Guarino

Aquatic Center Approved by Council

On a series of 5-4 votes, the Greensboro City Council voted tonight to approve the creative financing arrangement for the aquatic center.  The council also refused to allow voters the opportunity to vote in another referendum for the shortfall.

I spoke at the hearing, and explained that any council member who votes in favor of this project becomes a party to all the deception that took place when advancing it.  I also explained that council members voting in favor also become a party to the practice of taking income from those who have less-- for the benefit of those who have more.

The members voting in favor included Nancy Vaughan, Zack Matheny, Robbie Perkins, Jim Kee and T. Diane Bellamy-Small.  Of course, this was classical vote-buying behavior-- currying favor with interest groups. 

Particularly disappointing were the votes by Vaughan and Matheny.  Jim Kee flip-flopped from the position he expressed during the campaign.  The Melderec con Simkins faction prevailed.  And while the vote was not a surprise, it was, after all, typical Greensboro politics.

Pulpit Forum to Help Select New Greensboro Police Chief?

Yes!Weekly:

Young said the search for a new police chief is already underway. (Chief Tim Bellamy has announced that he will retire next year.) Young said the human resources department has already talked to one recruitment firm last week, and plans to talk to others this week. He plans to conduct a national search rather than recruiting from inside the department. Once the list is narrowed to a handful of contenders, Young said he would like the candidates to appear publicly before different panels, one comprised of sheriffs, judges and prosecutors, one comprised of citizens, one comprised of business leaders, one comprised of citywide staff, and one comprised of members of pastors from both the minority and majority communities.

I wonder what particular expertise pastors might have with respect to controlling crime or running a police department.  I suppose one could argue they are legitimate stakeholders in the selection of a police chief, but on what basis?

We need to be concerned that this is a back-door mechanism to somehow give Cardes Brown, Nelson Johnson and/or other Pulpit Forum members input into the selection of the new chief.  That would be a terrible mistake.

Disturbing Developments at City Council Retreat: Zack Matheny Reported to Have Threatened New Mayor

The new Greensboro City Council held a special retreat over the last couple of days.  I have heard through the grapevine about some things that occurred at this retreat.  It warrants grave concern for all Greensboro citizens who want us to have good government in our city.

Apparently three or four media outlets were present at the meeting.

I am told that a coalition has formed that was apparently rounded up by Robbie Perkins.  It apparently includes T. Diane Bellamy-Small, Jim Kee, Zack Matheny and Nancy Vaughan.  It appears these five are forming a united group that is seeking to undermine the authority of the newly elected mayor, Bill Knight.  I am told they are opposing Knight on the Aquatic Center, on commission assignments for council members, and even on the matter of seating arrangements at council meetings.  Some of it seems incredibly petty.

If the information provided to me is true, these members do not give a flip about what is best for Greensboro or its citizens.  Instead, they are seeking to perpetuate the old Melderec con Simkins ruling establishment.

What makes it even more egregious is that they have pulled these maneuvers when Knight has been mayor for less than two weeks.  They have not even given him an opportunity to become acclimated to the position, and are already waging power plays against him.  This group maintains the facade that they seek unity, respect among members and an appropriate tone for conducting business.  In reality, however, they engage in the most reprehensible gutter politics.

One or more members apparently were unhappy over what they learned might be their commission assignments and their placement on the council dais.  At least, that is what was discussed at the retreat.  But the reality goes much deeper than that.  This is about the old guard reasserting control.  

I am told at the end of the meeting, Matheny approached Knight and threatened him.  Apparently he told Knight that if he did not get reassigned to the coliseum commission, then he had five votes to reverse whatever Knight tried to do regarding assignments.

I know that it all sounds very petty, because it is.

Some people might disagree with Bill Knight's position on the issues.  But no one can make the assertion that he has anything other than the city's best interests at heart.  He was treated in an indefensible manner by the newly formed opposing bloc, and this is a bad prognostic sign for what will follow.  He did not even remotely deserve that.

Local citizens concerned about this series of events need to do two things.  First, they need to show up at the council meeting on Tuesday night when the discussion of the aquatic center takes place.  Anyone who wishes to be seated in the council chambers should be sure to arrive early-- by 5:00 P.M.

And second, they need to register their disapproval in whatever way they see fit.

There is a lesson to be learned.  When selecting council members, voters need to consider a candidate's character.  District 3 voters unfortunately neglected to do this when they elected Matheny two consecutive election cycles.

Update 12/13: Amanda Lehmert reports in the News and Record.  It is ironic that, in view of the above detailed circumstances, Matheny was making a call to "end the political jockeying"-- when it is very clear that is precisely what took place when the Melderec con Simkins bunch were assembling their five votes against Knight over a couple of picayune issues.

