• A prescription for what types of buildings should go where and how tall they should be

• A list of local government priorities, how much they cost and which ones to move ahead on.

For over a year, town officials and residents have talked about how Chapel Hill should grow. The 2020 report will guide both spending and development as pressures on both force hard decisions.

But the plan that goes to a public hearing Monday night is, in many ways, a work in progress. Even if the Town Council adopts it next month as Chapel Hill’s road plan, there’s still a lot of work to do before the town decides what to put on those roads.

And that’s by design.

“It’s more of a living document,” said Assistant Planning Director Mary Jane Nirdlinger.

Comprehensive plans today “are not just plans you pick up every 10 years,” she explained. “They’re really becoming more of the day-to-day work of the town.”

So when it comes to an issue like street lights, for example, Chapel Hill 2020 doesn’t say where to put the lights, what kind to buy or how much money to spend on them.

Instead, based on months of community conversations, it encourages staff, council members and residents to balance the desire for safe, vibrant nightlife with the competing desire for a dark-enough sky where you can still see the stars.

How that works out in practice will take … well, practice.

Six key areas

The meat of Chapel Hill 2020, of course, is growth.

From Charterwood in the north of town to Obey Creek in the south, and Carolina Flats, the hotel and student housing complex proposed for the middle, Town Council members have faced one development battle after another.

Projects some say would begin to balance the town’s heavily residential tax base, have been criticized as too big or inappropriate for their sites (Charterwood, Obey Creek). A project meant to complement the future Carolina North campus and ease the student housing crunch has been seen as too close to neighborhoods never intended for 600 college students and their cars (Carolina Flats).

Chapel Hill 2020 won’t solve that.

What it does do is identify six areas ripe for development or redevelopment. The six areas, representing 24 percent of the land in Chapel Hill, are

• Downtown

• North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Interstate 40

• South Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard between Homestead Road and Estes Drive

• N.C. 54

• North U.S. 15-501 (heading toward Durham)

• South U.S. 15-501 (heading to Chatham County)

A draft summary released last week identifies key considerations in each area and proposed actions.

In three of the areas, it recommends a “community-based process” to determine what should go there. If approved, the council would authorize yet more plans – they could take weeks; they could take months – to help come up with a “form-based approach” to future development.

Form-based codes foster “predictable built results and a high-quality public realm” by focusing on physical form over allowed uses inside those forms, according to the Form-Based Code Institute. They differ from conventional zoning – single-family housing here, offices there, or what the institute calls micromanagement – by emphasizing building facades, their relation to one another, and scale over dwellings per acre, setbacks and parking ratios.

The idea, Chapel Hill 2020 co-chair Rosemary Waldorf says, is to tell developers what the community wants and will allow in different parts of town. If projects meet the criteria, she says, the review process should go more quickly, cost developers less money, and reduce the acrimony that has characterized some recent development tussles.

“These are our opportunities to maybe get economic development; these are our opportunities to grow our tax base,” Waldorf said.

“With any luck this plan will help liberate us from the old ways of doing things,” she said.

Form and function

It wouldn’t be Chapel Hill without some Chapel Hill 2020 detractors.

A few weeks ago a group of citizens who have participated in 2020 asked the Town Council to slow down and consider separating the vision part of the process from the land-use recommendations.

The group became especially concerned about a separate 2020 subgroup was convened to recommend future development on 15-501 South, where developers want to build a big, mixed-use project called Obey Creek.

The draft 2020 plan identifies that area as a “retail development opportunity (that) could have an impact on the town’s overall fiscal health,” but also says growth there should minimize the impact on surrounding neighborhoods and schools.

“Chapel Hill 2020 was really two things,” said Will Raymond, a former candidate for Town Council and 2020 participant. “It was taking the pulse to see what town services the community wants, and it was an attempt to create the beginning of a land-use policy.”

“Because those two things were mixed together, it created a lot of confusion,” he said.

The 15-501 group “came out of left field,” Raymond said. The form-based approach was not something the community asked for or that perhaps many even understood, he said.

“Most things in life are about form and function, right?” he said. “It was just kind of jammed in there.”

Form-based codes are “not a silver bullet,” Nirdlinger said after a presentation Monday in Town Hall.

