votes and free publicity prior to the election.

I doubt seriously he gets anywhere with it, but this is an example of his unsophisticated and antagonistic leadership style, namely to alienate and clash with all other council members.

What makes anyone think that it will be any different if he is elected mayor and all the INCUMBENTS are re-elected?

He will be the most INEFFECTIVE mayor ever.  Given this scenario, the only hope would be that Jim Ward be reelected Mayor Pro Temp, and then the council might have a chance of working together and actually addressing issues and town business probably with votes of 8 to 1.  Wonder how he will get a second for any motion?

Furthermore, this antic reminds me of the last one where he made such a deal of Mayor Foy calling a meeting on the Friday morning of Labor Day Weekend at eight o'clock a.m.  While not a most popular time and yes, there should have been more homework and preparation prior to calling the meeting about the possible purchase of a building that didn't meet standards and land that was too small to handle the parking and utilization demands - there was nothing clandestine whatsoever as Czajkowski would have had everyone believe.

He is not about leadership; he is more about getting attention for himself than resolving issues for the greater good...

-Augustus

____________________

October 24, 2009

Where exactly does (the mayoral candidate) Mark Kleinschmidt live?

The following matter has been brought to our campaign's attention: where is Mark's residence?  Here or in Durham?

A number of people have mentioned to me that they rarely see him living at his place.  Usually, others see neighbors come and go but when people near by raise the point, then it is worth asking the question.

This is where he listed as his "official" residence (see the first box, Mayor of Chapel Hill).

208 Village Gate Drive

Chapel Hill, NC 27514

Here is where it gets interesting: his official residence is listed "For Sale" and has been for some time now!

 

If his residence is for sale (listed with Prudential - MLS # 1671551), then I have the following concerns:

 

• Mark Kleinschmidt does not seem to own residential property in Chapel Hill (only a Volvo registration in Orange County).
  
  His total tax bill to Orange County and Chapel Hill for 2008 was:
  
  Former property =    1,833.12
  
  Automobile =               418.70
  
  Total:                   2,251.82
  
  VOE Funds permitted:  $19,000.00 from Chapel Hill.
  
  Where is the investment in Chapel Hill?
  
  ___
  
  
• Where is he p lanning to move to?
• His business is in Durham - not in Chapel Hill where we need business tax base and employers.
• Why not relocate his business to Chapel Hill and support our economy?

 

In addition, he applied and accepted approximately $19,000.00 from the tax-payers of Chapel Hill (YOUR MONEY, FREE) through Voter-Owned Elections.

I'm wondering just what has he given to Chapel Hill - and shouldn't the mayor own residential property in the town he serves?

Worth considering:On OrangeChat blog, kdevans raises a good point entitled: "Boss Hogg Politics" where he states that MK should have recused himself from the Voter-Owned Elections money just out of basic ethics.

-Augustus

__________________

October 24, 2009

FYI: Global interest in the Chapel Hill Mayoral Election

On my biography section of this website, I wrote:"With my mayoral candidacy, the Town of Chapel Hill has a chance to make greater history.  This election has the potential to be covered on a national, if not international*, scale by the media due to the human interest story of what I represent and what is possible only in America."

Here is the proof: 55 nations - and increasing - are keeping up with Chapel Hill electoral process...

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Columbia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, "European Country", Former Czechoslovakia, France, Georgia, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vietnam, United States.

-Augustus

____________________

October 24, 2009

Clarification to an Orangechat blog entry:

"EXTRAORDINARY ACCUSATION"

My statements are not "accusations"; they are raising questions for the following reasons...

I, like everyone else, was totally surprised at Kevin Alan Wolff's unsolicited and unwarranted diatribe to the remaining candidates at the WCHL forum before he ungraciously dropped out of the mayoral race.

Then I, and the community learned - via the Chapel Hill News article - that Matt Czajkowski and Wolff had met prior to the forum.

Also stated in the article is a quoted statement referencing "deals" by Matt Czajkowski.  "I guess I understand people would wonder...It never crossed my mind that I had anything to offer, or that I would" (CHN 10/18/2009).

Typically, folks do not reference subjects or ideas - unless the issue came up during the conversation in some way.  Why would one bring it up, or mention it otherwise to a reporter?

Thus, in my opinion, the only possible deal that could be conceived...as Kevin Alan Wolff has stated on many occasions, is that Matt would be ineffective without a second "moderate" on the council.

What does Kevin Wolff have to offer Matt Czajkowski - except his voters and support?

What does Matt Czajkowski have to offer Kevin Alan Wolff in exchange but a possible council seat nomination?

Such questions seem legitimate to raise, under the circumstance.

Either Wolff or Czajkowski can address the questions anytimethey please and clear the air for the public sake.

What is clear to me, is that there was an intent to pressure me on live TV & radio to withdraw from the race for reasons that would benefit them.

Clearly, I was the victim of a collaborative effort...

(BTW, the inquirer supports my opponent.)

-Augustus

____________________

October 22, 2009

Czakowski: the painful truth – leading by absence

 

What voters need to know about Czajkowski:

Attendance record on the Transportation Board AND Community Design Commission

1. Transportation Board:

The Town of Chapel Hill Transportation Board meets bi-monthly.

For two years Ed Harrison (he was the council-liaison) and I served collaboratively before he moved over to another committee.  During this time, he always attended the meetings - sometimes being an half-hour late because he was coming from another meeting prior.

Invariably, he came and gave the council perspective on issues at hand - saving us time.

Contrast:

After the 2007 election, Matt Czajkowski became the Transportation Board council-liaison while Ed moved over to the Active Living by Design, which he attends faithfully I have been informed.

Czajkowski was evidently assigned to the T-Board because he wanted to be on it. (Note blog entitled: "Do your homework, El-Bo" for referrence).

The contrast very immediate and apparent – Matt Czajkowski was a no-show…until I wrote an editorial to the Chapel Hill News about the deafening silence of the Town regarding the Valerie Hughes accident.   Evidently, the piece got read widely and it seemed possible that the media would come to attend the first meeting of the T-Board after the tragic accident.

Some of us made a wager: I had bet that MC would show up that evening because he thought he could get publicity out of it, recognizing his vanity.  The other thought that he would not have the gall to show up after not attending any earlier meetings.

Well, I won the bet; he showed up…and had with him the article I had written, saying to a board member sitting closest to him, “My wife said that I needed to attend this meeting and handed me the article as I walked out the door (editorial piece I had written).  Then he said, “I guess I better read this” and began to glance through it for he still had not read the article though it related to serious transit incident.

The sad part was that I had to introduce MC to the board members because, out of nine members, only three of us knew who he was in relation to the board – he was a stranger.

For his initial comments, he said “I apologize for having to be introduced by Augustus and for not having attended any prior meetings.”  After that, his subsequent comments to the board were unhelpful as it was clear that he did not grasp what the T-Board’s responsibility was.

After that meeting, he never came back.

2. Community Design Commission

I became the T-Board liaison to CDC last Oct/Nov because the T-Board had not had a representative for months prior.   As the new Chair of the T-Board, I made it a point to have a liaison at CDC due to the importance of the latter's role in our community.

During the times I was there, MC never once attended these meetings either.

(I invite Chapel Hill residents to verify this by asking any Transportation Board and the Community Design Commission members or asking the Town Clerk for the minutes of the meetings for the past year.)

Observations:

• These boards/commissions/committee/task forces are created by the town council for town council.
• While council members get paid to do their work, the rest of us are volunteers.  Many, many of us give our time and energy to the various boards/commissions to better our town by advising the council through our guidance.
• Other council members - whether being a councilmen is part time or not - do attend their respective liaison functions.

 

What is bothersome:

If council-liaison is not willing or unable to attend the boards/commissions, then they should be ethical and honest enough by not listing them on website (or while running for mayor), giving the public the impression that they 1) attend them and 2) as a result, are knowledgeable about the areas in question.

• Transportation Board and the CDC are two major boards, affecting citizens across town.
• In CZ’s case, it is clear that he has made no effort to learn about the various issues that come across the Transportation Board and Community Design Commission.

 

Lack of preparation & being uninformed

I’ve seen Matt Czajkowski’s modus operandi: he is unprepared for the council meetings…as he was for the only T-Board meeting to which he attended.

The council members get a packet like the rest of the board & commissions.  They are well packaged and generally comprehensive.  However, unless they are opened, read and reflected upon, it does not do any good.  It is clear to me that he is unprepared by the questions he asks at the council meetings.  Many of them are either answered in the packet contents or can be clarified before the meetings by making a few phone calls to the right departments.

Czjakowski's modus operendi: indicative of his character

His record over the past two years indicates that he does not take attendance and preparation seriously as a councilman.  As mayor, it can only get worse.

What he does at the council meeting is to try to camouflage his lack of preparation and understanding by changing focus, poking fun at fellow council members, clashing, or chastising.

In all, Czajkowski is flippant and cavalier regarding the town’s business (see "An Empty Suit" entry below)

Is this the kind of character Chapel Hill needs as mayor?

His degree from Cambridge, MA is misleading...

-Augustus

__________________

October 20, 2009

An Empty Suit

It is amazing how uninformed individuals who support Czajkowski see in him what clearly does not exist.

