Recent editorials from North Carolina newspapers:

Sept. 20

The News and Observer of Raleigh on the expansion of the ACC:

It is all about money, so let's not gild the lily with regard to the Atlantic Coast Conference expansion to 14 teams with the addition of Pittsburgh and Syracuse to the lineup. Revenues from television, specifically the ESPN network that holds rights to ACC broadcasts, will increase. That contract is currently for 12 years and $1.86 billion.

No wonder scheduling control was long ago surrendered to television. The addition of two more teams will only complicate that scheduling, and certainly will ramp up pressure for football teams to expand their typical 12-game regular seasons, which, should a team win a bid to a bowl game, could mean a college football season of 15 games.

And by the way, these teams are part of an academic enterprise, or they're supposed to be. But as the seasons grow longer, players will find themselves strained to be regular students, or students at all.

So far as money goes, this isn't just about income. Now that the ACC will stretch from Florida to New York, travel expenses will increase not just for major sports but for all sports. If the ACC basketball tournament were held in New York City's Madison Square Garden, as some suggest might be in the offing, imagine the expense for teams and fans alike.

Critics of those who raise questions about expansion claim the skeptics are living in a fantasy world, that it's too late to go back to the days when the ACC was a regional, Southern league with intense rivalries among members. The money's too good, advocates say. And if the ACC doesn't expand, other conferences will snatch some of its members.

Notice that these advocates are basing their arguments on money and only on money. And some are salivating over a rumor that Texas may also be about to sign on with the ACC. Of course, some things would have to be ironed out, since Texas has its own sports network.

Not that it's all about money. Except that it is.

Online:

http://www.newsobserver.com

___

Sept. 15

The Reflector, Greenville, N.C., on the legislative special session

Prior to the special session of the General Assembly, Republican leaders intimated that lawmakers would consider three amendments to the state Constitution, though they declined to provide specific proposals for discussion. By adjourning Sept. 14, the Legislature left Raleigh having approved only an anti-gay measure that would enshrine discrimination in the state's highest document. Absent was agreement on a bill to limit the terms of legislative leaders — House speaker or Senate president — since the two chambers differed on the maximum length a lawmaker could serve. Here was a measure with promise to benefit the people by restoring democratic ideals to the Assembly's top posts, one that failed to advance due to the poor planning and misplaced focus of legislative leaders.

How coveted is political power in North Carolina? Democrat Jim Black paid state Rep. Michael Decker $50,000 in 2003 to leave the Republican Party, a switch that led to an agreement retaining Black as House speaker — as well as the conviction and imprisonment of both men when the scandal was exposed. Within the confines of the law, former Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight ruled that chamber for 18 years, ensuring loyalty by helping re-election campaigns, providing funding to particular districts, allowing favored bills to see debate and funneling significant sums toward projects in his home district.

North Carolina voters expected that to change when, last year, Republicans won control of the Legislature for the first time in a century. Finally, the GOP could turn its criticism of Democratic leadership into policy, reversing the legislative stranglehold imposed by Basnight and Co. and allowing full debate on all manner of issues. One of those concerns was the term length of leadership posts, which should be shortened. ...

The proposal to limit term lengths fell apart when the House's four-year maximum, passed earlier this year, did not match the Senate version, which allowed for eight years in a leadership post.

This was a measure that promised to ensure the Legislature operated in a way that served the people's interests, but lawmakers could not find common ground. Blame that on a lack of planning by leadership as well as prioritizing the unnecessary anti-gay amendment over more pertinent proposals. Ultimately the results are shameful for legislative leaders and the state.

Online:

http://www.reflector.com

___

Sept. 16

Winston-Salem Journal on state pensions for convicted public servants:

When it comes to cases of public malfeasance that will raise the ire of North Carolina taxpayers, former New Hanover County ABC administrator Billy Williams may be the winner.

Williams, who gamed the system to pay himself an outrageous salary over the years, also bilked taxpayers out of $43,000, using public money set for work at an ABC store to help pay for his garage.

Although Williams is now a state convict with a suspended jail sentence of up to 24 months, he will retain his $195,000-a-year state pension. Rep. Julia Howard, R-Davie, has a bill before the Senate that could stop such outrages in the future.

Howard, whose bill has already passed the House, wants to cut off pensions for people convicted of crimes related to their government service. We applaud the effort.

When it comes to establishing special conditions of criminal penalties, care is very important. The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law, and that complicates Howard's efforts.

But Howard appears to have most of the concerns covered here. The convict would not lose any contribution he or she personally made to the pension system, and the convict would earn interest for the years that money was in the system. The convict would lose only the state rewards from the pension system.

Public officials and employees who committed crimes unrelated to their public service would not suffer loss of pensions. But narrowly defined as it is, it appears that Howard has fashioned a separate offense for public employees when they commit offenses related to their public work.

We'd like to hear a spirited debate of the constitutionality of this bill in the spring.

One policy attribute of the bill does concern us. It is possible that a convict's dependents could become destitute during the convict's prison term, thus going on the government dole. Hence, we'd like Howard to research whether provisions could be made to guarantee that any returned pension contributions could go toward the support of the convict's dependents.

Howard has a great idea here if it can be done constitutionally.

Online:

http://www2.journalnow.com