CHRISTENSEN TO LEAD GREENSBORO PARTNERSHIP

(Greensboro, NC) Brent Christensen, a 20-year veteran of the economic development industry and current Executive Director of the Mississippi Development Authority, has been named the new President and CEO of the Greensboro Partnership.

"This is an exciting day for our community and for the Greensboro Partnership," said Lee Lloyd, Chairman of the Partnership. "Brent is a dynamic and energetic leader who has led highly successful economic development efforts at the local, regional and state level. He brings an extraordinary level of talent, relationships and experience to our community that will allow us to significantly raise our economic development profile, both nationally and internationally.“

Christensen has ties to North Carolina, having earned undergraduate degrees in economics and public policy from Duke University. He currently leads economic development efforts for the State of Mississippi, having been named to the top position at the Mississippi Development Authority by Governor Phil Bryant in April of 2012.

Previously, Christensen served for ten years as the President and CEO of the Gainesville Area Chamber of Commerce, where he led the operation of the Chamber, the Council for Economic Outreach (the economic development agency for the Gainesville, FL region) and the Gainesville Technology Enterprise Center, a high-tech business incubator. During Brent’s tenure, the Gainesville Chamber achieved the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 5-Star Accreditation, placing it among the top one percent of chambers of commerce nationwide.

"I am thrilled to return to North Carolina, especially at a time when the economic development program statewide is being rejuvenated," said Christensen. "Greensboro is a great community with tremendous assets and is very well positioned for business success in the coming years. I look forward to working collaboratively with others in the community to realize our full potential."

The announcement today comes as the culmination of a national search process that was led by executive search firm Jorgenson Consulting Inc. The search committee consisted of community leaders, elected officials and Greensboro Partnership board members. "We were incredibly pleased by the quality of candidates that Jorgenson presented," said Chuck Burns, Chairman of the search committee. "We also worked to ensure that our finalist candidates met with a broad cross-section of leaders across our region, including business leaders and developers from both Greensboro and High Point, and government officials at the city and county level. We were impressed and pleased with the widespread support to hire Brent as our new President and CEO."

Nancy Vaughan, Mayor of Greensboro and a member of the search committee, said, "I am so pleased that Brent has chosen to lead the Partnership. I had the pleasure of meeting him while serving on the search committee, and I was impressed with his experience and passion for economic development. I know he will serve our city well."

"I commend the Partnership for being so inclusive in its process to find a new CEO,” said Jeff Phillips, Guilford County Commissioner and a member of the search committee. “I am very confident that Brent’s experience and accomplishments will prove to be extremely beneficial for our region, and I'm really looking forward to working with him to advance our economic development efforts in Guilford County."

"Brent has experience in working with colleges and universities, having formed a great partnership with the University of Florida while in Gainesville,” said Dr. Harold Martin, Chancellor of NC A&T State University and a member of the search committee. “We look forward to working with him to leverage our community's higher education assets while exploring new strategies for creating job opportunities for our graduates and new entrepreneurial enterprises through our technology transfer and commercialization efforts."

Chris Chung, CEO of the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina and responsible for overseeing the state’s efforts in business recruitment and retention, said, “Brent is a wellrespected professional economic developer who has served at the helm of a formidable competitor state in the industrial recruitment business. Rather than having to compete with him for the same employers that North Carolina is pursuing, I’m glad we can welcome him as the newest member of the North Carolina team, and I congratulate the Greensboro Partnership on an excellent decision. We look forward to an even stronger working relationship with the Partnership in the coming months and years."

Christensen holds a Master’s degree in Business Administration from the University of South Florida. He and his wife, Holly, have three children: Connor (17), Will (14) and Annabeth (10). He will assume his new role at the Greensboro Partnership no later than June 1, 2015.

About the Greensboro Partnership The Greensboro Partnership is the principal economic and community development organization in Greensboro, North Carolina. Through the work of its four business units – Action Greensboro, Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development, and Entrepreneur Connection – the Partnership works to develop a vibrant community that creates, expands, and attracts business while advancing the quality of life for all. For more information on the mission of the Greensboro Partnership, visit www.greensboropartnership.com."

- A Press Release

PHOTOS: New Greensboro City Council sworn in

Outgoing mayor Robbie Perkins listing the council's accomplishments since 2011

Council and the audience gave him a standing ovation

Outgoing councilwoman Dianne Bellamy-Small and Perkins hugging

Mayor Pro Tem Yvonne Johnson talking with new Councilman Jamal Fox

Left: New Councilman Mike Barber. Background: Fox.

District 2 Councilman Jamal Fox poses for a picture

NC Rep. Marcus Brandon photo-bombs new Councilwoman Sharon Hightower before she is sworn in

Tony Wilkins takes a picture of Nancy Vaughan in the mayor's seat. Marikay Abuzuaiter did next.

Greensboro's new Mayor Nancy Vaughan being sworn in, surrounded by her family
(Read more about her and her family in this week's cover story, SLAP SHOT).

PHOTOS: Tonight's Greensboro mayoral candidate forum

Here are four outtakes from tonight's forum with Greensboro's two mayoral candidates, incumbent Robbie Perkins and at-large Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan. We wrote about the race (when challenger George Hartzman was in it) and will have a second article on the match up in next week's paper, including coverage of the forum and a second hour-long sit down interview with each candidate. 

Next week's issue will also include our endorsements in all of the Greensboro City Council races (including this one). 

Photos by Quentin Richardson and Eric Ginsburg.

Greensboro mayoral candidates meet at League of Women Voters forum

The three Greensboro mayoral candidates squared off in front of a packed house at a discussion hosted by the League of Women Voters today. Mayor Robbie Perkins (at left, standing), Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan and challenger George Hartzman spoke on a wide array of issues, including several outside of council's purview.

Three of the questions for the moderated panel focused on immigration reform, an issue of concern for the League of Women Voters that Greensboro City Council doesn't actually have any direct role in creating. The questions hit on Secure Communities, comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship and in-state tuition for undocumented youth, and the candidates appeared unprepared and puzzled for the line of questioning. No questions directly addressed several of the key issues council has dealt with in the last two years since Perkins was elected mayor — the curfew, performing arts center, noise ordinance, tree ordinance, incentives, etc. — but candidates worked the issues into their responses.

Candidates were also asked about public education and healthcare — two other issues that would be better suited for the Guilford County Commissioners given council's lack of governance on the topics, but the three candidates attempted to answer them anyway, often suggesting more partnership or communication between government bodies. Hartzman went a step further, suggesting the creation of a charter school in east Greensboro specifically for children of single-parent homes.