North Carolina Taking a Sharp Turn Further Left?

Recent news revealed that Tony Rand resigned abruptly from the North Carolina Senate (it turns out, under a cloud).  And now we learn that another influential legislator, David Hoyle, is leaving as well.  Doug Clark posted earlier this week that these two departures add up to a shift to the left in the North Carolina Senate. 

The concern is that these two individuals were part of North Carolina's "business progressives" establishment which is represented to be more moderate on economic matters than the national Democrats.  The North Carolina Senate has overall been less liberal than the House, and this has probably had some impact on policy.

North Carolina overall has not done well from the standpoint of public education or criminal justice, so our "business progressive" orientation has not helped in those spheres.  But arguably from an economic standpoint, we could have been worse off than we have been.  Although North Carolina acts as if it wants to be like New Jersey, we are not quite there yet.

One of the unspoken dynamics is the effect the departure of these two senators will have on pro-life, pro-family policy in the state of North Carolina.  Our state overall has not been strong in these areas.  Efforts to pass good bills have been repeatedly stymied by the Democratic legislature.  The North Carolina Family Policy Council has recently published an analysis that details how our laws in North Carolina are much worse than those in surrounding states like Virginia and North Carolina.

I had the opportunity to speak last weekend with a high-ranking pro-family advocate in the state of North Carolina.  This person told me he was concerned regarding the departure of Tony Rand from the Senate.  If we have done so poorly with regard to family policy in our state, I asked, why would he be concerned?  This person explained to me that Rand was one of those legislators who applied the brakes when some of the most irresponsible legislation reached the Senate.

The year 2010 might represent an enormous opportunity for North Carolina Republicans to increase their numbers in the state legislature.  Some of the seats are gerrymandered to the point that they are non-competitive.  But clearly there is much at stake, because if Republicans do not gain a fair number of seats, our state is turning further to the left.  That would be very bad for North Carolina's future.

Republicans at the state level need to have a sound strategy for approaching the 2010 election cycle.  They need to recruit good candidates, raise much money, develop a strong message to communicate with the state's residents, and work relentlessly.  Many Carolinians otherwise might not like the outcome, given what appears to be happening in the Senate.

Manhattan Declaration: The implications of accepting gay marriage

The Manhattan Declaration concludes its discussion of gay marriage:

On inspection, ... the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.

No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture.

Mike Baron's Rebuttal of Ed Cone's Post on Water

Ed Cone said this.

Here is Mike's rebuttal.

The Black Officers' Latest Suit

Says local attorney Sam Spagnola:

Discovery should be fun considering all other investigations found nothing.

I sure hope that the new city council resists any pressure to settle.

The Aquatic Center: How the Income Transfers Will Flow

The News and Record has a prominently placed story this morning trumpeting the possible benefits of the proposed aquatic center.  It talks about all the various meets and competitions it might attract that would cause out-of-towners to stay in Greensboro hotels.  It suggests, however, the facility itself will likely operate at a deficit.  The article also points out several other complexes in the state of North Carolina with which the Greensboro facility would be competing.

The story does not attempt to describe the elaborate web of deception and the breach of ethics associated with the manner in which the previous city council advanced this proposal.  John Hammer spoke about that yesterday in the Rhino.

But let us look at the manner in which this proposal redistributes income.  Remember that it would ultimately be supported by local property taxes.

It takes money not only from those who own property, but also from those who rent-- because renters indirectly pay property taxes.  These people include folks in the working class and the lower middle class.  Among these groups are lots of black people.

It takes money from these groups and redistributes it to those who will benefit from the aquatic center.

Who are those people?  The owners of local hotels, and people who participate in competitive swimming.

But let us look further at the demographics of competitive swimming.  I do not see anyone alleging that this is a sport that attracts representative numbers of people from the lower middle class or the working class.  I do not see anyone alleging that it attracts representative numbers of African Americans.  In fact, it is a sport that is predominantly upper-middle class, upper class and white.

So let's sum it up.

We would be transferring wealth and income from the lower middle class and the working class to the upper middle class and the wealthy. 

We would be transferring wealth and income from blacks to whites.

We would be transferring wealth and income from those who pay taxes, directly or indirectly, to two narrow groups-- those in the swim community, and the owners of hotels.

Manhattan Declaration: The Push for Gay Marriage

The Manhattan Declaration discusses the meaning of the push for gay marriage, and why it must be resisted:

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant...

Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

Burr Relents

As reported by Jeff Sykes at Conservative NC, Senator Richard Burr now plans to block the nomination of Thomas Walker.

Thank goodness Burr made this decision.  We would not have wanted to hold our collective breath waiting for Kay Hagan to do it.

A Stirring Video...