Even where Chapel Hill 2020 encourages them – such as along parts of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, U.S. 15-501 North and N.C. 54 – the report recommends more public input, balancing the tradeoffs and figuring out how changing one part of town “responds to the needs of the greater Chapel Hill community.”

Indeed, Nirdlinger said, if she were to offer a motto for Chapel Hill 2020, it would be “Chapel Hill is your neighborhood.”

Waldorf conceded the document is not the laundry list with prices attached that some might have expected. She’d like to see the town take an even broader view, for example, of the role of advisory boards – 19 at last count – and whether some could be consolidated.

But she thinks Chapel Hill 2020 offers a chance to make Chapel Hill better.

“The goals stand as the work of the group,” she said “It will be up to the community to decide whether they’re on board or not.”

Monday night’s Town Council meeting begins at 7 p.m. in Town Hall. The report goes to the town’s planning board and sustainability committee June 5, with possible adoption by the Town Council June 25.

Article source: http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2012/05/19/71433/chapel-hill-2020-ready-for-review.html

• A prescription for what types of buildings should go where and how tall they should be

• A list of local government priorities, how much they cost and which ones to move ahead on.

For over a year, town officials and residents have talked about how Chapel Hill should grow. The 2020 report will guide both spending and development as pressures on both force hard decisions.

But the plan that goes to a public hearing Monday night is, in many ways, a work in progress. Even if the Town Council adopts it next month as Chapel Hill’s road plan, there’s still a lot of work to do before the town decides what to put on those roads.

And that’s by design.

“It’s more of a living document,” said Assistant Planning Director Mary Jane Nirdlinger.

Comprehensive plans today “are not just plans you pick up every 10 years,” she explained. “They’re really becoming more of the day-to-day work of the town.”

So when it comes to an issue like street lights, for example, Chapel Hill 2020 doesn’t say where to put the lights, what kind to buy or how much money to spend on them.

Instead, based on months of community conversations, it encourages staff, council members and residents to balance the desire for safe, vibrant nightlife with the competing desire for a dark-enough sky where you can still see the stars.

How that works out in practice will take … well, practice.

Six key areas

The meat of Chapel Hill 2020, of course, is growth.

From Charterwood in the north of town to Obey Creek in the south, and Carolina Flats, the hotel and student housing complex proposed for the middle, Town Council members have faced one development battle after another.

Projects some say would begin to balance the town’s heavily residential tax base, have been criticized as too big or inappropriate for their sites (Charterwood, Obey Creek). A project meant to complement the future Carolina North campus and ease the student housing crunch has been seen as too close to neighborhoods never intended for 600 college students and their cars (Carolina Flats).

Chapel Hill 2020 won’t solve that.

What it does do is identify six areas ripe for development or redevelopment. The six areas, representing 24 percent of the land in Chapel Hill, are

• Downtown

• North Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Interstate 40

• South Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard between Homestead Road and Estes Drive

• N.C. 54

• North U.S. 15-501 (heading toward Durham)

• South U.S. 15-501 (heading to Chatham County)

A draft summary released last week identifies key considerations in each area and proposed actions.

In three of the areas, it recommends a “community-based process” to determine what should go there. If approved, the council would authorize yet more plans – they could take weeks; they could take months – to help come up with a “form-based approach” to future development.

Form-based codes foster “predictable built results and a high-quality public realm” by focusing on physical form over allowed uses inside those forms, according to the Form-Based Code Institute. They differ from conventional zoning – single-family housing here, offices there, or what the institute calls micromanagement – by emphasizing building facades, their relation to one another, and scale over dwellings per acre, setbacks and parking ratios.

The idea, Chapel Hill 2020 co-chair Rosemary Waldorf says, is to tell developers what the community wants and will allow in different parts of town. If projects meet the criteria, she says, the review process should go more quickly, cost developers less money, and reduce the acrimony that has characterized some recent development tussles.

“These are our opportunities to maybe get economic development; these are our opportunities to grow our tax base,” Waldorf said.

“With any luck this plan will help liberate us from the old ways of doing things,” she said.

Form and function

It wouldn’t be Chapel Hill without some Chapel Hill 2020 detractors.

A few weeks ago a group of citizens who have participated in 2020 asked the Town Council to slow down and consider separating the vision part of the process from the land-use recommendations.

