text:
After it was all over — the emergency meetings and votes of no confidence, the suspensions and resignations, the backroom intrigues and public squabbles, culminating in the ouster of the fire chief — Charlie Neppell decided it was time to give credit where credit was due. So when the board of directors of the Evergreen Fire Protection District held their monthly meeting in April, Neppell was there to suggest that they seemed to be doing a bang-up job of destroying their own volunteer fire department.
In a sprawling mountain community with little municipal government to speak of, special districts like the EFPD are the true seat of local power. Yet fire-district board meetings have never attracted much of an audience — until last month. Despite the fact that the gathering had been scheduled at the unfriendly hour of eight o'clock on a Friday morning, the room was quickly populated by dozens of firefighters and their families, many eager to obtain official confirmation of the resignation of Chief Joel Janov, reported just hours earlier. Reporters were also on hand, as well as bona fide representatives of the public. The best the five members of the board could do was hunker down and get on with it.
Public comment was limited to three minutes per speaker. But that didn't discourage Neppell. He stood and delivered a concise recitation of what, in his view, were the board's greatest sins. The board had sown the seeds of conflict in 2005 by naming Janov, then the elected chief of the volunteers, to the newly created position of paid fire chief, a $95,000-a-year job with specific qualifications that Janov didn't have. The board had hired waves of consultants and conducted an extensive survey of departmental strife, the results of which were "held up and covered up."
Evergreen Fire
The board had sought to intimidate its critics and stifle free debate. It had tried to mess with the very nature of a volunteer fire department, referring to the firefighters as "noncompensated employees" and seeking control over operational decisions. Worse, the resulting turmoil had turned the volunteers against each other — leading, among other things, to the suspension of three officers for speaking their mind and the termination of one Charlie Neppell, formerly a department lieutenant. Neppell's outspokenness had gotten him removed from his post — not by Janov, but by the elected leadership of the volunteers.
"Trust is easy to lose and difficult to regain," Neppell said.
The boardmembers sat glumly through the scolding, offering no response. They didn't respond to direct questions raised by other speakers, either. When the public comment period ended, EFPD president Phil Shanley, a local business leader who's been on the board since 1975, announced the resignation of the absent Chief Janov, thanked him for twelve years of service as a volunteer — and quickly moved on to other business, the purchase of a $3,800 floor scrubber.
A consultant was summoned to discuss the selection process for a new chief. She turned to the audience for questions. Shanley abruptly cut off the first one.
"The time for public comment is over," he said.
Shanley's proclamation didn't sit well with the crowd; a few people soon left in a huff. It also seemed to alarm the newest boardmember, Charles "Chick" Dykeman, a retired funeral director with a long history of serving on community boards. Recently appointed to fill a vacancy, Dykeman tried to end the meeting on a conciliatory note, assuring everyone that the district had no intention of replacing its volunteers with paid firefighters.
"We are making extraordinary efforts to reach a balanced point," he said. "I am reminded of a Chinese proverb: 'There's no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.'"
Dykeman's remarks drew applause. For some in the room, the conflict had been about the fire chief, and now that he'd resigned, armistice was a distinct possibility. Others weren't so sure. After all, the district board had backed Chief Janov's play, and some of the most bruising battles of the past sixteen months had been fought over the board's seeming indifference to the volunteers' concerns about where all this was heading. Would another paid chief really get things back on track?
Janov himself, no longer an active part of the debate, took a different view, of course. He had never considered his problems with the volunteers to be a matter of his popularity, or lack of same; rather, they were a knee-jerk reaction to the necessary and logical changes he'd tried to bring to the operation. "There's a real story here about the sociology of volunteerism," he says now. "This notion that an organization founded on real good civic merits evolves into something that exists for the sake of its own existence, with resistance to being accountable to the people it's serving."
But supporters of that organization argue that the boardmembers are the ones who forgot the people they're serving. They talk about a creeping bureaucracy and the way the board's "big-city philosophy" is costing taxpayers close to $20,000 a month for various outside experts and consultants, including the services of a public-relations firm. Last week a group called Best Emergency Service Transition for Evergreen, or BEST, started by disillusioned ex-volunteers such as Neppell, announced a new effort to recall Shanley and fellow boardmember David Klaus, claiming that their grand plans to "reorganize" Evergreen Fire/Rescue jeopardizes the volunteer system that is its heart. For them, the battle over control of the fire department has become a kind of referendum on the future of Evergreen itself, and whether the community can hang on to its proud traditions despite growth and suburbanization.
"The perfect storm for Evergreen Fire/Rescue was this board, Joel Janov and money," says Julie Kling, one of the BEST organizers, whose husband, George, recently resigned from the volunteers. "When we had all three is when we started having problems."
There are more than 26,000 fire departments in America. Three-fourths of them are small operations staffed by volunteers. But as communities grow — along with demands for more services, more training, higher professional standards and so on — hundreds of departments have turned to paid firefighters or some combination of volunteer and compensated staff. According to the International Association of Fire Chiefs' 2005 "Red Ribbon Report," a document that became a touchstone for the changes that Joel Janov wanted to make in Evergreen, the number of volunteer firefighters nationwide has declined by 10 percent in the past two decades.
Evergreen Fire/Rescue began as a hardy squad of volunteers established in 1948 to serve a rustic mountain town of 500 residents. Since then, Evergreen has grown into a burgeoning community of 40,000, and EFR has swelled to an organization encompassing close to ninety volunteers, 33 full-time paid staffers (including shifts of four paramedics), a dozen part-timers, eight stations, 43 pieces of fire-and-rescue apparatus and an annual budget pushing $4 million.
The fire district covers 125 square miles of rugged country southwest of Denver, and it's difficult to imagine how it could be covered without volunteers. More than half of the service area has no hydrants, and even supposedly minor fires can require an unusual number of bodies and apparatus, including pumpers and tankers. Under a volunteer-based neighborhood-response system, firefighters often come from their homes rather than a station miles away. Fortunately, the operation has never lacked for qualified volunteers, including a number of local residents who also commute to jobs as paid firefighters in metro Denver when they're not responding to emergencies next door.
Traditionally, the volunteers elected their own chief. The chief would select the officers he wanted to serve in key positions, whose qualifications would be reviewed by a board of representatives elected by the volunteers, and the officers would then be affirmed by a popular vote of the membership. The chief would also go to the publicly elected fire-district board to seek whatever funds were necessary for new equipment. Department veterans acknowledge that as the paid side of the operation grew in recent years, the system was getting unwieldy, but few saw the need for any drastic overhaul.
"A problem was created to further a cause," says Jim Pidcock, a former assistant chief and ally of Neppell who resigned two months ago. "I didn't see what the hurry was to change things. Did the community decide? Are there justifiable numbers to show it needs to change?"
Yet most volunteers recognized that the operation had to be modernized to some degree. When Janov ran for the position of volunteer chief four years ago, he issued a "prospectus" declaring that the department had to be "open" to change, "the kind of change that keeps up with the times, technology, and our people." Janov had been with the department since 1996 and had also worked for four years as a paid firefighter for West Metro. Some of his colleagues describe him as bright and charismatic; others consider him abrasive and lacking in tact, but honest — sometimes to a fault. He was, in any case, eager to work hard at a job few people sought. In Evergreen, the office of volunteer chief often went to a firefighter who was already getting paid by another department, because nobody else had the time for it.
Pledging to improve the volunteers' relationship with the district board and its own leadership, Janov became the volunteer chief in 2004 and was re-elected in 2005. He embarked on a months-long study of the department, assembling an Organizational Effectiveness Team (OET) that met regularly with an outside consulting firm to discuss long-smoldering problems with its management structure.
There was plenty to discuss. The volunteer chief had no direct control over Evergreen Fire/Rescue's emergency medical services, even though EMS was involved in answering most calls. A paid district administrator supervised EMS and several other divisions, and each division had its own set of not-always compatible rules and procedures; the administrator and Janov were known to butt heads over various issues. In fact, the volunteer chief had control over only 11 percent of the budget of the organization he supposedly led.
The more the OET team studied the issue, the more inescapable the conclusion became: What this two-headed monster needed was a single leader, a paid chief overseeing both paid staff and volunteers. It was a logical transition to make, but not everyone was prepared to accept it. A paid chief had been tried before, in the late 1980s, without any particular success. When he campaigned to become the volunteer chief, Janov himself had expressed skepticism about a paid leader: "The volunteer system is essential to providing the high level of service the citizens of Evergreen have come to expect," he wrote in one campaign tract. "I believe it would take significant changes in the [department] and/or the community to justify this idea."
But after a few months as a volunteer chief, Janov was all for the idea. "The simple explanation is that I changed my mind," he says. "I spent ten years in the volunteer ranks. Once you step outside of that and take on the responsibility of chief, your responsibility is no longer to the popular vote, but to the district board."
The decision wasn't his alone. The OET team included the district boardmembers and various division chiefs, as well as several members of the volunteers' own elected board. In late 2005 the team released a report recommending the hiring of a paid chief. The process would involve a national search for candidates, the report declared, and the new chief would have a minimum of five years of firefighting experience at a command level, as well as a bachelor's degree in an associated field.
The volunteers were understandably curious about what kind of hired gun would be found to fill the post. Imagine their surprise when, a few weeks later, the district board announced that the position had been filled without a national search. The new boss didn't meet the qualifications spelled out in the OET white paper and didn't even have a bachelor's degree. He was, however, already intimately familiar with the challenges facing the district. In fact, the new boss was the same as the old boss: Joel Janov.
