Civitas Institute

Civitas Proposes Model Legislation Regarding Community Colleges and Illegal Immigrants

Civitas Staff — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:04:06 -0400

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Civitas Proposes Model Legislation Regarding Community Colleges and Illegal Immigrants

With N.C. Community College System (NCCCS) President Scott Ralls’ announcement that community colleges will cease admitting illegal aliens it has become clear that legislative action is needed to clarify this issue. As suggested in the May 6, 2008, advisory letter issued by the N.C. attorney general’s office, neither the community college system nor the UNC system is authorized to write policy in this area. Under federal law, only the state legislature can properly decide whether to extend higher education benefits to illegal aliens.

“President Ralls’ announcement that community colleges will cease admitting illegal aliens only reinforces the fact that legislative action is needed to clarify this issue. During the last 7 years, NCCCS has changed its position on enrolling illegal aliens four times,” stated Civitas director of policy Dr. Jameson Taylor. “The most recent decision to cease enrolling illegal aliens could be changed at any time. What is needed is legislation that will settle this matter once and for all.”

Civitas has proposed model legislation on this issue that would solidify the policy first implemented by the community college system in 2001. Such legislation would apply to both the community colleges, as well as the UNC system, which continues to quietly enroll illegal aliens. In addition, the legislation would require all public colleges and universities to verify the Social Security number and legal status of all applicants.

“While some college administrators are claiming that verifying legal status will require hiring new staff, the truth is that schools can verify legal presence using the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement) online database,” noted Taylor. “SAVE is free and easy to use. Alternatively, Johnston Community College claims that it is already using its current software to screen Social Security numbers as part of the routine application process.”

INTERVIEWS WITH DR. JAMESON TAYLOR ARE AVAILABLE: contact Dennis Parker at dennisp@nccivitas.org or 919-834-2099

Whose Fair Share is it Anyway?

Brian Balfour — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:57:53 -0400

This article was originally published in the Durham Herald-Sun.

How much tax do North Carolina corporations pay each year? Too much? Not enough? Try nothing. That's right, not a dime.

Outraged? Let me explain. A concept universally accepted by economists is that corporations do not pay taxes, people pay taxes. As the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization explains, "People pay all taxes. When the government levies a tax on a corporation, the corporation is more like a tax collector than a taxpayer. The burden of the tax ultimately falls on people -- the owners, customers, or workers of the corporation."

In short, corporations can't pay taxes any more than your house can write a check for the property tax. Corporations are merely a collection of individuals legally organized to produce a good or deliver a service. Taxes on businesses are really taxes on these individuals and consume resources the organization could allocate toward other purposes.

As this political season heats up, voters will no doubt get their fill of candidates declaring with righteous indignation that "Corporations must pay their fair share!"

But if corporations cannot pay taxes, who does end up paying this "fair share"?

Many observers make the claim that such taxes are merely "passed along to consumers" as companies raise prices to compensate for the added burden. This common notion, however, does not reflect economic realities of the marketplace.

Businesses cannot arbitrarily raise prices. Rather, prices are determined by what consumers are willing to pay for a specific product, regardless of a company's tax bill. Therefore, corporate taxes can only be "passed along to the consumer" to the extent that the market will bear a price increase.

Another common fallacy is the notion that corporate taxes are at least in part passed on to "wealthy shareholders" in the form of lower returns or dividends. For starters, it's hard to argue that corporate taxes affect only wealthy shareholders when the majority of people reading this article are invested in a 401k. More to the point, empirical research shows this is not the case either.

The real victim of corporate taxation? Workers. As the Tax Foundation states, "New research is indicating that in a global economy, where capital is highly mobile but workers are not, labor is bearing the brunt of corporate taxation."

For instance, a September 2007 study produced by the Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation studied data from more than 15,000 companies located in four countries. The study found that more than 60 percent of corporate taxation is "shifted onto the workforce in the form of lower wages" in the short run, growing to 100 percent in the long run. In other words, over the long haul, every dollar extracted from businesses in the form of taxation reduces worker pay an equal amount.