The group became especially concerned about a separate 2020 subgroup was convened to recommend future development on 15-501 South, where developers want to build a big, mixed-use project called Obey Creek.

The draft 2020 plan identifies that area as a “retail development opportunity (that) could have an impact on the town’s overall fiscal health,” but also says growth there should minimize the impact on surrounding neighborhoods and schools.

“Chapel Hill 2020 was really two things,” said Will Raymond, a former candidate for Town Council and 2020 participant. “It was taking the pulse to see what town services the community wants, and it was an attempt to create the beginning of a land-use policy.”

“Because those two things were mixed together, it created a lot of confusion,” he said.

The 15-501 group “came out of left field,” Raymond said. The form-based approach was not something the community asked for or that perhaps many even understood, he said.

“Most things in life are about form and function, right?” he said. “It was just kind of jammed in there.”

Form-based codes are “not a silver bullet,” Nirdlinger said after a presentation Monday in Town Hall.

Even where Chapel Hill 2020 encourages them – such as along parts of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, U.S. 15-501 North and N.C. 54 – the report recommends more public input, balancing the tradeoffs and figuring out how changing one part of town “responds to the needs of the greater Chapel Hill community.”

Indeed, Nirdlinger said, if she were to offer a motto for Chapel Hill 2020, it would be “Chapel Hill is your neighborhood.”

Waldorf conceded the document is not the laundry list with prices attached that some might have expected. She’d like to see the town take an even broader view, for example, of the role of advisory boards – 19 at last count – and whether some could be consolidated.

But she thinks Chapel Hill 2020 offers a chance to make Chapel Hill better.

“The goals stand as the work of the group,” she said “It will be up to the community to decide whether they’re on board or not.”

Monday night’s Town Council meeting begins at 7 p.m. in Town Hall. The report goes to the town’s planning board and sustainability committee June 5, with possible adoption by the Town Council June 25.

Article source: http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2012/05/19/71433/chapel-hill-2020-ready-for-review.html

Chapel Hill, which beat out Cardinal Gibbons for the Carolina-6 Conference title in the regular season, ended its year at 21-5-1.

“I could have predicted for you that Cardinal Gibbons was going to make it this far,” said Benson. “They may have five ties, but that’s a top-five team for sure.”

Cardinal Gibbons gave up just 11 goals in the regular season and shut out opponents in 14 matches. Before yielding a late goal in an 8-1 win at Northeast Guilford in the state 3A tournament’s first round, the Crusaders had not allowed a goal by an NCHSAA opponent since a 3-2 win by Chapel Hill at Cardinal Gibbons on March 27. CHHS and Cardinal Gibbons tied 0-0 on April 18.

“It was great to get another crack at them, and it was nice to finally beat them,” Cardinal Gibbons coach Michelle Miller said. “They play such good defense, it’s really hard to break them down.”

Missing one of their top scorers, Calleigh West, after she had her appendix removed Friday morning, the Crusaders still out-shot Chapel Hill 28-9, including an 18-3 edge in the first 80 minutes. CHHS goalie Madeline Mesaros made 10 saves — five in the two overtimes and two sudden-death periods.

Cardinal Gibbons’ usual starting keeper, Kristin Toomey, came down with mononucleosis about 10 days before, sending Chapel Hill native Kathleen Davis into the goal. She only had to save three shots to preserve the shutout, but one came in the final minute of overtime on one of Chapel Hill’s best chances of the night.

“I know some of their players personally, so finally beating them was really satisfying,” said Davis, who’d never been in a shootout before Friday.

The shootout was tied 1-1 after the Crusaders’ Christina Gibbons made her kick, but the next CHHS player sent hers over the crossbar. Megan Goudy, Leigh McGill, Stephany Michalak and Morgan Reid all made theirs in quick succession to seal the decision, and the rest of the Crusaders mobbed them near midfield.

“We practice those all the time,” Davis said. “You have to push the ghosts of any mistakes in the game behind you and just live in the moment.”

Article source: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/18/2073600/cardinal-gibbons-girls-soccer.html

Chapel Hill, which beat out Cardinal Gibbons for the Carolina-6 Conference title in the regular season, ended its year at 21-5-1.

“I could have predicted for you that Cardinal Gibbons was going to make it this far,” said Benson. “They may have five ties, but that’s a top-five team for sure.”

