August 1, 2025 • 36 mins
Michael Whatley officially announced his U.S. Senate campaign in Gastonia, marking the beginning of what’s expected to be a closely watched race. Meanwhile, Maggie Valley continues to struggle in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. A new audit of North Carolina's Medicaid system is underway, and the state Appeals Court has upheld restrictions on Sunday hunting
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome into a Friday edition of the Carolina Journal News
Hour News Talk eleven ten ninety nine three WBT. I'm
Nick Craig. Good morning to you. North Carolina Senate seed
has been a hot button discussion over the last two weeks,
and officially yesterday, former head of the North Carolina Republican
Party now head or I guess, formerly head of the RNC,
(00:29):
Michael Wattley has officially announced his bid into the North
Carolina Senate race that will be coming up in November
of twenty twenty six. To walk us through some of
those details, this morning, the managing and editor over at
Carolina Journal dot com, David Larson, joins us on the
Carolina Journal News Hour. David, I don't think you had
the last week of July two Senate announcements on your
(00:50):
BINGO card, But here we are, as we're in the
first day of August. What do you make of the
announcement yesterday?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Well, I thought it was I guess, you know, it
was presumed that this was about to happen, so I
guess you know. Both Cooper and Wattley's announcements were rumored
before they they were made official. But Wattley is officially
in the race, and I think it'll be definitely he
is the presumed front runner in the primary, if not
(01:19):
presumed nominee for the Republicans, just because you know, coming
along with that that Trump endorsement, and with his time
both in the North Carolina GOP and the the r
n C. I mean, it's pretty hard to find somebody
either on the MAGA side or the establishment side that
(01:39):
can kind of trump either of those, you know, his
position and on those two wings of the party. I
also think it's you know, interesting to take a look
at some of his his background because a lot of
people know him as the chair of the North Carolina
GOP and then as the RNC, but he's actually had
(02:00):
kind of a long history in Republican politics, never being
elected to any positions.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
But.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
He well other than you know, chairmanship, but you know,
he he had been with George W.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Bush's Energy, you know, Department of Energy.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
He was the chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole
when she was a senator. So he does have some
experience working, you know, in the US Senate as a
chief of staff. I'm sure he he learned quite a
lot of doing that. And also he ran you know
Trump's first term, his transition team, he was the lead
(02:42):
of the energy and agriculture part of that, so he
it seems like he has a lot of energy background
because that was also what he worked with George W.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Bush. So that's a little bit about his background.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
But you know, it'll be interesting to see how he's
received as he introduces himself to a lot of people
who don't have quite the same name ID for him
as they do for Cooper.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Yeah, I want to talk about that name ID part
of it. There was a poll that came out Thursday,
and again all of these polls are this is still
very early into the whole contest, but it showed Wiley
around a mid fifty something ish percent name ID compared
to Roy Cooper, who was in the low nineties. Really,
I guess no surprise there, David. You've got a former
sitting governor. Most people in the state know who he is.
(03:25):
But as you mentioned and when we talked about the
Cooper announcement earlier this week, Michael Wattley has gone all
around the state of North Carolina when he was the
head of the Republican Party, albeit probably smaller meetings at
local GOP offices and fundraiser events, but he has truly
been all around the state of North Carolina. So I
would suspect that a lot of folks already you know
(03:46):
who he is and have a good idea of who
what his name is, and are probably going to jump
back and support him.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Yes, I do think, you know, within the Republican Party
he has you know, wide support. He has different parts
of the state. You know, he spent a lot of
time here, you know, in Raleigh, but also he's from
the far West and the Boon area, Blowing Rock, and
then he lives now in the Charlotte area and you know,
Gaston County, so he has you know, he's been all
over the state. He's lived all over the state, and
(04:14):
I think those connections will will help him a lot.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Now, whether that fifty percent name I D you know.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
That that's even a little higher than I thought it
would be, to be honest, because you know, there's a
lot of people who vote but don't particularly know a
lot of the players beneath the big, big names. So
actually that's that's somewhat decent to get fifty percent name
I D you know, maybe that's from being RNC chair
(04:40):
and so.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
That that'll be interesting to see.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
I guess, as I also said last time, with name
I d it's kind of a race to see who
can define the person before the other side can. So
you know, it can be harder to redefine somebody that
the public has already made their mind up on, like
a Trump or a Cooper, where people I think they
know what they think of that person. But with Wattley,
(05:04):
it'll be a bit more a rush to define that
person in people's mind.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Well, in one of the big ways that you go
about defining somebody is through advertising, and as we have
talked about and has been speculated, this will be likely
the most expensive United States Senate race in history. For
former Governor Roy Cooper, he had an impressive haul after
in the first twenty four hours of his announcement, pulling
in more than two and a half million dollars David,
(05:34):
which is a remarkable in a twenty four hour period.
Not sure that Watley will be able to make that number,
and again in the first twenty four hours. I guess
that just goes to show you how quick probably both
of these candidates are going to try and get out
of the gate and really start defining the other and
start running advertising and trying to promote their message.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Yes, and just the fact that we are already speaking
of it as Cooper's doing this and Watley's doing that,
it is it is basically right out the gates. It's
it's sort of a general election focus from both of them,
where they're probably going to be running ads against each
other and kind of looking past the primary. But the
money that's going to be spent, as you said, on
advertising and organization and everything is going to be astronomical,
(06:16):
so that that hall that Cooper was able to get,
they're if not, you know, up to that level. Watley
will still be after his announcement trying to get a
big hall, and and then you know they'll be independent expenditures.
They'll be just from here until a year and a
couple months, you know, until next November. There will just
be massive spending ads that you're going to get tired of.
(06:39):
And as we said last time, the most expensive US
Senate race in history was in Ohio last election cycle,
and that was four hundred and four million dollars. And
I've heard some people say, oh, they think this want
to be more like five hundred million, which would break
the record.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
So I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
How seriously to take this with someone even said seven
hundred and fifty million. Was there someone else's guest that
is kind of in the know, so we you know,
I don't even know how they would spend that much money,
But you know, it's definitely all airwaves are going to
be booked out, you know, for this foreseeable future.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
You mentioned earlier the Trump endorsement. Even before the announcement,
when it was first reported last week that Michael Wattley
would be getting into the race, President Donald Trump put
out a post on his truth social not only endorsing Wattley,
but endorsing his successor at the RNC. Donald Trump has
won the state three times twenty sixteen, twenty twenty, and
twenty twenty four. How big do you think the Trump
(07:39):
impact will be for Michael Wattley? Does this help him
hurt him? Where do we stand right now or is
it one of those situations where it remains kind of
unseen as we get closer to the midterms, which typically
do not favor the party that is in charge, which
is of course the Republicans and Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
That is to be seen.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
But I do think the endorsement in the primary might
seal the deal, because there's a lot of times when
when Trump has kind of arranged behind the scenes who
he thinks the person should be and then puts that
name out there, whether it's a Beau Hines, you know,
when he ran for US Congress, whether it's Addison McDowell,
(08:20):
or there's been a number of times where you know, Okay,
Mark Walker is going to get this uh, you know,
job offer, and he's got about and we're going to
name Madison McDowell as the person for this congressional seat.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
So that has a lot of impact in the primary.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Now, what that will do in the general, as you said,
that could that could depend more on how Trump is
viewed in the midterms. Often the party that's in power
doesn't do well in the midterms, but you know, there's
a chance of somebody's being seen as doing very well
at that point that it actually it could it could
still be a benefit in a general election for a
(08:56):
whilely to to be seen as as sort of you know,
hand in glove with Trump. But if things are not
going well for Trump, let's say, if the tariff policy
starts to hurt the economy, if people think he's being
too harsh on immigration or whatever other issues people are
talking about. If those are wearing on Trump, then that
would also likely be a negative side for being hand
(09:19):
in glove with Trump for wildly.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
As we kick off the month of August, both of
these candidates now officially declared they're in the race, They're fundraising,
they're sending out emails and text messages. Do you think
that this continues all the way through the rest of
the summer and into the fall leading up to the
March primary early next year, or now that the announcements
are out there, things maybe slow down a little bit
(09:42):
as people are getting their kids back into school, so
on and so forth. Or do you think we're pedal
to the metal from now all the way until November
of next year.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Yeah, that's a good question. I don't know just how
intense they're going to make it throughout this whole time.