Making matters worse, the negative effect of corporate taxation on wages falls hardest on lower skilled workers and those on the margins of employment. While politicians often express a desire to further cut income taxes for lower- and middle-income taxpayers, many of these taxpayers already have virtually no income tax burden. In reality, these taxpayers would benefit more from a cut in the corporate tax rate.

A 2007 Tax Foundation study examined the federal corporate tax burden on workers based on income level and determined that "a cut in corporate taxes would provide a greater benefit to low-income households than would more cuts in individual taxes."

Moreover, the unseen effects of business taxation are the jobs never created that otherwise would have been had the taxes not been in effect.

Currently, North Carolina's corporate tax rate is the highest in the Southeast. Most businesses, however, organize as "pass-through" organizations and therefore file personal income taxes rather than corporate taxes. North Carolina's top marginal personal income tax rate, often referred to as the "small business tax," is likewise highest in the Southeast. It should come as no surprise to learn that North Carolina's personal income growth from 2000-2006 lagged far behind regional neighbors, as well as the national average.

One cannot lead the charge about corporations paying their fair share while simultaneously claiming to be in favor of working families. The evidence suggests that punishing businesses via taxation actually makes workers worse off.

In this election year, beware of pundits and politicians who say that corporations must "pay their fair share." More than likely, that share will be taken from your paycheck.

Get the Facts: Illegal Immigration & Community Colleges

Dr. Jameson Taylor — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:00:00 -0400

by Dr. Jameson Taylor and Dr. Robert Luebke

General Assembly Needs to Clarify Law

During the last 7 years, NCCCS has changed its position on enrolling illegal aliens four times. The most recent decision to cease enrolling illegal aliens could be changed at any time. What is needed is legislation that will clarify this matter once and for all.

On November 7, 2007, a memo from the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) mandated that all community “colleges should immediately begin admitting undocumented individuals.” The new policy reversed an August 2004 directive that permitted each college to decide on its own whether to admit illegal aliens.

In the wake of the firestorm that erupted following the November 2007 policy change, the community college system asked for clarification from Attorney General Roy Cooper. On May 6, 2008, the attorney general’s office issued a response that concluded the following:

1) The current NCCCS policy (CC 07-275) of forcing every college to admit illegal aliens is vulnerable to a legal challenge.

2) NCCCS should return to a 2001 policy (CC 01-271) that previously prohibited illegal aliens from attending community colleges, except for aliens concurrently enrolled in a North Carolina high school or those who meet very limited exceptions set forth in federal law (8 USC § 1641).

3) By implication, the August 2004 policy (CC 04-171) of permitting local institutions to individually decide whether to admit illegal aliens is also vulnerable to a legal challenge.

In response to the attorney general’s advisory letter, NCCCS President Scott Ralls announced on May 13, 2008, that community colleges would cease admitting illegal aliens to their degree-granting programs (CC 08-114). The colleges will continue to admit illegal aliens to continuing education programs, such as the Basic Skills Program, at a cost to taxpayers of more than $10 million.

What does the law say?

Federal law. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 prohibits states from appropriating state or local funds to provide postsecondary education to illegal aliens. States can opt out of this policy only by passing a law that “affirmatively provides for such eligibility” (8 USC § 1621). It is clear that Congress intended here to forbid illegal aliens from attending public higher educational institutions altogether. This fact is clarified by the inclusion of § 1623, which stipulates that even if a state chooses to override § 1621, it would still be illegal to extend in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. While Governor Mike Easley has recently argued that “federal law is not settled in this area,” the admission criteria established by the community college system in 2001 took it as a matter of course that 8 USC § 1621 prohibits the enrollment of illegal aliens. This policy was implemented during Governor Easley’s first term in office and was not questioned by the governor until now.