The candidates responses were in line with their previous positions at city council meetings — Perkins and Vaughan speaking from their council seats and Hartzman as a frequent public speaker at the podium. When asked why residents should vote for them, Hartzman's answer was simple: Standing up, he said, "I'll tell the truth," and sat down. Several of his other comments, as usual, focused on the need for transparency and what he said is a corrupt local government lacking transparency.

Hartzman pacing (barefoot) in front of the panel.

Perkins repeated the same question at the beginning and end of the forum, asking attendees if the city is better off than it was two years ago and stressing the strides the city has made under his big-picture leadership. Vaughan said she had more than just a vision for the city, but a record that showed that she is great at following through on issues and tackling them in detail to make informed decisions.

YES! Weekly will have complete coverage of the forum and the three mayoral candidates in next week's Sept. 25 issue after sitting down with each of the candidates to discuss their platforms and why they're running in greater detail.

Can't wait a week? Read our basic candidate profile information on the trio, or tune in to tonight's city council meeting starting at 5:30 p.m., where it's fair to guess that they may butt heads over the curfew, the performing arts center, the High Point Road Streetscape Project and the noise ordinance.

The three contenders will go head-to-head in the Oct. 8 city council primary election. The candidate who receives the lowest number of votes will be eliminated, and the other two will move on to the general election.

Campaign billboard ads okay if handled right

Marty Kotis III, via http://www.kotis.org/

A few people are raising questions about Marty Kotis’ donations to Greensboro City Council candidates, but according to Guilford County Elections Director Charlie Collicutt, the in-kind contributions don’t run afoul of the law. Kotis, who owns several billboards in town, donated ad space to four candidates.

Elections law dictates that companies aren’t allowed to donate directly to political campaigns, but Collicutt said that as long as Kotis paid for the ads himself (essentially reimbursing his company for the actual rate of the advertisements). 

District 5 Councilman Tony Wilkins reported an in-kind contribution of $400 for the ads, and Mayor Pro Tem Yvonne Johnson amended her report to include the contribution because her campaign didn’t know the amount until after the filing period. Collicutt said Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan and another candidate (whose name escaped him) would also be working to amend their finance reports to reflect the in-kind billboard donation from Kotis.

“As far as the billboard that you’re referencing, the process that we’re working with the candidates that have been advertised on the billboard, we have to make sure it was an in kind contribution to the campaign for the actual cost of the billboard,” Collicutt said.

Elections law states that media outlets can’t provide free or in-kind advertising to political candidates, but as long as the donation is from Kotis and not his company, the contributions are fine, Collicutt said.

Vaughan already filed an amended report that does not list the contribution. Johnson’s amended report listed “Outdoor Signage/Mr. Kotis” while Wilkins’ first report listed Kotis and not the company. Collicutt couldn't immediately recall the name of the fourth candidate who received advertising.

Johnson's amended report lists "Outdoor Signage" along with Kotis

Collicutt said candidates are cooperating and shouldn’t necessarily be faulted because the specifics can be confusing, adding that if the county board or an individual feels election law has been broken, the violation can be reported to the state board of elections. The county board does not have any enforcement capabilities.

UPDATE: Nancy Vaughan called to say she didn't realize that she needed to change anything until after reading this post. She called the county elections board twice, and staff checked with the state board, about how she should file the information about the billboard donations that she wouldn't have until after the initial report, she said. Vaughan was repeatedly told to simply include it on her next campaign finance report, she said, and that she filed an amended report because she forgot to list the candidate filing fee. 

"I tried to cover my bases," Vaughan said, adding that if she needs to amend her report again, she'll try to do so quickly. 

Greensboro candidates connected to women's college, prominent consultants, finance questions

Our candidate profile for YES! Weekly's online voter guide at www.triadpolitics.info is pretty straight-forward (candidates answer basic questions about who they are and their campaign, and we post it along with a photo) but every so often there's something interesting or unexpected in the response.

Like that at-large candidate Ben Holder graduated from Salem College in Winston-Salem. It came as a surprise to us that the women's college has a co-ed adult education program for students who are 23 or older, and Communications Manager Jennifer Handy confirmed that Holder graduated from the program in 2009 with a degree in communication.

Or that Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan, who is running for mayor, hired well-known political consultant Bill Burckley. We reported that Vaughan worked with him in 2009, when he was also consulting for Bill Knight's successful mayoral bid.

Or that Tanya Wiley is managing Mayor Robbie Perkins' reelection effort. Wiley served as treasurer and consultant for the Winston-Salem Black Political Action Committee, an entity with finance problems. From Jordan Green's May 30, 2012  YES! Weekly article: 

"The committee failed to file second-quarter or third-quarter plus reports, prompting an official notice of noncompliance to Wiley from Kim Westbrook Strach, deputy director for campaign reporting at the state Board of Elections, on Nov. 12, 2008.

"Instead of catching up on its second-quarter and third-quarter plus reports the committee skipped to the 2008 year-end semi-annual report, which the board of elections received in February 2009. The report showed a balance of $164. Cash on hand at the end of the previous report should equal cash on hand at the beginning of the subsequent report. That $4,008 dwindled to $164 indicates that $3,844 remains missing or unaccounted."

Other interesting tidbits from the candidate profiles: At-large candidate Joseph Landis works as a flight attendant, District 2 challenger Jamal Fox is only 25 (Landis is 27), former councilwoman Florence Gatten is working as a paid consultant on Nancy Hoffmann's reelection campaign in District 4, District 5 challenger Alex Seymour co-founded the Beard & Moustache Club of NC and the Piedmont Old-Time Society and former NC House candidate Theresa Yon is District 5 Councilman Tony Wilkins' treasurer. 

Read more about the candidates here.

Greensboro hoping third time's the charm with noise ordinance

A flyer by Bennett College this week

Knock knock. It's your old friend, the Greensboro noise ordinance.

When the Greensboro City Council meets on Tuesday, there will be a familiar item on the agenda. Councilwomen Nancy Hoffmann, Marikay Abuzuaiter and Nancy Vaughan are bringing forward two significant revisions to the noise ordinance that are likely to pass, several council members said.

After lowering the nighttime threshold from 75 to 65 decibels and switching from A to C weighting (which is designed to pick up bass frequencies better but essentially drops the reading an additional 10 decibels) in July, the threshold level is back on the agenda for a very good reason: the current level is unenforceable. 