If they really see that they want to get the
edge on the other one, you know, they might just
look past the primary entirely and not build gradually, but
just you know, shoot out the gate with strong spending
(10:13):
and immediately go As I said that, maybe the biggest
priority for both sides is to define Wattley because it
might be harder to define Cooper and make a lot
of movement. So that might be something that if you
were the Watley campaign, you would want to do a
lot of early spending. But sadly for them, you know,
often negative ads have more effects than positive ads, So
(10:35):
if the Cooper campaign wants to counter that, you know,
that could be something that they try to do early.
So it really depends, I guess, on their strategies, but
I wouldn't be all that surprised if they just continue
the momentum and continue, you know, kind of looking towards
next November.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Already, we'll be keeping an eye on a lot of
different things fundraising, advertising spends, polling. We'll keep all that
coverage up date on our website, Carolina Journal dot com.
We appreciate the details. This morning, David Larson joins us
on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Good Friday morning to you.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk eleven,
(11:15):
ten ninety nine, three WBT. Ten months after Hurricane Helene
tore through the Southeast, the recovery process in many areas
is just beginning as communities rebuild their lives in towns.
The Carolina Journal is continuing its coverage by revisiting some
of the state's hardest hit areas to assess what recovery
(11:36):
looks like, what's still missing, and how much work there
still is to complete. The initial damage assessment of Maggie
Valley post Hurricane Helene estimated costs of about four point
seven million dollars. Most of the initial damage was super
related or damage to parks near Jonathan Creek. Several creeks
that flow into the valley are also overflowed, causing damage
(11:59):
that were acquired cleanup, which also accounted for some of
that initial damage costs. Maggie Valley currently has a contract
with a company that handles everything related to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency or FEMA on their behalf. Mayor Mike
Evelyn told The Carolina Journal, it's a ton for a
small town. We're not set up for this when you
(12:22):
look at the amount of paperwork and the amount of
money as well as the amount of time. As of
right now, we've expended about five hundred and thirty nine
thousand dollars out of pocket and the amount of paperwork
that goes into just making sure you're getting to any
kind of reimbursement from anybody is huge. It's very expensive.
(12:43):
We were fortunate to have some idea of what some
of the things were going on to be required. From
day one, we had a big initial cleanup area where
people had to go out. We had to record everything
from the time on a machine to the amount of fuel,
et cetera. So we've been working a pretty hard With
estimated initial damage at four point seven million dollars in
(13:04):
the town of Maggie Valley only having an annual budget
of five point four million dollars, that has been a
pretty sizable and significant amount of money. Maggie Valley still
has a long road to recovery in front of it.
Mayor Eveland said, a lot of this is sewer related
and along the creeks. Our first initial few weeks was
to get all of the sewer lines at least repaired.
(13:27):
We've also been very blessed because there were a lot
of people within the region that lost their sewer plants.
Fortunately we did not. Eveland credits the sewer plants survival
to repairs done on a levy project just about a
year ago, a couple of months before the storm. He said,
likely Without those repairs, the town may have also lost
its sewer plant, similar to many other towns that saw
(13:50):
so much devastation and destruction from Hurricane Helene. Repairing Maggie
Valley Carpet Golf, a local mini golf business, is one
of the most significant private that have been undertaken and
completed thus far. With the floodwaters eroding approximately twenty five
feet of land, destroying three holes of the mini golf
(14:10):
course and stripping away a twenty foot wide area of
native vegetation, according to the mayor and Seth Boyd, the
intern public Works director for the town of Maggie Valley,
and to address this, a complete creek Bank stabilization project
was undertaken to restore the area to its original condition.
(14:31):
That was necessary to reinstall the sewer infrastructure. Given the
urgency and the risk of further erosion from subsequent storms,
as was demonstrated by heavy rain that fell in the
area of the state back in February, the recovery teams
opted to complete permanent repairs immediately, rather than executing a
(14:51):
temporary fix and returning months later to put in a
more permanent repair. This approach protected the sewer line and
helped safeguard the impacted local business from further loss. In addition,
roughly two hundred and fifty feet of sewer line and
two manholes sustained significant damage close to the Maggie Valley
(15:11):
Mini Golf attraction. On top of these utility losses, a
twenty foot wide section of vegetation and adjacent land was
completely washed away. That required substantial reslation work to get
that piece of property in that area of the town
back and operational. However, the mini golf attraction was not
(15:32):
Maggie Valley's only loss due to Hurricane Helene. The flooding
resulted in a loss of four aerial creek crossings. According
to Mayor Eveland and Boyd. Among the most critical losses
was the destruction of a major bridge located on Highway
two seventy six. The storm heavily impacted this key infrastructure,
(15:53):
underscoring the scale of flooding and its threat to transportation routes.
Although the LEVI cis that the sewer plant had been
reinforced the previous year and remained intact during the storm,
it was still not without need for further attention. Repair
assessments estimate that approximately two hundred thousand dollars will be
(16:13):
required to restore the levey to its optimal operating condition.
Temporary bridges fortunately have been installed to maintain access, but
full reconstruction, including replacement for damaged sewer lines and bridges,
is still pending final approval and coordination with the state
Department of Transportation. May Or Eveland told The Carolina Journal,
(16:37):
I can tell you, as of right now, we've spent
five hundred and thirty nine thousand dollars and we have
not gotten a dinback from FEMA yet. We're awaiting initial
damages of twenty thousand dollars, including debris pickup of fifteen
thousand dollars, hopeful that we'll see that in the next
sixty days. That's the only money we've gotten that the
team even suggested that we will get paid for, hoping
(17:00):
that that starts to change here soon. The cash Flow
Loan program was created by the Disaster Recovery Act of
twenty twenty four in North Carolina. Mayor Eveland said that
Maggie Valley's cash flow situation fortunately is currently stable. That's
thanks to the state's financial assistance. The town of Maggie
Valley received a low interest loan from the Department of
(17:23):
Environmental Quality for two point five seven million dollars, which
must be repaid over the next five years. Eveland said
the State of North Carolina did a zero percent interest
loan for folks like us Financially, Maggie Valley was blessed.