"I think that was the turning point in the relationship," says Neppell. "The fire department has never resisted changes at a reasonable level. The issue was to hire someone who was qualified for this important new position. The board didn't do that. Joel was the one driving the process — and the one getting the position."
Board president Shanley points out that Janov was already serving not just as volunteer chief, but as "interim administrator" as well, after the district administrator had withdrawn from the ongoing conflict. "He seemed ultimately qualified to the board," Shanley says. "He did not seek or ask for the job. We asked him if he would be interested, and he did accept. It saved a lot of time, we had a known entity, and we really thought it was in the best interests of the taxpayers to save the expense of a national search."
Neppell had supported Janov in his run for volunteer chief and had even served as a campaign advisor. But what he and other volunteers wanted from a volunteer chief and expected from a paid chief seemed two entirely different things. The disparity still baffles Janov.
"It could have been handled differently and probably should have been, in hindsight," he says. "It's always amazed me that, during the two years I was elected, there was no question of my qualifications to be chief. But as soon as it was no longer their choice, my qualifications were in question.
"The way I was hired opened the door for resistance to be waged. For some of them, it was very personal."
As Janov saw it, the real battle he was facing had little to do with personality issues. He contends that anyone who took the role of paid chief seriously, who tried to impose new systems of accountability and transform Evergreen Fire/Rescue into a more professional organization, would have ended up with the same mess.
"In a lot of volunteer departments that go through this transition, the first chief rarely survives a year," Janov says. "The real question comes down to service and values and what the community can afford. What's the objective — to serve the community or preserve the institution? The ethical answer is that we're here to serve the community. A healthy organization would be able to go through this introspective process without the threat of recalls and votes of no confidence and all that."
The new chief considered change not only ethical, but inevitable. The rustic volunteer response was no longer adequate in a community as large and affluent as Evergreen. Calls for service rose by 50 percent over the past decade and now stand at more than 2,000 a year; they range from car wrecks and deadly wildfires in the backcountry to minor wiring glitches in downtown businesses and elderly residents who've fallen and can't get up. There were pressing issues of training, liability, officer selection and other matters that required immediate attention.
But the volunteers tended to regard Janov's urgent reforms as a kind of revolution, not evolution. They were skeptical of many of his claims. Yes, call volume was up compared to ten or twenty years ago, but the ranks of the volunteers had grown significantly, too. The department wasn't suffering many of the ills — a declining volunteer pool, inadequate response time and so on — focused on in the "Red Ribbon Report," which Janov appeared to be using as a blueprint to bring in more paid positions. And the notion that Evergreen could "afford" better service rankled many of the senior officers.
"That insults me on two levels," says Jim Pidcock, who joined the volunteers six years ago and comes from a family of firefighters. "We're not providing good service now? There's no way a paid fire department could handle what this department does. You'd have to double the current budget just to get to a minimum level of staffing. But if you piss enough people off, you're going to have to go to a paid department because there won't be enough volunteers."
The stage was set for clashes between the volunteers and the paid chief early in 2006, when Janov failed to get enough votes to change the Evergreen Volunteer Fire Department bylaws so that the paid chief would become the volunteers' "head line officer." Instead, the volunteers elected their own "operations chief," Evan Soibelman, setting up a dual system reminiscent of what Janov had faced as the volunteer chief dealing with a paid district administrator. (Soibelman didn't respond to a request for comment, nor did the president of the volunteers' elected board, Keith Haugrud. Several department veterans did speak to Westword about leadership issues but asked that their names not be used, out of concerns about retaliation.)
In the months that followed, skirmishes over operational questions between the volunteers and the chief, backed by the district board, became commonplace. At one point the two sides hammered out a "memorandum of agreement" addressing their respective responsibilities that appeared to be sufficiently vague to satisfy everybody; it acknowledged that the district board had ultimate authority over operating procedures, but the development of policies "governing fire operations, rescue and EMS by Volunteers, consistent with this goal shall be the responsibility of the Fire Operations Chief...under the direction of the Fire Chief." Still, what those words actually meant soon became the subject of a flurry of letters between board president Shanley, volunteer president Haugrud and others.
Many of the disputes boiled down to a couple of basic issues. Janov insisted that the chief had to be in charge of selecting officers, without the approval of the volunteer membership. To do otherwise, he suggested, was to leave open the possibility that the volunteers would elect their less-qualified but popular buddies to run things — a strange argument, perhaps, given that Janov himself had been the beneficiary of the popular vote, and one utterly rejected by most volunteers.
"Our people don't want to be led by somebody's buddy," one veteran says. "Their lives are at stake. They want the most qualified people. The board should have gone to the senior officers in the department for a reality check on what Joel was saying."
But Janov isn't impressed by assertions that the volunteers' chosen officers are the most qualified people. "Those are self-proclamations," he snaps. "Measured by whom? Who gets to decide what the minimum standards are?"
A related sore point involved Janov's efforts to revise standard operating procedures and make them consistent across divisions. The fire-district board and the chief are ultimately responsible for setting and maintaining standards, he points out, but the volunteers weren't eager to see the process turned over to elected officials who'd never fought a fire.
"That's important stuff, like how many people you send in on the hose line," notes Neppell. Yet even he concedes there might have been less fuss over altering bylaws and SOPs if the volunteers had had more confidence in the man who was leading them. Janov's my-way-or-the-highway style had alienated many former supporters, and there was a perception that the district board itself was no longer approachable, that they'd bought into Janov's crusade too deeply to change course.
"One of the boardmembers told my husband that he didn't have the right to an opinion because he hadn't lived here long enough," says Julie Kling. "The volunteers were totally stonewalled by the board. But they're elected officials. They should have to listen to any citizen who has an opinion."
By last fall, the internal squabbling had become serious enough that the board decided to conduct a survey of employee attitudes. The survey itself quickly became a matter of controversy. The announced results only gave general scores on job performance, working conditions and other broad categories, with "communication" and "climate" rating poorly. The volunteers' views on their chief were neatly cloaked in a largely neutral score on leadership matters. Narrative answers that the respondents were encouraged to provide weren't released at all, and some critics considered that another broken promise by the board.
"On the cover of the survey, it said those answers would be released verbatim. They never were," says Neppell, who was unable to obtain the raw data through an open-records request.
Putting together the OET white paper had required the services of one team of outside experts, and the survey brought in another. Janov's critics maintained that the department was now under siege by a plague of consultants, chewing through the budget like weevils in a boll of cotton. Some of the professionals — a financial-services firm charging $4,200 a month, a human-resources consultant billing around $5,000 a month — represented a kind of outsourcing; Janov says they provided a degree of expertise the department wouldn't get from a salaried employee.
But other consulting services were a bit unusual for an organization the size of Evergreen Fire/Rescue. The district shelled out $4,500 for Janov and a boardmember to attend a three-day seminar in conflict resolution and communication skills. It went on to pay the manager of a Castle Rock consulting firm $200 an hour to coach Janov and others on various niceties, including "effective behaviors and words," as they sought to ease the transition and resolve tensions; in the first four months of 2007, payments to that consultant alone topped $18,000. After some unflattering articles about the turmoil in the fire department ran in the Canyon Courier, the board also decided to retain the services of Peter Webb Public Relations for six months, at a cost of up to $5,000 per month. Soon consultants were billing the district for phone conferences with other consultants to work out a unified approach to the district's mushrooming interpersonal issues.
Janov defends tapping outside expertise to get the job done. "Any resemblance to any degree of professional business practice is seen as a threat by some," he says. "Why would any organization want to leave it to the uninformed masses to make decisions about conducting surveys when you have people out there with tremendous experience to help guide us?"
Jim Licko of Webb Public Relations says that the district has only a part-time public information officer and needed help getting its message out. "We're helping them out with an internal and external newsletter," he explains. "We're doing question-and-answer sessions with them, scheduling speaking opportunities with homeowner association boards and PTAs and things like that. It's pretty simple stuff."
Shanley readily defends the decision to bring in outsiders to help the board with "personnel matters" and communications. "We're all volunteers as well," he points out. "These professionals can do things neither the staff nor the board is capable of doing. I certainly couldn't write a newsletter."
While the board and the chief worked on a joint communication strategy, the volunteers could reach no consensus on how to proceed. Some wanted to handle the conflict in-house, if possible. Others were eager to go public, with the aim of enlisting citizens' support for a change of direction. Last fall, Pidcock and Neppell ran afoul of their colleagues over their scathing criticism of the chief; Pidcock, for example, had fired off an e-mail to the bylaw committee denouncing Janov as "a man who has created a job for himself through lies, printed jargon, scare tactics, political positioning and biased consulting groups."
Janov and the district board reportedly wanted to terminate Pidcock and Neppell, but they had no direct power to fire them. The volunteer leadership decided to suspend them instead. Undeterred, Neppell and Pidcock, along with volunteer George Kling, founded BEST, a recall committee targeting Janov's supporters on the district board. Neppell says the effort didn't get off the ground last fall because the volunteer leadership kept urging him to hold off. "Unfortunately, we've got some leaders who will negotiate forever, and they thought we should give [Janov] a chance," he says.
Most of the volunteers weren't keen on airing their laundry outside the firehouse, but it's clear they shared BEST's dismal opinion of the chief. In November, 79 percent of the membership voted no confidence in Chief Janov; a no-confidence vote on the district board tallied 84 percent. It was a clear rebuke of the reorganization effort — and an indicator of how low morale had become.