... communicates very effectively that some things in our nation are terribly amiss; and implies our current leadership is not addressing them.  (HT: Mom)

Check it out here.

Misleading Signals from GPD Police Chief Tim Bellamy

A couple of articles recently published raise a couple of instances in which misleading signals were transmitted by GPD Police Chief Tim Bellamy, who soon will be retiring.

First, from Yes!Weekly:

Bellamy expressed caution about presuming that the conclusion of the investigation and the reinstatement of Sanders indicated that the officer had been cleared of wrongdoing.

“Exonerated? I wouldn’t say completely exonerated,” Bellamy said. “There were some things that were found that would not state that.”

While declining to comment specifically on Sanders’ case, Bellamy said, “We do have investigations where it can be sustained that there were violations, but it doesn’t rise to the level of termination.”

Hmmm....

If there were violations that can be sustained, then one would think disciplinary action would have been taken.  After all, the GPD only needs a demonstratiion of greater-than-50%-likelihood in order to sustain a violation.

If Bellamy feels violations could have been sustained, but were not, then to what factors would he attribute that?

The concern, of course, is that Bellamy is just blowing smoke.  We need to remember that Bledsoe reported he was among those who fostered the confusion and false accusations over the black book and the alleged surveillance of local black professionals.

While David Wray, Randall Brady and the officers of Special Intelligence were "punished" by virtue of the efforts to force them out and investigate them incessantly for over three years, respectively, there was no charge or disciplinary action against them that was ultimately upheld, as far as we know.

And then we learn of Bellamy's meeting with council members Tuesday night:

“It was very valuable because I think there was some misinformation, some misconceptions about the police department and how we’ve been operating,” Bellamy said. “I think a lot of issues were cleared up at the meeting"...

Bellamy advised the council that the department should increase its staff in the next five years to reduce the size of patrol areas and cut response times...

A new substation and equipment officers need also could cost nearly $21 million, he said.

“With the 250 (new officers), we can incorporate a fifth (patrol) district and have discretionary forces necessary to abate some of the problems that we’re having.”

So we now have the police chief setting the record straight, and telling council members that any deficiencies are due to a lack of staff.  We have him correcting misinformation and misconceptions. 

That is very interesting.  Precisely what were all these misconceptions and misinformation ?  Did they have anything to do with the point made to Yes!Weekly?

But beyond that, the call for more staff is somewhat at odds with the recommendations in the Buracker Report.  I do not recall that report recommending 250 more officers.  It recommended that fewer be added, but then went out of its way to point out that having more police does not seem to decrease crime.

If the additional police are solely intended to reduce response times, it might be a misguided emphasis.  We learn from contemporary crime prevention/reduction research that it is a big mistake to make fast response times a key objective.  Instead, police need to be reoriented toward a proactive approach to reducing crime levels; and reducing response times as a key emphasis would be inconsistent with that approach.

We need to utilize better the police we already have.  We need to supervise them better than we have been as well.

It is unclear to me how many officers have been added since the Buracker Report recommendations were released.  While I do not necessarily dispute the need for more officers, I think we need to understand what we are trying to achieve.  And we need to understand how the department has been using the resources it already has available.

And if we add more police, we had better understand what we are purchasing, and how they will be used.

A New Bond for the Aquatic Center?

One of the options available to the new city council is to propose a new bond issue for the aquatic center.  And Tony suggests that may be increasingly likely.

I have previously expressed my own preference that the whole project be scrapped.  Readers should understand, however, that we do not truly have a conservative city council.  We may have a majority Republican city council, but that does not mean the body is majority conservative.

Those council members who have concerns about the cost of this project, and the manner in which it germinated, must assemble five votes in order to do anything about it.  If a new bond issue is the only way to gather those five votes, then it might be the best they can do.

If there is a new bond proposal, there are two potential routes-- a $6.7 million bond to fund the shortfall, or a $20 million bond to fund the project from scratch.  We need to be sure we are covering and accounting for the $1 million-plus that has already been spent; and it would probably be wise to allow some wiggle room for future cost overruns.

I like the idea of the approximate $20 million bond to make voters fully aware of the magnitude of the project. 

The voters approved $20 million for Parks and Rec last year, and if the $12 million is not spent on the swim center as intended, the Parks department will likely just spend it on something else. 

But regardless of which bond alternative is placed on the ballot, the language put before voters needs to be crystal clear, so voters fully understand the nature and magnitude of the proposed project-- unlike last year.

Manhattan Declaration: Churches' Need to Rebuild the Institution of Marriage

The Manhattan Declaration indicts the role of churches in the decline of the institution of marriage; and argues for a turnaround:

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

Burr's Blunder, and His New Competition

I happen to think that Richard Burr is, on balance, a very good United States Senator.  He is right on many of the issues.

