Easley had asked Nifong not to run
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun, Feb 5, 2007 : 11:48 pm ET
RALEIGH -- Gov. Mike Easley did not want an "heir apparent" in the Durham district attorney's chair, and that is why he extracted a promise from Mike Nifong not to run for the office when he was appointed to it in 2005, a state spokeswoman said Monday.
In appointing Nifong to succeed former District Attorney Jim Hardin Jr. -- who became a judge -- Easley merely wanted a "placeholder or non-candidate" to fill the job until last year's election, said Easley spokeswoman Renee Hoffman.
That way, those who wanted to compete at the ballot box "would be able to start from a level playing field," Hoffman added.
She said Nifong was "explicit" with the governor's legal counsel, Reuben Young, that "he had no intention of running for the office. The governor would have looked at the acting appointment very differently if he had known Nifong planned to run."
But Nifong broke his promise and ran anyway, winning a May 2006 Democratic primary and then gaining a four-year term in November's general election, Easley told students at New York University last month.
The governor's remarks in New York were made public over the weekend.
"I almost un-appointed him when he decided to run," Easley told the students.
"I rate that as probably the poorest appointment that I've ...," he added, not finishing the sentence.
Nifong had no comment Monday.
Hoffman's statement appeared to answer a question that was on the tip of many lawyers' tongues all day Monday.
They wanted to know why the governor would ask Nifong not to run for office, since Nifong was appointed acting district attorney long before the Duke lacrosse sex-offense case began to sully his reputation and get him into legal hot water.
At the time of the appointment, Nifong had been an assistant prosecutor in Durham for nearly three decades and boasted an apparently spotless performance record.
Some were not satisfied with Easley's explanation when informed of it Monday evening.
They said they weren't aware of the governor extracting promises from other appointees not to run for office, including Orange-Chatham District Attorney Jim Woodall.
Like Nifong, Woodall was appointed chief prosecutor for his jurisdiction after his predecessor became a judge. Woodall then ran unopposed in last year's election
"Is there something special about Mike [Nifong}?" veteran lawyer Mark Edwards wondered aloud Monday. "Is there something special about Durham?
"I think this raises more questions than it answers," Edwards said of the governor's explanation. "Out of all the appointments the governor makes, why was this one different?"
John Fitzpatrick, president of the Durham Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, also was scratching his head over the governor's statement.
"An answer like that is more confusing than it is clarifying," he said. "It's an answer without substance. It begs the question of consistency. Does this same standard apply just to Mike Nifong or to other appointees as well? That's what people are asking. The public clearly voiced their position that they wanted Mike Nifong to be DA. He just answered the call of the people."
Meanwhile, Nifong recently handed off the controversial and nationally publicized Duke lacrosse sex-offense case to special prosecutors from the N.C. Attorney General's Office.
He now faces State Bar allegations that he made unethical comments about the case in its infancy last year, and that he withheld DNA evidence favorable to three former Duke students accused of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer at an off-campus party.
Those allegations could result in anything from exoneration to a warning letter to disbarment for Nifong. A hearing is tentatively slated for June.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-816624.cfm
Bell vows to tackle services issues, crime
BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun, Feb 5, 2007 : 11:48 pm ET
DURHAM -- Mayor Bill Bell's election-year "state of the city" address included two concessions to his critics, acknowledging problems with Durham's core services and saying that officials need to focus more on revitalizing inner-city neighborhoods than on downtown.
Bell's Monday speech -- broadcast on cable and the Internet -- also answered criticism of the city administration voiced last week by a prospective opponent in this year's election, Councilman Thomas Stith, who said at least some of the officials responsible for the city's violation of federal drinking-water standards should be fired.
The mayor noted that most of the city's 2,000-some employees answer to City Manager Patrick Baker, not to the council, which has the authority to hire and fire only the manager, the city attorney and the city clerk.
Baker "is the person we ultimately hold responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the city," Bell said. "As mayor, when I come to the point that I no longer have confidence in the city manager to perform his job, he along with the City Council will be the first to know. Tonight, I am not at that point."
The mayor added that he's confident that if Baker decided "other city employees were negligent in their responsibilities" in handling the water problem, "they will be dealt with appropriately" through the normal chain of command. -cut-
Asked for his reaction, Stith said the mayor was soft-pedaling the need for accountability.
"We can be a city that doesn't experience a 32-percent increase in violent crime and one fiasco after another," Stith said.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-816630.cfm
* No mention of the LAX fiasco from the City's prime enabler.
Veteran lawyer Mark Edwards: "raises more questions than it answers"
John Fitzpatrick, president of the Durham Criminal Defense Lawyers Association: "An answer like that is more confusing than it is clarifying"
"an answer without substance".
_____________________________________
I'm still dumfounded as to why Easely would admit that. He must have been caught off guard and not considered the implications. He opened a can of worms, IMO.