I think there are few factors that play into this non-existing perception - beginning with his undergraduate degree from Harvard.

There is a joke about Harvard graduate:

Q: What is the average time before a HU graduate tells others that he is a Harvard graduate?

A: about a minute.

That's been about the average here too...

Here is a crucial difference: if CZ had been accepted into HU directly from his high school application, that is one thing...and noteworthy as we all realize how competitive that would be.  However, he got into HU several years later as an older applicant - when he was 21 or 22 years old.  The intellectual criteria as an older student are…different; he was not truly competing with his peers.  There are a number of ways to get into HU.

What is revealing and clear throughout the mayoral forums that CZ wants to be perceived as being an intellectual.  There is only one problem: he falls short.

Examples of this are as follows:

“The Gang of Four”

Throughout the campaign, CZ has been touting how he is a financial wizard.  However, his ‘team’ consists of three others who have more financial acumen that he.  This is because he does not possess as much financial knowledge as he want voters to be believe, so he wants to surround himself with others who truly are.  In short, his ‘team’ is to make up for his deficiency on the council.

 

No solutions:

If anyone listens to him at the mayoral forums, he offers no solutions; he’s just verbose.  His basic platform is what he has “tried to do” for the past two years…but, in reality, has not accomplished anything.

"Extremely unimpressive":

Yesterday evening, an individual approached me – who knows both of us- and shared his observation on CZ at the NRG forum this past Sunday.

He stated to me that CZ is “extremely unimpressive.”

This comes from a retired, knowledgeable UNC connected individual.

“A long learning curve”:

This statement comes from one of his Gang of Four "team" members.

The individual observed how, when they supported him in 2007, they had expected CZ to be able to get up to speed; instead, he/they were surprised and frustrated how long it is taking CZ to learn about being on the council.  If you observe him in action, this does not come as a surprise.

He stated “It’s been two years and he still does not have the knowledge to serve on council”

Again, that’s coming from one who knows CZ.

 

 

 

 

Not a leader:

CZ claims to be leader.

However, he has not demonstrated true leadership.  If he was a genuine, then he would have been a CEO, not a CFO.

This is an important consideration, for his role as CFO - as opposed to being a CEO - reflects his limited state of the mind on the following:

1. He does not see organizations from the very top down, as a CEO would have; just a segment of it - hence he is not able to see the big picture of an organization.

2. He does not see human beings; instead, he sees numbers which can be manipulated…which is fine for a CFO but is this the kind of mentality we want as mayor of Chapel Hill?

3.  Remember the e-mail he sent out to everyone on the listserv stating that he’s responsible for creating the Sustainability Visioning Task Force, trying to subtly give the impression that he alone deserved the credit and didn't acknowledge the mayor or any of the other council members who has equitably shared in the concept and the formation of the task force?  The Mayor Pro Tem, Jim Ward, had to send out an email chastising CZ’s questionable behavior when the latter tried to claim personal credit for himself - essentially forcing CZ to stop politicizing council matters.

Does that exemplify leadership?   Where is his willing to work with others and - in financial lingo - give credit where credit is due?

Let’s not forget the mass emailing fiasco he send out at the beginning of his campaign and had to send out an apology email as a follow-up for cramming people’s inbox.

Below are two examples from the Orange Politics and the names have been removed:

I got the email and I live in Efland

Submitted by ______ on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 1:20pm.

I have no idea how he got my email. I have never lived in Chapel Hill or been involved in town affairs, I never even comment on them.

I am active in the county Democratic Party, but the OCDP never releases its email address list, even to Democratic candidates!

Submitted by _______ on Thu, 07/09/2009 - 2:22pm.

I received the email...and I live in Durham!

Giving the perception that he is head of a team of candidates:

In 2007 when the incumbent council members ran for office as a team, CZ was quite critical of it referring them as the "Gang of Four."

In 2009, he is using the same concept...except there are no incumbents, including CZ from mayor's chair (isn’t this called hypocrisy?).  That seems a bit weak and clearly anti-council and more importantly, not conducive to establishing a collaborative leadership role with present incumbents.   Again, he lives up to the image of being the shrill and “clashing” member of the council.

I do wonder had he not been a white male, if his supporters would give such a benefit of doubt on leadership traits he does not possess.

His degree from Cambridge, MA is misleading...

____________________

October 20, 2009

DTH Editorial Board Confused...Once Again

The first time, the editorial board took cheap shots at my mayoral candidacy by editorializing based on distortion and falsehood to mislead its readership.

Now, it continues its misguided pattern by endorsing a non-UNC implant since 2003 with no previous experience to the Town of Chapel Hill and not even voting until he ran for council in 2007; over two UNC alumni with established roots dating back to the 70's and 80's, service to the Town of Chapel Hill, and with real roots to the town and UNC.

It is difficult to imagine Duke U. making this kind of irrational judgment: Duke supporting a non-Duke alumni over one of its own.  Clearly, they know who they are...

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Duke is ranked #10 in the nation while UNC is tied for #28: clear thinking.

For the past eight years, the Town of Chapel Hill has been led by another non-UNC graduate (Keynon College in Ohio) and it has taken over ten-years for Carolina North to get to its present state.  If DTH editorial board has it its way, then the questionable trend will continue.  With this same logic...Holden Thorp would not be the chancellor today--he is a UNC alumni.

Clearly, DTH editorial board does not see the big picture.  It also lacks Carolina pride: the Town of Chapel Hill is one municipality where a UNC alum should be the mayor if on the ballot.  That's just common sense.

The rational the editorial board gives is weak: CZ is a "fresh face".

The fact is his "fresh face" is two-years old to the council:

 

• First time he voted in our local election was in 2007...for himself
• Stated that he would ride his bike to every council meeting.  Is he?
• Can't get along with any of the other members, which will continue to be the pattern
• Has been "Mr. No" on the council
• Hasn't proposed new ideas, solution, or ordinances for the town - other than to cut employee benefits (without their knowledge)
• Has proposed a 2-year tax freeze - raising questionable judgment on his part given the current financial status of the town.  In the fiscal year 2010-2011, there will be over $2,000,000 shortfall.  After the two-year moritorium, it is likely the town will need to double the tax rate to make up for the two years of no taxes.
• 
  
  

This is the best solution for a CFO with a business degree from Harvard?  In the meantime, he has raised your tax rate to 11%.

While I would try not to raise taxes and establish a broader tax base, I would not mislead the citizens of Chapel Hill with such deceptive jargon.

 

DTH editorial board missed the boat...

____________________

October 19, 2009

The Stealth Candidate: Kevin Alan Wolff's Intentions...and Deceptions?

Sequence of events:

Thursday, October 15th: He announces to everyone's surprise (except Matt Czakwoski's-later discovered by CHN) on WCHL Forum that he will drop out of the race:

"...I've decided to end my run for mayor."

Sunday, October 18th: He sends out the following email:

___________

Please Leave My Signs Up - I will Pick them Up Myself After Voting Is Over

 

	Inbox		X

 

from

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it   to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , ="0" /> er="0" width="16px" height="16px" /> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it date Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:25 PM subject Please Leave My Signs Up - I will Pick them Up Myself After Voting Is Over mailed-by aol.com

 

 

"Hi Everyone:

 

 

This note is to ask you to please tell everyone to not take down my signs, I will do it myself after the election is over.  A number of my supporters do plan to vote for me regardless of my withdrawing from the race and have asked that I keep my signs up until it is all over.

I note that a few of my signs have been taken down over the last couple of days.  Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Kevin

Kevin Wolff for Mayor of Chapel Hill 133 Forsyth Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Tel: 919-933-9686 Fax: 919-933-9685"

**********

Since then, he seems to have put up more yard-signs...even at the early voting sites.  Not only that, he has included at the early voting sites, a zipped-locked plastic bags containing brochures of his bio and his stances on issues, etc. seeking votes and requesting contributions.  This is clearly a conscious behavior.

There is no indication that he has actually dropped out; he is continuing to campaign.

Upon seeing the new signs, my campaign manager called the State Board of Elections to check on the official process of withdrawing from a race and what that entailed.  The representative stated that Wolff would have to notify the Orange County Board of Elections in writing by mail or by hand delivery of his intentions.  She then called the Orange County Board of Elections and asked if he had done so.  The representative stated that there had been no correspondence from Kevin Wolff as of this afternoon (@ 4:30 p.m. on Monday, October 19, 2009.)

Could it be that he had no plans to withdraw...but simply tried a ploy to get me to withdraw from the race by attempting to pressure me on live T.V. and radio?

 

 

 

 

It also appears a bit peculiar that Matt Czajkowski knew what Wolff's intentions were prior to the forum - but then acted like he knew nothing of it at the WCHL forum.  Is it possible that they were in on this ploy together?

It also seems a little telling that in the CHN article (see October 18th entry below) about his withdrawing that Mr. Czajkowski speaks about "making no deals."

Obviously, the subject came up from his statement about it; otherwise there would have been no reference to it.  One wonders, what might have been some of the deals discussed.

Could it be that if Kevin Wolff truly had withdrew and got me to withdraw with him that Matt Czajkowski - if elected mayor - would agree to appoint Kevin Wolff to his vacant seat on the council?.