The no-confidence vote, coupled with the threat of a recall campaign, apparently caught the board's attention. Three weeks later, on December 18, Shanley announced that the board was beginning a national search for a new, full-time paid fire chief. Janov would remain in charge during the transition, however long that would be. A "transition services letter" dated December 28, signed by Janov and Shanley and recently obtained by Westword, states that the arrangement would end if the chief or the board "finds that the situation with the volunteers begins to deteriorate to a level that is no longer workable." It also states that Janov would no longer be involved in "strategic planning and other long-term goals."
Keeping Janov on the job in a limited fashion was another misstep by the board, says George Goldbach, a former chief of Denver's West Metro Fire Rescue. Goldbach, who has 45 years of experience in fire services, was brought in by the district last fall to help negotiate an end to the impasse with the volunteers; he quit two months ago, he says, frustrated with delays in the search for a new chief and disagreements with the board's management consultants. "Their consultants knew nothing about the fire service," he says. "You really have to know about it or have been in it to deal with the issues something like this presents."
Janov managed to stay on the job another four months — longer, it turned out, than the members of BEST. In March, as the chief's critics continued to press their case in letters to the editor, Pidcock and Neppell found themselves suspended again, along with Kling. Pidcock and Kling decided to resign from the department. Neppell was terminated over a letter to the Canyon Courier that was never published.
Part of the damage done by the turmoil of the past year, Neppell suggests, is the way the conflict has chilled discourse among the volunteers. "We used to have great e-mail exchanges on everything in the department," he says. "That all stopped. Most of the officer meetings were taken up with political issues, this guy and his agenda. It used to be we talked about how to best fight fires."
Phil Shanley believes the so-called bad blood between the board and the volunteers comes down to a series of misunderstandings, many of them semantic in nature. All the loose talk about transitions and how a "combination" department should run gave folks the impression that Evergreen Fire/Rescue might some day bring in paid firefighters to take the place of the volunteers, and that was never the board's intention, he insists.
"It's going to be 100 percent volunteer as long as I'm here," Shanley says. "And I believe that within the organization, we are pretty much on the same page now and ready to resolve what few issues may remain."
Some volunteers don't share Shanley's optimism, though. Last winter's announcement that Janov was on his way out was supposed to make things easier, but they say it actually added to the confusion: Why was he still there? When would the new chief arrive? What would happen then?
If Chief Janov was no longer involved in strategic planning, it didn't show in his management style. He continued to push his agenda; one veteran described him as "the most confident lame-duck CEO you've ever seen." And in February, when the board unveiled a document it described as the "roadmap" to the department's future, that document was rich in consultant-speak and had Janov's fingerprints all over it.
Shanley says the roadmap isn't a change of direction, but a clarification. "All we really are doing is transferring procedures and policies to the district," he says. "The procedures aren't going to change."
But the intentions as well as the semantics of the roadmap were as clear as a combustion event in a coal seam. "Volunteer fire fighting structure still is the preferred model, although not required," it declared. "As the District Board has authority over operational tasks, they are also the recognized authority for determining what work is done/not done."
Further clarification came in the April edition of Hot Topics, the newly inaugurated, consultant-tested official newsletter of EFR. "Popular votes will no longer exist for officer and management positions," the newsletter explained. The volunteers' elected board would no longer be responsible for "operational activities." There would be one set of standards, one chief, one staff handbook, one ring to rule them all, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them/In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie — or something like that.
For months, dissenters such as Neppell and Pidcock had argued that the proposed changes would turn the volunteers into unpaid employees, with no say over how they fought fires or who would lead them into a burning building. The roadmap and its subsequent clarifications didn't exactly dispel that impression, and friction between the camps continued to build as the April board meeting approached. There'd even been an exchange of words between Operations Chief Soibelman and a paid staffer, leading to some kind of disciplinary action that none of the parties cared to discuss publicly (though it did prompt more phone conferences with consultants). The incident, whatever it was, seemed to reinforce the notion that the volunteers needed their own elected leaders to represent them.
By the time the board meeting rolled around, Janov had handed in his resignation. "He recognized that, even though he was in an interim situation, he'd become something of a lightning rod," Shanley says. "He voluntarily resigned."
If he remains unemployed for the next nine months, Janov will receive a severance package worth $71,000. The board has retained the services of a national recruiting firm to help conduct the search for a new chief; the contract calls for initial costs and service fees ranging from $25,000 to $27,500. The process could take another four months; in the meantime, various management duties are being divided among boardmembers, division leaders and outside contractors.
Not everyone is prepared to wait. The BEST members have revived their effort to recall boardmembers Shanley and Klaus. They'd like to see the roadmap put on hold until a new chief is in place. But Shanley argues that a top-flight candidate will only be available if the reorganization is completed first, and he's hopeful that upcoming meetings between the board and the volunteers will straighten out their differences. The people campaigning for his recall, he says, are "outsiders" who are no longer in the loop and don't represent widespread community sentiment.
"They don't understand the progress we've made," he adds. "They're ill-informed."
But Julie Kling insists that Shanley is building a bureaucracy the taxpayers don't need. "There are times when you probably do need consultants," she says. "But when you've got a PR firm making several thousands of dollars a month off a fire department, it seems absurd."
Many volunteers would be happy if the PR wizards and the media simply went away. "All the public sees is that their fire department is in disarray," says one senior officer. "These stories can't do anything but erode their confidence in our ability to handle their emergencies."
Two days after the board meeting, the volunteers had a chance to do what they do best. A Sunday-afternoon fire at the Holly Berry flower shop on Highway 74 caused extensive damage and spread to the Evergreen National Bank next door, but the responding crews — including some from other departments — quickly got it contained.
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to Westword's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Denver's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
Joel Janov was not among them. He'd been less visible on calls since becoming the paid chief, and now there was no reason for him to be there. But he insists he has no hard feelings about his departure.
"It was clear to me that it was time for me to leave," he says. "I'm disappointed, to some extent, that I didn't get to see it through to the end. But I think it was time, and hopefully, it will help this transition."
On that, Janov and Neppell finally agree. "The next chief is going to have a very easy job," Neppell predicts. "Everyone is going to want him to succeed. And if he has leadership ability, it's going to be an easy situation for him."
But leadership ability depends on others' inclination to follow. And as Chief Janov discovered, a commander of volunteers has the power his people allow him to have, and no more.


text:
Bing Crosby White Christmas
QRS Cat #662150
Silent Night
Adeste Fideles
White Christmas
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
Faith of Our Fathers
I'll Be Home for Christmas
Jingle Bells
Santa Claus Is Coming to Town
Silver Bells
It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas
Christmas in Killarney
Mele Kalikimaka
What You Receive: The original audio CD plus a 3-digit access code for this CD. This will access and synchronize the corresponding SyncAlong piano files for this CD, which are contained on the CompactFlash card shipped FREE to first-time SyncAlong CD purchasers. Free Updates to these Piano Files will be issued regularly via this website.
Piano Transcribed & Played by: Michael T. Jones
Bing Crosby White Christmas
QRS Cat #662150

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Maple Leafs beat Capitals 3-2 for first home win
Nikolai Kulemin and Matt Frattin scored third-period goals to give the Toronto Maple Leafs their first home win of the season with a 3-2 comeback victory over the struggling Washington Capitals on Thursday night.
Kulemin tied it 2-all at 7:40 of the third, poking in a puck that squeezed through Michal Neuvirth's legs following Michael Kostka's shot from the point. As the Washington goalie tried in vain to squeeze his pads, Kulemin reached behind and nudged the puck in for his first of the year.
Frattin made it 3-2, capping a nice passing play with Nazem Kadri at 9:53 by tapping in the puck for his fourth goal - and sixth point - in four games.
The Maple Leafs lived dangerously in the final minutes as the Capitals (1-5-1) pressed for a tying goal that never came.
James van Riemsdyk also scored for Toronto (4-3-0), which outshot Washington 40-22. The Maple Leafs had their chances to take control earlier in the game, but a lack of clinical finishing and a failure to convert numerous power-play opportunities frustrated them before 19,374 at the Air Canada Centre.
Toronto, which came into the game ranked 20th on the power play, went 1 for 8 with the man-advantage. There were no penalties in the third period.
Alex Ovechkin doubled his goal output on the season when he scored on the power play at 2:38 of the second period, drilling a low wrist shot through James Reimer from just outside the faceoff circle for a 2-1 lead.
Joel Ward opened the scoring for Washington, which has yet to win on the road. Mike Ribeiro had two assists, upping his scoring total to one goal and seven assists.
Before the game, Ward noted on Twitter that baseball icon Jackie Robinson would have turned 94 on Thursday.
"Hope I represent the number well! 42," tweeted Ward, who wears the number in Robinson's honor.
The Capitals went ahead within the first 2 minutes of the game but then were assessed five straight penalties in the next 9 minutes and were outshot 15-7 in the first period. Toronto was on the power play for 6:11 of the first 20 minutes, managing to take advantage once.
Thanks to Ovechkin, the Caps led 2-1 midway through the game despite having only 10 shots.
The Leafs were coming off a 4-3 overtime win in Buffalo on Tuesday. Washington lost 3-2 in Ottawa the same night, giving up a 2-0 lead and conceding the winning goal on the power play with 2:30 remaining.
Going into the game, both teams had snipers stuck in neutral.
