Showing posts with label Pete Brunstetter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pete Brunstetter. Show all posts

Brunstetter reportedly retiring from NC General Assembly

Peter Brunstetter
NC Sen. Pete Brunstetter, a Republican lawmaker from Forsyth County who co-chairs the powerful Appropriations/Base Budget Committee, is retiring from the General Assembly, according to the office of the NC Senate President Pro Tem. A news release indicated Brunstetter will not finish out his full term and will leave the Senate on Dec. 15.

A staffer in Brunstetter's office referred questions about the reported retirement to Amy Auth, the communications director for Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger.

The news release from Berger's office included the following statement from the Senate leader:

"Pete Brunstetter is an outstanding public servant whose leadership and budgetary expertise were instrumental in closing the $2.5 billion deficit Republicans inherited and ensuring North Carolina's long-term fiscal health. As a champion of small business, Pete had a tremendous impact on reforming our state's onerous regulatory environment and medical malpractice laws. He is a close friend and trusted adviser, and I know I speak for many colleagues — and his constituents — in thanking him for his many years of service. We wish him well in his future endeavors."

Question answered: The Winston-Salem Journal reports that Brunstetter is taking a job as executive vice president and general counsel of Novant Health.

Bill filed by Forsyth lawmaker to set aside revaluations

Ed Hanes Jr.
UPDATE: NC Rep. Ed Hanes says Rep. Evelyn Terry, a fellow Democrat, will co-sponsor the bill, and that he's still working on his Republican colleagues.

ORIGINAL POST: NC Rep. Ed Hanes Jr. (D-Forsyth) has filed legislation allowing county commissions to set aside the latest property revaluation. The bill, which was filed today, was drafted in response to a public outcry by homeowners in predominantly black neighborhoods on the the east side of Winston-Salem who are alarmed that depreciation rates from 50 to 70 percent will effectively wipe out their most significant investments.

No other members of the Forsyth County delegation, including fellow Democrat Evelyn Terry or the three Republican members, are cosponsors.

Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines has pledged to introduce a resolution in support of the bill at the next city council meeting on March 25.

Meanwhile, the bill faces steep hurdles, being that it was filed by a freshman Democrat in a Republican-controlled state legislature without the support of the county delegation's Republican members. 

And even if the bill passes, there is no guarantee that the Republican-controlled Forsyth County Commission will choose to act on it. Commissioners Walter Marshall and Everette Witherspoon, the two Democrats and representatives of District A who serve on the county commission have urged property owners to lobby their Republican colleagues.

In other legislative news today, Hanes signed on with Rep. Debra Conrad and Rep. Donny Lambeth — both Forsyth County Republicans — to a bill that would allow the city of Winston-Salem to skirt seismic upgrade requirements — essentially building codes ensure that structures are safe in the event of an earthquake — for temporary occupancy of an emergency operations center.

Sen. Pete Brunstetter (R) and Sen. Earline Parmon (D), the two senators from Forsyth County, are cosponsors of the Senate version of the bill.

Racialized remark about marriage amendment attributed to state senator's wife

UPDATE: National media pickups at Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, The Daily Beast and Daily Kos. Still no word from the Brunstetters.

ORIGINAL POST: Chad Nance, a Winston-Salem freelance journalist who is currently active in electoral campaigning, says poll workers outside the early voting site at the Forsyth County Government Center in downtown Winston-Salem reported to him that the wife of NC Sen. Peter Brunstetter remarked today that her husband sponsored legislation to put the marriage amendment on the primary ballot “to protect the Caucasian race.”

Nance said he recorded a conversation with the woman, whose name is Jodie Brunstetter, on video, and that she confirmed that she used the term “Caucasian” in a discussion about the marriage amendment, but insisted that otherwise her comments had been taken out of context by other poll workers.

Nance until recently served as campaign manager for Matt Newton, a Democratic candidate for the 12th Congressional District. Nance announced on Facebook today that he was resigning from the campaign because of Nance’s reaction to his plans to publicize Jodie Brunstetter’s alleged remarks. The Newton campaign has not responded to an e-mail request for comment about the resignation. 

Nance has been working as a volunteer poll worker for the campaign of NC House candidate Ed Hanes Jr. and the campaign against the marriage amendment. He is a primary source for an unrelated story published by YES! Weekly about efforts to manipulate Democratic voters for the benefit of a favored slate of candidates. Nance said an African-American poll worker identified only as “Michael” initially told him about Jodie Brunstetter’s alleged remarks during a conversation with opponents of the marriage amendment. 

Nance paraphrased the remarks, as told to him by those who were present: “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.” 

Nance said he recruited a friend, who works for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, to witness his interview with Jodie Brunstetter. He said Brunstetter reluctantly acknowledged that she had used the term “Caucasian” and then repeated the statement previously attributed to her, but substituted the pronoun “we” for “Caucasian. Nance said Brunstetter insisted there was nothing racial about her remarks, but could not explain why she used the term “Caucasian.” 

A phone message left at the Brunstetter residence in Lewisville was not immediately returned. Peter Brunstetter has served in the state Senate since 2006, when he was appointed to replace the late Ham Horton. Brunstetter has no primary opponent, but will face Democrat Delmas Parker in the November general election. 