Worse, is it possible that Wolff was trying to get me to drop out so that he might then not withdraw from the race, continue campaigning and, with ever so slight a chance, actually win by deception - through the back door?

In any event, it is unfortunate that Wolff may have used a local media WCHL, sponsor of the forum, to dramatize his perceived exit from the campaign.

Interesting...

-Augustus

_____________________

October 19, 2009

Matt Czajkowsk claims to wants "conversation" & "transparency" -  what a contradiction.

WCHL reported on the WCHL's town council candidate forum where the following question was asked:

"What is your opinion on the recent lose on accident leave benefit for the town employees and do you intent on continuing to cut employee benefits if elected?"The questioner maybe referring to the Town of Chapel Hill Fire Fighters who recently lost this benefit.

On September 24th, The Friends of Downtown held a candidate forum (see Sept. 24th entry below).

There Matt Czajkowski almost gleefully - but unequivocally - stated how he will cut our town employee health benefits to balance the budget of the town, even though the he was part of the council who is responsible for raising the town budget 11%.

At every forum, he talks about how "we need to have conversation" about this or that yet, when it came to cutting employee medical benefits, there was no "conversation" - it was done.

In the case of the town's fire fighters, there was no warning - it was a done deal before they had any knowledge of it. The fire fighters never had the opportunity to present their side of the issue.

Where was Matt and his "conversation" then?Where was the "transparency"?

Not surprisingly, he did not discuss cutting his own benefits he receives from the town.

Hypocritical?

Is this the kind of leadership for our mayor?

-Augustus

____________________

October 18, 2009

Interesting

According to the Chapel Hill News lead story, Matt Czajkowski had spoken with Kevin Wolff before the latter made his melo-dramatic announcement at the WCHL forum on October 15 (Thursday).

It appears that when Wolff made the suggestion that I join him and quit, it was not as quite as innocent as it appeared: it is possible that both he and Czajkowski were sandbagging me in front of live TV and radio broadcast.

It makes one wonder: if Czajkowski is a strong mayoral candidate, then why does he feel it necessary to participate in a ploy or a conspiracy to get me to drop out of the race?  Perhaps he's not as strong a candidate as he wants the voters to believe...

-Augustus

____________________

October 18, 2009

WCHL's "A Conversation with Augustus Cho"

This was done back either at the end of July '09.

-Augustus

____________________

October 17, 2009

I was asked by a reporter...

...what I thought about dropping out as per the candidate's request who did so on the 15th (see entry dated October 15th below).

General observation:

I thought it was an irrational observation from an individual who many thought had no business running to begin with - substantiated by his outlandish campaigning methodologies such as push-polling, flip-flopping on Voter-Owned Elections (only to be disqualified by the Board of Election by loaning himself $10,000), and previously asking another candidate to drop out by taking out a half-page ad in the local newspaper.  Hence, his inappropriate and unsolicited personal diatribe at the end of his campaign towards the three remaining candidates reflected a certain state of mind.  It would have been nice for him to at least bow out gracefully, even for his own benefit; instead, he tried to tell others how to run our campaigns when he struggled with his own.

Specific observations:

1. My formal announcement was a public one and was the first to be published; it was covered as a news story early on.

2. I was the first to file as a mayoral candidate, following through on my word.  The other three knew before they filed that I had already done so.

3. My campaign has nothing to do with the individual who ran (three times for mayor and once for commissioner) and dropped out this past Thursday, nor the other candidates.

Thus:

1. I will continue with my campaign to become the next mayor of Chapel Hill as I represent change by focusing on issues tht affect all of us.

2. I am the only non-incumbent candidate.3. I am not part of the problem; I did not create them, however, I will bring solutions to the problems they have created.

If you are frustrated, tired and unhappy with the status of how Chapel Hill has been managed, then I am your choice.

If you are delighted with the status quo, then there are two incumbents to choose from.

4. My constituencies are broad based and transcend the special interest groups of the remaining two candidates.

5. If one of the two other candidates fears my staying in the race will help the other, then welcome to democracy and the American political process.

-Augustus

 

 ____________________

October 15, 2009

Kevin Wolff drops out of the mayoral race

The political process is continuously fluid - never static.  The alliances are always realigning.  So, it is not wise for a candidate to take anything for granted…including this evening's unexpected twist.

1. Re: What Mr. Wolff’s dropping out of the race means to me:

Mr. Wolff's decision to end his campaign clarifies the race: the lines areclearer, which leads to realignment of the voters.

 

2. Re: Why I think Woff dropped out:

Only he knows…I hesitate to speak for him.

However, I found his remarks were somewhat bizarre.  I disagree with his observations, period.

Campaigning is a difficult task on various fronts - such as juggling schedules, preparatory work needed for the forums, keeping up with issues, maintaining the individual identity and so on.

While it is an unfortunate turn of events for Kevin Wolff, in my opinion, the loss of credibility with the Voter-Owned Election program was the final straw for his campaign: Kevin had been adamantly against the program then applied for it even though he did not support it.  In the end, VOE became his Achilles’ heel.

I wish he and his family well...and thank him for having run.

As for me, I remain in the race and continue to focus on the issues that affect this community.

I was the first to announce as a candidate for the mayor's office and I plan to finish the race to offer citizens a viable choice for change: I truly represent the diverse population of Chapel Hill.

At present, I am the only non-incumbent in the mayor's race - so if change is desired, then I am your choice.  I invite Kevin’s supporters to join me in "Investing in Chapel Hill".

To that extent, I have the following concerns:

1. Matt Czajkowski's "team" of John DeHart, Gene Pease and Matt Pohlman lack any diversity on an ethnicity and gender basis: they are four, white males.  A clear message is being sent.

Furthermore, there are no incumbents on his "team," which indicates potential continued conflict - whether he is elected mayor or not - continuing to perpetuate Czajkowski's persona of clashing with other council members.

2. Mark Kleinschmidt concerns me as he does not own residential property in Chapel Hill (there is a "For Sale" sign in his town home yard), and has his business in Durham--not Chapel Hill where we need business tax base and employers.

Where is he planning to move to?

Why not relocate his business to Chapel Hill and support our economy?

In addition, he applied and accepted $9,000.00 and $4000.00 from the Town of Chapel Hill through Voter-Owned Elections.

I'm wondering just what has he given to Chapel Hill - and shouldn't the mayor own residential property in the town he serves?

Worth considering:

On OrangeChat blog, kdevans raises a good point entitled: "Boss Hogg Politics" where he states that MK should have recused himself from the Voter-Owned Elections money just out of basic ethics.

-Augustus

____________________

 

 

 

 

October 14, 2009

Campaign Finances….

Matt Czajkowski has raised 21,000.00 +/- to date by his Czajkowski for Mayor Committee.

He still has his Czajkowski for Town Council Committee active as well because he still has an outstanding $18,000.00 loan from himself to the committee. http://www.co.orange.nc.us/elect/documents/09-MY-CzajkowskiforTownCouncil.pdf

(Usually, a candidate "forgives" his loans and closes out the account, unless one plans to run for the same office in the future).

Could it be that he will use the money from his Czajkowski for Mayor Committee to pay off his Czajkowski for Town Council loan….thus getting his current supporters to pay off his council debt after the fact?

If so, he will have run for office at no expense to himself before and currently.  Whether that was his goal or not…the option surely exists as a possibility.

Options:

If he wins as mayor, he can then transfer the money to the council committee, reimburse himself and then close the committee if he chooses.

If he loses the mayor’s race, he can then transfer the money from the Czajkowski for Mayor Committee to his council committee, reimburse himself and then keep it active for a run in two years, or close it if he plans to run for mayor in 2011.

VOE-anomaly…

Now, in addition to going over $21,000, that threshold is a trigger amount, that permits Mark Kleinschmidt to receive another $4,000 in addition to the $9,000 of taxpayer funded Voter-owned Election money from the Town of Chapel Hill.  It seems a bit ironic that Mark Kleinschmidt only had to get 150 donors to donate between $5 and $20 to qualify for the money with no additional fund-raising requirements.  Meanwhile, Matt Czajkowski has been fundraising for all of his money.  Is that equity?  To the citizens of Chapel Hill, “you get what you pay for” or maybe in this case, “you get what your council voted to pay themselves for.”

Is that what VOE was advertised to do?  Where is the money going and just how much can you spend in a municipal election with early voting starting today and three weeks left in this election cycle.  With all of the media coverage through public service announcements.

VOE does not place a limit on contributions because North Carolina statues allow the following:  (§ 163-278.13. (c) …“it shall be lawful for a candidate or a candidate’s spouse, parents, brothers and sisters to make a contribution to the candidate or candidate’s treasurer of any amount of money or to make any other contribution in any election in excess of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for that election.)

Furthermore, with the Campaign Finance Software and mandatory treasurer training, all monies, in-kind contributions, gifts and anything of value given to the campaign committee are accounted for and become public record.  All contributions have to be listed, there can no corporate checks—it must be a personal check—and cash contributions are limited to $25.00 or less for Chapel Hill elections.