Opponents of the July revisions — the second round of changes since council first tackled the issue in early 2012 — argued that ambient noise would be a problem with C-weighted 65 decibel level, and that's exactly what police and council members found out. Vaughan said that readings taken outside of closed venues were crossing the 65 decibel threshold. (Council initially considered a 60 dB limit in July but Vaughan convinced a majority of members to bump it to 65 dB).

To reach an enforceable level, council will now consider raising the decibel threshold back to 75 but will retain the C-weighting system it put in place in July. But before you rejoice or panic, there's more.

Council will also consider — and likely pass — a ban on outdoor amplified noise after 11 p.m. Greene Street Club and Syn & Sky, two downtown clubs with rooftop venues, are the obvious target of the ban. Greene Street's lawyer Norman Klick and Syn & Sky owner Mike Carter could not immediately be reached for comment.

Reiterating her statements from council's discussion in July, Vaughan said club owners did not protect the initial ordinance changes that turned Greensboro into the loudest city in the state and possibly the Southeast.

"I was pretty frustrated with some of the clubs and the way they were managing noise and it just appears they can’t do it," she said. "It really didn’t seem to matter to them. It’s unfortunate that we have to come back a third time but hopefully the third time’s the charm."

Vaughan and Hoffmann said they were responding to feedback from the Greensboro Police Department about issues with amplified noise, and Mayor Robbie Perkins said this round of changes will make enforcement easier because the 11 p.m. ban will be more clear cut. 

"I think the big thing is, do we want our officers out after noise complaints or do we want them out after more serious crimes?" he said. "I’d have voted for this in the first round, we just didn’t have the majority of the council where we needed to be at that time. We’re at the end of a long road."

Hoffmann said she would be surprised if any revisions were needed after this, but added, "I never say never." 

Hoffmann said that part of the issue was that the C weighting hadn't been adequately tested before council's vote in July, but Vaughan said she and Abuzuaiter went out with police to see the C weighting in action before the last round of revisions. Yet after having the rules on the books for several weeks, Vaughan said it was clear that the ordinance wasn't workable based on more experience with the changes. 

The changes are necessary, Vaughan said, but she's disappointed the noise ordinance needs to be placed on the agenda again. So is Mayor Pro Tem Yvonne Johnson.

"I don’t know what I can make of that," Johnson said less than an hour after finding out it would come before council on Tuesday. "I think we ought to do something fair… and we need to stick with it. I just want us to get to a point where it’s a win-win and leave it there. I’m tired of it."

City staff pulls "Save Our Trees" signs, tries to return them

Recent "tone deaf" actions of city staff are fueling a conspiracy theory that the city of Greensboro is in cahoots with Duke Energy, Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan said today. Staff, in an effort to enforce sign regulations citywide, recently pulled up "Save Our Trees" signs in a few neighborhoods just outside of downtown, causing an uproar from opponents of Duke Energy's heavy-handed tree trimming line maintenance practices.

"Evidently city staff, over the last few weeks, have been doing a clean sweep of signs that are in medians, ecetera," Vaughan said. "All hell is breaking loose. It’s just another irritation that didn’t need to happen."

Vaughan said staff members are now trying to find signs and return them to their respective neighborhoods. 

Council will vote on the proposed tree ordinance at its June 18 meeting. Read more about the battle over trees in this week's issue of YES! Weekly.

Greensboro mayor clarifies public comment position

The City of Greensboro just sent out the following press release for Mayor Robbie Perkins on the public comment portion of city council meetings. In a telephone interview, Perkins said his comments at the end of a recent council meeting were misconstrued by the News & Record and the Rhinoceros Times, adding that he wanted to set the record straight. 

Perkins said part of the problem was that at-large Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan, who announced she will run against Perkins for mayor in the fall, tried to spin the situation to indicate that he was not in favor of the speakers from the floor portion as part of her bid for mayor. Vaughan could not immediately be reached for comment. 

Perkins' primary concern is that certain people dominate the public comment period with repetitive statements at each meeting, adding that some people speak so regularly that residents have come to know them on a first name basis. 

"Frankly, the concern I have is that they are taking away from folks that really need our help," he said. "Some may want to come in and don’t because they don’t want to be in middle of acrimonious discussion." 

Perkins said he did not have any specific changes that he wanted council to consider but that the discussion was "a function of being practical." While the majority of council is also frustrated, he said, the mayor isn't sure the issue will be formally discussed. Perkins also emphasized that he is not supportive of putting the speakers from the floor at the end of the meeting, a move made by previous mayor Bill Knight that was reversed when Perkins took the helm. 

Here's the full press release: 

 

GREENSBORO, NC (April 26, 2013) – City of Greensboro Mayor Robbie Perkins has released the following statement regarding proposed changes to the speakers from the floor portion of City Council meetings:

“Speakers from the floor are an integral part of our City Council meetings.  We currently allow two 30 minute periods per month for speakers to address Council on non-agenda items. Greensboro’s time allotment is double what the State of North Carolina requires of its municipal bodies. I want to reiterate that I believe in the RIGHT of Greensboro’s residents to speak freely to Council. That’s why one of the first changes I made as Mayor was to bring the speakers portion back to the beginning of Council meetings – and it will remain that way.

However, the acrimony and repetitiveness displayed by some speakers has been a growing concern of mine. Moving forward, any proposed changes will be fully discussed and voted on by the entire City Council in an effort to hear the concerns of residents that need our assistance.”

No personnel changes at DGI... yet

Downtown Greensboro Inc.'s board held a special meeting this morning to discuss "personnel issues" but Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan confirmed that the board took "no action" on the issue. Mayor Robbie Perkins has a non-voting seat on the board and Vaughan has been attending in his place for the city.

Downtown Greensboro Inc. and the Greensboro City Council have been tussling over whether the group's leadership has been adequate. The nonprofit agency receives the majority of its funds from public source, and you can read more about the initial flare up and subsequent cooperation between the two bodies in our previous articles (click the links). Vaughan, Perkins and others have criticized the agency's lack of visionary leadership. 

One of Downtown Greensboro Inc.'s biggest critics, downtown property owner Eric Robert, has cautioned that scapegoating the group's President Ed Wolverton and not dealing with the organization's deeper issues would not create satisfactory change. (Read more about what Robert and others have previously said in the articles above)

Dawn Chaney, the chair of Downtown Greensboro, Inc.'s board, could not immediately be reached. 

