@NCCapitol

@NCCapitol

McCrory calls special session, ignores pleas to limit purposes

Posted December 9, 2016

— Gov. Pat McCrory has called lawmakers back to Raleigh for a special session dealing with disaster recovery efforts and "any other matters" lawmakers decide to consider.

The governor opted for a broadly worded proclamation despite urging from other statewide officials, who said McCrory should at least try and limit the topics that lawmakers will handle.

McCrory said earlier this week he would declare a special legislative session next Tuesday to respond to damage caused by Hurricane Matthew and the western North Carolina wildfires. But the timing of the session, combined with McCrory's re-election loss and the current General Assembly's penchant for rapid and unexpected lawmaking – see House Bill 2 in March – have prodded the capitol's rumor mill into overdrive.

The most persistently floated rumor among many – all of which have been repeatedly denied by top Republican lawmakers and their staffs – is that legislators plan to expand the state Supreme Court by two seats in order to reverse Democratic gains on the seven-member court. That would allow McCrory, a fellow Republican who leaves office on Jan. 1, to appoint the two new jurists.

Before McCrory can call for a special session, the state constitution says he must seek the advice of the Council of State. In an email to other statewide elected officials on Thursday, McCrory General Counsel Bob Stephens said the governor was planning to call a special session for the purposes of "authorizing financial assistance necessary to aid the recovery from both Hurricane Matthew and the western North Carolina wildfires, making any changes in law to facilitate the recovery, and addressing any other matters the General Assembly elects to consider."

That last phrase appears to have caused concern among both Democratic and Republican members of the Council of State. Several urged him over the past day to more narrowly tailor the session call.

State Treasurer Janet Cowell, a Democrat, for example, said that the call of the session should be limited to measures necessary to appropriate money for the emergencies or laws needed to respond to the hurricane and wildfire.

"I do not consent to, join in, or advise any extra session with a broader purpose," she wrote.

Of the nine officials who responded, Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson, Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler, and Lt. Gov. Dan Forest all sent short notes simply saying they agreed with the need for the special session. The remaining six, like Cowell, all urged McCrory to limit the call.

It's seems unlikely that McCrory could entirely box in legislators. During Gov. Bev Perdue's term, for example, lawmakers used some parliamentary sleight of hand to convert a session called to address one veto into a session that dealt with an unrelated piece of legislation. Once gathered in Raleigh, lawmakers would also have the ability to call themselves back into a separate, concurrent session to deal with anything they want.

However, a limited session call by McCrory plus the cautionary notes from fellow statewide officials could somewhat temper any drive toward a more expansive session.

Democratic Gov.-elect Roy Cooper, the current attorney general, said through his assistant that McCrory "should limit the purposes of the special session to aiding the recovery from Hurricane Matthew and the western North Carolina wildfires only."

Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, a Democrat, advised McCrory, "the special session should be called strictly for the purpose of aiding the recovery from Hurricane Matthew and the western North Carolina wildfires only."

Republican Labor Commissioner Cherrie Berry sent word through her chief of staff, Art Britt, that she also believes the session should be limited.

"Commissioner Berry concurs with the Governor’s request to call a special session however, it is her opinion that the special session should be limited to the stated purpose of authorizing financial assistance necessary to aid the recovery from both Hurricane Matthew and the western North Carolina wildfires and making any changes in law to facilitate the recovery, only," Britt wrote in an email.

14 Comments

Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Nicolle Leney Dec 16, 2016
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    So..... about that paranoia.....

  • Nicolle Leney Dec 15, 2016
    user avatar

    "Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, said Gov. Pat McCrory didn't fill all of the 1,500 exempt positions that lawmakers gave him in 2013, so it was proper to revert back to levels of appointees seen during former Gov. Bev Perdue's administration."McCrory is the one that asked the legislature to triple the cap of political appointees from 500 to 1500 so he would have flexibility to execute his policies. According to the WRAL article (http://www.wral.com/more-political-appointees-could-mean-more-turnover-in-state-government/16317550/), McCrory appointed approximately 1300 positions.

    Some increases in politically appointed positions included:
    - Dept Health & Human Services: from 79 in 2012 to 530
    - Dept Public Safety: more than doubled
    - Dept Environmental Quality: from 24 to 179

    If they reverse this cap, that would mean that since McCrory appointed more than that original limit, it would essentially make some of McCrory's politically appointed positions PERMANENT.

  • Jacob Young Dec 10, 2016
    user avatar

    The fact that both parties put so much emphasis on state and federal courts indicate the the balance of power at the state and federal levels is way off balance. Our political process needs to be realigned. The judicial system has too much power, especially when some of its judges are appointed to office and not elected by the people.

  • Pete Muller Dec 9, 2016
    user avatar

    If the GA packs the court and the Trumpster offers McCrony a post in his cabinet, then why should Obama adhere to his exemplary transition of power attitude. I suggest he appoints Garland to the Supreme Court in that case. The Senate gave its consent by not declining him and there is ample time to have Garland sworn in.

  • Fred Holt Dec 9, 2016
    user avatar

    We will soon be calling him "Crooked Pat" - mark my words

  • Carol Smith Dec 9, 2016
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    u are right.

  • Carol Smith Dec 9, 2016
    user avatar

    The GA does not care about what we think...never have. Berger is the worst. I feel very sorry for Cooper having to deal with these underhanded "lawmakers."

  • Jacob Young Dec 9, 2016
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    While I don't share the paranoia I do agree that there isn't a need for all of these political appointments. It should be reversed.

  • Nicolle Leney Dec 9, 2016
    user avatar

    In addition to watching for court packing we need to also watch for "POSITION PACKING."

    In 2013, McCrory got the legislature to triple the cap of political appointees from 500 to 1500. According to the WRAL article (http://www.wral.com/more-political-appointees-could-mean-more-turnover-in-state-government/16317550/), McCrory appointed approximately 1300 positions.

    Some increases in politically appointed positions included:
    - Dept Health & Human Services: from 79 in 2012 to 530
    - Dept Public Safety: more than doubled
    - Dept Environmental Quality: from 24 to 179

    It sounds like they could reverse this cap. Since McCrory appointed more than that original limit it would essentially have to turn some of those politically appointed positions back into non-exempt positions, meaning the positions would again be protected from political firings.

    At this point, I don't put anything past our legislature. There's probably other sneaky tricks that we haven't even heard or thought about yet.

  • Pete Muller Dec 9, 2016
    user avatar

    Retaliate against whom? The electorate, because they voted Mc Crory out?

More...