At the very first meeting of the year, on January 3, 2011, the three new commissioners wasted no time following through on their campaign rhetoric. Among the promises they had made during the 2010 campaign were termination of the Chapel Hill Transit bus service and elimination of four County government positions: Human Relations Director; Sustainable Communities Director; Obesity Prevention Director; and Resource Conservation Manager.

Buried in the agenda for the meeting was Item 21: “Cost Containment/Streamlining Discussion: The Board will continue discussion and decision-making on strategies for reducing the budget.” To many, this item lacked the openness and transparency that had also been promised by the incoming Commissioners.

Despite the lack of clear prior notice, 25 people addressed the commissioners during the public input session. The majority who spoke favored retaining the County positions, and several advocated for retention of the bus service. A few mocked the need for the four County positions and disparaged public transportation.

Several citizens emphasized the importance of public input and open Board of Commissioners (BOC) deliberations during an orderly budget process, and noted that the County was neither in dire financial shape, nor in need of immediate curtailments that would yield minimal savings.

To introduce Item 21, Commissioner Bock questioned whether, in view of “a finite amount of money available to spend,” there was a higher priority or other services that should be provided first. Without acknowledgement of the current balanced budget or discussion of the Board’s priorities and goals, the majority commissioners then made sequential motions to, in essence, deliver on their campaign promises. Appeals by Commissioners Cross and Kost to defer to a comprehensive budget process, and by Commissioner Kost to seek input from advisory bodies, such as the Transportation Advisory Board, the Board of Health, the Human Relations Commission, and the Economic Development Corporation, were to no avail. All motions passed by 3-2 (Cross and Kost dissenting) or 4-1 (Kost dissenting) votes.

In an uncanny juxtaposition, the 2009-2010 Audit Report was also on the January 3rd agenda and preceded consideration of Item 21. Significant findings were that the County was given an “unqualified opinion,” the best opinion the county could receive; the Fund Balance was at $22 million; and the Unreserved Fund Balance was at 24%, roughly three times the State minimum of 8%.

Back to top

In dealing with the “WWP” project last February, the new BOC majority demonstrated its lack of government experience, its inability to deal effectively with complex issues, and its willingness to misrepresent circumstances in an attempt to justify the outcome it wished. The project is a 52-inch sewage pipeline that will convey tertiary-treated wastewater across eight miles of Chatham County from the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to a discharge into the Cape Fear River.

The pipeline will provide no service to Chatham residents. An action by the Board of Commissioners was required because a state statute prevented Wake County from acquiring Chatham County property (including an easement) without Chatham’s consent. The BOC approved the project by a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Kost and Cross dissenting). 

The majority argued that since the pipeline will serve a very expensive sewage treatment plant, action to locate it would have been authorized by the General Assembly if Chatham failed to act, and that Chatham gained by approving the project since it received $500,000 from WWP and commitments enforced by a local bill to prevent Cary and Apex from involuntarily annexing Chatham County property. 

While CCEC supports inter-governmental cooperation, here the BOC majority failed to obtain a fair deal in return from Wake County, Cary, or Apex.  The majority overestimated the likelihood of action by the General Assembly. Chairman Bock said he believed WWP “would have been able to get this bill passed quickly.” That is hard to believe considering the readiness of the WWP to fork over $500,000 in exchange for Chatham’s approval.

The majority also misrepresented the value of the local bill, assuring against involuntary annexation by Cary and Apex. The past annexation problem for Chatham was voluntary annexation, not involuntary annexation. The typical pattern is for a developer to buy a large tract of Chatham County property on the condition that Cary or Apex will annex it. That process is totally voluntary; no involuntary annexation is involved. This point was made repeatedly throughout the process, but the BOC majority never addressed it.

Moreover, the local bill does nothing to protect annexed Chatham citizens against double taxation. Increased Chatham taxes (for school support) for all citizens is possible because counties are obliged to supply public education, not towns like Cary and Apex.  

Back to top

In March of 2011, the Board of Commissioners rescinded the policy that mandated all county-funded buildings greater than 20,000 square feet must be at least LEED Silver certified, a designation developed by the U.S. Green Building Council’s program, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Instead, the Board decided that LEED certification would be examined on a case-by-case basis.

