[Durham INC] [pac2] Is PAC supporting digital billboards?
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Thu Jun 24 01:37:33 EDT 2010
Thank you Councilman Woodard.
I think it's important to distinguish between endorsement from the "City
Wide PAC", and "the PAC groups citywide". At least it is in this case.
Perhaps the simple solution is taking a vote at each of the next PAC
meetings, albeit after the fact, and see if the member's vote matches their
I'd also like to confess to being Wanda Boone's #1 fan. She'll take on
several mountains at once, and I fully understand her desire for exposure.
I heard your message Wanda, you didn't need the billboard.
One thing this town never needs to complain about, is any lack of ability
In a message dated 6/23/2010 11:55:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mike at mikewoodard.com writes:
Thanks to Barry and Bill for sharing this information on how the Citywide
PAC "endorsement" came about.
If any of the PAC leaders come to the Council and attempt to present the
"endorsement," I will question them closely about the process of making the
I will keep the manner in which this happened in mind as I consider my
vote on this topic.
Email: mike at mikewoodard.com
Web site: www.mikewoodard.com
From: "Barry Ragin" [bragin at nc.rr.com]
Date: 06/23/2010 11:33 PM
To: TheOcean1 at aol.com
CC: pac2 at yahoogroups.com, inc-list at rtpnet.org, "INC INC"
<inc-list at durhaminc.org>, "Mike Woodard" <mike at mikewoodard.com>
Subject: Re: [pac2] Is PAC supporting digital billboards?
Bill - may i strongly urge you to forward this email to the reporter at
I'd like to also ask to see minutes of the meetings at which the
representatives of the three PACs which voted in favor of the billboard
ordinance revision at this citywide meeting were authorized to do so.
I'm especially interested in seeing this as the spokesperson for the
billboard company was quoted in the article as dismissing the INC as
being "not representative" of Durham opinion, but seems to think this
PAC somehow is.
I'm also cc'ing the Inter-Neighborhood Council on this, as well as
former INC president (and current City Council member) Mike Woodard.
Politicizing Partners Against Crime is a pretty big deal in my book.
Doing so in a fashion that may be less than transparent is even worse.
TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
> Just returned from the City Wide PAC a couple hours ago, which is a
> monthly meeting of the 5 PAC Co-Facilitators. Often these meetings are
> very important, and should, theoretically, tie the five Police
> Districts together from a Partners Against Crime standpoint. I've
> never seen another company represented there before, or after, but
> sure enough...
> A couple months ago, the attorney representing Fairway Advertising was
> there to pitch their case. At the end of the presentation, they
> requested PAC support. I objected as strongly as possible, mostly on
> the grounds that none of the PAC leaders could claim to know how their
> members would vote, and in essence, this would only be the opinion of
> the five individuals present, and WOULD NOT REPRESENT the PACs they lead.
> I forced a vote to create a rule that City Wide PAC should NEVER vote
> on ANYTHING when the members of each of the individual PACs had not at
> least voted at their monthly meeting. That vote went south (3/2) and
> no such rule was created.
> With PAC3's Patty Cloninger and I staring dumbfounded at each other
> across the table, and Melvin Whitley smiling like a Cheshire cat at
> the end, they took the vote to another predictable 3/2, and Chair
> Harold Chesnut gave that company permission to claim that City Wide
> PAC endorses it.
> Marion Lamberth, PAC 5, Wanda Boone PAC 1, and Harold Chestnut, PAC 4
> ~ IN FAVOR
> Patty Coninger, PAC 3 and Bill Anderson, PAC 2 ~ AGAINST
> I was powerless to stop this insane vote, cited the DCVB survey, but
> mostly general process. Mind you, the above folks are community
> leaders, and City Wide PAC often serves a good purpose, but that
> evening, in my opinion, it erred dramatically.
> So, the company left with permission to claim City Wide PAC support,
> and I reserve the right to explain to the best of my ability, how they
> got it.
> This is the first I've seen of Wanda's quote, so this is the first
> time I've explained what I bore witness to that evening.
> *Bill Anderson*
> In a message dated 6/23/2010 8:02:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> bragin at nc.rr.com writes:
> Don't recall seeing any PAC2 minutes where the group took a
> position on
> the billboard issue. I hope a PAC2 representative will be in touch
> the reporter to clarify just who Ms. Boone was representing at
> press conference.
> For the record, the Duke Park Neighborhood Association has also
> supported the INC resolution to oppose changes to the current
> ordinance, and I can't imagine our representative to PAC2 taking a
> different position to that group.
> Barry Ragin
> Steve Graff wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> >> "Digital billboard technology is a wonderful tool" in locating
> >> missing persons and catching crooks, said Wanda Boone,
> >> Partners Against Crime at a press conference announcing the
> >> this morning.
> > If you were, say, driving through Durham on 40 or 85 and need to
> > a pit stop to use the restroom or get something to eat, and you
> > saw a big digital billboard showing a wanted criminal, would you
> > in Durham or keep on driving? I would keep on driving. Do we really
> > need to reinforce the reputation that Durham the place to go if you
> > want to get robbed, assaulted or murdered?
> > I don't recall the billboard issue ever being discussed on this
> > mailing list or voted on during any meeting, though I have not
> > attended every meeting.
> > How does this City-Wide PAC work? Is it related to the five PACs
> > are aligned with the five police districts, or is it something
> > independent? The article made it seem that Wanda Boone was
> speaking on
> > behalf of all the city PAC groups.
> > I will say that my neighborhood of Old North Durham supported the
> > resolution by Inter-Neighborhood Council to oppose any changes
> to the
> > existing billboard ordinance. That resolution was passed by INC
> > year. We have not changed our position on this matter.
> > Steve Graff
> > President
> > Old North Durham Neighborhood Association
> > http://www.oldnorthdurham.com/
> > slgraff at gmail.com <mailto:slgraff%40gmail.com>
> <mailto:slgraff at gmail.com <mailto:slgraff%40gmail.com>>
The opinions expressed herein represent the views of the individual and do
not necessarily represent the views of Partners Against Crime - District
II (PAC2) or any other organization. Any use of the material on this
listserv other than for the purpose of discussion on this listserv is strictly
prohibited without the knowledge and consent of the person responsible for
For more information: http://pac2durham.org
to post message: pac2 at yahoogroups.com;
to subscribe: pac2-subscribe at yahoogroups.com; to unsubscribe:
pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
*** Neighbors and friends: in order to keep traffic on this list focused
on crime prevention, please do not post virus warnings or personal replies
to this list. Thanks! ***
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
pac2-digest at yahoogroups.com
pac2-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
More information about the INC-list