North Carolina Campaign Finance Law as currently written prevents any fraudulent or corporate donations to individual candidate committees.  Additionally, each report is reviewed and audited and audited once more after the election.   So, from most persons’ perspectives there is no problem without Voter-owned elections.

Bottom line:  VOE is another program that takes valuable taxpayer money, creates more administrative paper work and processing and changes nothing as far as the amount a candidate can raise for each election.  It does provide money for a candidate who doesn’t work as hard to raise campaign funds at the expense of those who do….that’s not fair.

Self-Financed

Out of the four mayoral candidates, I am the only one funding my own campaign...

-Augustus

____________________

October 12, 2009

 

“Town out of touch with economic reality”

This is according to Dr. David Hughes, retired Chair of the School of Business Administration.

Finally, here is the story of holding the incumbents accountable…

The writer’s bottom line:

“After reviewing these council decisions, I conclude that Chapel Hill needs new leadership that is able to understand economic reality without relying on out-of-town consultants. Our future leaders must act positively on the complex economic problems facing the town, while letting go of past mistakes.”

At the Friends of Downtown forum, held on September 24th (see 9/24 entry below), a question was asked about how the Council can reduce spending.

Matt Czajkowski wanted to cut spending by reducing medical benefits of the town employees.

My response was, among other options, to minimize the use of "out-of-town consultants" at costs of $50,000 to $250,000 a pop, every time a project needed to get underway.

The fact that the Council has to regularly hire expensive consultants is indicative of something deeper: their unwillingness (or worse, inability) to make the necessary decisions that they were elected to make.

It seems to me that the primary reason the council avoids making decisions is that they are motivated more by desire to be re-elected than making the difficult but the right decisions that benefit all.  So, to have the option of shifting the blame to someone else, they hire consultants.

The other perspective is that the Town already has specialists that work for us: town employees.  We need to utilize their professional judgment.  After all, if they were good enough to be hired, then they should be good enough to be depended upon for improving our town.

If "consultants" are necessary, I will encourage the use of UNC professors as the first option.  Unlike the out-of-town consultants, UNC faculty (some retired) may also be willing to consult at nominal costs as their way of serving the community they live in.  This is the kind of a win-win solution that we need.

-Augustus

____________________

October 12, 2009

130 Donors to Decide the Fate of Chapel Hill Elections?

It appears that way…if the 130 donors have it their way.

According to the Chapel Hill News lead story (dated October 2, 2009), Mr. Czajkowski was given $17,400...by "more than 130 donors."

What does does this mean?

Does it mean 131 donors or 135 or 137 donors?  Whatever the case, the implication to the community at-large is grave: Mr. Czajkowski spent inordinate amount ($17,000) two years ago to win his council seat over Cam Hill by only 60 votes.  He is evidently using the same methodology of out-spending to try to win the mayor's seat as well.

When the financial statement is posted by the Board of Elections, the public will know the exact number.

Also, the report will be quite revealing as to who the 130 are, trying to manipulate and buy the Chapel Hill town election.

It is my prediction that they are largely composed of the "country club" crowd.

However, in the end, it will be up to the voters to decide whether this will be acceptable...or not.

As for me, I have not asked for contributions for the following reasons:

First, running for office is a privilege - and not a (Constitutional) right.

Hence, it should be incumbent upon the individual to finance his/her campaign.  If one is not willing or unable to do that, then one does not need to run for public office; there are options to serving our community/nation without being a candidate.

Second, I find it philosophically inappropriate to use public funds (specifically, your tax-money) to run a campaign.  The question is simple: Why is it your responsibility to fund my - or the other 11 candidates' - campaign?  Unfortunately, you already did so via the Voter-Owned Elections program the incumbents voted in this past year: two mayoral candidates (Wolff & Kleinschmidt) and one town council candidate (Rich) have signed on to use your tax dollars to fund their campaigns.

Though I will accept voluntary contributions, considering the difficult economic time that we are facing (people losing jobs & homes), I have chosen to not ask for money.

On top of that, you've already given through the Voter-Owned Elections...although I will not see a cent of that, I thank you, nevertheless.

-Augustus

____________________

October 12, 2009

A Busy Week

The week of October 5th through October 11th was a busy week - four forums to attend.

They were: the League of Women Voters on Monday evening, UNC College Republicans & Democrats on Tuesday evening, Chamber of Commerce/DTH/EmPOWERment/WCHL on Wednesday and CURB (Citizens United for Responsible Building) on Sunday, along with interviews, taping, etc. and other individual functions.

All of these events have made it difficult to update the blog for the past week.

___________________

October 1, 2009

Citizens for Responsible Growth (CFRG) Bias

Here is their website (CFRG) dealing with "voting records" for the mayoral candidates.

After Eastgate Starbucks, 140 West Franklin, Lifetime Healthcare for Council, comes the Voter-Owned Elections.

Note that my name and position has been overlooked, even though I was the first one to file for the mayor's race, and the first one to decline to participate in the VOE program due to both philosophical and practical reasons.  CFRG mentioned all candidates except me.  I found that perplexing even though I had sent the information to CFRG.

I emailed Carol Ann Zinn the following on September 16th:

 

subject Re: CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE VOTING RECORDS UPDATE mailed-by  gmail.com

Sep 16

 

"I noticed that under Voting-Owned Elections, my name is not mentioned at all.

For the record, I was the first mayoral candidate to file and also the first to decline (mayoral or otherwise) to participate in the program.

My view on the program has been documented and also via press release.

I would appreciate it if you will also state my position on the issue.

Thank you,"

Not having heard back with an answer, I followed up with another email:

 

Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:55 PM   subject Re: CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE VOTING RECORDS UPDATE mailed-by gmail.com

hide details Sep 30 (1 day ago)

 

"Carol-Ann,

Below is the email that I had sent you on September 16th.  I thought I will bring this to your attention once again as it appears that the matter still has not been addressed...

Thanks you,

'I noticed that under Voting-Owned Elections, my name is not mentioned at all.

For the record, I was the first mayoral candidate to file and also the first to decline (mayoral or otherwise) to participate in the program.

My view on the program has been documented and also via press release.

I would appreciate it if you will also state my position on the issue.

Thank you,'"

Well, she responded:

 

from
reply-to	This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
to	Augustus Cho
date	Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM
subject	Re: CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE VOTING RECORDS UPDATE
mailed-by	srs.bis.na.blackberry.com

 

We decided not to add the update. Each update is addt'l cost after initial website revision, and we decided that this requested update was not essential info requiring our addt'l expenditure. I thought I had replied to you after cfrg met, sorry.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

 

 

Interesting choice of words, "this requested update was not essential info..."

The omission (now appears to have been consciously done based on her reaction) is evidently considered by her and her group to be of "...not essential info..." because adding my articulated positions will not help her/their candidate.

It seems that if a group makes a decision to have a web site, offers to post the candidate questionnaires, and then summarizes the candidates' records on particular issues, they should be able to include all candidates' records.  They should also correct any errors and omissions that occur; otherwise, inaction conscious (once informed of the ommision but doing nothing to correct it) or otherwise, nullifies the credence of the website. 

So much for fairness.

CFRG is losing credibility...

____________________

September 29, 2009

WCHL Power Luncheon

The local radio station hosted a luncheon from 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM.

It was entitled, "No Spin Community Leader’s Luncheon" where both Carrboro & Chapel Hill municipal candidates were invited for a "off the record, no holes barred conversation."  Three of the neighboring aldermen candidates, the four mayoral candidates and six of the eight council candidate attended.

Representing the WCHL were Ron Stutts, Lynda-Marie Turasi (news director) and Elizabeth Friend (community reporter).

I commend WCHL for initiating the luncheon, providing the conducive environment, a nice lunch and being gracious hosts.

WCHL provided the impetus for a luncheon that had much potential.

However, by the time the introductions were made and why we were running - some candidates taking as much as 8 minutes to speak about themselves - it was already 1:25 P.M.

I understand why the introductions may have been needed.  In reality, it was not a good use of time - we all knew about each other already.  As a mayoral candidate, I've met the council candidates enough times to know what they stand for in this election.  Conversely, they also know what the mayoral candidates represent.  The extended introduction was analogous to preaching to the convert.

(One could argue that the intro was necessary for the Carrboro candidates who may not know us or vice-versa.  If so, it was at a heavy cost of time, for we spent 3/4 of the time doing so.  The internet would have been a better option.)

At 1: 25 P.M., the subject matter of Durham growth was discussed.  There were many other topics more relevant to Chapel Hill that could have been addressed, bringing the intellect of the candidates, our perspectives on them but more importantly, what solutions each brought to the table.  If that was not feasible, then a topic could have been selected and discussed at length to find the various perspectives and potential solutions available.

In the end, the potentials of the luncheon was sacrificed.

No one has asked but if I were asked for suggestions to improve the format for the next time, here is what I would share:

 

• Provide a structured agenda with time allotments
• Limit introductions to one minute; I don't think we were together to talk about ourselves
• Possible subject matter: Focus on issues that affect the town; discuss concerns/problems/directions of where we need to go
• Possible subject matter: Share the common problems we face as candidates; scheduling conflicts, strain on families
• Possible subject matter: Support each other; how we can work together to make Chapel Hill a better place for all
• 
  
  

 

The intention of the luncheon is well founded but I think about "What it could have been..."