Vaughan issues memorandum on privacy of personnel records

Residents and council members alike have complained that the city hides behind "personnel issues" as a way to circumvent transparency on employee records, but City Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan issued a memorandum yesterday calling for the city's protocols on personnel requests to be more open in accordance with state law. Citing from Public Records Law for North Carolina Local Governments, Second Edition, Vaughan says the city needs to release more information than what the current interim city attorney is allowing.

"I think it’s time for us to revise our 'City’s Protocol for Public Records Request' to accurately reflect state law," Vaughan wrote.

The issue came up at last week's council meeting when Ben Holder raised concerns that Captain Hinson owns halfway homes in the precinct under his command, saying it was a conflict of interest. Vaughan was one of the council members who pushed the interim City Manager Denise Roth and interim City Attorney Jamiah Waterman to respond to Holder's concerns rather than refusing to comment because it is a personnel issue.

In the memorandum, Vaughan listed a number of things that are a matter of public record and specifically referred to Hinson's case, calling for his Outside Employment Request Form(s) to be released.

Read the full memorandum here.

Danny Thompson's specious landfill numbers

The question of what to do with Greensboro’s solid waste has receded somewhat as a campaign issue since Gate City Waste Services withdrew its proposal to operate the White Street Landfill in September. Yet the issue is far from settled: The city holds a contract with Republic Services to handle the city’s solid waste through the end of the year. And the six candidates vying for the three at-large seats on council hold different positions on the issue.

During a forum hosted by the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress at the downtown library last night, moderator Marsh Prause asked some of the candidates to address a perception that Gate City Waste Services was preordained as the selected vendor to operate the landfill long before the vote was taken.

“The third proposal, the RFP that we went through based on five different companies — there was a myriad of five different rates that they proposed based on the quantity of trash that would go into the landfill,” said incumbent Danny Thompson, who was one of four sitting council members that attempted to reopen the landfill. “When the consultant got up and did his PowerPoint presentation he picked two out of those five to say, ‘Well, here’s some of the lower rates.’ As you probably may have read in the News & Record op-ed piece, what I have always stated is that we should take our own green garbage cans — household residential trash — put it in Phase III of the landfill. That would take up capacity [for] 15 years. And there would be only one fourth of the trucks that are going through neighborhoods. And at that rate, at that volume, DH Griffin was the lowest-cost provider. And you also have a flat rate where it’s not escalating with a percentage of rate increase over time. And so that’s the reason I then and continue to say that that was the best deal for Greensboro.”

Thompson’s statement that DH Griffin — a local demolition company whose executives are majority partners in Gate City Waste Services, a solid waste vendor pre-selected by city council to operate the White Street Landfill — was the lowest cost bidder is at odds with the views of the city’s solid waste consultant and staff, and at odds with the councilman’s own statement from the dais (background) before voting to initiate contract negotiations with the company.

After Councilwoman Trudy Wade made the motion, Thompson clarified, “The company that she mentioned, Gate City Waste Services, down at the bottom — their rank is second.”

Under the scenario referenced in Wade’s motion, as outlined by consultant Joe Readling, the city would accept 140,000 tons per year extending the life of the landfill to seven and a half years. That would equate to 11,167 tons per month. Considering that Gate City Waste Services offered the city fixed rate per ton, it could provide the lowest cost arrangement — but only if the landfill accepted less than 10,000 tons per month; other companies proposed to discount the rate as the volume increased. In other words, the model adopted by council in the motion contemplated a waste volume in excess of the tonnage at which Gate City Waste Services could provide the lowest cost.

While Thompson states that he favors the landfill accepting only household waste, he voted for a model that also includes city-collected commercial waste — totaling 140,000 tons per year. During a break at the forum, Thompson explained that the city could have negotiated with the Gate City to impose a transfer fee for every ton of commercial waste, which then could have been rebated to the city. That in itself would not have necessarily reduced the monthly tonnage of solid waste to make Gate City the most competitive bidder, but it’s conceivable that some commercial customers might have balked at the transfer fee and gone with a private service instead. In any case, Thompson’s assertion that Gate City was the lowest cost bidder is based on conjecture considering that the company withdrew its proposal before council had an opportunity to vote on a final contract.

Nancy Vaughan, who has served as mayor pro tem over the past two years, is effectively running against fellow incumbent Thompson on the issue.

“I think the reason why there is that perception out there is because whenever there was an opportunity to look at something else, such as talking to Republic Services, who, at that point said they could save us $3.5 million as opposed to $3.1 [million] without opening the landfill, it was voted down on a 4-3 vote,” she said. “And something like that is a little hard to defend. If there’s a possibility that you’re going to save more money and not open the landfill, why not have that discussion? I think it was things like that that contributed to the perception that this train was going to DH Griffin whether or not they liked it. I have to say that I think council contributed to that by not listening to staff and not taking their advice and doing things that they suggested that might have put us in another direction.”

Marikay Abuzuaiter, a challenger who has been active in efforts to keep the landfill closed, also criticized the process to select a vendor.

“We know that it’s taken staff time and energy,” she said. “We know that it has brought the community together, but the council didn’t listen. When you have three RFPs going out there, you have all of staff’s time, all of this energy, and our council did not even listen to the recommendations from city manager. So those things adding up, the perception is out there that the RFP was a done deal, but what wasn’t planned on was that several organizations in Greensboro, including the League of Women Voters of the Piedmont Triad, of which I’m a part, looked and this and said, ‘This is wrong.’ So many organizations in Greensboro pulled together and said, ‘This is wrong. This entire process is flawed.’”

The three other candidates outlined their thoughts about forging a solution to the city’s solid waste challenge going forward.

“The key to this is going to be good communication amongst all the members of the council and then communication with the citizens,” challenger Chris Lawyer said. “So in order to find the best solution we’re going to have to have good communication. I think we’re going to have to look at what’s going to be best for Greensboro…. Recycling has got to be one of our priorities to make our footprint less. If we’re not going to reduce our footprint then our waste problem is not getting better; it’s getting worse. So I think a top-flight recycling program, educating people on composting. I think that would be good. That would help reduce waste in our city. And then I think you have got to look at your plan. What is your short-term plan and your long-term plan? And look at each one of them and look at the cost associated. I think regional solutions are probably our best option. And then we’ve got to look at waste-to-energy plans that are maybe not right now, but they are going to be in the future — they are going to be beneficial for our city. Because those actually reduce your waste even further and it reduces your footprint even further.”