State law. The North Carolina General Assembly has not passed legislation authorizing the extension of postsecondary educational benefits to illegal immigrants (cf. 8 USC § 1621 (d)). For this reason, the state attorney general’s office was correct in implying that neither NCCCS nor the UNC system has the authority to enroll illegal aliens. Current state law (G.S. 115D-39) suggests that only persons “lawfully admitted to the United States” are eligible for in-state community college tuition. The ambiguity of the law, however, has encouraged attempts on both sides to deny (cf. HB 164, HB 409) or extend (HB 1183) in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

Case law. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is the only federal court to consider whether a state may prohibit illegal aliens from attending higher educational institutions (Equal Access Ed. v. Merten (2004)). The case involved a challenge to an advisory opinion from the Virginia attorney general’s office that encouraged state universities and colleges to cease admitting illegal aliens. The state’s position was upheld by Judge T. S. Ellis III, who confirmed that “the colleges and universities could deny admission to anyone they chose, without violating the Constitution or exceeding their authority.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In a May 9, 2008, letter to the News & Observer, ICE stated that it is “left for the school to decide whether or not to enroll undocumented nonimmigrants,” even as the agency acknowledged that “these individuals are circumventing regulations and laws.” As a matter of policy, the significance of this letter is unclear. The letter is not signed and was written to a newspaper, not NCCCS or the N.C. attorney general. Civitas is awaiting further clarification from ICE as to whether this letter is based on a formal policy.

What are the numbers?

While NCCCS reports that only 112 illegal aliens are currently enrolled in the curriculum instruction component of the community college system, Civitas’ analysis of U.S. Census data suggests the number is closer to 10,000. A very conservative estimate would place the cost to educate these students at $5 million to $7 million.
NCCCS is continuing to educate thousands of illegal aliens – more than 37,000, according to our estimates – via its continuing education programs.[1]
Continuing education courses are generally offered free of charge to all students – at a cost to taxpayers of $154.4 million. Presuming that illegal aliens make up at least 6.5 percent of enrollment, the cost to taxpayers is more than $10 million.
Instruction costs do not include capital costs. Statewide general obligation bonds for the community college system are $850 million; local bonds for community colleges are millions more.

What do voters want?

>68 percent of voters believe illegal aliens should be prohibited from enrolling in community colleges and public universities in North Carolina (February 2008).

>70 percent of voters oppose granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens (April 2007).

>75 percent would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports giving in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants (September 2005).

>69 percent believe illegal immigrants should receive no educational benefits at all from the state of North Carolina (August 2005).

What's Next?

- President Ralls announcement has not resolved whether illegal aliens will be permitted to enroll in the community college system in the future. NCCCS is awaiting a response from the Department of Homeland Security regarding whether colleges should admit illegal aliens. Such a response, however, would not decide the matter, as only the state of North Carolina has the authority to determine whether it will admit illegal aliens to its public higher educational system (cf. Equal Access Ed. v. Merten (2004)).

- The UNC system – per policy 700.1.4[G] – continues to enroll illegal aliens at the out-of-state tuition rate.

- Two bills (HB 164 and HB 409) introduced during the 2007 legislative session would have prohibited granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. Former NCCCS president Martin Lancaster, who is responsible for forcing the colleges to admit illegal aliens in the first place, stated in April 2008 that he “fully expects legislators to pass a law barring illegal immigrants from the state’s colleges.” To date, no such legislation has been introduced in the General Assembly.

- Legislation banning illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition would be largely meaningless, as no state institution officially provides in-state tuition to illegal aliens.

- Model legislation regarding this issue should do the following two things:

1) Prohibit illegal aliens from attending all public higher educational institutions in North Carolina, including community colleges and universities.

2) Require all higher educational institutions to verify the Social Security number and legal status of all applicants. This can easily be done by means of the federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement) online database. Alternatively, Johnston Community College claims it is already using its current software to screen Social Security numbers as part of the routine application process.

(Want a PDF? Click the file below.)

[1]We use two different methodologies to arrive at the number of illegal aliens in the community college system. The first method, which we applied to students in the curriculum instruction program, is adjusted for age and likely college attendance. This method is derived from our analysis of data from the American Community Survey. The second method treats students in the continuing education program as having characteristics equivalent to those of the general Hispanic population. This method, which is based on data from the Pew Hispanic Center, presumes 78 percent of Hispanic students in continuing education courses are illegal aliens.