Cardinal Gibbons gave up just 11 goals in the regular season and shut out opponents in 14 matches. Before yielding a late goal in an 8-1 win at Northeast Guilford in the state 3A tournament’s first round, the Crusaders had not allowed a goal by an NCHSAA opponent since a 3-2 win by Chapel Hill at Cardinal Gibbons on March 27. CHHS and Cardinal Gibbons tied 0-0 on April 18.

“It was great to get another crack at them, and it was nice to finally beat them,” Cardinal Gibbons coach Michelle Miller said. “They play such good defense, it’s really hard to break them down.”

Missing one of their top scorers, Calleigh West, after she had her appendix removed Friday morning, the Crusaders still out-shot Chapel Hill 28-9, including an 18-3 edge in the first 80 minutes. CHHS goalie Madeline Mesaros made 10 saves — five in the two overtimes and two sudden-death periods.

Cardinal Gibbons’ usual starting keeper, Kristin Toomey, came down with mononucleosis about 10 days before, sending Chapel Hill native Kathleen Davis into the goal. She only had to save three shots to preserve the shutout, but one came in the final minute of overtime on one of Chapel Hill’s best chances of the night.

“I know some of their players personally, so finally beating them was really satisfying,” said Davis, who’d never been in a shootout before Friday.

The shootout was tied 1-1 after the Crusaders’ Christina Gibbons made her kick, but the next CHHS player sent hers over the crossbar. Megan Goudy, Leigh McGill, Stephany Michalak and Morgan Reid all made theirs in quick succession to seal the decision, and the rest of the Crusaders mobbed them near midfield.

“We practice those all the time,” Davis said. “You have to push the ghosts of any mistakes in the game behind you and just live in the moment.”

Article source: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/18/2073600/cardinal-gibbons-girls-soccer.html

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) — Prosecutors want the State Bureau of Investigation to look into a program at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill where a school review already has found academic fraud.

Orange-Chatham District Attorney Jim Woodall says he made the request Friday. Woodall wants the SBI to investigate the African and Afro-American Studies program at UNC.

The African and Afro-American Studies program was at the center of an investigation into academic fraud involving Tar Heel football players.

A UNC review released this month found 54 department classes that had little or no indication of instruction along with at least 10 cases of unauthorized grade changes for students who did not do all the work.

Copyright 2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

Article source: http://www.witn.com/sports/headlines/DA_Seeks_SBI_Probe_Of_UNC-Chapel_Hill_Department_151424635.html

By Susan Dickson
Staff Writer
CHAPEL HILL – Town Manager Roger Stancil has proposed a half-cent property-tax increase as part of his recommended 2012-13 budget, which he presented to the Chapel Hill Town Council on Monday.

The increase would represent the town’s first property-tax increase in three years, bringing the rate to 49.9 cents per $100 of property valuation, up from 49.4 cents in 2011-12. Stancil said the proposed increase stemmed from increasing transit costs, and that it had been recommended by the Chapel Hill Transit partners.

The increase would cost an additional $10 for the owner of a $200,000 home, bringing that property owner’s town tax bill to $998 annually.

Overall, the town’s general-fund expenditures are up 3.7 percent, to $52.4 million from $50.5 million in 2011-12.

The proposed budget includes a 3 percent raise for town employees, who have not received a salary increase since 2008-09; the reinstatement of the town’s $43,000 July 4 fireworks event; no layoffs of full-time town employees; three months of expanded library operating costs, with the new Chapel Hill Public Library set to open in 2013; $361,000 in street-resurfacing funds; and $240,000 to finish work on the town’s fiber network. The budget also uses $1.6 million of fund balance, the town’s savings account.

Overall, Stancil said, the economy appears to be improving, noting an increase in sales-tax receipts in recent months.

“We are seeing signs of recovery after four bad years,” he said.

Additionally, Stancil said, the town saw a turnaround in health insurance costs this year, with a 3 percent decrease after several years of 10-plus percent increases. Nationally, health insurance costs are increasing by about 9 percent, and Stancil attributed the decrease in the town’s costs to its employees’ attention to health and safety.

However, Stancil said, transit expenditures are up 6.4 percent, from $18 million to $19.1 million, attributable to increasing fuel costs and a reduction in state funding.