We've done a great job over the years of taking
care of our businesses and we had the money in
(17:44):
the bank. And I'll tell you that I've been on
the board for fifteen years now and we've done a
lot of stuff, but we've always made sure that we've
got money in the bank for rainy days. Maggie Valley
also received a two hundred thousand dollars grant from DEEQ
to support engineering work. However, that amount only covered a
single project and it's already been fully expended. Still, while
(18:07):
limited town leaders say the grant was incredibly helpful, they
said that the key benefit of the state's support, especially
the cash flow loan program, is that it enables Maggie
Valley to receive federal reimbursement over time without draining existing
funds or seeking additional loans. Mayor Eveland said that this
dramatically improves the town's ability to operate and sustain its
(18:31):
town functions. While the state has mentioned various other aid programs,
Maggie Valley has yet to see evidence of how those
may benefit the town, with officials there hoping to be
reimbursed for some of that money that they have spent
on Hallen recovery projects by a combination of both FEMA
and state dollars. The mayor rounded out his conversation with
(18:52):
Carolina Journal by saying, long term, we're all tax payers
and we're all going to pay for it, whether at
the federal level, a state level, or the local level.
But anything from FEMA and the state would be great.
It helps the taxpayers here in the valley, and we're
one of the bigger towns in terms of local tourism.
Katie Zender of Carolina Journal dot com has done a
(19:14):
phenomenal job with these Helene stories over the last couple
of weeks. You can read this story on Maggie Valley
and some of the other communities this morning over on
our website, Carolina Journal dot com. Welcome back to the
Carolina Journal News our News Talk eleven ten ninety nine
to three WBT, recapping what has been a busy week
(19:36):
in North Carolina politics. Two major Senate announcements this week.
Earlier on Monday, former Democrat Governor Roy Cooper announced his
intentions to run for the United States Senate. That seat,
of course, will be vacant later next year after current
US Senator Tom Tillis announced his intentions to not seek reelection.
(19:57):
Yesterday afternoon in Gastoni, former NCGOP chairman current head of
the Republican National Committee Michael Wattley announced he would be
seeking the same seat. Obviously on the opposite side of
the political isisle running as a Republican, and many political
analysts that we have spoken to throughout the week seem
to indicate that both of these major players jumping into
(20:20):
the race this early, both of those happening in the
month of July, that it is going to make it
incredibly tough for any other candidate to potentially win a
primary against the likes of Cooper or Wattley. It is
set to be a major battle in North Carolina. Rumor
has it the most expensive United States Senate race in history.
(20:42):
As we go through the latter parts of this year
and run that election out all the way until November
of twenty twenty six, we will continue with our coverage
of this highly influential and important North Carolina Senate race
over on our website, Carolina Journal dot com and right
here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. There's been a
lot of discussion over the last couple of weeks about Medicaid,
(21:05):
of course, up at the federal level with Trump's one
big beautiful bill here in North Carolina, with some focus
on Medicaid expansion in the future of that program. However,
this morning we turned to the North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services and an audit by state auditor
Dave Bullock about North Carolina's Medicaid plan to walk us
through those details. Teresa Opeka, Carolina Journal dot com joins
(21:27):
us on the news hour threes A a lot of
medicaid news over the last couple of weeks. What are
you learning?
Speaker 4 (21:34):
Sure? Good morning, Nick, Thanks for having me so. Yeah,
there was.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
This audit was released late last week by auditor Bullock.
He said there were many factors in this audit that
pointed to a threat to patient's safety. Among them, how
on DHHS allowed physicians and providers with licensed limitation suspensions
or other credential issues to remain in the program. And
(22:02):
still give people treatment. We do break some of that
down in the article, but that was among the huge
issues that this audit did point out.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Yeah, I mean when you look at that, I mean,
the headline is failure to remove problematic providers, which inherently Teresa.
When you're talking about medical coverage, especially that that is
almost exclusively or one hundred percent exclusively funded by taxpayers
across the United States, that's a big time problem if
you've got individuals that are not supposed to be dealing
(22:32):
with certain things, not only providing the service maybe not
to par but then also billing this state or federal
government for that as.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
Well, right and getting paid for it. And there's numerous
instances that they have in this report. There was one
doctor I remember reading about he needed a chaperone with
him for a previous sexual misconduct if you will. I mean,
there's some pretty big stuff that was in this And
the reason why they did this audit is they wanted
(23:01):
to follow up on a twenty twenty one audit because
there were similar issues back then with the Health Department
North Carolina conducting the same same practices, letting letting these
doctors and physicians, you know, practice or get paid reimbursed
from the Medicaid program when they shouldn't have been. And
(23:21):
there was maybe one item I believe was fixed, but
the majority of them weren't, and there was all different
reasons given.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
DHHS said, well there was you.
Speaker 5 (23:31):
Know, no law requiring it for this, or you know,
we didn't deem this or you know.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
So it's like auditor Bullock shot back, well, no, that's.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
Not right, and you know it just wanted to They
wanted to go through all of this, which I certainly
don't blame them, because you want the best care possible
when you are going to a doctor, you.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Know, Teresa, I'm glad you bring up this previous twenty
twenty one audit. You and I have discussed a variety
of audits of a variety of state agencies over the
last past year or so. This is unfortunately a common threat,
it seems, regardless of what entity or we're talking about.
These audits take place sometimes every year, every couple of years,
and oftentimes we come back to the same drawing board
(24:13):
every time. It's the same list of issues over and
over again. But I guess it is not an exception
here with the auditive Medicaid No.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
Absolutely, you're right.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
I mean, we've had those issues come up in audits.
Speaker 4 (24:28):
It seems like year after year after year.
Speaker 5 (24:30):
I don't know if the General Assembly could get involved
in this at this point like they did with Encore
with the hurricane relief out in the eastern North Carolina,
or some agencies not doing what they're supposed to be doing,
maybe have a hearing on it. That's a possibility, and
I don't know, but yeah, you're right. It seems like
there's always the same issues with the same departments year
(24:51):
after year or every couple of years when they do
do these audits. So I don't know what thinking is
on the departments they're part, but you think they would
really if they pointed this out an audit, you'd want
to fix it.
Speaker 6 (25:05):
Well.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
Before we get into some more of the details, I
just want to make this last point. I mean, I
have a lot of respect for what goes on in
the state auditors. Obviously, I think they do a lot
of work. But Teresa, you're eventually getting towards diminishing returns.
If you're paying state employees to do audits every year
and find the same results every time, it's almost a
waste of that department's time if the agency truly is
not going to make any changes and just let the
(25:26):
same things come out every year.
Speaker 4 (25:29):
Oh yes, yes, absolutely, I agree with you.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
You know, they could be using that time for other
things that need to put shed light on something, you
know that's going in wrong in the state. That's totally
different from the same old, same old, with all the same.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
Departments every year.
Speaker 5 (25:46):
Like I said, maybe that you need to have a
hearing at this point, I'm not sure that that could happen,
but yeah, it is a waste of the time of
the employees of the Auditor's office and taxpayer money, if
you will.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Looking at some of the other issues we've got, license limitations,
those were ignored. We touched a little bit on that,
incomplete credential checks, unverified ownership of information. These are some
pretty serious things that are in this report. You read
through the entire thing, and our our audience can do
so over at Carolina Journal dot com. These are serious issues.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
Correct, Oh, absolutely correct.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
I mean, you know, it's just another one too. Briefly,
they didn't fully implement recommendations to strength and provider credential verification,
so they didn't actually go through the whole process of verifying,
you know, credentials, and I think some of that it
was included.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
Was for pharmacy.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
Related positions and they and I think they believe that
DHS said, well, well, we require them. We thought that
they were going to self report. I believe that's what
one of the answers was given. So, yeah, just they're
all very serious issues. There's nothing that's really my or
in this report.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
As we look at a typical audit and ones like
we've talked about in the past, typically the auditor in
this case, Dave Bullet, gives some recommendations to the entity
that he's conducting it on. You have an overview of
what some of those look like.
