By Craig Jackson – November 27, 2024

470 words, 2 minutes read time, please share on your own Social Media

Blackwater Reports Inc. submitted a public records request to Currituck County, seeking all communications from residents regarding PB 24-19. This request produced 250 emails, many of which were duplicates. Upon analysis, we found that only one email supported the proposed measure—and that solitary email came from Chairman Bob White’s spouse.

This striking imbalance underscores significant public opposition to the proposed development. Despite this, during the November 18, 2024, board meeting, several commissioners mentioned receiving phone calls in support of PB 24-19. To verify these claims, Blackwater Reports will submit a public records request for the cell phone records of all seven commissioners for the preceding two months. By comparing the volume of calls during this period with prior months, we aim to assess the accuracy of these claims and conduct a statistical analysis of the incoming calls.

Statistical Evaluation of Support Through Phone Calls

Until the phone records are obtained, we utilized the data from emails to evaluate the likelihood of significantly higher support being expressed through phone calls. Here are the key considerations and calculations:

Sample Representativeness

Emails represent residents who prefer written communication, while phone calls may reflect preferences for verbal interactions. However, without evidence to suggest that callers differ systematically in their opinions, it is reasonable to assume similar levels of support across both communication methods.

Volume of Calls vs. Emails

The results of any analysis depend on the volume of calls. A significantly larger sample of phone calls could yield slightly different results, but if the volume is comparable to emails, the probability of different support levels diminishes.

Unbiased Sampling Assumption

If citizens who support or oppose the apartments are equally likely to call or email, the opinions among callers should mirror those of emailers.

---

Probability Calculations

Based on the data:

• Proportion of support among emails (p): 0.004 (1 out of 250 emails)
• Sample size (n): Number of phone calls received

For example, if 100 phone calls were received:

1. Expected supportive calls: E(X)=n⋅p=100⋅0.004=0.4E(X) = n \cdot p = 100 \cdot 0.004 = 0.4E(X)=n⋅p=100⋅0.004=0.4
2. Variance: Variance=n⋅p⋅(1−p)=100⋅0.004⋅0.996≈0.398\text{Variance} = n \cdot p \cdot (1 – p) = 100 \cdot 0.004 \cdot 0.996 \approx 0.398Variance=n⋅p⋅(1−p)=100⋅0.004⋅0.996≈0.398
3. Standard deviation (σ\sigmaσ): σ=Variance=0.398≈0.63\sigma = \sqrt{\text{Variance}} = \sqrt{0.398} \approx 0.63σ=Variance​=0.398​≈0.63

Probability of Different Support Levels

Under the binomial model, the probability of observing significantly higher support (e.g., 5% or 5 supportive calls out of 100) is extremely low without substantial evidence of bias among communication methods.

---

With only 0.4% of emails supporting PB 24-19, the likelihood that phone calls would yield substantially higher support is minimal, assuming no systematic differences in communication preferences. We will provide further updates once the analysis of phone records is complete, offering a comprehensive view of citizen feedback on this controversial measure.

This analysis underscores the importance of objective data in evaluating claims of public support for critical policy decisions.