Again, "Thank You" WCHL.

 

September Chautauqua
__________________

 

September 28, 2009


Home Depot & Habitat for Humanity

Here is another testament to how local business impacts our community, positively.

If we are serious about having affordable housing, then we need to allow Home Trust some flexibility as it strives to serve our residents.

There are numerous grants available that would assist qualified homeowners with maintenance costs, and/or with available tax credits.  This would be particularly helpful for persons who qualify for the affordable homes or condominiums offered by the land trust, but have difficulty in meeting the additional utility and/or maintenance costs.

 

-Augustus

____________________

 

 

September 28, 2009

 

Recycling old sneakers

What a great way for used sneakers!

I will be dropping off my old sneakers to be recycled and reused at Eastgate...I encourage you to do the same and help out Mother Earth.

Thanks.

 

-Augustus

____________________

 

September 26, 2009

 

OPUS

Went to see the play "OPUS" at the Paul Green Theatre this evening as it opened the '09-'10 season.

The pre/post program was well done: wine, cheese and appetizers were available before the play began, setting a nice ambiance for the patrons.  Additional hors devours were available afterwards by servers walking around the lobby, along with more beverages, all thanks to Durham Catering Company and:

 

• Counter Culture Coffee
• The Fresh Market
• American Party Rentals
• University Florist & Gift Shop

 

As a nice touch, the actors also mingled with the public afterwards; I met and spoke with four out of the five.  They were genuine and down-to-earth.  No inflated ego here; just professionals who see their craft in the broader context of life, instead of prima donnas.  I appreciated their mature outlook.

Lest I forget: there was a string quartet playing in the lobby.

 

The play was done well and well written.

OPUS ("Work") is about a rather successful string quartet...and the challenges it faces as a group and as individuals of the group.

As in other situations where strong, complex personalities have to work together, OPUS demonstrates again how fragile humanity is.  What appears to be a success as both individuals and as a quartet, is one variable away from failure.

The causes are not always in the differences of the goal; rather in the more subjective interpretive musical differences (what we call "exegesis" in theology) complicated by the interactions between the individuals involved and what stage a person happens to be in life.

Finally, we are reminded by a crisis framed in the value of time...

It is always profound how a life crisis brings to focus what is really important.

Cast:

Carl - Jimmy Kieffer

Alan - Jeffrey Blair Cornell

Grace - Marianne Miller

Elliot - Scott Ripley

Dorian - Ray Dooley

 

Well done...

-Augustus

____________________

 

September 25, 2009

 

South Korean Electric Car Company to Create 400 Jobs with New Operations in PA, Says Gov. Rendell  

 

This is an example of what I am talking about: bringing in investments to chapel Hill.

We could have been part of this...

We actually have a foot-in-the-door: we have a Sister City in Korea~

Unless we bring in investments - such as this - to Chapel Hill to reduce property taxes that will no doubt rise every year, these companies will go to other cities & towns where they are welcome...

As Mayor, I will recruit hi-tech companies to off-set the unsustainable imbalance (80% property taxes, 17 % business & 3% other) that we have today.

 

Korea's economy is just beginning.

Once Korea unites, it is predicted to surpass France, Germany & Japan in the next 30 to 40 years in terms of GNP...according to Goldman Sachs.

 

-Augustus

____________________

 

September 24, 2009

 

Friends of Downtown Forum

The Friends of Downtown hosted candidate forum at the University Presbyterian Church on Franklin Street.

I wish to send a "Thank you" to both the organization, led by Pat Evens, and the UPC for the use of their wonderful facility.

The forum revealed interesting aspects of my fellow mayoral candidates regarding leadership.

 

Mr. Czajkowski: Two observations -

First, he proposed the notion of two-year freeze on tax increases.  This thought comes from an individual who touts that he is a CFO.

What I saw: he stated to the audience what he thought they wanted to hear - a pure political rhetoric.  Of course, after the two-year freeze, then what?  It is likely that to make up for the two-year freeze, the taxes might have to be doubled to compensate for the two years of deficit.  Is that the best judgment of a chief financial officer with years of experience as he claims?  Is "gimmick" Matt's way to address fiscal challenges that we will be facing?  The approach seemed immature.

Second, he proposed to further cut town expenses by REDUCING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS of the TOWN EMPLOYEES.  Wow.  That is a low blow.

What bothers me about this mentality - as a fellow mayoral candidate and citizen - are two things: 1) the dedicated town employees were not present to defend themselves (Matt knew that) because they were busy working and doing their jobs, 2) there are other ways to address fiscal matters without - right off the bat - sacrificing town employees.  They are not widgets to be manipulated; they are residents, citizens trying to raise and sustain their families like the rest of us.  How about taking care of our workers and finding other ways?

I thought that was a cheap shot.

 

Mr. Kleinschmidt:

While addressing the matter of why it takes so long for developmental process to get approved, he tried to blame it on the Town's inspectors.  Again, the inspectors were not present to defend themselves - because they were out there...inspecting.

If their answers are indicative of what they have to offer, then I have concerns.

 

To me, being mayor is about leadership.

It is clear that the two do not understand the fundamentals of what leadership is and that indication is disappointing.

If they understood leadership, they would not have blamed their subordinates - the Town employees - so easily.  Instead, a true leader would have foremost looked inward to see in what ways he is lacking - instead of passing the buck to the Town employees.  Sacrificing them was especially unethical as they are already vulnerable to attacks by the two councilmen.  In the end, the Town Council sets the tone; the employees follow.  If the latter are not performing their best, perhaps that is an indication of the lack of leadership at the Council.

 

Mr. Wolff:

I understand Kevin's frustration with how he sees the Town.  Many residents commiserate and empathize with him.  I also understand his verbal mistake when he used profanity.  Perhaps it was a case of Freudian slip - with all of its symbolism attached to it.

What made it worse was the specific location: he used inappropriate language inside of the University Presbyterian Church.  For people of faith, this was an inconceivable event for churches symbolize the presence of God.  Personally, I do not believe that candidates should use improper language at any time, much less in a sacred place.

Initially, when I thought I had heard the word, I said to myself that "I must have misheard it" because Kevin was standing in front of us three other candidates.  I wanted to give him the benefit of doubt on this, thinking that he knows better.  Later on, others confirmed the worse.

 

What concerns me about this faux-pax is not his intentions, or his frustration level but how that would have impacted the Town of Chapel Hill had he been the Mayor and such mistake took place in town or, worse, out of town while he was representing us.

There are acceptable levels of mistakes in society but, as Mayor, that margin of error becomes quite limited.

Participating in Tae Kwon Do tournaments brings out the true character of the participants, largely due to pressure imposed by the nature of the competition.  Similarly, being a candidate for mayor tends to reveal an individual's true nature; we are now seeing this.  For better or for worse...

 

-Augustus

 ___________________

September 21, 2009


What was sent in & what came out


Below is the email Jesse James DeConto sent to me and my response.  Keep in mind that somewhat identical questions were sent to the other three mayoral candidates.  The content is self-explanatory.  Jesse's questions have been italicized:


to: Jesse DeConto < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

date: Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM
subject: Re: mayoral campaign
mailed-bygmail.com

hide details Sep 15 (6 days ago)

Jesse,

See below:

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Jesse DeConto < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > wrote:

Hi Augustus,

I'm working on a story for next week and hope you can answer a few questions:

When we sat down in June, you told me you felt you could "represent the town in a way it hasn't been represented before" because of your Asian heritage and its symbolic value for diversity.

Do you think Chapel Hill needs an Asian-American mayor?


Thus far, we’ve had white mayors and an African-American mayor; perhaps its time for door number 3!
Contemplate: the 19th century is considered the British Century; the 20th century is the American Century.   The 21st century is accurately perceived as being the Asian Century.  Presently, Asia is at the cutting edge of humanity in a number of areas.

If the technological strength of the Asian nations and their growing economies are any indication, it will be beneficial to have a mayor in Chapel Hill of Asian background.  I can be influential in establishing relationships from cities and nations overseas to bring investments, business, and hi-tech industry to our community.

Being a bi-lingual mayor who speaks English and Korean will be a great asset when meeting international investors, businessmen/women from South Korea, for example.

Chapel Hill will make a truly powerful progressive statement locally, nationally, and internationally by electing an Asian-American as mayor.

Best of all, I am retired so I can serve full-time - unlike my opponents!

Do your opponents offer any sort of diversity for the town or do they represent homogeneity?

Only if the town prefers the 16 shades of gray!

Specifically from an ethnic point of view, the other three candidates represent homogeneity.  While every individual is different with personal idiosyncrasies, their similar cultures and traits reinforce the homogenous mindsets.


Is there anything about your Korean heritage that would enhance your ability to lead as mayor?

There is the personal discipline (martial arts aspect), value of knowledge (life ethos), unafraid of challenges or hard work (Korean work ethic), the appreciation of democracy (knowing the alternatives to freedom isn’t a real option) that defines my Korean heritage.

My Korean heritage will also make a difference in Chapel Hill’s relationship with the Guro District in South Korea, which is designated as a “Friendship City” (a similar program to “Sister City” program) with Chapel Hill.  I lived in there when I was young.