As a result of this action, Chatham County no longer requires a specified standard of energy efficiency for new County-funded building construction, and there is no assurance for citizens that any efficiency standard will be met. The BOC majority insisted to Chatham citizens that LEED certification is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and that its rating system awards frivolous specifications that do not ensure measurable results. This conclusion was not supported by the Green Building Advisory Board, who advised the BOC that the best results for high energy saving standards would be achieved by the requirement of a commissioning agent, which does not necessarily have to be LEED, although that agency is the most respected.

The first case to be considered was the new county jail project. During a very confusing presentation on April 18th by the project architect, commissioners decided not to build to LEED certification. However, they also decided that the savings (of an unclear amount) would not be returned to the taxpayers, but would go toward an unspecified number of additional jail cells. The citizens of Chatham are left to trust that the architects and contractors who build our large-scale county buildings will indeed design and execute innovative energy efficiencies, but there is no means of assurance, and there are no clear specifications as to what the energy efficiencies should be. 

Back to top

CCEC was pleased with the Board’s unanimous April 4, 2011 vote on a resolution urging the NC House Standing Committee to consider the overall economic impact of major cuts to agriculture and agri-business throughout North Carolina when making decisions about the budgets of the NC Cooperation Extension Service (NCCES) and the NC Agricultural Research (NCARS).
           
The request was that the cuts to these valuable programs be more proportional based on the slower pace (18%) of their budget growth since 2000 as compared to the pace of overall state spending (48%). The resolution states that the proposed cuts to the programs “puts them both at a disadvantage and [it] will put undue stress on these critical programs to sustain the current level of proposed cuts.” And “The state budgets of these two programs are not offset by tuition increases, yet the work they do is critical to the state’s economic development.”
           
The resolution was adopted on May 2, 2011. CCEC appreciates that the BOC advocated for the continuity of the excellent programs and services Chatham County farmers and residents receive through NNCES and NCARS.

Back to top

Chairman Bock and his two comrades, Commissioners Stewart and Petty, came into office having campaigned on the theme that County budgeting should be limited to the “core functions of government,” and he urged that the budget should be reduced by 4-5% over each of 3 to 4 years. But he never presented a good case for his “core functions” concept, which is apparently found in the playbook of conservative politicians, and enables them to demote or even ignore environmental and social programs that have strong public support.  

The 2011 Chatham County budget process, orchestrated by the new BOC majority, was a roller coaster ride, beginning with cuts to major job positions and programs soon after the majority took office. These actions were followed by an arbitrary demand (arising from the BOC retreat in January/February) that County departments reduce spending by 5%. Then in June, at what was billed as the first of several traditional deliberative annual budget sessions, the majority made a sudden motion to approve the budget as proposed without refinements.

The motion passed 3-2, but Commissioner Cross changed his mind and voted in favor of the budget ordinance, making the effective vote 4-1, with Commissioner Kost opposing alone. She stated that she was "appalled" that the budget would be approved after only a one-hour budget work session. She asserted that if the BOC did not go carefully through the budget during the three or four planned work sessions, they were not "[doing] their jobs as County Commissioners." During the process, it was reassuring to see the competent and reliable hand of Assistant County Manager, Renee Paschal, attempting to curb the chaos.     

The early cuts – indeed, in January – had included the important Human Relations Director, who had performed effectively in a vital community position promoting better relations among the elements of Chatham County's rich and diverse population. Later in the year, unable to function effectively without a paid Director, the members of the Human Relations Council simultaneously resigned in protest (view a video of their resignation, starting at about 34:00 minutes). The axe also landed early to lop off the positions of Sustainable Communities Director, as well as the vacant positions of Obesity Prevention Director and Resource Conservation Manager. The bus service to Chapel Hill was also cut from the County budget, although it has survived thanks to other resources.

Also eliminated (by a 4-1 vote, with Kost dissenting), was the Council on Aging's $8,000 frozen food and food supplement program that provided basic nutrition for 24 Chatham residents. The program provided one frozen meal per day, plus nutritional drinks (like Boost), for 24 seniors who qualified. Commissioner Stewart questioned the necessity of the program, but Commissioner Kost advocated for it, saying that surely $8,000 for direct services to homebound seniors could be allocated, just as $40,000 for new software in the manager’s office, $60,180 for Central Permitting software, and $700,000 for expanding the jail had been allocated (see video here, starting at about 18:00 minutes). According to the Council on Aging, as of December 20, 2011, neither the Council nor Commissioner Stewart has followed up on the seniors who were affected.