Ovechkin, who arrived with one goal and one assist, hasn't had an even-strength goal in his last 10 games, dating back to the 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs.
The Leafs showed him little respect, with captain Dion Phaneuf bowling him over in the Washington crease in the first period. The Capitals star did not manage a shot on goal in the first period.
Toronto sniper Phil Kessel, meanwhile, entered the game goalless with three assists in his first six games - failing to score on 27 shots in his bid for his 100th goal with the Maple Leafs.
His drought continued in the first period as Neuvirth stoned him from in close during a 4-minute power play with Jason Chimera off for hooking and unsportsmanlike conduct.
But a Kessel shot on the extended power play led to van Riemsdyk's goal as the big forward, stationed in front like a lamppost, tucked in the rebound for his fourth of the season at 8:19.
The Caps had jumped into the lead at 1:36 when Ribeiro, angling the puck from behind the goal, threaded a pass through several Toronto defenders to an unmarked Ward who fired it in.
Kessel, who had five shots in the first 40 minutes, was somehow denied by Neuvirth midway through the second when he tucked a shot between his legs from in-close. Neuvirth did it again with a glove save in the third.
Neuvirth, who deserved a better result, also stopped van Riemsdyk on a late breakaway.
Clarke MacArthur (finger), Mike Komisarek (eye) and Mike Brown (shoulder) sat out for the Leafs.
NOTES: Toronto claimed 6-foot-5, 230-pound forward Frazer McLaren off waivers from San Jose. The Maple Leafs also called up Marlies captain Ryan Hamilton and placed Mike Brown on injured reserve after he hurt his shoulder in a fight Tuesday. ... Washington forward Brooks Laich, recovering from a groin injury sustained playing in Europe during the lockout, took part in the morning skate for the first time this season. ... Toronto's homestand continues Saturday against Boston and Monday against Carolina.


text:
Buy DocSouth Books
Oral Histories of the American South
Document Menu
>> HTML Transcript
About this E-Transcript
Source Document
Editorial Practices
Helms, Jesse, interviewee
Interview conducted by Bass, Jack
Funding from the Institute of Museum and Library Services supported the electronic publication of this interview.
Text encoded by Mike Millner
Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers Southern Folklife Collection
First edition, 2006
Size of electronic edition:
72 Kb
The University Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library,
Documenting the American South.
Languages used in the text:
Revision history:
2006-00-00, Celine Noel and Wanda Gunther revised TEIHeader and created catalog record for the electronic edition.
2006-01-05, Mike Millner finished TEI-conformant encoding and final proofing.
Title of sound recording:
Oral History Interview with Jesse Helms, March 8, 1974. Interview A-0124. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007)
Title of series:
Series A. Southern Politics. Southern Oral History Program Collection (A-0124)
Jack Bass
Title of transcript:
Oral History Interview with Jesse Helms, March 8, 1974. Interview A-0124. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007)
Title of series:
Series A. Southern Politics. Southern Oral History Program Collection (A-0124)
Jesse Helms
81.7 Mb
18 p.
: Interview conducted on March 8, 1974, by Jack Bass; recorded in Unknown.
: Transcribed by Unknown.
: Forms part of: Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007): Series A. Southern Politics, Manuscripts Department, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
: Original transcript on deposit at the Southern Historical Collection, The Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Editorial practices
An audio file with the interview complements this electronic edition.
The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original.
The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.
Original grammar and spelling have been preserved.
All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.
All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as "
All em dashes are encoded as —
Interview with Jesse Helms, March 8, 1974.
Interview A-0124. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007)
Helms, Jesse, interviewee
Interview Participants
JESSE HELMS, interviewee
JACK BASS, interviewer
Page 1
Senator Helms, basically how did you get active in the Republican Party and in politics? You don't have a tradition of being a "politician".
Well, I've been on the perimeter of politics, I guess, all my life, all my adult life. As you know, I was a Democrat by registration until September of 1970, even though I never voted for a Democrat nominee for president. Never had that experience. I was in Washington two or three years in the early fifties as administrative assistant to two Democratic senators, as you know, and when the conservative faction of the Democratic Party prevailed in North Carolina, I did do some work for the party. I did some writing, I wrote speeches for a number of prominent Democrats from time to time, helped in other ways. But the party veered so far to the left nationally, and was taken over by the people whom I'd describe as substantially left of center in North Carolina. And I think I felt, as many other Democrats felt and feel, that really I had no real faith in the party. But I didn't do anything about it. Changing parties, changing party registration, is like moving from a church. But President Nixon's speech at Kansas State, I think it was, persuaded me that maybe the Republican Party in North Carolina and in the nation had a chance to restore the two-party system. Not merely in terms of electing a president, but in getting a Congress that could be reasonably expected to pull us back to the point of fiscal sanity. And in other matters.
So I quietly switched my registration, with no idea
Page 2
at all of ever being a candidate. I thought I would be able to contribute something, perhaps, to this two-party system. I'd done a little writing, or other things. And then, as soon as my registration switch had been made public, delegations of citizens—most of them Democrats—started coming to see me, and they wanted me to run for the Senate. And I laughed at them. The idea seemed absurd to me in terms of any real possibility, and in any case, I had a good job which I enjoyed. And I sent them away, with gratitude, of course, for the compliment. But it persisted. And finally, along about the first of January there came a group of people, Republicans and Democrats, with the same story. And they were so persistent that finally I said, "Well, you folks would like for me to run, but you know that I don't have a chance to win the Republican nomination, being in the party just a little over a year." They said, "Well, you're wrong about that. We think that you'd be surprised at the support you'd have if you would just come out." And I said, "Well, I don't agree with you." So as a parting shot, one of them said, "Would you object to our sending out some letters to test what might be the strength that you would have?" I said, "Well, you're going to invalidate what I've said to you, waste your postage and your time, but you can do that if you'd like. Just so long as it does not imply any commitment to run." Well, they sent out, as I recall, about four thousand letters of the customary type, saying that Jesse might run if you write to him and get three or four of your other friends to write. And maybe send him a dollar or two, on the condition that it be sent back to you if he does not run. Well, I thought that was the end of it, but within about two weeks we had, as I recall, about fifteen thousand pieces of mail and about $19,000 or $20,000 worth of money. And then I began to look at it seriously, and ultimately I got into it. That's a long answer to your question, but you asked for it.
Page 3
You said initially Democrats came to you, though?
Oh, yes.
Were they interested in you running as a Democrat?
Oh, yes.
In the primary.
Yes. They came for two reasons. One was an apprehension, which I did not share, that Senator Jordan would be defeated in the primary. Or that he might not survive. Now, that's a delicate thing, and I want you to be careful how you handle that, putting it in the book.
Right. Okay. Because of his health situation at that time.
Yes. I ask you, especially, that you handle this with care, because Senator . . . is still alive. He's in bad shape, but . . . there were many of his friends who were fearful that he could not survive the campaign. Of course, they were proved wrong. Then there were others who were disenchanted with Senator Jordan because they disagreed with him on his handling of the Bobby Baker case and for a variety of reasons. But they wanted some fire insurance in the event that something should happen to Senator Jordan, either defeat or worse, and that Mr. Galifianakis should prove to be the nominee. I didn't think that Mr. Galifianakis would be the nominee. I thought Mr. Jordan would. But they were right and I was wrong.
Do you see a realignment developing in North Carolina? Where do you see the conservative Democrats in North Carolina going? And by conservative Democrats, I think I'm really speaking of the kind of Democrat that you see in eastern North Carolina.
Well, I think that . . .
Who frequently, say, votes for George Wallace, who has a large following in the east.
Page 4
Well, I think that Governor Wallace is a symbol to a vast number of people in our state. I don't necessarily say that they're conservatives or moderates or liberals. I simply say that they are frustrated, because what they want, in my judgment, is somebody who will tell . . . who will level with them. Whether they agree with him or not. But who will tell them what he thinks and what he will do, and then do it. And George Wallace comes through as a man of that image. I'm sure that a lot of people who don't fully agree with George Wallace voted for him, simply because they felt that they could rely on his word. I hope, of course, that some of them voted for me for that reason. And . . . to answer your question, I don't think there's going to be any realignment until there is a persuasive force in the political life of our state, that can get across this message that I'm going to tell you the truth, and I'm going to do what I say to the best of my ability. Now, whether the Republican Party can do that, or whether the Democratic Party can do that, I don't know. It remains to be seen.
Do you think politics in North Carolina, then, are more likely to revolve around personalities than parties?
No, I think they revolve around issues. And a complete disenchantment with headstrong government that intruded into the lives of every citizen, whether it be in North Carolina or otherwise. And the people basically, both consciously and subconsciously, are rejecting the kind of government that deprives them of their decision making right. They are unhappy about inflation, and why shouldn't they be? They are unhappy about forced busing. You could pull any thread from the fabric, and you can find discontent. There's just a welling up of sentiment against too much government.
Page 5
When you use the term forced busing, what do you refer to specifically?
Well, I am speaking, of course, of government assignment of students on the basis of race. Now, we've got discrimination in reverse now, in this forced busing. In the idea of children being assigned to schools on the other side of town, just to achieve some sort of "racial balance" that satisfies the whims or caprice of some bureaucrat or judge or both. And that's the way I'd describe forced busing.
So with the Supreme Court mandate what it is at the moment, so far as school desegregation is concerned, and in urban areas where housing patterns tend to be based predominantly on race, how . . . what other means would be available to desegregate the schools?