What Lawyer left unsaid is that he is on record in support of reopening the landfill.

Challengers Wayne Abraham and Yvonne Johnson put forward similar proposals for handling the city’s solid waste that emphatically reject reopening the landfill.

“Certainly I don’t think we need to reopen the White Street Landfill,” Abraham said. “I think we should take Republic Waste up on its offer. They offered us a deal where we could save three and a half million and not have to reopen the landfill. I think that’s certainly something we need to do. We could also, by implementing the Sustainability Action Plan, increase our recycling, reduce our own waste, reduce our costs and actually increase some of the income the city receives. And we would look for a regional solution. Randolph County is one possible option with a longer-term solution being possibly technology/waste to energy. But all of this would be done in cooperation with the citizens of Greensboro and listening to the citizens of Greensboro and coming up with a solution that suits all of us. Because there are solutions that do reduce our costs without having to make our neighbors live in trash. Because I personally do not want to force my neighbors to live in trash and have trucks going down the road and rodents running around and the horrible smell that they would have had to endure.”

Johnson said, “I think that we need a regional solution in the short term. I don’t think that the landfill should be reopened for some of the reasons I stated before — economic development. And no major city in North Carolina, no major city has a landfill in their city limits a few miles from your downtown. And so I think waste to energy is something I have proposed for a very long time. And I think it’s very possible to do it at our transfer station when the technology is ready or when we get a “godfather” deal where we don’t have to plunk down anything. But to have a regional plan in the short term is the best plan because even if the landfill’s open you only have about four years. Then where’s our trash going? What do we do? We’ll be in a pickle again.”

Candidates took different positions on the Sustainability Action Plan. The current council voted unanimously to accept rather than adopt the plan in January, and then promptly shelved it. Prause asked if candidates would implement the plan.

Vaughan said the reason council accepted rather than adopted the plan is because in the past the council had voted to implement neighborhood plans, and residents actually tried to hold the city to them when rezoning decisions came up.

“So we’ve stopped adopting and we’ve started accepting things,” Vaughan said. “But accepting things I think you can take the best parts out of it. I think it does demand that we have a further study of it, that as a council we need to sit down and review it, which we haven’t done. It doesn’t have to require a lot of money. My daughter’s school has won the ‘Green Cup Challenge’ two years in a row. They cut their utility bills by 30 percent, just by doing some basic steps. I think if we could educate our staff on certain sustainability things that they can do every day that we could take strides for it. So I do think it’s a plan that we have to look at and that we have to take it in small bites. I wouldn’t be willing to do the whole plan at this point. I think we need to look at it and prioritize it.”

Lawyer echoed Vaughan’s stance.

“I think we have to break down that plan and see what we can make work in that plan and what may not truly work in the long term,” he said. “I think that plan has some good components. But it’s also got some plans that may not [work] for long-term sustainability. I think that’s where we’ve got to look at this and make sure we’re looking at the pieces of this that are long term for us, not short-term gains. We need to look at long-term gains that we can potentially maximize in this. And that will hopefully save money in the long term for us.”

As mayor, Johnson established the Greensboro Sustainability Council, which drew up the plan.

“I’ve read this plan,” she said. “It is an excellent plan. I spoke in favor of this plan. And I would hope this council would take it and really study it. And we would talk about it. And if we want to begin at a certain point, fine. But if something’s going to save our city $20 million and it’s not going to cost us anywhere near that, it’s something I think we ought to pay attention to. And as much as I want green jobs to be a part of Greensboro’s culture, I think this is definitely a reason that I would definitely promote it.”

Since the campaign has gotten underway the emergency of Occupy Greensboro has highlighted mounting frustration with the failure of government to effectively address economic insecurity. And national media coverage this week singled out Greensboro as emblematic of a national trend of surging poverty in the suburbs.

Abuzuaiter and Abraham fielded a question about how they would address a crisis of “high unemployment, rising poverty and a feeling of despair among many of our citizens.”

“We need to listen to our community,” Abuzuaiter said. “There are brilliant minds in our community. We need to bring everyone to the table. We need to come together to try to solve these issues. We have 20 percent poverty rate in Guilford County. Another item is that 35 percent of the students in our schools are living in poverty. We really need to address these conditions that our people are going through. I would certainly propose and hope that we bring our minds together and come to some solutions in order to create the jobs that will eventually solve all this. Do we need to be promoting our sustainable community? Of course. Do we need to be trying to help our local community? Of course. There are several initiatives going on there. The Greensboro Currency Project. There are so many things that can help sustainability. But we’ve got to address the immediate needs at hand. We have people who are starving. If you haven’t noticed lately, there is an increase in the homeless population. Our homeless shelters do not have beds for women. They are taken up every night. We have nothing there for women to go to, to spend the night in a safe and warm environment. All of these things need to be addressed. Can we solve it with one council? Of course not. But I certainly hope that we can bring our community together, have everyone bring their ideas and suggestions, work with our nonprofits and churches. When we all come to the table there are brilliant things that can happen. And I do believe we are going to need to involve the community to make that happen.”

Abraham said, “I do agree that we’re in a crisis situation when we have rising unemployment and rising poverty, we see median incomes declining in our own area, when an article in The New York Times says, I think it’s an 83 percent increase in what is referred to as ‘suburban poverty.’ And we know that where we live is suffering economically. We have to do something about it. That is why I am focusing my platform on economic development. Because, in my opinion, we have to take whatever resources city government has available to it, and move them into restoring our own economic growth. And that’s why I’ve proposed the buy-local campaign and even redirecting some of the city’s spending. And looking at how we can pull together public and private capital. And looking at how we can restore funding or even increase funding for the economic development partnership. And restoring our infrastructure spending. If we are able to have savings from deals that we make for reducing our waste costs, those savings need to be redirected towards maintaining our roads. That will create jobs. People will get jobs working on our roads. So there are all kinds of things we can begin to do, and we need to do, because we’re in a situation that can’t wait.”

Gut punches at the Greensboro Partnership

Mayoral candidates Robbie Perkins and Bill Knight got rough with each other at an otherwise genteel candidate forum hosted by the Greensboro Partnership and SynerG.

“In terms of why I feel like I’m a better candidate for mayor, I have 16 years of experience in working under other mayors to know how to lead this city,” said Perkins, the challenger. “I think it’s been a problem the last couple of years that the mayor’s office has not had a lot of experience. For example, I never would have said that losing 1,600 jobs at American Express was a ‘blip’ on the radar screen.”

