The Republican primary contest for the Guilford County Commission District 3 seat, a conservative-leaning district covering the northwest part of the county, has erupted into a war of words over the incumbent's position on raising taxes.
Challenger Samuel Spagnola, a lawyer/blogger, charges that incumbent Linda Shaw said at a recent candidate forum that raising taxes will be necessary. Not so, says Shaw.
Spag’s campaign website prominently features an item under a flashing “breaking news” marquee with the headline, “SHAW: ‘We are going to have to raise taxes.’”
The item reads: “(April 7, 2010) — Last night at a forum sponsored by the Northern Guilford Conservative Republicans, incumbent County Commissioner Linda Shaw admitted that the county would have to raise taxes to pay for the looming $1 billion dollar debt.”
Shaw contacted me by e-mail last night disputing Spagnola's charge: “For the record I have never, ever said raising taxes will be necessary. Those words have never come out of my mouth. With the economy the way it is I will not (just like last year and nine years before that) support a tax increase.”
I've put in a call to Spagnola at his law office, and plan to ask him to substantiate his statement. Meanwhile, the charge got additional mileage yesterday when Dr. Joseph Guarino, a Greensboro blogger with a reputation for attacking Republican politicians who don't toe a sufficiently conservative line, repeated Spagnola's attack.
Guarino's post is headlined “County Commissioner Linda Shaw: Raising Taxes Will Be Necessary.” It reads: “We learn that County Commissioner Linda Shaw has made the statement that raising county taxes will be necessary. Why? Because of the huge bond debt the county has undertaken.”
Guarino follows up by encouraging readers to spread the word about Spagnola's candidacy, and to contribute money to the campaign.
The comment thread on the post has been turned off, making it impossible for anyone to refute or contradict Spagnola's charge. I reached Guarino at his medical practice, and he declined to comment on the record about why he was not accepting comments.
Guarino endorsed Spagnola early in the race.
Triad Elections '10
UPDATE: I've talked to both candidates, and each gave me the names of people who were at the forum, and can vouch for their respective accounts. BJ Barnes, Marcus Kindley, Theresa Yon and Don Wendelken — I'm looking for you.
"We were talking about the county debt and the bonds and everything," Spagnola told me. "She said, 'Well, we are going to have to raise taxes to pay for it.' I thought it was strange that she would say it, when earlier she had said, 'This is the first year I've been in office where we haven't raised taxes.' We talked about the bonds, and how we were going to have to pay for them, and she said, 'We are going to have to raise taxes.'"
Shaw recalls it differently.
"He interrupted me very rudely," she said, "and said, 'Do you mean that no taxes are going to be raised with all those bonds?' I said, 'Eventually, but I won't be raising them."
As a Republican on a Democratic-majority board, the question of whether county taxes are raised is largely out of Shaw's hands. She told me that she doesn't expect the commission to vote for a tax raise this year, but if Paul Gibson or Kirk Perkins were to wrest the chairmanship away from Alston, that might change in future years.
"No, we're not going to raise taxes this year," she told me. "We're working very hard to streamline government and cut as much fat as we can. Hopefully, we're not going to raise taxes. I can't speak for the future. I can speak for this year. And I made it very clear that we're not going to have a tax increase."
For readers who don't keep up with local Republican politics, this is show-time. There are no Democrats in the District 3 race, so the winner of the primary in three weeks also wins the seat.
UPDATE 2: Sheriff BJ Barnes is backing Shaw in this dispute. He told me in a phone interview: "Linda said that a tax increase may be unavoidable, but she has not and would not vote for one."
UPDATE 3: Don Wendelken, a candidate in the District 3 Republican primary four years ago with Shaw and Spagnola, weighs in behind Spag. From a phone conversation: "Her exact words were that we will have to raise taxes. She said this in the context of the bonds. She said we will have to raise them. I said, 'Whoa.' She did say it; I'm 100 percent certain. As a conservative, I was shocked. She can spin it anyway she wants."
CORRECTION: This post originally stated that Spagnola "charges that incumbent Linda Shaw said at a recent candidate forum that raising taxes will be necessary this year." Spagnola e-mailed me to clarify that he has never said that Shaw said raising taxes will be "necessary this year." I've removed the phrase "this year," which was, indeed, inaccurate.
6 comments:
It could just be coincidence or unfortunate luck, but it seems as if Shaw keeps finding herself in situations where what she said is in dispute. I recall:
1. Her saying that county staff had not informed the commissioners on the nature of certain bonds, then wanting to take that back.
2. The kerfuffle with the N&R's Joe Killian over what she did or did not say to that reporter about Skip Alston.
3. Now, this.
It is tough to have every word under the microscope (or is that stethoscope?) but at some point, if they continue, these contradictions will become a concern.
Her recollection is way off. The exchange she describes and the words she says she spoke as part of that exchange are not accurate.
"Sheriff BJ Barnes is backing Shaw in this dispute. He told me in a phone interview: "Linda said that a tax increase may be unavoidable, but she has not and would not vote for one."
That doesn't contradict anything. The issue was the county debt that she helped run up and how to pay for it. She said "we are going to have to raise taxes".
The point is that she helped create the debt and believes that the way out of it is going to be a tax increase- whether she votes for it or not. How did she think it was going to be paid for when she voted for it?
Sam has a really high bar to meet for me to agree with him, but I get what he is saying here--that Shaw could both have said "We are going to have to raise taxes" and that she will not vote to do so. The statements are not mutually exclusive.
It's a simple equation even if you use the words she claims to have said.
She voted for the bonds. She now admits that a tax increase will be necessary to pay for them, but claims that she won't be voting for that tax increase.
This begs the question of how she expected they would be paid for when she voted for them.
TEAM SAM!
Post a Comment