As part of the “one size fits all’ approach to developing the 2011-12 budget, the library, considered a non-essential department by Chairman Bock, was asked to propose a 5% cut. The bookmobile, a beloved and valuable resource for some 700 patrons, including 200 preschoolers, was sacrificed. With a circulation similar to that of the Goldston branch library, the bookmobile was considered a 4th branch library, and loaned about 1,000 books per month. The current vehicle, purchased in 2003 for $103,000, was good for another 15 years. Despite citizen petitions, letters, and spoken testimony at several BOC meetings, as well as the suggestion of a reduced schedule, the three majority commissioners refused to consider a compromise.

The bottom line is that the ultimate cuts to the $82.9 million budget equaled approximately $1.5 million. Although County departments opposed the 5% arbitrary cuts that the BOC demanded, they did not get a fair hearing because the BOC chose not to complete the annual budget work sessions. 

At the end of the abbreviated budget discussion, Commissioner Kost pointed out that the $22 million Fund Balance was 27% of the County's general expenditures, well ahead of the County goal of 20%, and the state requirement of 8%. She noted that certain new expenditures sponsored by the majority (e.g., new software to improve production of minutes and videos of BOC meetings) could have come out of the Fund Balance, thereby possibly enabling a reduction of the County tax rate or avoidance of other cuts which included: the library bookmobile (for which a reduced schedule would have cost $27,500); the Green Building staff and rebate program; hours allocated for early voting; and $84,000 from the adult daycare administration program and transportation allocation for the Council on Aging.

Back to top

Dealing with the County’s involvement in federal immigration law, the BOC in May and June heard much citizen comment about a proposed resolution that would rescind an earlier resolution adopted by the prior BOC on January 5, 2009.  As stated, the 2009 resolution put the BOC “in strong opposition to any local government agency contracting with ICE for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws.” The current BOC by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Kost dissenting) adopted a resolution on June 6 that rescinded the 2009 resolution. 

It remains a mystery why the BOC took this action. The 2009 resolution was adopted when the current ICE program was the so-called 287(g) program. Although Chatham County never participated in that program and notwithstanding the existence of the 2009 resolution, federal authorities in September 2010 put Chatham into ICE’s new program, the so-called Secure Communities Program (“SCOMM”).  That action did not result from any contract with Chatham County nor did it require its consent. 

If the BOC wished to act on this matter, rather than rescind the 2009 resolution, it should have taken action like that taken by many other states and local jurisdictions – it should have attempted to remove Chatham from SCOMM.  This program requires local law enforcement authorities to send fingerprints of all persons arrested in Chatham County to ICE so that it can order certain noncitizens to be detained.  ICE has claimed that with the SCOMM program it targets “the most dangerous and violent offenders.”  But a federal task force report in September 2011 found that the program had eroded public trust because it had led to the detention of many immigrants who had not committed serious crimes. In fact, as of May 2011, of 13 people in Chatham County who had been put into removal proceedings, not one was accused of a Level 1 felony charge.  
           
Since then, and partly as a result of the task force report, ICE has amended the SCOMM so as to have it keyed more directly at immigrants charged with serious crimes. This development had not occurred, however, when the Chatham County BOC acted in an attempt to have Chatham be more supportive of ICE. Since Chatham was already in the SCOMM program, there was no reason or basis for the BOC’s January resolution. To the extent that it attempted to put Chatham more on the side of ICE’s faulty and misguided program, the BOC’s action merely fueled the understandable ire of the local Hispanic community. 

Local law enforcement authorities may soon receive an even broader message from the U.S. Supreme Court that they have no role to play in federal immigration policy. We are hopeful that the federal policy will be revised to provide for a much more creative and humane method of dealing with the twelve million or more immigrants who are noncitizens.