Today, Guro, with population of 421,000, is a very technologically advanced city.  As mayor, I will encourage the companies there to engage with Chapel Hill to invest in our community and create jobs (particularly for those who have recently lost jobs in the Research Triangle Park area.)  With my life’s experience, an Economics major and graduate of UNC ’82, and as a world traveler, I feel that I am uniquely qualified to lead Chapel Hill.

Also, Kevin Wolff is claiming to be the only candidate for "change" and the only "moral" candidate:

Here is how I see Mr. Wolff:

·      Kevin Wolff moved here in 2005 and after 4 months residency, ran for mayor.
·      Kevin Wolff ran for mayor again in 2007
·      Kevin Wolff ran for Orange County Commissioner in 2008
·      Kevin Wolff is running for mayor in 2009

I found his statement at the Sierra Club Forum that he is the only candidate that “leads by example,” perplexing:

·      What has he done for Chapel Hill to demonstrate or substantiate his leading by example?
·      Where is his service to the community - other than being a four-time candidate?
·      Is this the pattern of someone who is championing “change”?
·      Also, what value system is he using to determine that his is the “only moral candidate”?

It seems to me that he files to be a candidate because it’s the least expensive form of advertisement to get his name “out there” for his business.


Mark Kleinschmidt it claiming to be the only candidate who represents Chapel Hill's liberal values, and:

Here is how I see Mark:

·      What exactly are Chapel Hill’s liberal values?
·      Of what specific “values” is he speaking?
·      How does he know what my values are?  In some arenas, I might be more liberal than he is.
·      If voting for VOE and lifetime medical benefits (which all benefits him at the expense of the tax-payers) are indicative of his “liberal values” and “experienced leadership,” then that is not the kind of values – liberal or otherwise – the town needs or desires.
·      Question: what is Mark Kleinschmidt’s attendance record for attending the meetings he is the council liaison to for the past eight years in office?
·      He is presently listed on 10 of town’s board/commissions/task forces, etc.  What is his attendance record there?  I have heard it’s quite poor. 
·      Did he serve on any board/commissions in Chapel Hill prior to running for office?

It seems to me that being a council member and running for mayor is all about him and his personal agenda, instead of the best interest of Chapel Hill.

Matt Czajkowski says he is "uniquely" qualified to guide the town's fiscal management.

Here is how I see Matt:

·      If he is unable to get along with the present council because he has been marginalized, then how is it conceivable that he can lead them as mayor?  According to the Carrboro Citizen, Kevin Wolff refers to Matt as being a “lame duck from the outset” - if the latter was elected as mayor for that rational.
·      Having “financial” background in a corporate setting does not necessarily translate to the government bureaucracy, with different types of financial elements (municipal bonds, etc.)
·      Matt speaks of fiscal management (i.e. of current funds).  What about the equally important challenge of luring new business to Chapel Hill to increase the business tax base and thereby decreasing the property tax base for the residents?
·      While he may have a finance background, he still needs to attend his council liaison (committees/boards) meetings - which he has not been doing.
·      How many council liaison board meetings has he attended since he has been on council?  Unlike Ed Harrison, he has not attended but one of the twice-monthly Transportation Advisory Board Meetings and none of the Community Design Committee meetings for the past year.  Ask any Community Design Commission or the Transportation Board members.
·      If he doesn’t have enough time to attend his regular council assigned meetings, how can he find time to be mayor, which require even more time?

Thanks for the opportunity to respond!

Take care...

Can you respond to these claims? Do you think your opponents fall short on any of these claims? Do you think you also represent Chapel Hill in these areas where they claim uniqueness?

Thanks,

Jesse DeConto
Staff Writer
The News & Observer
phone: (919) 932-8760
cell: (919) 812-5097
fax: (919) 932-2017

 

-Augustus

____________________

September 19, 2009

 

A Place for Party Politics in Non-Partisan elections

 

It is enlightening to see the local Orange County Democratic Party (OCDP) give guidance to its party faithfuls by educating their rank & file on why it's important to get involved in the political process and vote.

Reminiscent of David Letterman's "Top Ten" list, here are OCDP's:

 

TOP 10 REASONS FOR DEMOCRATS TO VOTE IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

 

1. "Municipal election results affect us more directly and immediately than the results of state or national elections."

2. "Local officials set your property tax rates* (e.g. City, Special School Rate, County) We get a lot for our money!"

3. "Every vote counts. Usually, only 15% of registered voters participate in municipal elections."

4. "Our vote communicates whether we want to maintain the status quo or support change."

5. "We can easily be an informed voter: Prior to the election, we can meet the candidates to ask and debate their positions on issues that affect us, and we can advocate our positions with the candidates on those issues, face-to-face. Throughout the year we can attend city/town government meetings to express our opinions."

6. "Voting is easy to do: Vote early or on Election Day (November 3rd) with information from the Democratic Party on the candidates and their positions on issues."

7. "Our vote is an investment in the future of our town. A strong voter turn-out tells our elected officials that we are serious about their representation of and their responsibilities to us."

8. "We can frame the election: We can ask candidates to state their opinions about such issues as:..."

9. "In 2009, Chapel Hill will be the first municipality in the state to introduce voter-owned publicly financed elections."

10. "Democrats electing Democrats at all levels of government contribute to the changes that we voted for overwhelming in 2008.  Municipal elections are no exception:  while they are non-partisan, candidates who are Democrats accelerate their responsiveness to our issues and concerns."

 

It is worth noting that OCDP is doing its best to increase participation by educating the electorate leading to greater voter turnout in this non-partisan election.

 

FYI: Here are the Democrat candidates the Orange County Democratic Party supports.

 

-Augustus

____________________

 

September 18, 2009

Latest update on Strom..

 

An open letter & a challenge to "Bill" (William B.)  Strom

Bill,

 It’s time for you to come clean.

It’s time for the truth and the statement of facts.

At this point, you have lost any semblance and credibility as a former councilman and damaged what good you may have done for the past ten years by how you chose to end your public service in Chapel Hill.  In the process, you've let down and hurt many in our community - a community that you once supposed to have loved.

At this point, your plans have been pretty much figured out - by everyone.

At this point, your name is being dragged through the mud…daily.

At this point, you have nothing more to lose.

At this point, you could gain some self-respect by telling us why you did what you did – and for whom.

You will not be able to live this down and unless you explain your actions, this will haunt your soul for the rest of your life.  You can’t escape it, for whatever you try to do (thanks to the internet), your inappropriate concoction in Chapel Hill will surface and will damage you.  This is not something you can hide.

However, coming forth with the truth will go a long way in the redemption of your character.

Also, it is just a matter of time before you realize that you don’t owe anything to any particular councilman in Chapel Hill.  For all the wrong reasons, you (and they?) tried to manipulate the system…and it has backfired.

Please explain your actions by contacting a local reporter - a real journalist this time - preferably one of the Chapel Hill media outlets and make a statement: you owe them that.

Tell him/her who and what the plan was…then move on with your life.

If you are not willing to do that out of self-respect, then do so for your posterity sake...

 

-Augustus

___________________

 

September 18, 2009

UNC - CH: reducing carbon footprint

 

It is wonderful to see my alma mater doing its part to reduce its impact on the environment.

Carolina is specifically striving to do so by:

1. Reducing commercial mail

2. Increasing the use of composting

3. Increasing computer efficiency

4. Increasing fuel efficiency

As a local citizen of Chapel Hill, I thank the leadership of Carolina for leading by example...

-Augustus

____________________

 

September 9, 2009

 

“The most moral candidate”

 

It must be our good luck: it's not everyday that one gets to meet “the most moral candidate”, albeit self-proclaimed.

Well, our chance came at the Morgan Creek candidate forum.

During the course of the forum, Mr., Kevin Alan Wolff, a mayoral candidate, blurted out “I’m the most moral candidate here”.

It was not clear whether he meant he was “the most moral candidate” compared to the three other mayoral candidates or whether he included the eight council candidates as well.

Whatever the case, I now have the privilege to know what “the most moral candidate” in Chapel Hill looks like, behaves like and how he speaks…what a day.

 

-Augustus

___________________

 

September 15, 2009

 

Environmental damage of the 'single-use' plastic bags continues

 

This substantiates the entry dated August 29, 2009, below.

The environmental group that is trying to clean the San Franscisco Bay estimates that 1,000,000 (one million) plastic bags end up in the bay annually.

According to The Mercury-News:

 

• 15,000 bags were removed from ten spots in one day
• 26,000 plastic bags
• 184 tons of waste

 

According to the story, recycling them are not a realistic option: California Integrated Waste Management Board estimates that less than 5% end up being recycled.

Solution: Re-useable bags.

The City of San Franscisco and Palo Alto have already banned the use of plastic-bags.

Thankfully, our local businesses are now offering them to citizens who want to make a positive difference in improving the quality of life.

I would like to see Chapel Hill be part of the environmental solution instead of perpetuating the problem...