He ended his remarks abruptly to let the impact sink in.

For his part, Knight recycled attack lines from the Monday night mayoral debate at Guilford College.

“There are nine people on the council and they’ve got to work together all the time,” he said. “That means working together, paying attention; not sending out texts, not talking, not exhorting members of the audience to show disrespect. When we go on a retreat, it’s not a matter of getting in the mayor’s face and threatening an override if you don’t get your favorite commission appointment.”

Perhaps the question of most interest to the hosts was how the candidates proposed to support or work with the Greensboro Partnership, the city’s top economic and community development organization. The city council voted in June to cut $14,000 in funding to the partnership, along with other nonprofits. A last-minute effort to restore the funding failed, with council members Perkins and Nancy Vaughan on the losing end. Knight and Councilman Danny Thompson voted to maintain the funding cut.

“I think you’ve got to support the Greensboro Partnership,” Perkins said. “And I don’t think you can have a briefing session and have a 5-4 vote against retaining the full support of the partnership because you’re cutting advertising funding for the program…. So number one, you’ve got to support the partnership. Number two, you’ve got to support an environment in our city that small business thinks is stable, that we are going to support them, we’re going to be there for them. We’re going to give them the confidence to invest both money and time to make their businesses grow in our city.”

Vaughan said, “I currently serve on the board of the Greensboro Economic Development Alliance, so I’m very aware of what’s going on in the partnership and the chamber, and I support them 100 percent. This year, our funding was cut by 10 percent during our budget process. I advocated very strongly to restore that 10 percent. Unfortunately, I was not successful. In the city of Greensboro we do not have a large business office where we can be proactive; we’re reactive. We need people who are out there pounding the pavement and helping us find large employers. That’s something the chamber does.”

Knight said the council would continue to work with the partnership, and named a number of initiatives the city was pursuing to help small businesses. He added, “Our responsibility is municipal responsibility. Municipal government: providing for the healthy and safety and infrastructure and the other services that go with it.”

Thompson said he supported the partnership in two undertakings: An allocation of federal funding to create a small business revolving loan fund that will be administered by the Greensboro Chamber of Commerce, and an initiative to join the partnership in funding a national public relations campaign to attract attention to Greensboro.

Remarks from other at-large candidates:

Wayne Abraham: “As a candidate, I have already reached out to the partnership, and so obviously as a city council member I would do the same. I sat down with them to discuss what we can do to provide economic development in Greensboro, and their response to me was, in large part, what I proposed in my platform for economic development in Greensboro. And one of the items I proposed was restoring funding, perhaps even increasing funding for the partnership on specific projects so that we could promote our city and promote our own economic development in this area and in our city: Buy local, implementing our Sustainability Action Plan, restoring funding to our infrastructure, and increasing our funding to the economic development partnership.”

Marikay Abuzuaiter: “We must have those who are able to go out and seek economic development for Greensboro. The city council does not create jobs. It is up to us working with the partnership to make sure that they have the tools available where they can go out and seek these economic development opportunities for us. Now, we need to make sure we have in certain instances the infrastructure, the viability for our city. We need to make sure that we are creating that positive image that will help them help sell Greensboro and in turn bring jobs to Greensboro.”

Yvonne Johnson: “I really think it’s our duty as an elected official to partner and do all we can with the partnership, with the chamber, with all of the groups that are working for economic development. For goodness sake, every candidate at every forum said one of the most pressing needs in Greensboro is jobs, so how can you not do that? And it would also give you an advantage when you are talking to the citizens about what is going on in Greensboro in terms of the effort to recruit jobs so that they become shareholders in that information and proud of what the partnership and the council and all the entities are doing.”

Chris Lawyer: “I think when you have an economic development group you have to bring that group together in order to have sustainable economic development. And as an elected official you certainly are obligated to be part of that discussion because your constituents have brought you to the forefront to be a voice for them in economic development, so we have to work closely together as a city, and as a group with the Greensboro Partnership to find the best solutions. That means bringing businesses to the table, large and small, along with the economic development arms and also the city council and mayor and get the discussion going and talk about real solutions. It’s got to be a very dynamic and very fluid situation in order for this to be a successful process. And if we’re not going to do this, then I don’t think we’re giving our citizens the full economic impact we possibly could.”

An allegation has been circulating in conservative circles that the Greensboro Partnership submitted a question to the Triad Real Estate and Building Industries Coalition, or TREBIC, for a questionnaire on whether candidates would support a prepared food tax. Answers from the questionnaire have been used by an anonymous group claiming to represent the restaurant industry to characterize candidates positions. (See previous posts: 1 and 2.)

Jason Cannon, vice president of government affairs, flatly denied the allegation.

"That is not true," he said. "We did not submit any question to TREBIC about the restaurant tax."

Cannon added that he coordinated with TREBIC on the questionnaire, and he was the only representative of the partnership that did so. He said he saw a copy of the questionnaire just before it was finalized and did not ask to insert any questions.

"There was no formal discussion and no formal activity with us looking at a prepared food tax," he said, adding that he heard some idle talk about it and researched the law to satisfy his own curiosity. Cannon is registered as a lobbyist with the state of North Carolina representing the Greensboro Partnership.

Vaughan said Assistant City Manager Denise Turner Roth told council on Tuesday that a local prepared food tax would require the NC General Assembly to pass enabling legislation. The legislature's Republican leadership has taken a dim view of tax increases and has worked closely with the conservative members of Greensboro City Council on other issues. Mayoral candidate Perkins has called the matter "a made-up issue."

Parsing differences between city council candidates, at large and district

A candidate forum last night at Congregational United Church of Christ drew aspiring public servants seeking to fill the three at-large seats, along with all five districts. In the at-large segment, discussion about sustainability and ties between council members and developers brought out the most interesting responses. The candidates’ answers shed some light on their level of familiarity with the issues and sense of priority about them — or lack of each, as the case may be.

George Hartzman, an unsuccessful candidate for the District 3 seat two years ago asked the candidates to address the possibility that a company called Land Port Investments LLC owned by local developer Roy Carroll might come before the council in the future with a request for incentives, and that Carroll has made substantial contributions to some candidates’ campaigns. Before the request was withdrawn, the city had considered granting $4 million to Carroll’s company.

Candidate Yvonne Johnson, who is among those whose campaigns have benefited from Carroll’s largesse, seemed to fumble in her response.

