I’m not a fan of sitcoms; but a year ago, I discovered CBS’ “How I Met Your Mother”. It’s probably one of the most ingenious shows on television today - in spite of its sitcom format. At any rate, one of the going gags is the metering out of slaps between two characters: Marshall and Barney. While the particulars of the bet and it’s conclusion are funny, I’ll get to the bottom line: Marshall was given the option by the “Slap Bet Commissioner” (his fiance Lilly) to slap Barney 10 times all at once or slap Barney 5 times; but the slaps would be administered through the remainder of their lives.
The Slap Bet story line brings up an interesting study into human nature. During the last half of the 20th century, we figured out how to live with the idea of thermonuclear annihilation - the equivalent of 10 slaps all at once. We had a Byzantine system built around the idea that one wrong move would result in something out of the Book of Revelation. However, we are just as scared that we might be the victim of a much smaller; but random attack - the equivalent of 5 slaps to be administered at any time. While under the nuclear annihilation, our lives weren’t directly affected by what DEFCON the Air Force was on; but as a frequent flyer - I can tell you that a change in the Homeland Security threat level can make a dent in your day.
What does this have to do with the Coy Privette censure; and the decision of the Board of Commissioners to indefinitely postpone the move to censure Commissioner Coy Privette?
While I personally disagree with the Board of Commissioners decision to postpone the motion to censure Commissioner Privette - I can see the rationale.
The censure was supposed to be part of a larger package that would limit Commissioner Privette’s role on the board, because “his lack of judgement has threatened the integrity of the board”. It was later that the Board of Commissioners were advised that they could not limit Commissioner Privette’s role officially. This left them with censure. The purpose of censure is to make an official statement of disapproval and enter it into the record. Going from an binding action to a ceremonial one changes the rules of engagement; but here are some reasons why delaying might might sense:
1. There’s a possibility that the other shoe could drop. As Gary Pearce from the “Talking About Politics” blog put it: “As for being a first-time offender, Privette must be the unluckiest man on earth to get caught the one and only time he did this” There’s a possibility that this was some fluke; but it’s more likely that this is indicative of other behaviors. If the censure motion is for posterity, it’s worth waiting a few months to include all of the criminal behavior that transpired while he was in office.
2. The motion can be brought back up at any time. If the motion would have been brought up last night that would have been it, Privette’s friends would have made a scene (which they did anyway), and it would have been forgotten in a few weeks. However, just like the slap bet: this can be metered out at any time. Coy and his gang can live with the possibility that the motion could pop up at any meeting without even having to be on the agenda. The surprise factor alone makes for great news. Should keep people stayed tuned, and keep Privette on his toes.
3. It shows the Commissioners are grownups, well 4 of them at least. This action stopped the back and forth between Privette and the rest of the Commissioners and nobody could say that the censure was politically motivated - otherwise they would have done it much earlier.
While they don’t have the ICBM of stripping Privette of his office, the Commission did retain the element of surprise and that might be the best way to leverage a wrist-slap.
14 responses so far ↓
1 Thierry Wernaers // Nov 25, 2007 at 11:51 pm
ok, you know I have a lot to say about this, but I’ll try to keep it brief.
You start of by saying that you “disagree with the Board of Commissioners decision to postpone the motion to censure Commissioner Privette”.
I find it a little bit odd then that you go on with trying to find some, maybe far fetched, rationale for their decision. If you disagree with them, why not let them defend themselves?
But, to the point:
You seem to think that some other stuff from the past might surface. I agree, but why would that stop a censure now? Is it impossible to censure somebody twice? You’d get 2 “slaps” then!
I think there’s a good question that a lot of citizens of Cabarrus County are asking. A question that deserves an answer from the commissioners. How do you go from having the County attorney look into ways to remove Privette from the board, or restricting what he can do, to not even want to talk about maybe publicly and for the record saying that what Privette did was wrong? That’s the only thing a censure is; for the record saying that Privette has been a bad boy.
Do the commissioners not think that a big majority of this County would agree with that?
Are they that afraid of the few supporters Coy still has?
There must be some other reason behind this and I’m really not buying the “we’ll get him some other time, let’s move on” rationale.
2 Justin Thibault // Nov 26, 2007 at 12:20 am
Thierry -
I enjoy exercising the part of my brain that considers things; but doesn’t adopt them. That’s why I drop the occasional comment over at BlueNC.
Should they really be spending all of their time slapping people around?
Well, your original assertion that the GOP Executive Board made some deal with Privette was deflated pretty quickly by the County Chair.
Any other hypotheses?
3 Thierry Wernaers // Nov 26, 2007 at 1:05 am
“Well, your original assertion that the GOP Executive Board made some deal with Privette was deflated pretty quickly by the County Chair.”
I’m sure you’ll understand that I take everything the GOP County Chair says with a humongous grain of salt.
Other hypotheses are that The County Commission did this in an attempt to start filling the ever widening gap between the “regular” GOP and the extreme-right wing fringe.
Or maybe Carruth, White, Juba and Mynatt are just really intimidated by a sad old hypocrite (and a few of his nutjob followers) that sits on the board with them.
4 Chris McCartan // Nov 26, 2007 at 8:12 am
I’m sure you’ll understand that I take everything the GOP County Chair says with a humongous grain of salt.
I trust that comment’s indicative of your cynicism of the Party that opposes yours, and not that of anything personal.
Bottom line - I’ve never met you before and you couldn’t pick me out of a line up; it’d be a bit over the top to start questioning the veracity of my comments while never having any contact with me.