Speaker 5 (27:16):
Sure, So for that last one that I mentioned, they
obviously say.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
They should verify the providers.
Speaker 5 (27:23):
To possess the certifications, that they should have other recommendations
that they have is you know, just to make sure
everything is being followed through on and being correct. Policies
and procedures for say, continued enrollment of providers with license
limitations should describe those types of limitations the division finds acceptable,
(27:46):
and obviously the policy should also require adequate documentation to
support those decisions to either enroll or deny enrollment. So
they're all really really good recommendations. We have a full
listing in the article on our website, but yeah, definitely
nothing to sneeze at at this report.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Teresa, we appreciate the update. Teresa Opeka from the Carolina
Journal joins us son the Carolina Journal News Hour News
Talk eleven, ten ninety nine three WBT, Welcome back to
the Carolina Journal News Hour. You may or may not
be aware of some hunting regulations and restrictions that exist
in North Carolina on Sundays. This is a pretty interesting
(28:28):
story this morning. To walk us through the details, Mitch
Coki from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the
Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, reading through your story over
at Carolina Journal dot com. I didn't know it many
of the background and history on a lot of this.
What are the details that you're following this morning.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
Well, people who are longtime hunters in North Carolina will
know that for years and years the state banned hunting
with any armed weapons on Sundays. It was something that
was just a commonplace thing to ban hunting on Sunday
along with other things that were banned. But in twenty seventeen,
the General Assembly opened up the door on hunting on Sunday,
(29:08):
but still kept some restrictions. There were time and place restrictions,
there were some restrictions on the types of animals that
that you could hunt. There were some restrictions on the
use of dogs for hunting. So while hunting was opened
up to some extent in twenty seventeen, there still were
a number of restrictions on Sundays. The following year, voters
(29:31):
across North Carolina approved a new amendment to the state
constitution that codified our right to hunt and fish, and
so a couple of years after that, in twenty twenty,
a plaintiff named Tim Oates filed suit and said, wait
a minute, we have a constitutional right now in North
Carolina to hunt and fish. It's written there right in
(29:54):
our state's governing document. So these Sunday hunting restrictions are unconstitutional. Basically,
what he was saying was, you shouldn't have just opened
it up a little bit, you should have gotten rid
of the restrictions completely based on this constitutional amendment. This week,
the State Court of Appeals and a unanimous opinion said no,
(30:15):
those hunting restrictions are fine, and basically this came down
to whether the General Assembly still had a right or
authority to pass laws that would restrict hunting, given that
the voters put this constitutional right to hunt and fish
in the Constitution, and the State Court of Appeals said
(30:38):
the answer was yes. If you actually look at the
constitutional amendment itself, which now sits in our Declaration of Rights,
it's a fairly long amendment and one of the things
that it says is that we have this right to
hunt and fish subject to laws approved by the General
Assembly and to rules based on legislative authority. And so
(31:00):
the Stakehold of Appeals, in an opinion written by Judge
John Arrowood, said this is a grant of power within
the Constitution that gives the General Assembly the right to
make these restrictions. And since that right is in there
for the General Assembly, or that grant of power, you
would look at the laws that are passed and give
(31:21):
them what's called a rational basis review rather than a
strict scrutiny review for people who don't follow court cases
very closely. Strict scrutiny says you are passing a law
that deals with a fundamental right, and so we're going
to look really closely here to see whether this is
(31:41):
something that should be allowed to stand. And because it's
a fundamental right, you have to pass a really high
hurdle in a rational basis review. Basically, the General Assembly
just has to have some acceptable reason that makes sense
to a rational person about why they would want to
(32:02):
do this. And Jedge Arrowood and his colleagues said, there's
definitely a rational basis for doing this. You might want
to protect people going to church with some of those
time restrictions. You might want to protect other people who
would go on to land that might be hunted for
other purposes. So there are a number of rational reasons
why you would want to ban hunting or at least
restrict hunting on Sunday, and so this law can stand.
(32:25):
So basically, the fact that we have the constitutional right
now to hunt and fish, as guaranteed by the Amendment
in twenty eighteen, doesn't mean that the General Assembly can't
place some limits on Sunday hunting.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
Well, And I guess maybe a similar thing to bring
up would be that there are current seasons for hunting
certain animals with certain kinds of weapons across the state
of North Carolina. In many other states as well. That's
pretty common. You've got specific seasons, I guess, Mitch, that
would fall under this same thing as well. Even though
there is that constitutional right, as you noted it, there
are still restrictions as to when you can do certain
(32:59):
things certain places.
Speaker 6 (33:02):
Yes, And I think if the plaintiff had won this
case and said that there and the courts had said, well, no,
that constitutional amendment says that you can't have these Sunday
hunting restrictions, then I think other suits could have challenged
hunting seasons or any other types of hunting regulations, saying, hey,
our state constitution now says we have the right to
(33:24):
hunt and fish. You can't General Assembly put in place
restrictions on that right because it's a fundamental right. So
I think had the court ruled in the other way,
it really would have opened the door for other legal
action challenging hunting seasons and challenging other hunting regulations. But
since the court ruled the way that it did, I
(33:46):
think the current regime of hunting regulations and hunting laws
probably remains intact.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Now.
Speaker 6 (33:53):
If the General Assembly passes a law that restricts hunting,
that doesn't seem to be reasonable, and then there would
be the opportunity for a lawsuit. And I think that's
really what that constitutional amendment was designed to do. It
was designed to say, if a general Assembly that's less
inclined to support hunting in the future comes along and
(34:14):
tries to restrict hunting, this constitutional amendment will be an
obstacle blocking the General Assembly, But it's not designed to
stop the General Assembly from passing some sort of reasonable
or rational restrictions.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
You mentioned this was in the state's second highest court system,
the Appeals Court. It was a unanimous decision, as you
already mentioned to us this morning. Mitch, do you think
something like this gets appealed or is it essentially dead
on the vine as we talk about it this morning, It.
Speaker 6 (34:43):
Really depends on whether the plaintiff in the case, who's
a single individual, a fellow named Tim Oates, wants to
go any further. He filed suit in twenty twenty, so
basically he's been going through this court process now for
five years. At this point, he might decide, well, you know,
it looks like the the deck is stacked against me,
or you might say, I've been working at this for
(35:05):
five years, why stop now? I might as well try
to get it to the State Supreme Court now, because
it was a unanimous ruling and basically looked at the
constitutional Amendment and said the General Assembly has the power
to do this. It's not entirely clear that the State
Supreme Court would even want to take this up. The
State Supreme Court might just say if there is an appeal,
(35:26):
that it wouldn't bother taking the case. There's nothing that
would force the state's highest court to review this decision.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
It's a very interesting story. We've got some background and
some other things as it relates to details on this
story up on our website this morning, Carolina Journal dot com.