“We really need to do serious financial planning and modeling … and think about how we maintain this system,” Stancil said, noting that it has been 10 years since the transit system went fare-free.

Council member Gene Pease asked whether the transit partners considered service cuts in lieu of a tax increase, and Stancil said that because CHT implemented wide service cuts last year, they chose not to propose cuts this year.

“I’m still getting complaints [about the service cuts],” council member Ed Harrison said. “For that matter, I’m still complaining about them.”

“It’s an expensive system to run for free,” he added.

Council members Lee Storrow and Matt Czajkowski said they wanted to look into adding back daytime hours at the Community Center pool, which were cut in last year’s budget.

Council member Jim Ward said he was concerned that a small tax increase this year and use of fund balance could mean a larger tax increase in next year’s budget.

“I, for one, am not for making a really rosy picture this year” to be followed by a big tax increase, he said.
The council will hold a budget work session on Monday and is scheduled to adopt the budget on June 11.

Print Friendly

Article source: http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2012/05/17/chapel-hill-tax-hike-proposed/

The final draft of the plan will be released before the Chapel Hill Town Council meeting May 21, and the plan will be voted on at its June 25 meeting.

Mary Jane Nirdlinger said though they do not yet know how the community would pay for developments outlined in the plan, the process has been more designed to gather community input, not to determine funding.

“It’s like a wish list, not everyone will get what they want,” she said.

Nirdlinger said the town will use priority-based budgeting for the plan, which will fund projects based on what town officials and residents consider to be most important.

Council member Lee Storrow said the next steps in the plan will come after it is finalized.

“One of the exciting parts of 2020 is the sense that we can dream big,” he said. “But we have to practically think about how to pay for it all.”

Storrow said the town did not want to fund the plan by raising property taxes.

But some of the goals are to increase the economic tax base and to increase tax and general revenue for the town, he said.

Nirdlinger said she thinks concerns residents have about Chapel Hill 2020 deal mainly with how residents would be involved in implementing the plan.

She said the plan is a living document, with changes being made as officials learn which plans are working and which ones are not.

“We’re just excited to see what people have to say about the plan — it’s their plan,” Nirdlinger said.

At 109 pages, the current draft of the plan includes a vision statement, statistics and information about the town of Chapel Hill, and an action chart based on goals previously determined by focus groups.

Faith Thompson, Chapel Hill 2020 outreach coordinator said town officials have tried to involve residents in the process through things such as tavern talks and having the outreach committee ride the bus to discuss the draft plans with residents.

Thompson said monthly meetings will stop after the May 21 public hearing, but residents can still receive updates about the plan through the online mailing list and the 2020 website.

Chapel Hill resident Julie McClintock said she was disappointed the group discussions would end before the draft plan is finalized.

“Fortunately the scope of the June document is limited to goals; how these are implemented will be the guts of the plan,” she said.

Contact the City Editor at city@dailytarheel.com.

Article source: http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2012/05/4fb31472767c8

After three years without an increase, Chapel Hill Town Manager Roger Stancil is recommending a half-cent property tax-rate increase to help fund Chapel Hill Transit in the 2012-13 fiscal year.

The $52.4 million budget is 3.7 percent higher than last fiscal year’s and includes funding to reinstate the town’s Fourth of July fireworks event and a 3 percent raise for town employees.

The budget is balanced in part by a $1.6 million from the fund balance, a reserve fund used to manage cash flow. It includes no layoffs and an increase in sales tax revenue, the highest since 2008, Stancil said Monday night.

Despite the higher sales tax revenue, Stancil recommends a property tax increase to offset state funding cuts and high fuel costs. The Chapel Hill Transit system, a fare-free system which is funded jointly by Chapel Hill, Carrboro and UNC-Chapel Hill, will need even more funding in the next fiscal year, Stancil said. The partners are currently looking at ways to better fund the system long term, he said.

The half-cent increase would bring the town tax rate to 49.9 cents per $100 of assessed property value, or a $15 increase on a $300,000 house whose owner would now pay $1,497 in town taxes. That homeowner would also pay county and city school taxes, both set by the county commissioners.

Health insurance costs for Chapel Hill employees have bucked a national trend and decreased by 3 percent this year, Stancil said. The national trend has been an 8 to 10 percent increase in insurance premiums, he said.