“When I talk about site-ready, I’m certainly not talking about any particular person’s business, except the city and the economic development council and the partnership needs to do that independently so that when people are interested in coming to Greensboro to build… that we have site-ready land,” she said, “not to benefit any particular person.”

Danny Thompson, who owns a personal care company said, “I’ve never received a dime from Roy Carroll, although I’d like to. I care for his mom.

Thompson told the audience: “The economic development bond project was a project that was brought before council just in the last several months by Andy Scott, our assistant city manager of economic development. It’s not a gift. What it is — it’s that economic bond money, and it will front the money to go ahead and put in the infrastructure – curb and gutter, and water and sewer. And then you, the taxpayers — correct me if I’m wrong — get the money back once a developer comes and buys — or they actually develop the project.”

In fact, Scott said that to date all projects approved by council have involved direct grants to developers for the purpose of improving infrastructure. With the Land Port Investments LLC proposal, which has been withdrawn indefinitely from council’s agenda, Scott said staff had envisioned that the city would make a direct grant to cover the cost of water, sewer and storm sewer, but loan money to the applicant for grading. The loan would be repaid upon sale of the property.

“I would say that the evaluation of whether to approve a project is, is it going to benefit the citizens of Greensboro as a whole,” candidate Wayne Abraham said. “And so that will be how I will make the decision. If it’s going to benefit Greensboro as a whole, and we’re going to come out ahead by putting some money into a project, then yes, it makes sense to do it. If it’s not, then it doesn’t make sense. Mr. Carroll has never donated a dime to me either, so I won’t have any conflict of interest in reviewing his proposals to us.”

One audience member was concerned about a proposal by city staff to dismantle the Greensboro Sustainability Council, which was established by Yvonne Johnson at the time she served as mayor. The current council voted to accept a Sustainability Action Plan earlier this year instead of adopting it. With the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan, who applauded recycling efforts at her daughter’s private school, no council members asked any questions or made any remarks about the plan.

Vaughan said last night that she would be surprised if the Greensboro Sustainability Council was dismantled, as proposed by staff.

“I hope it doesn’t get demolished,” Johnson said. “I think it’s a very important entity that we have here in Greensboro. I think it could be a catalyst for bringing green jobs and green-job training. I know when I was mayor we got $5 million from the federal government to do retrofitting and weatherization. One of the reasons is because we had a sustainability commission. I would definitely want it to remain. I think it has some great recommendations for Greensboro’s future.”

Marikay Abuzuaiter, an at-large candidate who is politically and personally aligned with Johnson said, “The sustainability action council was set up, and Mr. Joel Landau and Bob Powell are co-chairs of that. They worked very, very hard with the council to bring forward a plan to our city council.” She added that the four candidates who eagerly raised their hands to answer the questions — herself, Johnson, Abraham and Vaughan — would likely vote to bring the plan back and adopt it.

“I have not only been interested in keeping the sustainability committee alive; I’ve advocated from the very beginning that we have to implement the plan, look at all of its aspects and figure out how we can immediately start using some of the benefits that it provided for our city so that even the city government itself has means that it can use to save energy and reinvest our own money in ourselves,” Abraham said. “The plan itself says that if we could spend $9.3 million of our own dollars and then save $29 million of our own dollars. So to me, it makes perfect sense to use this revolving account that it talks about in order to do that because, in my opinion, we’re reinvesting our own money in ourselves.”

Thompson noted that he was among the council members who voted to accept the plan.

“The one little problem we had is we didn’t have $9.3 million to spend this past year,” he said. “That’s why the majority of council accepted it, gave it back to staff to break it down piecemeal to see what we can afford each and every year.”

Abraham challenged Thompson's statement today in a Facebook post: "If he had bothered to actually read the plan he would know that it does not call for an immediate expenditure of that amount. The city would start by refitting some buildings, bank the saved energy dollars, and then use those savings to do the next project, and then bank those savings and do the next project. The point was to create a fund that would cover these costs and in the end save us $29 million tax dollars."

One woman asked candidates what council could do to incentivize business investment in core areas of the city that suffer from high vacancy rates. The question seemed to be lost on many of the candidates, who instead discussed wage requirements in the city’s incentives policy. An exception was Johnson, who noted that many of the companies that bring large numbers of jobs to Greensboro prefer to invest in outlying areas.

“Part of implementing the Sustainability Action Plan will be to do exactly what you called for — looking at our land development ordinances, figure out ways to incentivize businesses to come and infill areas that we already have so that we’re not constantly expanding and then trying to send water and sewer yet further and incorporate more land,” Abraham said. “So obviously I would be in favor of that and I think it would be a wise investment of our own capital and our own resources.”

Thompson added, “When you’re referring to trying to incentivize a business to locate in a geographic area, typically that’s like an enterprise zone. In fact, last night, I was happy we unanimously voted for a small business loan for a specific area for businesses that are only in a blighted area where we need economic development, we need businesses to grow — along High Point Road, in the southeast Greensboro corridor area…. It is important because it’s less drain and drag on our services — police, fire et cetera when we have infill in a dense area.”

The $80,000 approved by council on Tuesday to help establish a small business loan pool will be drawn from federal Community Development Block Grant funds.

I'll have coverage of candidate statements in the district 1, 3 and 4 races in this space when time allows.

Greensboro primary: at-large analysis

Color code:

Yvonne Johnson — blue
Nancy Vaughan — purple
Chris Lawyer — orange
Danny Thompson — red
Wayne Abraham — aqua
Jean Brown — yellow
Tie — gray

Former mayor Yvonne Johnson dominated the electoral landscape in the at-large race in Greensboro's primary election on Oct. 11, carrying all precincts in east and south Greensboro except for two, along with the downtown area.

Nancy Vaughan, who currently serves as mayor pro tem carried a block of established neighborhoods stretching from Irving Park to Starmount.

Challenger Chris Lawyer and incumbent Danny Thompson, both conservatives, carved up the Cardinal, and Thompson carried the Grandover.

Marikay Abuzuaiter, who placed third overall in the primary, evidently rode Johnson's coattails, pulling most of her votes out of precincts carried by the former mayor.

Wayne Abraham carried one precinct by virtue of earning eight votes in G45, which covers UNCG.

Landfill opponents seek to intervene in lawsuit

Greensboro residents opposed to the reopening of the White Street Landfill have filed a motion (link) to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Gate City Waste Services seeking to block Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan from voting on a proposed contract with the company and to compel Councilman Zack Matheny to vote on the same.