We appreciate the time. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke
Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Out and
that's going to do it for a Friday edition. WBT
News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back
(35:54):
with you Monday morning, five to six right here on
News Talk eleven, ten and ninety nine to three. WBT
Welcome into a Friday edition of the Carolina Journal News
Hour News Talk eleven ten ninety nine three WBT. I'm
Nick Craig. Good morning to you. North Carolina Senate seed
has been a hot button discussion over the last two weeks,
and officially yesterday, former head of the North Carolina Republican
Party now head or I guess, formerly head of the RNC,
(00:29):
Michael Wattley has officially announced his bid into the North
Carolina Senate race that will be coming up in November
of twenty twenty six. To walk us through some of
those details, this morning, the managing and editor over at
Carolina Journal dot com, David Larson, joins us on the
Carolina Journal News Hour. David, I don't think you had
the last week of July two Senate announcements on your
(00:50):
BINGO card, But here we are, as we're in the
first day of August. What do you make of the
announcement yesterday?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Well, I thought it was I guess, you know, it
was presumed that this was about to happen, so I
guess you know. Both Cooper and Wattley's announcements were rumored
before they they were made official. But Wattley is officially
in the race, and I think it'll be definitely he
is the presumed front runner in the primary, if not
(01:19):
presumed nominee for the Republicans, just because you know, coming
along with that that Trump endorsement, and with his time
both in the North Carolina GOP and the the r
n C. I mean, it's pretty hard to find somebody
either on the MAGA side or the establishment side that
(01:39):
can kind of trump either of those, you know, his
position and on those two wings of the party. I
also think it's you know, interesting to take a look
at some of his his background because a lot of
people know him as the chair of the North Carolina
GOP and then as the RNC, but he's actually had
(02:00):
kind of a long history in Republican politics, never being
elected to any positions.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
But.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
He well other than you know, chairmanship, but you know,
he he had been with George W.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Bush's Energy, you know, Department of Energy.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
He was the chief of staff for Senator Elizabeth Dole
when she was a senator. So he does have some
experience working, you know, in the US Senate as a
chief of staff. I'm sure he he learned quite a
lot of doing that. And also he ran you know
Trump's first term, his transition team, he was the lead
(02:42):
of the energy and agriculture part of that, so he
it seems like he has a lot of energy background
because that was also what he worked with George W.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Bush. So that's a little bit about his background.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
But you know, it'll be interesting to see how he's
received as he introduces himself to a lot of people
who don't have quite the same name ID for him
as they do for Cooper.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
Yeah, I want to talk about that name ID part
of it. There was a poll that came out Thursday,
and again all of these polls are this is still
very early into the whole contest, but it showed Wiley
around a mid fifty something ish percent name ID compared
to Roy Cooper, who was in the low nineties. Really,
I guess no surprise there, David. You've got a former
sitting governor. Most people in the state know who he is.
(03:25):
But as you mentioned and when we talked about the
Cooper announcement earlier this week, Michael Wattley has gone all
around the state of North Carolina when he was the
head of the Republican Party, albeit probably smaller meetings at
local GOP offices and fundraiser events, but he has truly
been all around the state of North Carolina. So I
would suspect that a lot of folks already you know
(03:46):
who he is and have a good idea of who
what his name is, and are probably going to jump
back and support him.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Yes, I do think, you know, within the Republican Party
he has you know, wide support. He has different parts
of the state. You know, he spent a lot of
time here, you know, in Raleigh, but also he's from
the far West and the Boon area, Blowing Rock, and
then he lives now in the Charlotte area and you know,
Gaston County, so he has you know, he's been all
over the state. He's lived all over the state, and
(04:14):
I think those connections will will help him a lot.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Now, whether that fifty percent name I D you know.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
That that's even a little higher than I thought it
would be, to be honest, because you know, there's a
lot of people who vote but don't particularly know a
lot of the players beneath the big, big names. So
actually that's that's somewhat decent to get fifty percent name
I D you know, maybe that's from being RNC chair
(04:40):
and so.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
That that'll be interesting to see.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
I guess, as I also said last time, with name
I d it's kind of a race to see who
can define the person before the other side can. So
you know, it can be harder to redefine somebody that
the public has already made their mind up on, like
a Trump or a Cooper, where people I think they
know what they think of that person. But with Wattley,
(05:04):
it'll be a bit more a rush to define that
person in people's mind.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Well, in one of the big ways that you go
about defining somebody is through advertising, and as we have
talked about and has been speculated, this will be likely
the most expensive United States Senate race in history. For
former Governor Roy Cooper, he had an impressive haul after
in the first twenty four hours of his announcement, pulling
in more than two and a half million dollars David,
(05:34):
which is a remarkable in a twenty four hour period.
Not sure that Watley will be able to make that number,
and again in the first twenty four hours. I guess
that just goes to show you how quick probably both
of these candidates are going to try and get out
of the gate and really start defining the other and
start running advertising and trying to promote their message.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Yes, and just the fact that we are already speaking
of it as Cooper's doing this and Watley's doing that,
it is it is basically right out the gates. It's
it's sort of a general election focus from both of them,
where they're probably going to be running ads against each
other and kind of looking past the primary. But the
money that's going to be spent, as you said, on
advertising and organization and everything is going to be astronomical,
(06:16):
so that that hall that Cooper was able to get,
they're if not, you know, up to that level. Watley
will still be after his announcement trying to get a
big hall, and and then you know they'll be independent expenditures.
They'll be just from here until a year and a
couple months, you know, until next November. There will just
be massive spending ads that you're going to get tired of.
(06:39):
And as we said last time, the most expensive US
Senate race in history was in Ohio last election cycle,
and that was four hundred and four million dollars. And
I've heard some people say, oh, they think this want
to be more like five hundred million, which would break
the record.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
So I don't know.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
How seriously to take this with someone even said seven
hundred and fifty million. Was there someone else's guest that
is kind of in the know, so we you know,
I don't even know how they would spend that much money,
But you know, it's definitely all airwaves are going to
be booked out, you know, for this foreseeable future.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
You mentioned earlier the Trump endorsement. Even before the announcement,
when it was first reported last week that Michael Wattley
would be getting into the race, President Donald Trump put
out a post on his truth social not only endorsing Wattley,
but endorsing his successor at the RNC. Donald Trump has
won the state three times twenty sixteen, twenty twenty, and
twenty twenty four. How big do you think the Trump
(07:39):
impact will be for Michael Wattley? Does this help him
hurt him? Where do we stand right now or is
it one of those situations where it remains kind of
unseen as we get closer to the midterms, which typically
do not favor the party that is in charge, which
is of course the Republicans and Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (07:57):
That is to be seen.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
But I do think the endorsement in the primary might
seal the deal, because there's a lot of times when
when Trump has kind of arranged behind the scenes who
he thinks the person should be and then puts that
name out there, whether it's a Beau Hines, you know,
when he ran for US Congress, whether it's Addison McDowell,
(08:20):
or there's been a number of times where you know, Okay,
Mark Walker is going to get this uh, you know,
job offer, and he's got about and we're going to
name Madison McDowell as the person for this congressional seat.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
So that has a lot of impact in the primary.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Now, what that will do in the general, as you said,
that could that could depend more on how Trump is
viewed in the midterms. Often the party that's in power
doesn't do well in the midterms, but you know, there's
a chance of somebody's being seen as doing very well
at that point that it actually it could it could
still be a benefit in a general election for a
(08:56):
whilely to to be seen as as sort of you know,
hand in glove with Trump. But if things are not
going well for Trump, let's say, if the tariff policy
starts to hurt the economy, if people think he's being
too harsh on immigration or whatever other issues people are
talking about. If those are wearing on Trump, then that
would also likely be a negative side for being hand
(09:19):
in glove with Trump for wildly.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
As we kick off the month of August, both of
these candidates now officially declared they're in the race, They're fundraising,
they're sending out emails and text messages. Do you think
that this continues all the way through the rest of
the summer and into the fall leading up to the
March primary early next year, or now that the announcements
are out there, things maybe slow down a little bit
(09:42):
as people are getting their kids back into school, so
on and so forth. Or do you think we're pedal
to the metal from now all the way until November
of next year.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Yeah, that's a good question. I don't know just how
intense they're going to make it throughout this whole time.