Back to top

The BOC majority came into office with an emphasis on deregulation and the removal of environmental protections that they assert are impediments to economic development. They have suggested that businesses avoid Chatham because of its excessive bureaucracy, although such claims have not been substantiated.  As elsewhere, Chatham County’s density will determine economic development, and our protective regulations have little relevance on whether a commercial or residential project chooses to locate here. Currently, our most successful residential development, Briar Chapel, has not initiated their already permitted commercial development on 15-501 due to a lack in density. It is worth mentioning that to their credit, Briar Chapel has so far voluntarily built to meet the requirements of current ordinances rather then the lesser standards of regulations that were in place at the time they received their permits.

The environmental protections drafted and approved during the previous administration were developed in response to the real estate boom years when Chatham County’s natural water resources were being negatively impacted by the construction of large-scale residential and commercial projects. Prior to that period, Chatham’s ordinances did not have sufficient provisions to protect them. The environmental degradations of the era before protections were in place are well documented.

The term “streamlining” is a policy buzzword, and we have heard it frequently this past year from the BOC majority. Indeed, they tasked the county staff with finding ways to simplify and shorten (streamline) the approval process for development proposals. That in and of itself is not a bad thing, and county staff has made several suggestions along the way that have clarified and improved some ordinances. However, several of the text amendments to ordinances that passed in 2011 have deliberately weakened environmental protections and will result in long-term negative impacts on our water quality, our quality of life, our health and welfare, and even our property values.

Streamlining actions included the following:

• The removal of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirement and its peer review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB) on commercial projects of 2 or more acres in general-use zones.
• The removal of the ERB from the review process for EIAs on Conditional Use Permits on commercial projects of 2 or more acres.
• The raising of the threshold for the EIA requirement for major subdivisions from 25 lots to 50 lots, and removing the ERB peer review of the EIA, replacing it with peer review by consultants paid for by the developer.
• The elimination of the Sustainable Communities Department and the use of the budgeting process to eliminate the Environmental Resource Department and the staff position of that department’s director and the reorganization of that department into an Environmental Services Department headed by the current Director of Waste Management.
• Most recently, the planning staff has been tasked with drafting changes to the Watershed Protection Ordinance to remove buffer protections on seeps, springs, and ephemeral streams (See "Headwaters Targeted," below), rolling back rules that had been carefully developed by an expert ERB to protect Chatham’s waters.

The BOC majority made these changes under the influence of an ideology that puts individual property rights above the common good and infers that the protection of our environment is not the responsibility of local government. They justified their actions by assuring us that this is what the citizens "they hear from" want. Yet during public hearings, the clear majority of speakers opposed their actions. It appears that citizens who have the most influence over BOC decisions are those who speak off the public record.

The BOC did back away from their ill-advised and hasty plan to remove the duties of the Watershed Review Board (WRB) from the purview of the ERB, and place those responsibilities with the Planning Board. However they have failed to reappoint highly-qualified members of the ERB who wished to continue to serve, resulting in several unfilled vacancies on the Board, and leaving Chatham County without a full expert WRB. The ERB page on the County website (now renamed the Environmental Review Advisory Committee) is outdated and reflects the lack of regard for this advisory board.

By these actions this BOC majority has shown that ensuring the profitability of private enterprise while weakening protections to the public welfare is their core function of government.

Back to top

2011 was the year that "fracking" (hydraulic fracturing to release shale gas) became a familiar term in statewide and local conversations. Bills were introduced by the majority party in the General Assembly to promote shale gas extraction in NC, with Chatham and Lee counties as the potential epicenter of the controversial process.

CCEC partnered with other local and area non-profits to lead the state in citizen education and advocacy efforts in response to such legislation. Over 400 citizens attended a CCEC- sponsored "Fracking Bewareness" event in July at the Fearrington Barn. They heard Rep. Joe Hackney report on the current laws and the future legislative processes, and learned from experts about the potential negative impacts of the fracking process on health, environment, infrastructure, and community well-being. Similar public education events followed in Chatham and neighboring counties. Citizens demonstrated at the legislative building in Raleigh in opposition to measures that would overturn current law to promote shale gas extraction via fracking.

Citizen action groups made a proposal to the Chatham BOC asking them to go on record in support of the Governor's veto of SB 709 (promoting inland and offshore gas and oil drilling). Not only was the request denied, but the BOC majority responded by presenting their own gas industry spokesman to promote the alleged merits of fracking. Rather than act as an uncritical sponsor of the industry spokesman, CCEC believes the County would have been better served if the BOC had acted as a voice for environmental concerns and protection of citizens' property rights and values against the predatory leasing practices for mineral rights that have been seen in Lee County.