Governor's Budget: Higher Taxes, More Spending

Chris Hayes — Tue, 13 May 2008 10:44:52 -0400

Governor Mike Easley, in his final year in office, rolled out his last budget request yesterday. Never one to break with tradition, Easley included higher taxes and more spending.

Summary

The Governor’s recommended adjustments for the 2008-2009 budget:

Increases spending to $21.5 billion, a 4.2 percent increase over the previous year, marking a 48 percent increase over FY 2001-02 spending, Easley’s first year
Includes $1.2 billion in new programs and spending while cutting spending from the Highway Trust Fund by $65.6 million
Adds 4,681 new state employees and teachers, bringing the total to 262,481
Imposes an 80% tax increase on beer (4 cents per can)
Enacts a 57% tax increase on cigarettes (20 cents per pack)
Authorizes $553 million in new state debt, without voter approval
Allocates $25 million from Highway Trust Fund transfer to the Turnpike Authority to build toll roads
Provides for an average 7% pay increase for teachers
Includes a 1.5% pay increase for state employees (with an additional $1,000 one-time bonus and 5 extra vacation days)
Offers $396 million in spending reduction (mainly by reducing Medicaid spending forecasts and the automatic inflationary increase in reimbursement rates to physicians)

Ridiculous items

- $375,000 to establish an office of the State of North Carolina in Shanghai, China
- $15 million to renovate the Mattamuskeet Lodge
- $1 million for the “Freedom Monument”
- $2.7 million for a Polar Bear exhibit at the N.C. Zoo
- $97 million for the Jim Hunt Library at N.C. State

N.C.'s Sizable Safety Net

Brian Balfour — Mon, 12 May 2008 08:41:37 -0400

RALEIGH - What could your family do with an extra $22,000 per year? Spend it on health insurance? Groceries? Day care?
As you daydream about how you'd spend an additional $1,800 per month, think about all the rhetoric this political season from those who have bought into the notion that North Carolina needs to expand its "social safety net" via higher taxation and bigger government.

In May, the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., revealed the results of a recent survey that notes a "surge in support for (the) social safety net." But just how large is the safety net here in North Carolina? How much money is being spent on social welfare programs?

A review of annual appropriations by North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) will at least partially answer this question. The department administers the lion's share of the state's social welfare programs including (but not limited to): Medicaid, N.C. Health Choice, food stamps, Work First, mental health care and subsidized child care.

According to the state's 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, total DHHS spending --including federal dollars -- for FY2006-07 came to $14.2 billion (the split is about 60/40 federal/state). Further, based on the financial report and my estimate of those people enrolled in more than one program (e.g. Medicaid and food stamps), the total number of people receiving some sort of DHHS assistance or service in 2007 was roughly 2.4 million.

A dollar equivalence can thus be assigned to the services and aid DHHS enrollees receive. In other words, imagine that the department was converted to a check processing unit rather than a service provider. State government would simply cut a check to those who qualify for DHHS programs and let them spend the money themselves on such services -- health insurance, food, day care, whatever they value most.

Of course, someone needs to oversee this process. An administrative budget of 8 percent to process applications, enroll participants, and process and send out the checks seems fair. This brings DHHS dollars available to flow directly to recipients to $13.1 billion.

Thus, the current "social safety net" would be large enough for DHHS spending alone to provide the average recipient family of four with a check of nearly $22,000 every year. By comparison, the federal poverty guideline is $21,200 for a family of four.

This total excludes other social programs such as Medicare and Social Security (administered through the federal government), federal and state Earned Income Tax Credits, unemployment benefits, More at Four and Section EIght housing subsidies.

All this is not intended as a policy recommendation. Rather, it's a mental exercise to provide some idea of just how much money is already invested in North Carolina's social safety net.

If those 2.4 million recipients were surveyed and asked if their government-provided "safety net" is worth $22,000 each year, what would they say? Perhaps their answer would be more informed if they knew that the DHHS employs enough people to fill Raleigh's RBC Center (more than 19,000).

Further, they might want to know just what kind of results we are seeing. From 2000 to 2005, DHHS spending totaled more than $50 billion, while at the same time the poverty rate in North Carolina increased from 11.7 percent to 14.9 percent.