However, he made a huge blunder when he offered that he will not block the nomination of Thomas Walker to replace George Holding as the U.S. Attorney for the eastern district of North Carolina.  Recall that Holding has been involved in the investigations of Mike Easley and John Edwards.

Burr's poll numbers are not extremely strong, and he is up for re-election next year. 

And this week, we learn that Cal Cunningham is jumping back in the race.  Cunningham is a strong partisan, and will capitalize on his service in Iraq-- even though it was as a lawyer.  He has fairly formidable presentation and media skills.  I do not know whether he will survive the Democratic primary, but if he does, Burr may have a problem on his hands.

Richard Burr needs to reassess how he is handling the U.S. Attorney nomination.  I agree with Chris Hayes over at Civitas that he needs to block Walker's nomination. 

Moreover, Burr needs to do everything he can to increase his profile in the state of North Carolina, and show the people what a good job he has been doing.  Otherwise, his seat may be at risk.

Robbie Perkins Watch: "Slick"

Life is full of ironies.

Mr. Perkins was one of the chief architects of the ill-fated swim center proposal, which turned out to be horribly dishonest.  One council member floated the idea of a new bond referendum to address the monetary shortfall, instead of the creative financing approved by the old council.

Here is Robbie's response:

“It is a great strategy for someone who doesn’t believe in the project and wants to kill it,” Perkins said. “If I were trying to kill a project, it would be one of the ways I would do it. It’s pretty slick.”

And thus we create the illusion of victimization.  We create the illusion that the only righteous route is to approve the creative financing-- and any other approach would be less than righteous, and would somehow breach faith with the interest groups who want this facility so severely.  Never mind how we got to this point.

That's pretty slick if you ask me.

Update: Tony has more:

Could he have made any bolder statement that the taxpayers of Greensboro did not want the financing option on the table? Yet he continues to be head cheerleader for a project he does not believe the citizens would vote for.

Manhattan Declaration: The Price of Undermining Marriage

The Manhattan Declaration discusses the importance of marriage to society:

Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country.    Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out- of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

An Important Moment in the Health Care Debate

If this vote ends up sinking the entire ship, it would be poetic justice-- because it will have been pro-abortion extremism that defeats socialized medicine.

But I am not holding my breath on that score.  The national Democrats want this bill too badly.

Natatorium Factoids

Several points arose in the discussions regarding the "natatorium" over the last day:

1. The allegation that the aquatic center will generate a "hypothetical" $14 million annual economic impact locally is unsupported by evidence.  Corporations will often undertake rigorous market research prior to planning an new business.  The question is whether the estimate of a $14 million annual economic impact is based on solid market research, or if it is a guesstimate based on back-of-the-envelope calculations.  Let's hope it is not a reflection of wishful thinking, but we need to know with certainty.

2. One aspect of the history of this proposal is the May, 2008 Democratic primary here in North Carolina.  Recall that there were hordes of Obama voters attracted to the polls for that primary.  The $400 million Guilford County school bonds were also on the ballot at that time, and it had been expected they would be defeated.  But remember that the expensive school bond package passed.  This gave local officials the idea that the fall election would be a no-brainer to get various bonds passed because Obama's candidacy was attracting huge numbers of people to the polls.  Those that worked on behalf of the aquatic center bond proposal during mid-2008 were capitalizing on the political environment that existed last year.  It was sheer opportunism.

3. Keith Brown reminds us that Action Greensboro gave an illegal contribution of $5,000 to the Simkins PAC last year; and they represented this was to get the bonds passed in the fall election.  The Parks and Rec bond issue, of which the swim center was part, was one of them.  The illegal contribution helped pay for the PAC's distributing materials to black voters.  And of course, the PAC told them to vote in favor of the bonds.  There was therefore an illegal component to the manner in which this bond issue was promoted and passed.

State Democrats Trying to Close Charter Schools

Civitas comments on new rules adopted by the State Board of Education to force charter schools to  close if they fail to meet progress goals, or if greater than 60% of students fail to test at or above grade level.

While that position might seem reasonable on the surface, the big question is whether these rules are being applied equally to traditional public schools.  I think we know the answer.

This appears to be an attempt to protect turf on the part of the educrats planted on the State Board of Education by North Carolina's Democratic Party establishment.  The concerns of parents and the interests of children are clearly secondary if an unequal standard is being applied.

It should be remembered that some charter schools serve at-risk populations.  Meeting these new requirements may be a bit difficult.

Many of the members of the State Board of Education are appointed by the Governor.  Mike Easley and/or Beverly Perdue bear responsibility if this plan is truly implemented.

Update: Dome reports that an independent organization has rated the state of North Carolina a "D" on its charter school law.  Is anyone surprised?