The town also plans to spend up to $700,000 for a pay classification study for town employees, Stancil said. The town’s current system is outdated and doesn’t have a way to always increase pay levels as employees advance, he said.

The town also wants to make sure its wages are on par with corresponding private-sector jobs, he said. “We’re assuming as the economy continues to improve, we want make salary adjustments to retain good employees,” he said.

The budget also includes:

• Three months of costs for expanded library operations; the library is scheduled to open around March 2013

$361,000 for street re-surfacing

$240,000 for fiber network implementation

• fee increases for Parks and Recreation programs

• new debt payments for the 140 West bonds

$170,000 to hire a consultant to revise the Land Use Management Ordinance and implement the 2020 Comprehensive Plan if it is approved in June

Looking further ahead, town officials are projecting a $5.1 million shortfall for 2013-14, which includes a $1.8 million loss from a possible county revaluation, $600,000 for a full year of new operational costs for the expanded library, and $700,000 for solid waste disposal when the county closes its landfill in June 2013. Orange County officials were scheduled to discuss possibly postponing the revaluation Tuesday night.

The town also plans to appraise several of its buildings to possibly sell, including the former Chapel Hill Museum building at 523 E. Franklin St. and the Sport Art building on Homestead Road, Stancil said.

Article source: http://www.chapelhillnews.com/2012/05/15/71405/proposed-chapel-hill-budget-raises.html

History professor Jay Smith was right about the scandal surrounding UNC-Chapel Hill’s football program.

“We had all this news about a rogue tutor,” Smith said. “There was a rogue assistant coach, a rogue agent, now, a rogue faculty member and a rogue administrative assistant. That’s a lot of rogues.”

The ever-mushrooming scandal, which now involves widespread academic fraud within the school’s Department of African and Afro-American Studies, reminds me of some roguish history.

There was that episode back in the early 1970s, when some rogue burglars broke into a Washington hotel. They reported to a couple of rogue White House aides. A rogue U.S. attorney general tried to quash an investigation into the matter. A U.S. senator from North Carolina kept forcing embarrassing admissions from more rogue White House aides. Eventually, a rogue U.S. president resigned.

In the 1920s, rogue thieves kept stealing government documents involving rogue oil leases. A couple of rogue oil companies obtained the rogue government leases. A rogue U.S. Cabinet secretary eventually went to prison for accepting bribes from the rogue oil companies.

Oh, the rogues.

OK, so a rogue tutor and a rogue football coach aren’t exactly on par with a rogue president or Cabinet secretary.

But when enough rogues run around the same place at the same time doing some of the same things, you no longer call them rogues. You call them conspirators.

The conspiracy here was keeping athletes eligible to play sports.

To believe that the latest evidence, from an internal review conducted by two of the school’s associate deans, Jonathan Hartlyn and William L. Andrews, means anything else is to be naive.

Hartlyn and Andrews don’t reach that conclusion. They found 54 suspect classes, taught between 2007 and 2011, where little or no instruction was given. They point out that any student could have enrolled in them.

Not just any student did. Of the students who enrolled in the courses, 39 percent were football or basketball players. Fifty-eight percent were involved in scholarship athletics of some type.

If those numbers aren’t convincing evidence of student-athletes being steered to bogus courses, what of this incriminating fact: Former UNC football player Marvin Austin, the guy whose tweeting kicked off the sordid revelations, enrolled in one of these courses in the summer of 2007, before he had even begun his first full semester at the school.

Perhaps a sky-blue leprechaun suggested the course.

Obviously, athletic departments at other universities, intent on fielding successful football and basketball teams, steer athletes toward easy majors and easy courses.

That’s not the same as pushing athletes into sham courses. It’s not the same as unauthorized, unexplained grade changes. Those things constitute gross academic fraud.

The internal report lays the blame at the feet of the department’s former dean, Julius Nyang’oro, along with an administrative assistant who left the school in 2009.

Oh, the rogues.

They appear to have had plenty of company.

Scott Mooneyham writes for Capitol Press Association in Raleigh. Contact him at smooneyh@ncinsider.com.

Article source: http://www.thepilot.com/news/2012/may/16/at-chapel-hill-a-company-of-rogues/