If they really see that they want to get the
edge on the other one, you know, they might just
look past the primary entirely and not build gradually, but
just you know, shoot out the gate with strong spending
(10:13):
and immediately go As I said that, maybe the biggest
priority for both sides is to define Wattley because it
might be harder to define Cooper and make a lot
of movement. So that might be something that if you
were the Watley campaign, you would want to do a
lot of early spending. But sadly for them, you know,
often negative ads have more effects than positive ads, So
(10:35):
if the Cooper campaign wants to counter that, you know,
that could be something that they try to do early.
So it really depends, I guess, on their strategies, but
I wouldn't be all that surprised if they just continue
the momentum and continue, you know, kind of looking towards
next November.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Already, we'll be keeping an eye on a lot of
different things fundraising, advertising spends, polling. We'll keep all that
coverage up date on our website, Carolina Journal dot com.
We appreciate the details. This morning, David Larson joins us
on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Good Friday morning to you.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk eleven,
(11:15):
ten ninety nine, three WBT. Ten months after Hurricane Helene
tore through the Southeast, the recovery process in many areas
is just beginning as communities rebuild their lives in towns.
The Carolina Journal is continuing its coverage by revisiting some
of the state's hardest hit areas to assess what recovery
(11:36):
looks like, what's still missing, and how much work there
still is to complete. The initial damage assessment of Maggie
Valley post Hurricane Helene estimated costs of about four point
seven million dollars. Most of the initial damage was super
related or damage to parks near Jonathan Creek. Several creeks
that flow into the valley are also overflowed, causing damage
(11:59):
that were acquired cleanup, which also accounted for some of
that initial damage costs. Maggie Valley currently has a contract
with a company that handles everything related to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency or FEMA on their behalf. Mayor Mike
Evelyn told The Carolina Journal, it's a ton for a
small town. We're not set up for this when you
(12:22):
look at the amount of paperwork and the amount of
money as well as the amount of time. As of
right now, we've expended about five hundred and thirty nine
thousand dollars out of pocket and the amount of paperwork
that goes into just making sure you're getting to any
kind of reimbursement from anybody is huge. It's very expensive.
(12:43):
We were fortunate to have some idea of what some
of the things were going on to be required. From
day one, we had a big initial cleanup area where
people had to go out. We had to record everything
from the time on a machine to the amount of fuel,
et cetera. So we've been working a pretty hard With
estimated initial damage at four point seven million dollars in
(13:04):
the town of Maggie Valley only having an annual budget
of five point four million dollars, that has been a
pretty sizable and significant amount of money. Maggie Valley still
has a long road to recovery in front of it.
Mayor Eveland said, a lot of this is sewer related
and along the creeks. Our first initial few weeks was
to get all of the sewer lines at least repaired.
(13:27):
We've also been very blessed because there were a lot
of people within the region that lost their sewer plants.
Fortunately we did not. Eveland credits the sewer plants survival
to repairs done on a levy project just about a
year ago, a couple of months before the storm. He said,
likely Without those repairs, the town may have also lost
its sewer plant, similar to many other towns that saw
(13:50):
so much devastation and destruction from Hurricane Helene. Repairing Maggie
Valley Carpet Golf, a local mini golf business, is one
of the most significant private that have been undertaken and
completed thus far. With the floodwaters eroding approximately twenty five
feet of land, destroying three holes of the mini golf
(14:10):
course and stripping away a twenty foot wide area of
native vegetation, according to the mayor and Seth Boyd, the
intern public Works director for the town of Maggie Valley,
and to address this, a complete creek Bank stabilization project
was undertaken to restore the area to its original condition.
(14:31):
That was necessary to reinstall the sewer infrastructure. Given the
urgency and the risk of further erosion from subsequent storms,
as was demonstrated by heavy rain that fell in the
area of the state back in February, the recovery teams
opted to complete permanent repairs immediately, rather than executing a
(14:51):
temporary fix and returning months later to put in a
more permanent repair. This approach protected the sewer line and
helped safeguard the impacted local business from further loss. In addition,
roughly two hundred and fifty feet of sewer line and
two manholes sustained significant damage close to the Maggie Valley
(15:11):
Mini Golf attraction. On top of these utility losses, a
twenty foot wide section of vegetation and adjacent land was
completely washed away. That required substantial reslation work to get
that piece of property in that area of the town
back and operational. However, the mini golf attraction was not
(15:32):
Maggie Valley's only loss due to Hurricane Helene. The flooding
resulted in a loss of four aerial creek crossings. According
to Mayor Eveland and Boyd. Among the most critical losses
was the destruction of a major bridge located on Highway
two seventy six. The storm heavily impacted this key infrastructure,
(15:53):
underscoring the scale of flooding and its threat to transportation routes.
Although the LEVI cis that the sewer plant had been
reinforced the previous year and remained intact during the storm,
it was still not without need for further attention. Repair
assessments estimate that approximately two hundred thousand dollars will be
(16:13):
required to restore the levey to its optimal operating condition.
Temporary bridges fortunately have been installed to maintain access, but
full reconstruction, including replacement for damaged sewer lines and bridges,
is still pending final approval and coordination with the state
Department of Transportation. May Or Eveland told The Carolina Journal,
(16:37):
I can tell you, as of right now, we've spent
five hundred and thirty nine thousand dollars and we have
not gotten a dinback from FEMA yet. We're awaiting initial
damages of twenty thousand dollars, including debris pickup of fifteen
thousand dollars, hopeful that we'll see that in the next
sixty days. That's the only money we've gotten that the
team even suggested that we will get paid for, hoping
(17:00):
that that starts to change here soon. The cash Flow
Loan program was created by the Disaster Recovery Act of
twenty twenty four in North Carolina. Mayor Eveland said that
Maggie Valley's cash flow situation fortunately is currently stable. That's
thanks to the state's financial assistance. The town of Maggie
Valley received a low interest loan from the Department of
(17:23):
Environmental Quality for two point five seven million dollars, which
must be repaid over the next five years. Eveland said
the State of North Carolina did a zero percent interest
loan for folks like us Financially, Maggie Valley was blessed.