Well, I'm not saying that desegregation is the important thing. I think education is the important thing, and one thing that everybody agrees on is that the quality of education is deteriorating. Now, I know you've seen the same polls that I've seen, that not . . . this is not a racial issue any longer, because black parents object to forced busing just as much as the white parents. And the hostilities in the schools and the frustration of the teacher in trying to cope with the situation, when the psychology of the classroom is just one of destruction and apathy and all the rest of it. Now, our schools are going to pot. Now, I think that my dear colleagues on the floor of the Senate are mistaking the mood of the people, and this may well affect their futures. I hope it will, because if they can't change their mind in the face of obvious fact, when they have been proved wrong, then they need to be eliminated from the Senate. If I'm wrong, they well may eliminate me. But I don't think I'm wrong.
Insofar as the Republican Party in North Carolina is concerned, how do you view your role in the party?
Page 6
Well, I think my first duty is to be as effective a senator in espousing and defending the principles which I believe. I don't want a faction in the Republican Party. I don't want to control the Republican Party, and I've never done anything to indicate otherwise. But if I have a role in the Republican Party, I hope it is one of persuading all Republicans that we have got to stand for principles. That we can't be honest, let alone win an election, by being a little bit liberal than the Democrats. We can't be all things to all men. We have got to take our stand. Now, if I can to any degree persuade the of the Republican Party that this is the way to go, in terms of being intellectually honest and politically successful, that I accept that role, if I can do it.
What do you see as the formula for growth of the Republican Party in North Carolina? There're two patterns that we keep hearing, talking to the Republicans throughout the South. One is the talk of realignment, attracting conservative Democrats who are uncomfortable in the Democratic Party. The other is broadening the base of the Republican party by attracting blacks, by attracting urban moderates, they usually refer to. By expanding their base in that direction.
Well, I think it's sheer folly to try to expand the base on any ethnic ratio. I would hope that we would expand the base by attracting all people, whatever their race, whatever age, religion, and all the rest of it, who share the fundamental concerns of what I believe the Republican Party should be . . . I think we should take our stand, win or lose, and let it all hang out. If we try to cajole and compromise, that's the road to defeat. The Republican Party has no future because the Democratic Party has demonstrated through the years, for a generation now, that it intends to
Page 7
buy votes any way that they can be bought. These giveaway programs, welfare and all the rest of them. Now, I don't want to be a Republican, a successful Republican, on that basis. I would rather be a private citizen. The Republicans may as well make up their mind that the left-wing spectrum has already been preempted. It's not available to them. Furthermore, if they . . . even if they could move in there, it would be intellectual dishonesty.
How do you view the party . . . define the fundamental concerns of the Republican Party, as you see them.
Well, I'm trying to articulate them, as a United States senator. Ask me specific questions and . . . that would launch . . . to answer that question in a general way would take up forty-five minutes. If you ask me specific questions . . .
If you had to encompass your basic philosophy, as you see it, applying to the Republican Party. If you had to summarize it, say, in one or two sentences, how would you summarize it?
Well, I couldn't do it, and no man alive could. But . . . and that's the trouble, trying to get a short cliche that'll fit. I think you've got to go on this . . . you've got to go, for example, with the absolute that this government cannot survive if it continues this fiscal irresponsibility, that has been practiced for a generation now. We have got to balance the budget. We have got to reduce government spending. We have got to remove the federal government from the lives of the people. The federal government was never envisioned to be a provider, a welfare organization. The Constitution very clearly tells us what the purpose of the federal government, the government was intended to be. And so, to . . . in the broadest possible sense, I think we've got to look at the historic fundamentals of this country. And to realize what government
Page 8
can do successfully, and should do. And what it cannot do. Now, that encompasses ten thousand things. The question is evident in practically every roll call vote we have. Price controls. The Republican Party ought to be against them, because they won't work, and the free market system is the only thing that is going to work. In gasoline or beef or anything else. Wage . . . minimum wages. This is a purely political device. Anybody who is honest with himself knows that every time you raise the minimum wage, either on the state level or on the federal level, you do nothing but lop off thousands upon thousands of jobs and put those people out of work. The free market must prevail, and the Republican Party, if it's going to mean anything, has got to take that position.
Now, what does the . . . when the Constitution refers to one of the roles of the federal government, to promote the general welfare, what does that mean to you?
It has nothing to do with the welfare system. Implicit, or perhaps explicit, in your question is the fact that you realize that. It would never envision that we'd have welfare payments, doles and handouts. I do think that the truly needy and worthy of society ought to be taken care of. I try to practice that in my private life as well as in my public life. But . . .
When you say "taken care of," do you mean by government or by private . . .
Well, I would hope privately. And there was a time in this country when the brotherhood of man was important to most people. The churches were not so politically involved, and they did that sort of work. And other organizations. But even government's role, I would accept, on the basis that aid was limited to those who truly needed it and deserve it.
Page 9
As a matter of fact, I think the truly needy and the truly worthy are being shortchanged by the existing welfare system. I could give you countless examples from our files where people who have no political clout, they don't belong to these pressure groups, they have difficulty in getting what they are entitled to under the law. And this is common to all federal programs. They are born of iniquity, and therefore iniquities will exist.
What do you think has been the effect of Watergate on the conservative cause?
I think that Watergate has had no effect on the conservative cause, except in, perhaps, as frustrated individual conservatives, who realize that Richard Nixon is a symbol of conservativism, while not being a conservative.
I don't want to get into Watergate in any detail, for obvious reasons, at this time, but what effect do you think it will have on the development of the Republican Party in North Carolina and the South?
Well, I don't know. In a case like that it's highly theoretical at best. Our gain, I think, it depends on how many Republicans are willing to exert the energy to do the necessary work in standing up for things that really matter. There are two sides to this Watergate thing. The passage of time has obscured public awareness of the frame of reference for Watergate. I expect that if Mr. Nixon, in the fall of '72, or whenever it was, the publicity was mushrooming, began to mushroom about Watergate. If he had stepped forward and said, "Yes, we tried to find out about Ellsberg, because Ellsberg is a thief. He was perfectly willing to be a traitor." I think that, instead of condemning the burglary, that the American people, right or wrong, would have cheered. People have forgotten, now, that a bomb went off in the capitol over
Page 10
here, and blew out the window of the dining room, that the cracks are still in. They have forgotten the burning campuses and the mobs in the streets, and the bums who were spitting on the American flag. Now, if the Republicans should all of a sudden decide to say, "Now, wait a minute. I don't like burg . . . bugging and burglary any more than you do. But let's put this thing in perspective."
And I think, also, that the Republicans ought to make the American people aware that the United States Senate—and you can go to the record and look at it—that the United States Senate overtly refused to examine any corruption in politics except that one year. We tried to get an overall picture of it, so that the purpose of the Committee, as I understand the way these things operate, and that is to see if further legislation is needed. That's the only excuse for a congressional committee, by the way. To see whether we ought to take care that there is not a repeat performance of Bobby Kennedy, who tapped the telephones of everybody in sight, including thirty-eight senators of the United States. But you never read about that. The Republicans . . . the Watergate crowd, I disassociate the Republican Party from the Committee to Re-elect. And I don't do that as a matter of convenience. I think it's a fact, because the Republican National Committee had no idea what was going on. There's plenty of evidence for that.
But I think it's time the Republicans put this thing in perspective, not only as to the prevailing conditions at the time it happened, but let's see who else has been doing it. And collect the whole smelly mess of American politics. But, no, the Ervin Committee was set up for the one purpose of dragging through this 1972 campaign, period. Not a thing was said about the Democratic primary, presidential primary of '72, when all sorts of dirty tricks went on. Not a thing was said about Jack Kennedy
Page 11
buying the vote in West Virginia in 1960. Hubert Humphrey would be a good witness on that. Not a thing was said about the libels and slanders about Goldwater in '64. Who did that? Did Ehrlichman do it? Haldeman? I'm not defending Ehrlichman and Haldeman. I scarcely even know them. But Barry Goldwater was libeled and slandered from one end of this country to the other, but oh, no. We won't look into that. We will just confine ourselves to that poor little sweet Ellsberg, whose only crime was willingness to sell out his country and to steal documents from the government of the United States and turn them over to an irresponsible
New York Times
. If that's too harsh, so be it.
Getting back to the Republican Party in North Carolina, at least I think there's a general public perception there being, basically, a Helms wing and a Holshouser wing, and there's been, within the party, the Rouse-Bennett fight, as it's called. And then there's been the maneuverings, if I may use that word, leading up to the senatorial, the announcements of the senatorial campaign, the current one, between Senator Horton and Stevens. How do you feel about all of that? Those affairs?
Well, I remember a question like that was asked of the governor of North Carolina. He said, "Yes." You must be the guy who'll put the Lord's Prayer on the head of a pin. You'll have to break it down again, and I apologize for being so verbose, but there's no simple . . .
Well, let me ask you this question. Do you feel that Governor Holshouser's moving in the wrong direction to build the Republican Party in North Carolina?
I couldn't say that he is. I don't know. What do you think?
I certainly don't know. If you were governor, what would you be doing to build the Republican Party?
Well, I would have been for the med school at East Carolina
Page 12
University, and the governor knows I differ with him on that. I would not have permitted an associate of mine to precipitate the Rouse confrontation. I would not have—now I don't know to what extent . . .
Am I correct in assuming that that's a reference to Gene Anderson's role?