5 Justin Thibault // Nov 26, 2007 at 8:29 am
Thierry -
So, you’re saying that Chris McCartan scooted over to your blog just to lie?
As an Executive Board member myself, let me join with Chris by saying that no meeting like the one you described of us begging the Commissioners not to censure. Actually, following the meeting where our call for resignation came out this situation hasn’t really been discussed.
I’m sure if you take a gander at the statements from the local GOP, the state GOP, and note that most of the local party establishment was present at the October 25 GOP Men’s meeting when he was deposed it’ll make your assertion that there’s reluctance in the party and concern over unity specious.
There’s a lot of history there - the Commissioners know that there’s no making that bunch happy.
Again, they had no problems marginalizing him before. Do you know that since the election of Jay White and Grace Mynatt that Coy Privette has only been on the winning side of three votes that weren’t 5-0?
I believe that you overestimate his power. As a boogie man, he’s a rather ineffective one.
6 MarkMartin // Nov 26, 2007 at 10:48 am
Wow, how did this discussion go from an intelligent political strategy post to bashing the County GOP Chair? I don’t see any reference to the County GOP Chair or Executive Board in Justin’s post.
7 Thierry Wernaers // Nov 26, 2007 at 11:52 am
Chris: I’m sure you noticed that I said the GOP County chair and not your personal name. I’m not “attacking” you personally and I’m sure you knew that.
I’m just saying that the GOP chair, whoever that may be, isn’t exactly an objective source when it comes to discussing whatever goes on behind the GOP scenes.
Justin: I never said there was a meeting where the local GOP was “begging the Commissioners not to censure”. I’m saying that it seems highly unlikely the Chair of the GOP never talked to the County Commissioners about the censure issue.
Mark: Justin brought up the GOP chair in comment #2 where he talked about My blog. Since he’s talking about my blog, I’m sure you can understand that i wanted to respond. I don’t see any “bashing” going on, but thanks for your concern.
8 Thierry Wernaers // Nov 26, 2007 at 12:18 pm
By the way, I’m sure I could pick Chris McCartan out of a line up if he looks anything like his picture on the Intertubes, but I fail to see what the point of that would be.
9 Justin Thibault // Nov 26, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Thierry - The point is that with local blogging - you’ve got to be a little more careful with the venom…these are your neighbors you’re talking about.
As for Chris not being an objective source - he’s the elected head of the local party and a guy I’ve grown to respect. He’s taken a lot of lumps for the leadership he’s shown with this situation and has handled it with less acrimony than most people in the party.
I’m sure he would get comments from other Republicans for reading your blog, let alone commenting on it. However, that’s the kind of guy he is.
If Chris said there wasn’t a meeting with the Commissioners - there wasn’t. Period.
Furthermore, the Commissioners are not subject to the party. They have to represent all of the people in Cabarrus County first and then think about the party after that.
10 Thierry Wernaers // Nov 26, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Venom?? geees..pretty soon you’ll be comparing me with Ric Starnes.
Is it that bad to wonder if someone who’s directly involved in a conflict within his own party might be embellishing the truth a little to the outside world?
If 2 people get into a car accident, i wouldn’t speak to those 2 people involved to get an objective report on what happened, I would talk to an eye-witness or a police officer.
If Chris would get comments from other republicans for reading my blog that would speak volumes about those republicans.
I thought the 50’s were way behind us.
You’re right about the commissioners. I just seriously question if they were thinking about all of the people of the County when they made the decision to table.
11 Justin Thibault // Nov 26, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Thierry
It’s one thing to wonder and speculate - it’s another to assume they are lying, because the answer doesn’t fit into a convenient conspiracy theory. I know at BlueNC accusing people of lying and being subjects to some dark criminal conspiracy when they make a decision you disagree with is an hourly occurance; but it doesn’t play well elsewhere.
This may be a cultural misunderstanding. Around here, lying is a serious issue and calling someone a liar can be considered fightin’ words. Not saying that it isn’t appropriate when the situation calls for it; but if you’re going to accuse someone of lying - you better have the proof to back it up.
Go tell some of your Democrat friends you’re a Toby Keith fan and see what happens.
How is anything different because they didn’t censure Coy Privette the other night? How does that change policy?
Seriously, the man was the lowest vote getter in a three-way race in an off-year election; doesn’t have coattails to get any other official elected; can’t get enough people to counter a vote at a political organization he controlled mere months ago; and hasn’t been on the winning side of a vote that wasn’t unanimous but three times since the last election.
Take a look at an agenda - there are plenty of things that are more important to the people of Cabarrus County to the Board of Commissioners than telling Coy Privette he “was a bad boy”
12 Thierry Wernaers // Nov 26, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I’m not sure Chris is lying, but I’m also not sure he’s telling the truth, hence the “grain of salt”.
To answer your whole last paragraph with a simple question:
If it doesn’t change anything and there’s more important things to do (which I agree with, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do this as well), why did they put it on the agenda in the first place?
13 Thierry Wernaers // Nov 26, 2007 at 4:36 pm
By the way, I don’t have any Democrat friends, I only have DemocratIC friends. Just like you don’t have any Republic friends, but you do have RepublicAN friends. Who knows, you might even have some Democratic ones
14 Justin Thibault // Nov 27, 2007 at 7:34 am
Thierry - You must be filled with some serious partisan rancor if you would state that a guy who on your site of his own volition, made an unqualified, honest statement that was then backed up by someone else “in the know” was probably lying.
And to answer your agenda question - it was on the agenda because it was part of a process to answer the question that everyone was asking “What are we going to do about Coy”; and the answer for the Commission is clear: “Nothing, because the voters have spoken”