CCEC and partner organizations continue to urge a "Go Slow" approach given the collateral damage that has been inflicted on communities in states where fracking is forging ahead with relatively free reign.

In 2011, CCEC authored informative blogs about the dangers of fracking at www.chathamcitizens.wordpress.com. We advocate for prudence and patience, and support alternatives to fossil fuel dependence. For more information on fracking, visit the Clean Water for NC website.

Back to top

The BOC majority made clear its disdain for certain County advisory boards, the Environmental Review Board in particular. They inventoried and reviewed all advisory bodies and determined that any that were not mandated by state or federal government, or created by ordinance, needed a policy to ensure consistent procedures, which was adopted on June 6, 2011.

The policy dictates that citizen advisory bodies are to be called committees, not boards. Based on the belief voiced by Commissioner Stewart that there are numerous citizens waiting to serve on these committees, the policy also states that no member may serve more than 6 consecutive years.

When the policy was adopted, some members found that they could not be reappointed for a second 3-year term because they would have been over the 6-year limit by several months. Additionally, the new policy prevents citizens from serving simultaneously on more than one county committee or board (including boards not covered under the policy) , regardless of their commitment or qualifications. As a result, some committees lost experienced and knowledgeable members who wished to continue to serve but were denied, yet vacancies remain unfilled.

Citizen advisory boards have never had any official power to make policy decisions. Members share their expertise in specific areas to support and aid the BOC in its decision-making. Chatham County has been well-served by dedicated citizen advisers, and distinctive in the number of qualified professionals who volunteered.

BOC members have traditionally acted as liaisons with county committees/boards and regional boards. While perfect attendance is certainly not required, there has been an apparent lack of interest and participation on the part of our current BOC majority. This was illustrated recently when it was revealed that in 2011 Commissioner Stewart did not attend any of the Metropolitan Planning Organization meetings, despite her volunteering for this position at the first of the year. This body is a regional organization responsible for transportation planning for the western part of the Research Triangle area of North Carolina. It is also responsible for allocating transportation funds, and it is important for Chatham to have a seat at this table.

At a recent BOC meeting, the majority voted to remove Commissioner Kost as the Library Advisory Board liaison, and replaced her with Commissioner Bock. This occurred in spite of the fact that Kost expressed a desire to continue as that board’s liaison, and regularly attended Library Advisory Board meetings. She was a strong supporter of the library bookmobile, and voted to continue to fund it, although she was overruled by the BOC majority.

Back to top

A recent request on behalf of a developer has sparked a debate about stream classifications that is now threatening the current protections of Chatham's headwaters. At the October 17 work session, representatives of the Village of Fearrington (on behalf of developer R. B. Fitch) requested that Chatham County revise its Watershed Ordinance to eliminate protections for ephemeral streams, the headwaters that are vital to the effective management of pollution and stormwater. Headwater streams represent the majority of linear footage within a watershed. It is well documented that the largest proportion of annual nutrient load (which, if unchecked, can cause pollution problems) enters the watershed from the headwaters where the capacity to remove nutrients is great while less additional nutrient processing occurs further downstream. Obviously, adding less nutrients to our waterways is the easiest way to remove (manage) it; the importance of protecting the headwater system in the watershed is clear, both from an economic and environmental perspective.

This request has now prompted the Board of Commissioners to reconsider Chatham County’s classification of headwaters, which Commissioner Bock called “confusing.” At the November 21 work session, Bock challenged Chatham’s adoption of higher standards than those outlined in the Jordan Lake Rules. But as Chris Hopper of the Water Quality Department pointed out, those rules are the minimum that North Carolina recommends, and he noted that many governments choose to go above and beyond them.

The state has to make requirements that can be implemented statewide, which can sometimes lead to a “lowest common denominator” outcome. However, individual counties have the ability to be more stringent than the state minimum, as other local governments have done. Durham and Orange Counties have adopted higher water quality standards than the minimum requirements, a practice that many residents recognize and appreciate as responsible management policies.

