Continuing backlash against the proposed sale of Hofmann Forest has reached Chancellor Randy Woodson's doorstep, where protestors installed a mini-installation of the forest Monday morning.

• Ron Sutherland

The proposed sale of the forest has had to jump through several bureaucratic hoops over the past several months, but is nearing completion. The N.C. State Natural Resources Foundation, which controls the forest, has identified a potential buyer and is waiting for final approval of the sale from the university's Board of Trustees of its endowment fund.

A group of five protestors organized a cluster of baby pine trees at the gate to the chancellor's residence and hung banners in hopes of having Woodson postpone the sale.

Woodson has not yet returned INDY Week's call for comment.

The proposed sale has drawn widespread criticism, but Monday's protest was the first action tied to an environmental group. The event was led by Ron Sutherland, an N.C. State graduate and conservation scientist for Wildlands Network.

He and his fellow protestors have two demands for Chancellor Woodson:

1) "We want him to stop the sale of Hofmann Forest until the NCSU community has a real chance to debate the seemingly dubious rationale that has been used so far by the Natural Resources Foundation to justify liquidating what is one of the university's largest assets," wrote Sutherland in an email to INDY Week.

2) "We also want him to confirm publicly that Hofmann will not be sold ever unless a permanent working forest easement is put in place for the entire 80,000 acre (125 square mile!) property, protecting it from urban development and safeguarding its importance for wildlife conservation. Its not good enough for them to say they're negotiating the deal and the details are confidential - the easement should be an up-front, publicly acknowledged requirement and not something to negotiate away," Sutherland continued.

College of Natural Resources Dean Mary Watzin and Natural Resources Foundation director David Ashcraft have not released any details of the sale. Instead, they have asked interested parties to trust that the founding principles of the forest will be kept in mind.

A petition which originated in the college has drawn more than 800 signatures.

Monday's protest was hampered by poor weather, final exams and a lack of organizing skills, according to Sutherland.

"As an artistic installation it was pretty successful," he says. "But apparently my flash mob organizing skills leave something to be desired." Sutherland tried to keep the event secret and attempted to organize through back channels, rather than using social media.

The natural resources foundation has not, currently, released the identity of the potential buyer or the offer price. The board of trustees next meeting is scheduled for September, but a special meeting could be called to approve the sale of the Hofmann.

Woodson sits on the Board of Trustees of the Endowment Fund, which has already approved the sale of Hofmann Forest once.

After today, the fate of Dorothea Dix park will likely be out of your control.

• Triangle Wiki

The second and final public hearing of Wake County’s delegation of general assembly members is scheduled for 4 pm today at the legislature.

The many advocacy organizations that favor Dix park are asking people to come to the hearing wearing green to show solidarity. Those who are interested will be able to sign up to speak.

More than 300 people showed up for the first public hearing two weeks ago. Speakers last time also railed against a bill that would redraw—for the second time in two years—Wake County Board of Education districts to favor conservatives.

A senate bill that would revoke the city’s lease on the park has already been voted on once and passed. However, that vote came after last Monday’s meeting and Wake County Republicans broke rank, voting against the bill.

Dix supporters created this silent video last week to invoke their argument that legislators should honor the lease that was agreed to between the City of Raleigh and the state last December.

Just a quick post here to take note of two bills moving quickly through the general assembly that reshape the idea of who should face criminal background checks.

One would mean that all residents applying for food stamps or welfare undergo a criminal background check.

From North Carolina Health News:

Currently, all DSS workers are required to do is ask an applicant if they — or anyone else who would be on the receiving end of the benefits — currently have a warrant out against them.

The bill would require DSS workers to provide information such as address, phone number, Social Security number and a physical description of the applicant to law enforcement [to see] if the background check turns up an outstanding arrest warrant anywhere in the state.

The other bill would mean that people applying to teach at charter schools are NOT required to undergo a background check.

This provision is part of a much larger bill to expand charter schools that was in committee again today. One Republican senator put forward an amendment that would’ve required background checks, but it was shot down, according to NC Policy Watch.

My takeaway: corporations don't need oversight, but poor people do.

GOP lawmakers haven’t floated the idea of secession yet, but that may be what’s next.

A joint resolution filed by Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford argues that the establishment clause of the First Amendment does not—read NOT—apply to North Carolina, or any state for that matter.

If the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the states within the United States, does that leave Puerto Rico and Guam?

The resolution, stunningly, goes on to say “the Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional.”

In fact, a decision written more than 200 years ago says that federal courts have exactly that power.

If a federal court, a.k.a. the Supreme Court of the United States, doesn’t have the power to decide what is constitutional, who does? Should each state be able to interpret the Constitution differently?

Reps. Warren and Ford haven’t yet returned my calls for comment.

Let’s back up for a minute. This bill emerged because the Rowan County Commissioners like to pray specifically to Jesus Christ before each meeting. The ACLU of North Carolina has sued them for that and the U.S. Court of Appeals has already ruled that specific religious prayers are unconstitutional.

(Praying before a meeting is legal, but praying to the god of a particular religion is not. The legal argument is that such practices exclude elected officials or other people attending the meeting who might belong to another religion or no religion at all. It has been ruled to violate the establishment clause, which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion.”)

In an email response the ACLU’s communications director Mike Meno had this to say: “The bill sponsors fundamentally misunderstand constitutional law and the principles of the separation of powers that date back to the founding of this country.”

I'm pretty sure he was being generous.

The Rowan County situation is lightly referred to in the resolution, but its language seems to include the entire state.

These bold declarations come directly from the text:

The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.

The good news is that a resolution does not, as they say, carry the force of law.

A resolution, therefore, likely wouldn’t be challenged in court. However, as long as government bodies like the Rowan County Commissioners continue to pray to Jesus, the ACLU will continue to sue them.

At that point, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide who is right, whether North Carolina legislators say it can or not.