 

-Augustus

____________________

 

September 14, 2009


The most obvious overlooked


I attended the Council Meeting tonight including the special called meeting to discuss the process in which to replace the seat vacated by Bill Strom.  The process has begun and all applications are due by Monday, October 12th by 5:00 p.m.  The Council then discussed if they could pass a resolution agreeing to appoint the 5th place candidate in the election.  That hit a roadblock when it was pointed out that "what if" the fifth-placed candidate didn't complete the application.  Nothing else was discussed about the matter other than all council candidates should apply. 


When Bill Strom resigned in July, a couple of weeks after the seat could be included on the November 3rd Ballot, according to Chapel Hill's outdated ordinance, did anyone think to repeal the ordinance? Had this been done, the vacant seat could have been on the ballot as well as the four full-term seats.  Had this been done, no one could manipulate the system as Bill Strom has done. 


It seems strange, but to my knowledge, the Council never gave this option any thought and as a result they overlooked the most obvious solution, repeal the ordinance, which would allow the voters to decide his replacement.


-Augustus

____________________

 

September 11, 2009



What was sent in & what came out


I was contacted by Matthew McGibney, a Daily Tar Heel staff, both by a phone call and an email, requesting my views as a mayoral candidate on the problem of downtown panhandling.


Below is the material I sent via email:

Re: Franklin Street Panhandling -

 

"It is my goal, as mayor, to place the concerns of the residents, students and the business community as the top priority.

As such, the present state of Franklin Street troubles me:  the panhandlers are accosting residents, visitors and students - which is having a detrimental effect on the overall quality of the Chapel Hill experience.  This needs to be acknowledged by the elected officials in town.  It seems that candidates are more cognizant of the problem more than the incumbents.

Personal experience:

On several occasions during the summer of 2009, I was approached by panhandlers on Franklin Street and asked for money as I walked my nightly route around campus and downtown.

On another occasion in the evening, there was a male, clearly under the influence of alcohol, speaking to a female, who was also displaying characteristics from drinking, in profane, derogatory, and inflammatory language that could be heard across the street.  This was an embarrassing situation for all who were walking on the sidewalk.  Worse for me, my middle school age daughter was present.  I wonder what visitors think when they witness such incidents…

 

Potential Solutions:

I propose stricter panhandling ordinances - thus providing for a more conducive business environment.

I propose increasing the distance around ATMs and children’s museum from 25’ to 50’.

Also, I would like to see the panhandlers be required to purchase a business license and pay local taxes on their income for those who make it their business to live off the Town via panhandling."

Below is the article and what was actually printed versus what was sent in...

Mayor candidates debate end to homelessness


How accurate and unbiased was the reporting?

 

Question: Why did Matthew McGibney choose to replace my word "panhandling ordinances" with the word "laws" when the word I sent in was clearly "ordinances"?

 

• "Increase the distance between panhandlers and businesses through new laws."

 

Was this done to insinuate something to the reader?

 

-Augustus

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

 

September 6, 2009


Sierra Club Interview: A Race-Based Question Being Asked

The Sierra Club of Orange-Chatham County gets involved in the Chapel Hill municipal elections by:

1. Interviewing candidates (held on August 29th & 30th⁾

2. Sponsoring a forum (to be held on Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 7:00 P.M. at CH Town Hall)

 

At 10:00 A.M. on August 30, 2009, I met with the two representatives of the local chapter of the local Sierra Club for my candidate interview at the Foster’s Market.  The two were, Loren Hintz, Chair, and James Carnahan.

The entire Q & A was taped for my record - I had asked and received permission from the two men to tape the interview.

I was asked six questions, which were answered.

However, the nature of question #5 was…quite surprising: it was totally a race-based question.

To be fair, I do not know if these questions were composed by someone at its N.C state Sierra Club headquarter or by an individual in the local chapter.  The question was an inappropriate one, in any event.

 

Below is the transcript of the question #5 being asked and the answer given:

Question #5:

“What actual or potential conflicts with minority groups in the community do you see promoting sustainable development or wise environmental policies?”

 

My answer:

 

“Conflict?...................(4.5 seconds of pause)...I don’t see any conflict because it’s difficult for some to believe, but we minorities are also human beings and we also enjoy drinking clean air and breathing…I mean drinking clean water and clean air.  We also enjoy seeing green trees and also blue skies, so I don’t see any conflict.

If the question is, ‘How does going green impact possibly some of the less fortunate economic groups?’ then, that’s a different question.  But, I don’t think you can necessarily stereotype by saying that all minorities are financially unable to sustain themselves in terms of going green.

Broadening the question, if there are a group of people - black or white or any other race - who are impacted in terms of finance, I think what we need to do, as a government is…transfer some of the waste, I mean some of the money, by cutting waste and reevaluating some of the programs that we may not necessarily have to have, or slow it down or what is it…put a pause it for a while we reallocate for more immediate needs.  No one will argue (I meant to say “against”) for sustainability, and I think if we use good judgment and corporate thinking, I think we can overcome some of the economic issues by helping out whoever needs help.

So, I don’t foresee it as much of a problem.  And if we are really hard strapped for cash, I am willing to hold fundraisers to help people for specific causes and we will address and I don’t think people should suffer just because of lack of money.

If we have our priority and our philosophy straight - in terms of protecting the environment - I think the rest of it is detail."

 

A follow-up question by James Carnahan:  “Explain what you mean by the term, “corporate thinking”?”

Answer:

“Consensus, group thinking…in other words, the rest of the council, community leaders, to get their input, in terms of getting methodology, what is the best methodology.”

 

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

 

I was stunned when I initially heard this question as evidenced by the first word out of my mouth: “Conflict?"

As in, “Are you serious?”

 In the 4.5 seconds of pause, I replayed the question and the scenario in my head asking myself, “Did I hear what I think I just heard?  Could this be true?”

I looked back at Loren Hintz to make sure that the question was not in jest.  There was no indication of that.

During the entire time that I was answering the question, in the back of my head, I was thinking, "I cannot believe that I'm being asked this," as it was specifically race and ethnicity based - and the faint connotation it implied.

When I realized that the Sierra Club stood by the question, various thoughts and concerns went through my mind, some listed below…

 

The question makes vast assumptions that are false. 

There are five presupposition beliefs to this question:

“What (1) actual or (2) potential (3) conflicts with minority groups in the community do you see (4) promoting sustainable development or (5) wise environmental policies?”

 

At the onset, the Sierra Club separated the world into two camps – the whites and the “minorities,” even before getting to the actual issues.  This disturbing mentality is one founded on the postulation that there are two human standards: one for the superior, white population and clearly a second, inferior (read: less green) one for the non-whites.

The question “actual” and “potential conflict” clearly insinuates that “minorities” are inherently unconcerned, therefore un-environmental.  Worse, that “non-whites” have an intrinsic conflict with the whites in promoting sustainable development.  That’s quite a belief system.

Also, it is insulting to imply that “us minorities”, do not possess sufficient intelligence quotient to recognize the value and the need for “wise” environmental policies.  The hypothesis is that the non-white segment of the Chapel Hill population is mentally substandard - hence, the need for clean air to breath and clean water to drink is irrelevant.

In short, the latter part of the question implies – however subtle - that the entire non-white population lack adequate acumen to understand ecology (which would be about ¾ of the world’s population).  As a consequence, we “minorities” have an inferior agenda as a human sub-category, specifically: we are incapable of promoting sustainable development and/or supporting “wise” environmental policies.

The fact that I, as an Asian, was brought up with the philosophical value system that man should live in harmony with nature - instead of dominating nature - is conveniently overlooked and is irrelevant to the Sierra Club’s definition of a “wise environmental policies.”

BTW: To whom does the Sierra Club refer by the category, “minorities”?

Are they speaking of Americans originally from Africa?  Hispanics? Asians?  How about inter-racial children who have one white parent and one non-white parent (or, as Sierra Club will have it, "a minority"), a la President Obama?  Just whose definition does the Sierra Club mean by “minorities”?

Who gave the Sierra Club the prerogative to define or make such a sociological judgment?  It's one thing for the club to plant trees; it's something else when a local environmental group tries to define the intrinsic value of the various human races.

 

Significance of the question:

Unfortunately, the nature of the question seems to be indicative of the Orange – Chatham County Sierra Club’s true state of mind - and how they actually perceive human relations and beings.  The question reveals that OC Sierra Club’s is not too far intellectually removed from other white, supremacy organizations; otherwise, how could such a racially insensitive, offensive and insulting, question be asked?

[Here is a question for the local chapter of the Sierra Club: how many (token) "minorities" does the chapter have?  And, I don't mean counting UNC students...I mean Chapel Hill residents.]

I wondered if the same question was asked of other non-mayoral candidates.  I ran into a council candidate at the UNC – Citadel football game on Saturday (Sept. 5th) and asked if he recalled a similar question.  He replied that he had and that he had the question repeated twice - to make sure he actually heard what he thought he had heard.

He too understood the nuance of the question, found it inconceivable and processed it cognitively in the same manner as I did.

He shook his from side to side...his facial expression seemed to say, "Could you believe that was asked?"

We are now in the 21^st Century, in the year 2009.  Is there any justifiable reason for the Sierra Club to ask a question of candidates that implies differences in the human race?


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

 

Here is the link to the Orange-Chatham Group.