We've done a great job over the years of taking
care of our businesses and we had the money in
(17:44):
the bank. And I'll tell you that I've been on
the board for fifteen years now and we've done a
lot of stuff, but we've always made sure that we've
got money in the bank for rainy days. Maggie Valley
also received a two hundred thousand dollars grant from DEEQ
to support engineering work. However, that amount only covered a
single project and it's already been fully expended. Still, while
(18:07):
limited town leaders say the grant was incredibly helpful, they
said that the key benefit of the state's support, especially
the cash flow loan program, is that it enables Maggie
Valley to receive federal reimbursement over time without draining existing
funds or seeking additional loans. Mayor Eveland said that this
dramatically improves the town's ability to operate and sustain its
(18:31):
town functions. While the state has mentioned various other aid programs,
Maggie Valley has yet to see evidence of how those
may benefit the town, with officials there hoping to be
reimbursed for some of that money that they have spent
on Hallen recovery projects by a combination of both FEMA
and state dollars. The mayor rounded out his conversation with
(18:52):
Carolina Journal by saying, long term, we're all tax payers
and we're all going to pay for it, whether at
the federal level, a state level, or the local level.
But anything from FEMA and the state would be great.
It helps the taxpayers here in the valley, and we're
one of the bigger towns in terms of local tourism.
Katie Zender of Carolina Journal dot com has done a
(19:14):
phenomenal job with these Helene stories over the last couple
of weeks. You can read this story on Maggie Valley
and some of the other communities this morning over on
our website, Carolina Journal dot com. Welcome back to the
Carolina Journal News our News Talk eleven ten ninety nine
to three WBT, recapping what has been a busy week
(19:36):
in North Carolina politics. Two major Senate announcements this week.
Earlier on Monday, former Democrat Governor Roy Cooper announced his
intentions to run for the United States Senate. That seat,
of course, will be vacant later next year after current
US Senator Tom Tillis announced his intentions to not seek reelection.
(19:57):
Yesterday afternoon in Gastoni, former NCGOP chairman current head of
the Republican National Committee Michael Wattley announced he would be
seeking the same seat. Obviously on the opposite side of
the political isisle running as a Republican, and many political
analysts that we have spoken to throughout the week seem
to indicate that both of these major players jumping into
(20:20):
the race this early, both of those happening in the
month of July, that it is going to make it
incredibly tough for any other candidate to potentially win a
primary against the likes of Cooper or Wattley. It is
set to be a major battle in North Carolina. Rumor
has it the most expensive United States Senate race in history.
(20:42):
As we go through the latter parts of this year
and run that election out all the way until November
of twenty twenty six, we will continue with our coverage
of this highly influential and important North Carolina Senate race
over on our website, Carolina Journal dot com and right
here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. There's been a
lot of discussion over the last couple of weeks about Medicaid,
(21:05):
of course, up at the federal level with Trump's one
big beautiful bill here in North Carolina, with some focus
on Medicaid expansion in the future of that program. However,
this morning we turned to the North Carolina Department of
Health and Human Services and an audit by state auditor
Dave Bullock about North Carolina's Medicaid plan to walk us
through those details. Teresa Opeka, Carolina Journal dot com joins
(21:27):
us on the news hour threes A a lot of
medicaid news over the last couple of weeks. What are
you learning?
Speaker 4 (21:34):
Sure? Good morning, Nick, Thanks for having me so. Yeah,
there was.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
This audit was released late last week by auditor Bullock.
He said there were many factors in this audit that
pointed to a threat to patient's safety. Among them, how
on DHHS allowed physicians and providers with licensed limitation suspensions
or other credential issues to remain in the program. And
(22:02):
still give people treatment. We do break some of that
down in the article, but that was among the huge
issues that this audit did point out.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Yeah, I mean when you look at that, I mean,
the headline is failure to remove problematic providers, which inherently Teresa.
When you're talking about medical coverage, especially that that is
almost exclusively or one hundred percent exclusively funded by taxpayers
across the United States, that's a big time problem if
you've got individuals that are not supposed to be dealing
(22:32):
with certain things, not only providing the service maybe not
to par but then also billing this state or federal
government for that as.
Speaker 5 (22:39):
Well, right and getting paid for it. And there's numerous
instances that they have in this report. There was one
doctor I remember reading about he needed a chaperone with
him for a previous sexual misconduct if you will. I mean,
there's some pretty big stuff that was in this And
the reason why they did this audit is they wanted
(23:01):
to follow up on a twenty twenty one audit because
there were similar issues back then with the Health Department
North Carolina conducting the same same practices, letting letting these
doctors and physicians, you know, practice or get paid reimbursed
from the Medicaid program when they shouldn't have been. And
(23:21):
there was maybe one item I believe was fixed, but
the majority of them weren't, and there was all different
reasons given.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
DHHS said, well there was you.
Speaker 5 (23:31):
Know, no law requiring it for this, or you know,
we didn't deem this or you know.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
So it's like auditor Bullock shot back, well, no, that's.
Speaker 5 (23:41):
Not right, and you know it just wanted to They
wanted to go through all of this, which I certainly
don't blame them, because you want the best care possible
when you are going to a doctor, you.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Know, Teresa, I'm glad you bring up this previous twenty
twenty one audit. You and I have discussed a variety
of audits of a variety of state agencies over the
last past year or so. This is unfortunately a common threat,
it seems, regardless of what entity or we're talking about.
These audits take place sometimes every year, every couple of years,
and oftentimes we come back to the same drawing board
(24:13):
every time. It's the same list of issues over and
over again. But I guess it is not an exception
here with the auditive Medicaid No.
Speaker 4 (24:22):
Absolutely, you're right.
Speaker 5 (24:24):
I mean, we've had those issues come up in audits.
Speaker 4 (24:28):
It seems like year after year after year.
Speaker 5 (24:30):
I don't know if the General Assembly could get involved
in this at this point like they did with Encore
with the hurricane relief out in the eastern North Carolina,
or some agencies not doing what they're supposed to be doing,
maybe have a hearing on it. That's a possibility, and
I don't know, but yeah, you're right. It seems like
there's always the same issues with the same departments year
(24:51):
after year or every couple of years when they do
do these audits. So I don't know what thinking is
on the departments they're part, but you think they would
really if they pointed this out an audit, you'd want
to fix it.
Speaker 6 (25:05):
Well.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
Before we get into some more of the details, I
just want to make this last point. I mean, I
have a lot of respect for what goes on in
the state auditors. Obviously, I think they do a lot
of work. But Teresa, you're eventually getting towards diminishing returns.
If you're paying state employees to do audits every year
and find the same results every time, it's almost a
waste of that department's time if the agency truly is
not going to make any changes and just let the
(25:26):
same things come out every year.
Speaker 4 (25:29):
Oh yes, yes, absolutely, I agree with you.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
You know, they could be using that time for other
things that need to put shed light on something, you
know that's going in wrong in the state. That's totally
different from the same old, same old, with all the same.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
Departments every year.
Speaker 5 (25:46):
Like I said, maybe that you need to have a
hearing at this point, I'm not sure that that could happen,
but yeah, it is a waste of the time of
the employees of the Auditor's office and taxpayer money, if
you will.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Looking at some of the other issues we've got, license limitations,
those were ignored. We touched a little bit on that,
incomplete credential checks, unverified ownership of information. These are some
pretty serious things that are in this report. You read
through the entire thing, and our our audience can do
so over at Carolina Journal dot com. These are serious issues.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
Correct, Oh, absolutely correct.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
I mean, you know, it's just another one too. Briefly,
they didn't fully implement recommendations to strength and provider credential verification,
so they didn't actually go through the whole process of verifying,
you know, credentials, and I think some of that it
was included.