Well, I have to let you draw your own conclusions about that. I don't want to attack anybody, but I . . . because I don't know for sure . . . but I have been told that the governor was perfectly willing to work with Rouse and others were not. But I would have seen, had it been Jesse Helms—now I may well have been in there, or had I been governor, which I'm not—speaking hypothetically, but I would have seen an opportunity to weld together the two elements of the party. I would have certainly tried it. Maybe it couldn't have been done. But I took the position in the Rouse thing, that . . . while Frank himself will acknowledge that at times he's been a bull in a china shop, the fact remains that he was chairman of the party when the state of North Carolina elected the first Republican senator and the first Republican governor of the twentieth century. And I simply thought the man was owed some credit. Furthermore, Rouse did his best to help me in 1972, and I could not forget that, so, with that statement, I sort of stayed out of it. But . . . I forgot where I was . . . I think that's all I want to say on it.
Well, how about on the Horton-Stevens situation, where Senator Horton also was a supporter of yours?
Well, I can only tell you the chronology of the events as I viewed them. I've known Mr. Stevens only casually. Ham Horton I have known somewhat better. My contacts with both have been limited. I was strongly in favor of Wilmer Mizell running, and I did what I could to encourage
Page 13
him to consider being a candidate. And I thought that he was going to be a candidate. Somewhat at the eleventh hour, Wilmer decided that he would not run. And I was chagrined about that, as were all the other Republicans, far as I know. There became an immediate scramble to find a suitable candidate to succeed Wilmer in that role.
Now, at this point, I'll have to tell you what I understand the situation to have been, as reported to me by Tom Ellis, who was my campaign manager. Tom met with Governor Holshouser and Gene Anderson and Horton and others—I won't attempt . . . Tom will give you the names if you're interested, and he can give you a more accurate resume of what happened. But both the governor's people and Mr. Ellis apparently agreed that Ham would be an excellent candidate. Tom knew of no mention of Mr. Stevens, no consideration by Mr. Stevens concerning the candidacy. Tom and others went to Ham and urged him to run. I was called and told of the meeting with the governor, and what did I think of Ham Horton? I said, "Well, I think he'll be a fine candidate." They said, "Well, fine. Would you send Ham a wire?" I did. It so happens I sent him a wire the same day that I talked about thirty minutes on the telephone with Mr. Stevens about a furniture price control problem, and we discussed everything in the book, and he didn't mention his candidacy.
The very next day, I had a call from Mr. Broyhill, Jim Broyhill, the Republican congressman, asking me if I was supporting Stevens for the nomination. And I said, "What are you talking about?" I said, "I sent a wire yesterday for Ham Horton and I talked to Bill yesterday and he didn't mention it. Is he running?" He said, "Oh, yes." And that was the first time . . . knowledge I had of the Stevens candidacy. So, I agreed to write a letter to Stevens, in which I commended him for his interest in government and all the rest. I simply said the same thing I said to Ham. And that's all there was to it.
Now, whether any sandbagging
Page 14
went on, I cannot testify to it. I don't know. All I know is that I trust Tom Ellis as being an honorable man who gets his facts straight, and Tom is just climbing the wall about this thing. But you ought to pick that end up from Tom, if you're going to pursue it. Because all I've done is be a . . . on the receiving end up here of that one. For my part, it was no effort to get a Helms candidate, because, as I said at the outset, I don't want a Helms faction in the Republican Party. I don't want to control the Republican Party. Have no intention of trying it. Never have. If I did, I think I would have been a little more adroit and a little more involved in the Rouse thing, and certainly in this candidate thing. But I have . . . I've been trying to do my job here, because I think that's what I was elected to do.
Will this whole episode affect how much effort you put into the Republican campaign this fall, insofar as that Senate race is concerned?
No. My efforts in any case would have been limited, because the Senate's going to be in session and . . . but I'll do what I properly can. Because Mr. Stevens is a fine man. Now will this book be published after the election?
Yes, it will.
Is there any way that it could be disclosed publicly prior to November that my anticipation was going to be, if I tell you?
Probably could.
Well, I won't say it, then.
Oh, no. I thought you wanted me to. No, no. No. No. No.
[Recorder is turned off and then back on.]
. . . Holshouser in '72. How did you campaign, what was your relationship in that campaign?
Page 15
We . . . Jim felt that we ought to go our own ways, and run as a team, but yet run our own campaigns. There was no coordination of the two campaigns. No. And I think the same is true in the Democratic Party. I ran for the Senate, Jim ran for governor. Skipper Bowles ran for governor, and Nick Galifianakis ran for Senate. This is historic. To make anything unique out of that would be a mistake. It's always been that way, according to my observation. Now, furthermore, Jim had appeal that I did not possess. I may have had some that he did not possess. I had strength in the east, no question about that. Showed up in the map. He had strength in the west. How much vote he got in the east as a result of my being on the ticket, I don't know. How much vote I got in the west as a result of him being on the ticket, I don't know. But we had a . . . it was a pretty good situation because of the complexity and diversity of the many aspects of the four campaigns. That is to say, Galifianakis, Helms, Bowles, and Holshouser. So it all fit into the funnel, came out right, from my standpoint and Holshouser's standpoint. I don't know whether this could be repeated in another year or not. I don't know.
If you had to . . . where do you see the . . . well, two questions. Where do you see the Republican Party going now, in party building and grooming candidates? Do you see them emerging as a majority party in North Carolina, state level?
Not any time soon.
And why? I mean, what's the major problem that they have to overcome on that?
Well, I think we've already answered that. They've got to groom candidates . . . you don't . . . you don't . . . you don't take over and be the
Page 16
dominant party unless you have people in office. And one or two people, even the two top statewide offices . . . it's the same thing . . . the Republican Party did not take over the United States because Nixon was elected twice. And because Holshouser is governor and Helms is senator doesn't mean that the election is going to flip over. Because what's happening is that party labels don't mean anything any more to the majority of people. They registered Democrat for various reasons, as they register Republican. But when the push comes to the shove, I think the people are very discerning. They go to the man, and I think it's perfectly possible that a fellow could run . . . a good man could run on the independent party ticket and conceivably beat a Republican and a Democrat in our state—provided he had the principles and was able to articulate his concerns and all the rest of it. So I think more than anything else, party labels don't matter to people any more.
If George Wallace endorses some campaigns on the national Democratic ticket in 1976, whether or not he's on it, what effect do you think that'll have in North Carolina and in the South?
Well, it depends on who he endorses. If he endorses Ted Kennedy or somebody like that, George McGovern, it wouldn't make a particle of difference. You'd have to name me the candidate.
You don't think the fact of Wallace's endorsement in campaigning for the ticket in itself would be a factor?
Well, it would be a factor, but not a compelling one. There are a lot of people who love George Wallace, but they're not necessarily going to transfer their allegiance to him to somebody that he likes. And this is historically politics, too. Even Franklin Roosevelt, who tried to purge Walter George down in Georgia. You just can't transfer it, I don't think. Do you?
Page 17
It's difficult.
Suppose it was someone like Scoop Jackson. What would be the difference between Wallace staying out of it, and Wallace being actively involved? As an endorser or a campaigner?
Well, you get into a situation there where you would have to throw into that equation what is going to be done to analyze Senator Jackson's posture on various issues. For example, he three times participated in the blocking of an anti-busing amendment of mine. Well, he didn't have to do it. Now, this would be made known to the people of the South. I told Scoop, I said, "You have just thrown away the South." And it shook him. And the second time around he wouldn't . . . if you go to the record and you can find where he and Javits did a toe dance on who was going to make the motion to table my amendment—it was "Oh, you do it." "No, I'd be happy for you to do it, Senator."—on the floor. Because Scoop knew what was involved in the thing. So I would say that Wallace's endorsement of Jackson would be negated immediately by a complete revelation of what Senator Jackson did on the anti-busing thing, for example. And there would be other issues. This energy situation has not been brought fully to the attention of the American people. Jackson took the point of view that the way to solve it was to cuss out the oil companies, and limit prices and all the rest of it. But I think that it's perfectly possible that the American people can be persuaded that this was exactly the wrong approach, to solve the crisis.
You know, your critics . . . some of your critics say that when you bring up anti-busing, that in effect it's arousing traditional southern racial fears and antagonisms.
Baloney. They know they're talking through their hats. It's
Page 18
nothing southern about it. They ought to see how the folks in New York feel about it, in the case they're being bossed . . . bused. Boss is right too.
Without the southern part, how about their charge that it does arouse racial antagonisms and fears?
Well, baloney again, because the surveys show that eighty, eighty-seven percent, isn't it? Eighty-seven percent of the Negro parents polled objected to forced busing. I've not had one black to write to me saying that he wanted forced busing for his child. We have had many blacks to write to us saying, "Senator, I didn't vote for you, but you're right about this. I prefer my child to walk to school."
Is there anything else you wanted to comment on concerning southern or North Carolina politics, that we haven't discussed?
I can't think of a thing.
Contact Us
DocSouth Data
UNC Library
UNC-Chapel Hill


text:
Protecting your personal information and ensuring your account information is secure is a top priority at Stockholmscu National Bank. We are committed to helping you recognize fraud and learn how to protect yourself.
REMEMBER: Stockholmscu National Bank will NEVER ask you to provide or verify account or login information by email, phone or text message. This includes account numbers, user IDs, passwords, and debit or credit card information.