Perhaps it's time for North Carolinians to begin asking some difficult questions, starting with, "Does the government really need more money for social programs, or is there a better way to help those in need?"

Twenty-two thousand dollars for a family of four, every year. Think about it.

Understanding Healthcare and How to Reform It

Civitas Staff — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:24:37 -0400

Click above to view Part One of "Holistic Medicine".

Click below to view Part Two.

(Part One)
(Part Two)

Get the Facts: Real ID

Dr. Jameson Taylor — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:40:51 -0400

“Real ID” refers to the Real ID Act (P.L. 109-13) passed by Congress in May 2005. The law established uniform security standards each state must adhere to in issuing driver’s licenses and identification cards. Real ID was passed due to the ease with which the 9/11 terrorists were able to obtain multiple state IDs. State licenses and identification cards that fail to conform to Real ID standards will not be accepted as valid for the purposes of boarding a plane or entering a federal facility. Every state must implement Real ID standards before December 31, 2009, and complete enrollment of persons less than 50 years of age by December 1, 2014. States then have an additional three years to issue Real IDs to persons age 50 and up.

Real ID for North Carolina

While the technical deadline for compliance with Real ID is May 11, 2008, North Carolina was granted an extension that lasts until December 31, 2009. As part of Operation Stop Fraud, launched in December 2003, North Carolina had already been gradually implementing many reforms required by Real ID. The state’s progress has been accelerated thanks to legislation (S.L. 2007-56) passed in 2007.

To date, North Carolina has made progress in the following areas:

Central Issuance of Licenses and IDs: Beginning July 1, 2008, North Carolina will cease same-day issuance of licenses and IDs from its DMV field offices (cf. S.L. 2007-56). All licenses and IDs will instead be mailed to a residence address within 20 days, with an estimated 90 percent to 95 percent arriving within 3 to 5 days. Applicants who do not have a home address can have their ID sent to a homeless shelter or residential program (cf. G.S. 20-37.7(d)).

Social Security Verification: The DMV will confirm the accuracy of each applicant’s Social Security number.

Fraud Prevention: The DMV has been authorized to hire 36 new positions to create a team of fraud investigators who will review every application.

Immigration Fraud: North Carolina law also now requires that applicants with alien status be verified via the SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) database. Under S.L. 2007-56, licenses held by legal immigrants also become invalid upon expiration of the applicant’s visa.

Photo Identification: Every applicant for a license or ID will have his photo taken at the beginning of the application process. This photo will be cross-checked using face recognition technology in order to reduce fraud.

The North Carolina DMV plans to be “materially compliant” with Real ID by December 1, 2008. In short, this will entail requiring all applicants to establish their identity, residency and lawful presence, as well as confirm their identity in writing under penalty of perjury. The DMV will also be issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) in spring 2008 for a new driver’s license card production system that will be required under the terms of Real ID.

In spite of DMV’s progress in implementing Real ID, Senator Clark Jenkins (D-Edgecombe), vice chairman of the Transportation Committee, has suggested that he supports efforts to “opt out” of certain Real ID requirements, noting that 18 states have done so. Other legislators have indicated interest in either a law or a resolution prohibiting North Carolina from participating in Real ID altogether.

Pros and Cons

+ A secure form of identification will make it more difficult for terrorists and other criminals to board a plane or enter a federal facility. Real ID will also help prevent identity theft, which has increased by nearly 800 percent over the past 6 years. In 2005 alone, identity theft cost U.S. citizens $68 billion. According to the Secret Service, 35 percent of fraud cases prosecuted in 2007 entailed the use of a fake driver’s license or state ID card.

+ Real ID is not a national identity card and does not mandate the creation of a national database. The legislation, however, does require each state to maintain a state database accessible to every other state.

+ Real ID does not require the collection of additional personal information, except as is necessary to verify identity. Thus the law does not encroach upon personal privacy any more than do current identification protocols.

- The N.C. Department of Motor Vehicles has indicated that compliance with Real ID has been slowed owing to implementation costs. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Real ID will cost an additional $8 per license. Senator Jenkins believes implementing Real ID will cost North Carolina $20 million. In response to such concerns, DHS has made $360 million available to help states implement Real ID.