Nance provided an edited transcript from the video. I’ve left all spelling and punctuation errors intact to preserve its integrity. Nance said he is working with a local TV news outfit to disseminate the footage and plans to post it in entirety so that people will be satisfied that he has not taken Brunstetter’s words out of context or manipulated their meaning in any way. 
 
Transcript follows: 

MICHAEL: 

“I had my back to her like this. She said, 'The reason my husband my husband wrote Amendment 1 was because the Caucasian race is diminishing and we need to uh, reproduce.” 

UNIDENTIFIED POLL WORKER: “(Mrs. Brunsetter said) … the Caucasian race is diminishing. ?The reason that's a problem is that it was white people that founded this country.” 

“She just wants a white majority so the good 'ol US of A can stay white.” 

Brunsetter: 

We are looking at the history of the United States and it is already law about what marriage is. Between a man and a woman. And we are looking at how American has been a great country. That's why people are coming here. And people who fouinded the United states wrote a Constitution and it has been what has preserved this society. And we were just talking about lots of different things which the gentleman was turning around. 

Me: 

You didn't tell that one lady that it was to preserve the Caucasian race because they were becoming a minority? 

Brunsetter: 

No. 

Me: 

She's lying? 

Brunsetter: 

No. It's just that same sex marriages are not having children. 

Me: 

Yeahm but you didn't say anything about Caucasians, white people, preserving them that's why it was written? 

Brunsetter: 

No I'm afraid they have made it a racial issue when it is not. 

Me: 

She didn't say it was a racial issue. She said that you had said that opart of the reason it had been sponsored and written was to preserve the white race. 

(a moment later) … you didn't say anything about Caucasians? 

Brunsetter: 

I probably said the word. 

Me: 

You didn't tell her anything about Caucasians? 

Silence. 

Me: 

I want you to clear it up if you could. 

Brunsetter: 

Right now I am a little confused myself because there has been confusion here today about this amendment where it is very simple. The opponents are saying things that are not true and there has been a lot of conversation back and forth. 

Right now I have some heat stroke going on. Um there has been lots of confusion. 

Me: 

Did you say anything about Caucasians? 

Brunsetter: If I did it wasn't anything race related. 

Me: 

But it is about identifying a race. No context on Caucasians? 

Brunsetter: 

There has been so much talk about this point that there is just a lot of confusion. 

Me: 

You're not going to be able to explain it? 

Brunsetter: 

Well, it's a little hard.

Elderly and disabled at risk of being pushed out of adult care homes

I had the opportunity to meet about a dozen elderly and disabled residents of Danby House in southwest Winston-Salem yesterday. One of the residents, 55-year-old Terry Cochrain, worked in construction for 30 years before becoming disabled, requiring him to take an array of medications to treat high blood pressure. Medicaid benefits help him pay for services at the adult care home. He’s one of 20,300 North Carolinians who receive personal care services in adult care homes through Medicaid, according to the NC Department of Health and Human Services.

Cochrain told me if he were to lose his Medicaid benefits, he would end up on the street and sleeping under a bridge. He said he would probably be dead within six months.

The bureaucratic backdrop for this unfolding catastrophe is that the NC Department of Health and Human Services, or DHHS, has been in negotiation with the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers those programs to bring the state’s Medicaid personal care services program into compliance with federal mandates. These Medicaid payments pay for help with activities of daily living, including eating, dressing, bathing, toileting and walking.

The federal government is on the state’s case to create uniformity in eligibility requirements, billing rates and scope of services between people who receive Medicaid-funded personal care services in adult care homes and those who live in independent settings. The state is pursuing a waiver known as 1915i under the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) as the best means to bring its program into compliance with the federal guidelines.

DHHS leaders appeared before state lawmakers in the Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services yesterday morning to answer questions. Before the committee convened, DHHS and the feds had reached an agreement to push back the deadline for compliance from April 30 to Dec. 31.

Brad Deen, a spokesman for the DHHS, described the situation as “enormously complicated and not easy to explain.”

Sen. Pete Brunstetter, a senior budget writer from Forsyth County, told me he probably won’t comment on a possible funding gap because “this is complicated stuff” and lawmakers still don’t have all the information they need.

The sideshow in this matter is North Carolina's divided government. DHHS under Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue is responsible for administering the program; the General Assembly under the control of the Republican leadership is responsible for the state budget. Both sides will have ample opportunity to cast blame.

The nut of the current morass can be found in a set of talking points prepared for acting Secretary Albert Delia’s presentation to the General Assembly on Wednesday:

“The agreement does not… change the fact that 1915i implementation will come with eligibility criteria that will not cover a relatively small number of current residents. (This will be difficult and hard to manage process [sic] with a number of potential unintended consequences.)”

More to the point, “3,700 to 4,000 recipients may not meet the 1915i eligibility criteria.”

For what it’s worth, the talking points characterize the state’s compliance plan as avoiding a “disaster” scenario; they hopefully offer that the extended deadline gives DHHS time to “assess the 20,000 residents currently living in [adult care homes]” and “address housing issues/capacity.”

I’m not done with my reporting yet, but until someone can tell me what I’m missing here, this doesn’t seem that complicated.