Familiarize yourself with the following information to find out how we protect you and how you can protect yourself by identifying, preventing and reporting fraudulent activity.
Your data and your online banking experience should be safe and secure. Stockholmscu National Bank uses the latest in technology to provide a secure online banking environment.
The Stockholmscu Online Banking Services uses industry-standard technology, including password-controlled entry, data encryption using 128-bit Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol, and firewalls and filtering routers. Each security component acts as a layer of protection to safeguard sensitive data from unauthorized users.
A private user ID and password is required to log into our Online Banking Services.
You are required to change this password during your first online banking session.
You must set security questions and answers during enrollment, providing an extra layer of security.
You should keep your password and user ID absolutely private.
You are responsible for the safekeeping of your password and you agree not to disclose or otherwise make the password available to anyone who is not authorized to sign on your accounts.
If you log in to an online banking session and then leave your computer, our system will log you out automatically after 20 minutes of inactivity.
If your password is changed, an automated security alert is sent to your email address on file.
An automated security alert is sent to you anytime one of the following events occur on your Online Banking Services profile.
Changed password
Changed email address
Changed physical address
Created a new payee
Once you have logged in correctly, you will enter a secure environment in which you can conduct your transactions safely.
Information you provide while logged into Online Banking is encrypted, meaning your account information is scrambled as it moves between your computer and Stockholmscu's computer systems. This makes information nearly impossible for anyone other than Stockholmscu National Bank to read it. Any information Stockholmscu National Bank provides to you is also encrypted.
Stockholmscu National Bank uses SSL, the leading security protocol, to encrypt data that travels between the bank and customer. Click here to see how SSL works.
Stockholmscu is protected by a series of firewalls and filtering routers which verify the source and destination of the requests traveling in information packets.
A firewall is set up to reject any unauthorized traffic. Firewalls allow legitimate data through when necessary, closing entry to Stockholmscu National Bank systems as soon as the transaction is complete.
A router keeps out traffic that does not come from one of the only two legitimate ends of a secured transaction: the customer or the bank.
The above security measures keep your transactions safe and secure over the Internet while using Stockholmscu Online Banking Services.
At Stockholmscu National Bank, keeping your sensitive information both private and accessible is our priority. Following are a few tips on how you can protect yourself from online fraud and keep your data safe and secure.
If you receive an email that warns you that an account of yours will be shut down unless you confirm your account information, DO NOT REPLY OR CLICK ON A LINK IN THE EMAIL.
Instead, contact the company cited in the email using a telephone number or web site address you know to be genuine.
Before submitting financial information through a Web site, look for the padlock icon on the browser's status bar.
The padlock signals that your information is being transmitted over a secure connection. Double-click the padlock icon for verification of the Web site you are using.
Review credit card and bank account statements as soon as you receive them to determine whether there are any unauthorized charges.
If your statement is late by more than a week, call your credit card company or bank to confirm your billing address and account balances.
If using online banking services, keep your login credentials confidential.
User names, passwords or security questions/answers should not be given out nor written down. It is a good idea to change your password every 45 days or so.
If using Stockholmscu Online Banking Services, be sure to check your daily/weekly email notification.
This notification can alert you to suspicious activity long before your monthly statement is issued.
Install virus protection software on your computers and run full system scans often.
Be sure you have the most up-to-date version of your virus protection software installed!
REMEMBER - Stockholmscu National Bank does not send out unsolicited emails that require you to provide or divulge any account information. If you are in question about any email you receive from Stockholmscu National Bank, please contact your Personal Banker or local branch. You may also email us at: firstname.lastname@example.com. Do not send any personal information in an email (such as account numbers, etc.) as email is not a secure form of communication.
Visit one of the following sites for more information on ways to avoid email scams, and how to deal with deceptive spam.
If you suspect you are a victim of an attack (phishing, vishing, text message, etc.), take the following actions immediately.
If you clicked on a link within a suspicious email:
Be sure to report the suspected fraud to the bank and the proper authorities immediately by following the steps found at Reporting Fraud.
If you receive a suspicious email that says it's from Stockholmscu, forward the entire email to email@example.com. Do not click any links or act on any instructions in the email.
If you suspect your personal information has been compromised, or you may have inadvertently compromised your Stockholmscu account, contact Customer Care immediately at 1-877-968-7962.
Be sure to take immediate action to protect yourself by following the steps found on If You are a Victim of Online Fraud.
In addition, contact the following three major credit bureaus to place a fraud alert on your credit file:
You can get three (3) credit reports free each year from the nationwide reporting agencies: one each from Equifax, Experian and TransUnion.
Any suspicious phishing email should be forwarded to:
The Internet gives you easy access to information, allowing you to perform many functions from the privacy of your own computer. Unfortunately it can also leave you vulnerable to online fraud. Online criminals continue to become more sophisticated in their scams to steal information from you. Learn more about the different types of online fraud in order to better protect yourself from falling victim to this type of criminal activity. Following are some of the most well-known types of online fraud. The more you know, the better you can keep your computer and your private information secure.
Phishing is the most common online fraud. Consumers are randomly targeted by criminals sending out mass emails usually containing an urgent message regarding account status, with instructions to click a link within the email directing them to a fraudulent website. Once the consumer clicks the link, he/she is exposed to the threat of having personal information stolen, including bank account information, user IDs and passwords, and social security numbers.
Remember, Stockholmscu will never send out an email requesting personal information from customers! Regardless of how legitimate an email or website may appear, NEVER respond to any email that instructs you to provide ANY personal information.
Vishing is the latest variation of the phishing scam. Vishing (a combination of the words "voice" and "phishing") often involves an automated recording made to a victim, alerting the consumer that their credit or debit card, or bank account has had fraudulent or unusual activity, followed by instructions to call a phone number immediately. When the victim calls this phone number, it is typically answered by automated instructions to enter credit or debit card information, bank account information or other private information such as PIN, date of birth, social security number, etc. Once the consumer enters this information, the criminal (visher) has the information necessary to make fraudulent use of the credit or debit card, or access to bank accounts.
Vishing is very difficult to monitor or trace. The vishing phone number can show up on caller ID as the name of the financial institution they are pretending to represent. Be highly suspicious of ANY message directing you to call and provide credit, debit or bank account information. Contact your bank or credit card company directly to verify the validity of the message.
Malware (a combination of the words "malicious" and "software") is software that criminals use to access your computer without your consent or knowledge. Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses and spyware. Once malware is on your computer, criminals can use it to steal information, send spam, and commit fraud, as well as inflict damage to your computer system and software.
For more information about malware, including how to identify it and steps to take if you suspect malware is on your computer, visit OnGuard Online Malware Quick Facts .
This email scam supposedly originated from Nigerian "officials" who needed your help getting their money which was tied up due to strife in their country. This scam is no longer limited to emails from Nigeria, but are commonly received from people in countries around the world sending you offers to transfer potentially thousands of dollars into your bank account if you will simply pay a fee to help them access their money. Typically these emails are followed by additional emails requesting you send more money to cover transactions and transfer costs, attorney's fees, blank letterhead, and most seriously, your bank account numbers.
If you receive an email from someone in a foreign country claiming to need your help getting money out of another country DO NOT RESPOND!
This type of criminal activity uses the Internet to steal through foreign lottery offers, money offers and check overpayment schemes. These solicitations are phony and illegal. Be aware that foreign solicitations such as these are from crooks trying to steal your money, or commit identity theft, and you should NOT respond to them.
For more information regarding cross-border scams, including how to identify them and steps to take if you suspect you have received or responded to one, visit OnGuard Online Avoiding Online Scams .
Suspicious Telephone Calls Claiming to Be From the FDIC
Suspicious telephone calls claiming to be from FDIC employees are being reported. These calls appear to be illegal schemes to steal money or collect sensitive personal information, such as bank account numbers.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has received numerous reports of suspicious telephone calls where the caller claims to represent the FDIC and is calling regarding the collection of an outstanding debt.
To date, the callers have alleged that the call recipient is delinquent in payment of a loan that was applied for over the Internet or made through a payday lender. The loan may or may not actually exist. The caller attempts to authenticate the claim by providing sensitive personal information, such as name, Social Security number, and date of birth, supposedly taken from the loan application. The recipient is then strongly urged to make a payment over the phone to "avoid a lawsuit and possible arrest." In some instances, the caller is said to sound aggressive and threatening.
These suspicious telephone calls are fraudulent. Recipients should consider them as an attempt to steal money or collect personal identifying information. The FDIC generally does not initiate unsolicited telephone calls to consumers and is not involved with the collection of debts on behalf of operating lenders and financial institutions.
If a caller demonstrates that he or she has the recipient's sensitive personal information, such as Social Security number, date of birth, and bank account numbers, the recipient may be the victim of identity theft and should review his or her credit reports for signs of possible fraud. The individual should also consider placing a "fraud alert" on his or her credit reports. This can be done by contacting one of the three consumer reporting companies listed below. Only one of the three companies needs to be contacted. That company is required to contact the other two, which will place an alert on their versions of the report.
Information about counterfeit items, cyber-fraud incidents and other fraudulent activity may be forwarded to the FDIC's Cyber-Fraud and Financial Crimes Section, 550 17th Street, N.W., Room F-3054, Washington, D.C. 20429, or transmitted electronically to firstname.lastname@example.com . Questions related to federal deposit insurance or consumer issues should be submitted to the FDIC using an online form that can be accessed at http://www2.fdic.gov/starsmail/index.asp .