- Thanks to the state’s central ID issuance system, some 150,000 persons who live in towns that don’t offer residential delivery won’t be able to receive a license by mail. The DMV is trying to resolve this problem by contracting delivery to a private carrier, such as Federal Express or UPS. A technical amendment may be introduced during the 2008 session to address this issue.

For more information, contact: Dr. Jameson Taylor at jamesont@nccivitas.org or 919-834-2099.

Want a PDF? Click the file below:

Gas Prices, Food Prices: Blame Ethanol

Civitas Staff — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:43:30 -0400

Gas Prices, Food Prices: Blame Ethanol

What We Can Learn from Mexico

Dr. Jameson Taylor — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:08:11 -0400

This article was originally published in the Fayetteville Observer.

It is ironic that the same good police work that led to the arrest of Cesar Laurean in Mexico would be frowned upon as “profiling” if employed here in North Carolina. Laurean is wanted for the December 2007 murder of Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach. Laurean was captured on April 10, 2008, in the small Mexican town of Tacambaro. The Fayetteville Observer described the details of the arrest as follows:

“Police carrying out an anti-kidnapping operation stopped Laurean as he wandered on a street because they thought he looked suspicious.

“When they realized he didn’t speak Spanish well, they became even more suspicious. After running his name through a computer – and recognizing his distinctive tattoos – they realized Laurean was wanted in the United States on charges in Lauterbach’s death.”

Let’s review what happened:

1) Laurean, a native of Mexico, is stopped by police because he “looks suspicious”
2) The police become even more suspicious once they learn Laurean does not speak Spanish very well
3) Laurean’s name is run through a computer that can confirm his identity and whether he has any outstanding warrants
4) Laurean is arrested and will likely be deported to the United States, where he will be charged with Lauterbach’s murder

If Laurean had been an illegal alien here in the United States it is unlikely he would have been stopped at all – not simply for “looking suspicious,” and certainly not for not being able to speak our native language very well. Doing so would be labeled as “profiling,” at least by such organizations as the ACLU and El Pueblo. Indeed, these groups go so far as to argue that attempting to verify the legal presence of a suspect who has already been stopped for committing a crime could easily degenerate into racial or ethnic profiling. Argues El Pueblo, “Because it is left to the discretion of officers to determine who is a potential undocumented immigrant, there could easily be an increase in the use of racial profiling as a means to ‘determine’ who to question as a possible undocumented immigrant.” Along these lines, the ACLU of North Carolina asserts that the 287g program “arguably results in increased racial profiling by officers on the street.”

The 287g program, which has already been implemented in three counties in North Carolina, provides local law enforcement with the training and authority to investigate immigration violations. To be clear, the law does not give local police the power to make immigration arrests; they already possess this power and always have. More than anything, the 287g program empowers local law officers to use federal immigration law as a tool in dealing with criminal illegal aliens.

Critics of the 287g program argue that most 287g arrests are for misdemeanors, with averages ranging from 80 percent to 95 percent, depending on county. These ranges are in line with the misdemeanor rate for legal citizens in North Carolina. And without getting into the much-disputed question of whether crime rates for illegal aliens are higher than for legal citizens, the only point we want to make here is that confirming the legal presence and identity of a person stopped for breaking the law is not racial profiling. Oftentimes, as Mexican police found with Cesar Laurean, it is simply good police work. This is even the case when a suspect has only been pulled over for a routine traffic violation, as were four of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers – Mohammed Atta, Nawaf al Hazmi, Hani Hanjour, and Ziad Jarrah. In all four instances, local law enforcement could have arrested the terrorists for immigration violations. In Mexico, they would have.

Gubernatorial Debate

Civitas Staff — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:55:11 -0400

This is the Civitas Gubernatorial debate from Greensboro, April 2008 (featuring Bill Graham, Pat McCrory, Bob Orr and Fred Smith).

The debate is offered here in three 30-minute parts (download times may vary):

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

Note: Candidates Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore were invited to attend, but declined.