When Chatham County’s Watershed Ordinance was being revised in 2007, the Board of Commissioners requested guidance from the Environmental Review Board. The ERB sought input on the ephemeral stream sections from state professionals, North Carolina State University, and County staff. They were field tested before recommendations were made to the BOC. Ultimately, the ERB based its scoring of ephemerals on the same principles used by the Department of Water Quality: geomorphology, biological indicators, and hydrology of the site in question, developing science-based criteria that addressed the important role ephemeral streams play in water quality.

So the question is why would we eliminate water quality protections for an entire county to fit the needs of one developer? The Subdivision Ordinance contains provisions for a developer to apply for a variance from ephemeral buffer requirements if they are onerous. It would be far less detrimental to grant variances on a case-by-case basis and leave basic water quality protections in place for the rest of the County.

Back to top

Chatham-Cary Land-Use Plan
In January, public hearings were held in Chatham County and Cary to hear citizen comments on the current draft Chatham-Cary Joint Land-Use Plan, created by a committee of officials from the Cary Town Council and the Chatham Board of Commissioners. For the past year, Chatham has been represented by Commissioners Bock, Stewart, and Petty (although Commissioner Kost represents the affected district, she was not allowed by the BOC Chair to sit on the committee). The purpose of the plan is to establish a policy that will guide future land-use regulations and development of the 18,000 acres of Chatham County east of Jordan Lake.

The Joint Land-Use Plan will have long-term, irreversible effects, not only for the eastern part of the County and Jordan Lake, but for all Chatham citizens. Many citizens, including several CCEC Board members, spoke about these concerns at the public hearing in Pittsboro on January 17. Potential problems include:

• Environmental impact of denser residential and commercial development on an area that is permeated with streams that flow directly into Jordan Lake.
• Abrupt transitions between areas that are zoned for denser development and those closer to the lake, where less development will be allowed.
• Greater potential for voluntary annexations of Chatham neighborhoods by the Town of Cary.
• Tax implications for all Chatham citizens; influx of residential development spilling over from Cary will create the necessity for more schools, which must be paid for by Chatham County.
• Cary Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). There is a real possibility that Cary could become the largest town in Chatham County, larger than all our existing townships combined.
• Development of design standards. Many citizens do not want the appearance of this area to be modeled after Cary landscape design ordinances.

At the crux of the concerns about joint land-use by Chatham and Cary is the fear that Chatham may ultimately relinquish control of the area in question. Although the sitting BOC insists that it will not approve a Cary ETJ, there is no binding agreement that it will never happen. When George Lucier sat on the previous Chatham-Cary Land-Use Committee, he proposed a local bill that would have mandated that both Cary and Chatham must adhere to any adopted land-use plan. This would have meant that Chatham County would always have a voice in how the 18,000 acres east of the lake will develop. But Cary has no vested interest in agreeing to such a bill, and we lost our primary bargaining chip when we approved the Western Wake Pipeline.

The next step is for the joint plan to be considered by the Chatham County Planning Board, which will then share its recommendations and comments with the full Board of Commissioners.

Watershed Ordinance
As stated above, the Board of Commissioners is thinking of eliminating the protection of certain headwater classifications. But before any change to the Watershed Ordinance can take place, a public hearing of citizen input is required. Although no agenda has yet been posted, we expect a public hearing on this topic at the next BOC meeting, scheduled for February 20.

A Taste of Things to Come
At their Janurary retreat, the Board of Commissioners voted to cut in half the number of monthly County commissioner meetings going forward. According to County Manager Charlie Horne, the BOC "took this step to reduce meeting expenses." This is curious because for the last two years, Chatham County has been praised by third-party assessors for its exemplary management of the budget. To put it simply, Chatham County is "sitting pretty" in terms of reserve funds, especially when compared to other NC counties.

This decision has two obvious and immediate outcomes:

1. Citizens will have 50% less opportunities for their input and comments to be placed into the public record.
2. Commissioners will invest only half the traditional time expected to perform their duty to do the people's business.

It is difficult not to take a cynical view of this schedule change. Sadly, Chatham County is looking a lot less like a democracy these days, and more and more like a kingdom under the rule of one man.

The BOC majority has often stated that they are influenced by people whom they talk with outside of public meetings. We can be a part of that conversation. Write and call them frequently, especially Chairman Bock. While henceforth commissioners may appear in public only once a month, we can ensure that they continue to work for the people by filling their mailboxes with letters and their voicemail with messages.

Back to top