Speaker 4 (26:39):
Was for pharmacy.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
Related positions and they and I think they believe that
DHS said, well, well, we require them. We thought that
they were going to self report. I believe that's what
one of the answers was given. So, yeah, just they're
all very serious issues. There's nothing that's really my or
in this report.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
As we look at a typical audit and ones like
we've talked about in the past, typically the auditor in
this case, Dave Bullet, gives some recommendations to the entity
that he's conducting it on. You have an overview of
what some of those look like.
Speaker 5 (27:16):
Sure, So for that last one that I mentioned, they
obviously say.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
They should verify the providers.
Speaker 5 (27:23):
To possess the certifications, that they should have other recommendations
that they have is you know, just to make sure
everything is being followed through on and being correct. Policies
and procedures for say, continued enrollment of providers with license
limitations should describe those types of limitations the division finds acceptable,
(27:46):
and obviously the policy should also require adequate documentation to
support those decisions to either enroll or deny enrollment. So
they're all really really good recommendations. We have a full
listing in the article on our website, but yeah, definitely
nothing to sneeze at at this report.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Teresa, we appreciate the update. Teresa Opeka from the Carolina
Journal joins us son the Carolina Journal News Hour News
Talk eleven, ten ninety nine three WBT, Welcome back to
the Carolina Journal News Hour. You may or may not
be aware of some hunting regulations and restrictions that exist
in North Carolina on Sundays. This is a pretty interesting
(28:28):
story this morning. To walk us through the details, Mitch
Coki from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the
Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, reading through your story over
at Carolina Journal dot com. I didn't know it many
of the background and history on a lot of this.
What are the details that you're following this morning.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
Well, people who are longtime hunters in North Carolina will
know that for years and years the state banned hunting
with any armed weapons on Sundays. It was something that
was just a commonplace thing to ban hunting on Sunday
along with other things that were banned. But in twenty seventeen,
the General Assembly opened up the door on hunting on Sunday,
(29:08):
but still kept some restrictions. There were time and place restrictions,
there were some restrictions on the types of animals that
that you could hunt. There were some restrictions on the
use of dogs for hunting. So while hunting was opened
up to some extent in twenty seventeen, there still were
a number of restrictions on Sundays. The following year, voters
(29:31):
across North Carolina approved a new amendment to the state
constitution that codified our right to hunt and fish, and
so a couple of years after that, in twenty twenty,
a plaintiff named Tim Oates filed suit and said, wait
a minute, we have a constitutional right now in North
Carolina to hunt and fish. It's written there right in
(29:54):
our state's governing document. So these Sunday hunting restrictions are unconstitutional. Basically,
what he was saying was, you shouldn't have just opened
it up a little bit, you should have gotten rid
of the restrictions completely based on this constitutional amendment. This week,
the State Court of Appeals and a unanimous opinion said no,
(30:15):
those hunting restrictions are fine, and basically this came down
to whether the General Assembly still had a right or
authority to pass laws that would restrict hunting, given that
the voters put this constitutional right to hunt and fish
in the Constitution, and the State Court of Appeals said
(30:38):
the answer was yes. If you actually look at the
constitutional amendment itself, which now sits in our Declaration of Rights,
it's a fairly long amendment and one of the things
that it says is that we have this right to
hunt and fish subject to laws approved by the General
Assembly and to rules based on legislative authority. And so
(31:00):
the Stakehold of Appeals, in an opinion written by Judge
John Arrowood, said this is a grant of power within
the Constitution that gives the General Assembly the right to
make these restrictions. And since that right is in there
for the General Assembly, or that grant of power, you
would look at the laws that are passed and give
(31:21):
them what's called a rational basis review rather than a
strict scrutiny review for people who don't follow court cases
very closely. Strict scrutiny says you are passing a law
that deals with a fundamental right, and so we're going
to look really closely here to see whether this is
(31:41):
something that should be allowed to stand. And because it's
a fundamental right, you have to pass a really high
hurdle in a rational basis review. Basically, the General Assembly
just has to have some acceptable reason that makes sense
to a rational person about why they would want to
(32:02):
do this. And Jedge Arrowood and his colleagues said, there's
definitely a rational basis for doing this. You might want
to protect people going to church with some of those
time restrictions. You might want to protect other people who
would go on to land that might be hunted for
other purposes. So there are a number of rational reasons
why you would want to ban hunting or at least
restrict hunting on Sunday, and so this law can stand.
(32:25):
So basically, the fact that we have the constitutional right
now to hunt and fish, as guaranteed by the Amendment
in twenty eighteen, doesn't mean that the General Assembly can't
place some limits on Sunday hunting.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
Well, And I guess maybe a similar thing to bring
up would be that there are current seasons for hunting
certain animals with certain kinds of weapons across the state
of North Carolina. In many other states as well. That's
pretty common. You've got specific seasons, I guess, Mitch, that
would fall under this same thing as well. Even though
there is that constitutional right, as you noted it, there
are still restrictions as to when you can do certain
(32:59):
things certain places.
Speaker 6 (33:02):
Yes, And I think if the plaintiff had won this
case and said that there and the courts had said, well, no,
that constitutional amendment says that you can't have these Sunday
hunting restrictions, then I think other suits could have challenged
hunting seasons or any other types of hunting regulations, saying, hey,
our state constitution now says we have the right to
(33:24):
hunt and fish. You can't General Assembly put in place
restrictions on that right because it's a fundamental right. So
I think had the court ruled in the other way,
it really would have opened the door for other legal
action challenging hunting seasons and challenging other hunting regulations. But
since the court ruled the way that it did, I
(33:46):
think the current regime of hunting regulations and hunting laws
probably remains intact.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Now.
Speaker 6 (33:53):
If the General Assembly passes a law that restricts hunting,
that doesn't seem to be reasonable, and then there would
be the opportunity for a lawsuit. And I think that's
really what that constitutional amendment was designed to do. It
was designed to say, if a general Assembly that's less
inclined to support hunting in the future comes along and
(34:14):
tries to restrict hunting, this constitutional amendment will be an
obstacle blocking the General Assembly, But it's not designed to
stop the General Assembly from passing some sort of reasonable
or rational restrictions.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
You mentioned this was in the state's second highest court system,
the Appeals Court. It was a unanimous decision, as you
already mentioned to us this morning. Mitch, do you think
something like this gets appealed or is it essentially dead
on the vine as we talk about it this morning, It.
Speaker 6 (34:43):
Really depends on whether the plaintiff in the case, who's
a single individual, a fellow named Tim Oates, wants to
go any further. He filed suit in twenty twenty, so
basically he's been going through this court process now for
five years. At this point, he might decide, well, you know,
it looks like the the deck is stacked against me,
or you might say, I've been working at this for
(35:05):
five years, why stop now? I might as well try
to get it to the State Supreme Court now, because
it was a unanimous ruling and basically looked at the
constitutional Amendment and said the General Assembly has the power
to do this. It's not entirely clear that the State
Supreme Court would even want to take this up. The
State Supreme Court might just say if there is an appeal,
(35:26):
that it wouldn't bother taking the case. There's nothing that
would force the state's highest court to review this decision.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
It's a very interesting story. We've got some background and
some other things as it relates to details on this
story up on our website this morning, Carolina Journal dot com.
We appreciate the time. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke
Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Out and
that's going to do it for a Friday edition. WBT
News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back
(35:54):
with you Monday morning, five to six right here on
News Talk eleven, ten and ninety nine to three. WBT
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.