For your reference, FDIC Special Alerts may be accessed from the FDIC's website at www.fdic.gov/news/news/SpecialAlert/2010/index.html . To learn how to automatically receive FDIC Special Alerts through e-mail, please visit www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/index.html .
Sandra L. Thompson
Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection
Distribution: All FDIC-Insured Institutions
The following are examples of phishing emails received by customers. Keep the following in mind while reviewing these emails:
Software that protects computers from viruses and other malicious software/code, including those that can destroy data, steal private information, and affect computer performance.
The program that serves as your front end to the World Wide Web on the Internet. Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator and Mozilla Firefox are three popular browsers. When a site says, "best viewed by Netscape Navigator", "best viewed by Internet Explorer," or "best viewed by Mozilla Firefox," it means that the pages were programmed for that particular browser. Using other browsers may ignore some of the page's fancy features until a subsequent release supports them.
In computing, a cookie is a small text file stored on a user's computer by a web browser. Cookies can consist of information such as user preferences, shopping cart contents, identifiers for server-based sessions, or other data used by websites.
The scrambling of data into a secret code that can be read only by software set to decode the information.
A method to prevent unauthorized Internet users from accessing private computers or networks, utilizing software and/or hardware to examine messages and blocking those that do not meet a specified set of security criteria.
It can be implemented in a single router that filters out unwanted packets, or it may use a combination of technologies in routers and hosts. Firewalls are widely used to give users access to the Internet in a secure fashion as well as to separate a company's public Web server from its internal network. They are also used to keep internal network segments secure.
Following are the types of techniques used individually or in combination to provide firewall protection:
Fraud that involves a criminal stealing another's personal information in order to steal money, open new credit or debit cards, and commit other crimes using the stolen identity.
Keystroke logging, or Keylogging, is a special type of virus that can capture keystrokes such as login IDs, passwords and security answers. Keylogging viruses are typically downloaded via a fraudulent email containing an attachment.
A fraudulent process of attempting to acquire private information such as usernames, passwords and account numbers by impersonating a trustworthy entity and sending out mass email communications. Emails typically contain an urgent message requesting recipients to click a link within the email which directs them to a fake website to enter personal information in order to verify credentials, activate an account or respond to a possible breach in the recipient's security.
A device that forwards data packets from one local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN) to another. Based on routing tables and routing protocols, routers read the network address in each transmitted frame and make a decision on how to send it based on the most expedient route (traffic load, line costs, speed, bad lines, etc.).
The leading security protocol on the Internet.
When an SSL session is started, the browser sends its public key to the server so that the server can securely send a secret key to the browser. The browser and server exchange data via secret key encryption during that session. Developed by Netscape, SSL has been merged with other protocols and authentication methods by the IETF into a new protocol known as Transport Layer Security (TLS).
© 2018 Stockholms Credit Union
Member FDIC | Equal Housing Lender
Messages go here


text:
Evan Rachel Wood and Jamie Bell have tied the knot, Us Weekly reports.
The couple married in a small ceremony in California on Oct. 30 in front of close family and friends.
Report: True Blood's Evan Rachel Wood engaged to Billy Elliot starWood and Bell have been engaged since early 2012, but things haven't always been smooth sailing for the couple. The True Blood actress and Billy Elliot star met in 2005 while shooting a Green Day video and started dating. Though the pair got tattoos of each other's initials in 2006, they split up not long after.Wood then took up with notorious rocker Marilyn Manson, to whom she was also engaged, until the actress called it off in 2010.Wood and Bell then reunited in the summer of 2011.


text:
Elizabeth Avedon asks "What are the Top 3 Selling Photography Books of All Time?"
Elizabeth Avedon recently posted an interesting piece on her photo blog entitled "Top 3 Selling Photography Books of All Time." Keeping the focus on fine art photography, Avedon posed this as a question to a number of her fellows in the photo world and received an interesting variety of titles, along with plenty of like-minded answers. photo-eye's Rixon Reed, Melanie McWhorter and Eric Miles were among those polled for their opinions.
It's a difficult thing to gauge -- drawing the line between photobook and fine art photobook is tricky and statistics don't appear to be forthcoming. Just out of curiosity, I checked Amazon.com for their current list of best selling photography books (which is apparently updated hourly), moving down it for the first book that would qualify as fine art. At number 30, Take Ivy by T. Hayashida, a powerHouse reprint of the 1965 fashion classic, walks the line. At number 45 was Infidel by Tim Hetherington, published by Chris Boot, which some might criticize as being more documentary than fine art, despite its brilliantly powerful images and thoughtful layout and design. At number 52 I found Revealing Mexico with photographs by John Mack, also from powerHouse.
Avedon settled on The Family of Man curated by Edward Steichen, The Americans by Robert Frank and Looking at Photographs curated by John Szarkowski as the top three. It's fascinating to see the responses (there are some great thoughts in the comments as well), which I suspect also reflect some amount of wanting. There will always be a long list of books that many feel should have been best sellers, but just never were (which would be another interesting list to compile). Avedon's post makes me wonder how a book can merge financial success with artistic impact -- though it is perhaps arguable how much the quality of the images inside have to do with overall sales. There are certainly plenty of astounding photography books published every year, what is it that makes one a best seller? And just when does the commercial success of a book preclude it from being well received in the fine art world?
Read Avedon's blog post here.
Labels: Books
2 comments:
You've asked the question all artists want to know the answer to:ReplyDelete
"how a [insert 'work of art' in place of 'book' here] can merge financial success with artistic impact."
Cape Light by Joel Meyerowitz comes to mind as a photo book that succeeds on both levels. This well-established street photographer's first published series using a large-format camera was a huge commercial success when initially released in the late seventies. At the time, color work was not always taken seriously, and the title was most likely marketed as a travel pictorial. Although this luminescent photo book has never received the respect it deserves, Cape Light has sold well enough to remain in print for over thirty years.ReplyDelete
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Rudy Rudolph caught seven passes for 135 yards and two touchdowns for Christopher Newport in a USAC-clinching win at Ferrum.
CNU athletics photo
If it seems like we have a lot of automatic bids already clinched, well, you're right. With 20 down and just five to go, an unprecedented number of bids have already been claimed.
That doesn't stop teams from potentially shooting themselves in the foot (Albion, Thomas More), however. There are 12 teams who clinched this week and many play in Week 11. Keith McMillan and Pat Coleman talk about each of those 12, plus a classic Mount Union/Baldwin-Wallace game and much more in this week's Around the Nation Podcast. Scroll to the bottom and read the tags to see which teams are mentioned in this week's show.
You can also get this and any of our future Around the Nation podcasts automatically by subscribing to this RSS feed: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/?feed=podcast
Plus, here's the first look at this week's D3reports, as well as Division III football highlight reels. These will also appear on the front page on Monday afternoon.


text:
Old Dominion's young men's basketball team is suddenly even younger, after the discovery that veteran Donte Hill exhausted his eligibility.
Hill, a Virginia Beach native who would have been the team's only senior, transferred to ODU from Clemson following the fall semester of 2010. He didn't play for the Tigers that fall, but the issue is a closed exhibition game in which he played in October 2010 that counted toward his future eligibility clock.
Hill and the ODU coaching staff were under the assumption that he had 21/2 years of eligibility remaining when he transferred. Instead, he had only 11/2 years. He played the second half of the 2011-12 season for the Monarchs and was a team captain and starter all of last season.
Neither Hill nor new ODU coach Jeff Jones was available for comment.
The news about Hill was another gut punch for a program that took a nosedive following a remarkably successful eight-year run. Blaine Taylor, the winningest coach in ODU history, was dismissed in February for personal issues in the midst of a 5-25 season, the program's worst since the 1940s.
The Monarchs, who will compete in Conference USA beginning next season, were prohibited from competing in the CAA tournament last March, as an outgoing member.
Hill, who starred at Norfolk Collegiate High, played 23 games in a limited role as a freshman at Clemson under former coach Oliver Purnell. After Purnell left to take the DePaul job, the Tigers hired Brad Brownell.
In preseason of his sophomore year, Hill played in a closed exhibition game against Georgia on Oct. 30, 2010, according to Clemson officials. In the days that followed, he went to Brownell and said that he intended to transfer.
Hill did not play in Clemson's open exhibition one week later, or in any games that fall before leaving at the end of the semester.
NCAA rules stipulate that an athlete who competes for his or her school against another school is in what's called a "countable" contest, regardless of what it's called: exhibition, scrimmage or joint practice session (NCAA Bylaw 17.02.08 (a)).
Playing in that one exhibition game automatically made Hill a sophomore, eligibility-wise.
The only exception is that freshmen in basketball, soccer and field hockey may compete in preseason exhibitions or scrimmages without it counting toward a season of competition (NCAA Bylaw 184.108.40.206.3).
Hill, a 6-foot-4 wing, averaged 8.2 points and 4.0 rebounds per game last season, starting 28 of 30 games. His 86 assists were second only to point guard Keenan Palmore's 88. He averaged 7.0 points and 3.8 rebounds per game in 2011-12, when he started 19 of 22 games.
Dimitri Batten and Richard Ross, a pair of redshirt juniors, will be ODU's most experienced players next season. The Monarchs had six freshmen last season, including guard Ambrose Mosley, who was forced to sit out by the NCAA Clearinghouse. They have at least two incoming freshmen for next season: guard Jordan Baker of Hampton and wing Ramone Snowden of Kellam.