Chris Brooks, a staff attorney with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said the matter will be argued in Guilford County Court tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.

Anticlimax after rumored recusal vote

District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny was playing coy tonight, but apparently wasn't playing ball with District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade.

An expected (link) vote to recuse Greensboro Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan from taking part in a decision to approve a solid waste contract did not materialize during a city council meeting tonight.

Typically, motions that are not on the agenda or added as part of an addendum come up for a vote at the end of the meeting during a segment called "matters to be discussed by the mayor and members of city council." Members discussed 9-11 commemoration activities, emergency response planning and the Greensboro Grasshoppers' winning streak, but no motion was made to recuse Vaughan.

At-large Councilman Danny Thompson and District 4 Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw — two of the four members who have voted to reopen the landfill in the past — indicated after the meeting that they were unaware of any plans to seek Vaughan's recusal.

Interim City Attorney Tom Pollard declined to comment on whether any of the four pro-landfill council members had approached him to ask whether it was legal to recuse another member against her will, but he said he discussed the matter with Steven J. Levitas, a lawyer who represents Gate City Waste Services. The company has been preselected to operate the White Street Landfill.

Pollard said his research into the legality of what he has described as an extraordinary parliamentary procedure "was derived from that conversation."

Gate City Waste Services filed suit against the city, Vaughan and District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny today seeking an injunction to prevent Vaughan from voting and to force Matheny to vote in the selection of the contractor to reopen the landfill.

Just as the meeting was beginning, Pollard and members of council received an e-mail (link) from Chris Brook, a lawyer for landfill opponents, requesting that the vote be delayed. Brook's argument that requiring Matheny to vote on whether Vaughan should be recused "is the equivalent of giving him a vote on Gate City as a vendor" — a company that he is deemed to have a conflict of interest with — might have been read as a shot across the bow.

After a break earlier in the meeting, six members of council reconvened without Thompson, Rakestraw and District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade. Rhinoceros Times Editor John Hammer was also outside of chambers.

The six council members began rapidly moving through a motion to allocate funding for "downtown support activities" — an item expected to especially run counter to Wade's fiscally conservative, parochial proclivities. At-large Councilman Robbie Perkins, who was smiling mischievously with District 1 Councilwoman Dianne Bellamy-Small, made a rolling motion with his arms to urge the mayor to call for a vote. Everyone on the dais understood that as the three absent members were not excused their votes would count as yes.

Just then, Thompson, Rakestraw and Wade rejoined the meeting, looking stone-faced. Wade read the item on the screen and said, "I'm against it."

Matheny said he had been approached by a fellow council member, whom he declined the name.

"I was asked, 'What would I do?'" he said.

Asked how he answered, he said cryptically: "You'd have to ask them."

Presumably the reason the motion was not made was because the four did not feel confident that it would pass.

"I was waiting just like you were waiting," Matheny said.

Landfill opponent lawyer: Delay recusal vote

Chris Brook, a lawyer who represents landfill opponents, e-mails interim Greensboro City Attorney Tom Pollard, asking that he delay a vote on whether Vaughan should be recused from a decision to select a contractor to reopen the White Street Landfill until Sept. 20.

Full message after the jump:

I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me this afternoon. In the course of our conversation I understand that there is likely to be a motion made this evening by a council member to take a vote on whether Councilwoman Vaughan should vote on a proposed contract with Gate City to operate Phase III of the White Street Landfill. I also understand from our conversation that you are planning to allow such a vote to go forward and will permit all members of the City Council to participate in this vote. Such a motion is a drastic measure and I write to request you delay such a vote until September 20, 2011, when there has been ample time to review the legality of these decisions.

My first concern is that empowering members of the City Council to potentially overturn your legal determination that Councilwoman Vaughan must participate in a Gate City vote is legally unsupported. My research this afternoon has not yielded any statutory or case law support for City Councilmembers having the authority to conflict out one of their peers. NCGS 160A-75, the statute governing conflicts on elected bodies in our state, makes no such grant of authority.

My second concern is that empowering members of the City Council to vote on conflicting out their peers is unwise public policy. Votes on these issues are likely to be proxies not on whether there is an actual conflict, but instead votes on the underlying issue at stake. In the case of the current controversy, the vote would likely not be about whether Councilwoman Vaughan has a conflict of interest, but instead about Councilpersons’ feelings on the landfill. Further, requiring Councilpersons to vote on conflicting out a peer is not good for the Board’s future ability to work well together. Many Councilpersons voting tonight are likely to serve again with Councilwoman Vaughan in the future. This vote cannot help but have a corrosive impact on Council cohesion, rendering them less effective in their efforts to manage the business of Greensboro’s residents.

My final concern is that requiring Councilman Matheny to vote on whether to excuse Councilwoman Vaughan from voting on Gate City is contrary to prior decisions rendered by the Greensboro City Attorney’s office and places him in an untenable position. It was determined in May 2011 that Councilman Matheny had a conflict with Gate City, a position unchallenged until late last week. Councilman Matheny’s employer has a close business relationship with the principal players behind Gate City. If the City Attorney’s office will not require Councilman Matheny to vote on Gate City as a vendor, then why is he required to vote on whether Councilwoman Vaughan can vote? Given the close vote in this circumstance, requiring Councilman Matheny to vote on Councilwoman Vaughan is the equivalent of giving him a vote on Gate City as a vendor. In both instances, if he votes in a fashion that favors Gate City (or abstains from voting, thereby still producing an positive vote), then the public will view him as his acting based on his employer being close to Gate City. On the other hand, if he votes in a manner detrimental to Gate City, then the public will believe he voted defensively to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He can’t win under these circumstances. Councilman Matheny should not be placed in such an untenable position. The City Attorney’s office has determined he can’t vote on Gate City as vendor; it follows he should not be allowed to vote on anything relating to Gate City.

In light of the drastic measures requested, the apparent lack of statutory support for Councilpersons voting on their peers’ conflicts, the potential policy implications, and the conflicts facing Councilman Matheny should he be forced to vote, I ask you to delay consideration of any motion to excuse Councilwoman Vaughan until September 20. A week delay would allow further research to be done to ensure the correct answer is reached. A week delay would not upset the timing of considering Gate City as a vendor as additional, necessary votes are scheduled for the upcoming September 20th Council meeting. Getting this right now would serve all of the Council in the long-run.

Thank you for discussing this with me this afternoon and considering this request. My apologies on the late hour of this email. Alas, the recent nature of these developments precluded an earlier, more thorough reply.