 

The media may wish to get a copy of the questions asked and perhaps speak with the other candidates who also went through the questioning to verify this story.

Below is the entire audio of the interview …



-Augustus

__________________

 

September 5, 2009

UNC - Citadel  Football Game

Soon, will be leaving to see Carolina play Citadel at Kenan Stadium.

It is the first game of the season; a season of great expectations and hope as UNC Tar Heels are ranked at #21.

Will be watching the game from the Chancellor's Box at the courtesy of Chancellor Holden Thorp, Class of 1986 and yours truly, Class of 1982...

-Augustus

____________________

 

September 4, 2009

 

WCHL Reports: Kevin Alan Wolff, Changes his mind on Voter-Owned Elections; Takes tax-payer funding

Below is the transcript of the radio interview: (the numbers are used for coherency)

"There are a number of reasons why I've filed for it

(1). and you know obviously...uh...I have been one of the uh, opponents to it when it was being proposed,

(2). Uh...I'm still an opponent of, an opponent to it

(3). but you know its the process is in place now

(4). so...uh...although I'm not in favor of it

(5). and I would rather see it used for candidates who prove financial need

(6). that...uh...that at least one of my opponent's is using it...

I thought it was a good idea to at least...uh...apply for it and"

"For me, it was really a matter of giving my campaign staff and leadership an opportunity to look at it and decide whether or not it made sense to...uh....to apply or not apply.

"And so ultimately we just felt like...uh...we want to leave our options open and so I went ahead and applied".

On May 14, 2008, Mr. Wolff submitted an extensive letter entitled: "Town Council and Media, his perspective, stating:

"I oppose the proposed public campaign financing program, which should be more correctly named the "Incumbent Re-election Assurance Program..."

 

A possible scenario:

Is it possible that while Mr. Wolff is on the record against Voter-Owned Election publicly, he may have been soliciting donors for $20's in the meantime - just in case?  Is it possible that he thinks he can reach the magic number of 150 soon so he can smell the cash-cow, called tax-payer money (reality: your taxed money), he now rationalizes to himself, "Why not take it?"

 

-Augustus

____________________

 

September 2, 2009

University of Pennsylvania: Recycled Cap & Gown

The University of Pennsylvania Class of 2010 will be wearing caps & gowns made from recycled materials.

It is wonderful to see U of Pennsylvania examining various aspects to being green, including its graduation ceremony.  This indicates how serious the Quakers are about improving the environment, for all.

I hope other colleges & universities, including North Carolina, will be able to do a similar program?

Thank you, Penn for demonstrating what is possible...

-Augustus

____________________

 

September 1, 2009

 

Daily Tar Heel Editorial Board being manipulated & losing credibility?

 

The DTH editorial board took a very unprofessional and undignified shot at me on its September 1, 2009 issue.

 

The sequence of the events:

On August 31, 2009 at 10:43 A.M, out of the blue, an individual named Pat Ryan called from phone number 631-793-0649 and left the following phone message:

He called to verify “some details”.  Notice the plural in “details.”

The truth was, he wanted to know just one thing: did I clean up the segment of the road?  When confirmed that I had done so on July 5th, that was the extent of the conversation.  Saying that there will be a DTH editorial about it on Sept. 1,  he hung up.

I thought it strange that he had no interest in the background of the AAH and/or why.  The reason became apparent: DTH editorial board had already made up its mind to smear and discredit me - facts and truth aside.

 

The DTH editorial based its attack on this story; it must have been one slow day for the local news that they had to concoct an article, start with an innuendo trying to make it as if something inappropriate was taking place.  I know the newspaper industry is hurting but...

 

*****

Here are the facts:

Fact 1:

Adopting a highway was something that I had planned on doing for some time.  So, back in April 2009, I followed through and applied for the AAH program.

(BTW: This is not something new - I had also participated in the same program in the last state I lived in, which is being continued by the new head of the organization after my departure.)

I was informed that the turn around time to place a sign for organization is usually about a week.  However, due to state budget cuts, the program was not able to place a sign - until June 16th.  I found that the signs had been placed when I saw them on the road one day.

As much as the DTH editorial board will have everyone believe, I have no control over when the DOT department places the participating signs.

It is ironic for the DTH editorial to be accusing me of having adopted a highway out of political motivation, implying that this was done for my mayoral race, ""But Cho found a clever alternative to boost name recognition: Around the time he declared his candidacy, he adopted a mile of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and had his name posted under the “Adopt-a-Highway" sign." "

It appears that it is they who are the guilty ones based on the following fact: Mayor Foy did not announce his intention to not seek re-election until May 28, 2009

 http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1546372.html

Unless one believes that Mayor Foy informed me personally a month before, I would not have known his intention to not seek re-election.

There is no question had the AAH sign been a Democrat candidate for mayor, he would have been praised.  Why the double-standard?

Fact 2:

Although I had applied to participate in the program in April, the administrators of the program stated that I should wait until the signs were actually placed before cleaning up the highway.  The signs were placed on June 16^th.

 

Fact 3:

The first cleaning took place on July 5^th, about three weeks into the program.  It is less than two months (September 16^th will be the end of the second month) since that initial cleaning. 

Instead, the editorial wrongfully states the following: "The problem, though, is that Cho’s stretch of MLK Blvd. has only been cleaned once in the four months since he adopted it."

 

Fact 4:

The editorial claims the following: "In this case, a mayoral candidate who struggles with name recognition posted his name under a community service sign." That is a matter of opinion, at best.  However, thanks for getting my name out there!

The original news article (link above) also left out or misrepresented information on August 22:

Fiction: my teaching TKD is not a “home business”.  I do not have a home business.

 

Fact 5:

I instruct TKD to pass on the discipline to the next generation.  Students participate by invitation only.

In all, what DTH editorial did today is referred by athletics as “a punch below the belt.”

Most males know when this takes place: it’s a shot taken by a desperate opponent when all else have failed…

Fortunately, unlike the DTH editorial board, there are clear, ethical rules in martial arts - such as no strikes or kicks being permitted below the waist.

It seems to me, since the DTH editorial board has become so obsessed with the AAH program and extremely judgmental in making sure all of the highways are cleaned, perhaps they should do a comprehensive story on the entire program - instead of attacking a specific mayoral candidate?

 

Here is a public challenge to the DTH Editorial Board members: Adopt-a-Highway in town.

Considering that the DTH has been in existence since 1893 and the AAH program has been in NC since 1988, why has the editorial staff not adopted a highway prior to the present?

Make a real difference - instead of just taking from Chapel Hill, why not give something back: what section of the highway in and around Chapel Hill would they want to adopt and keep clean?

Perhaps before you start attacking a local citizen who is trying to improve society, in which you are a part, you will be more responsible by presenting an editorial based on facts.

Also, nothing is preventing the other three mayoral candidates from adopting a highway!

[Update 9/3/09:

It's interesting that Harrison Jobe, on behalf of the DTH's editorial board wrote in DTH the following: "It’s not our job to be objective (we’ll leave that up to the newsroom).  It’s our job to opine on issues and events affecting the campus community."

Clearly, the "not being objective" (truthful) part applies.

Rational persons would think that even editorials are based on some semblance of reality...otherwise, it begins to sound like the National Enquirer.]

 

Having seen the process of how DTH editorial board goes about its work, it makes me question the validity and the judgment of other editorials...

Curious: Is there a particular bias here on the part of DTH editorial staff toward my mayoral campaign?

Is this editorial an indication of whom the editorial staff will endorse in the mayoral race?

If the print media really wants to practice investigative journalism - instead of advocate journalism - I have a small suggestion: go find the former councilman Bill Strom (I've heard him living in NYC) and get the full story, thereby serving our community well.  We're still waiting for his comments or response.

Oh, BTW, this is a non-partisan elections…

 

(Worth noting: Global interest

 

On my biography section of this website, I wrote:

"With my mayoral candidacy, the Town of Chapel Hill has a chance to make greater history.  This election has the potential to be covered on a national, if not international*, scale by the media due to the human interest story of what I represent and what is possible only in America.

 

[*To date, 9/19/09: 42 countries - and increasing - are keeping up with the Chapel Hill municipal election:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Columbia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudia Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vietnam, United States]."

I wonder how the Daily Tar Heel editorial board is being perceived around the world?)

Augustus

____________________ 

                               Chautauqua - August

August 29, 2009

Banning plastic bags

The City of San Jose is addressing the problems associated with the use of the "single-use" plastic bags.

In most parts of the world, people bring their own reusable, cloth bags/sacks to do their grocery shopping - like Europe and Asia.  To encourage shoppers to cut down on the use of plastic bags, grocery stores in Korea will charge shoppers a fee if the store has to supply a plastic bag.

Doing so achieves the following:

• Cuts down on the need to produce new plastic bags (reduce)
• Encourages shoppers to bring their own bags (reuse)
• Reduce plastics in the landfill (recycle)

If the Town of Chapel Hill is serious about going green, we need to consider the local impact of using thousands upon thousands of plastic bag here...

The good new is that we can do better; we have eco-friendly options that will meet our shopping needs and save the earth.

Otherwise, plastics will end up in landfills for years and years.  Worse, they will destroy innocent lives...

Augustus

____________________