I have received a questionnaire response from Joe Wilson, who is running for a district seat against candidates Blanks, Coffer, Hayworth, Matheny and Nixon. His responses are as follows:
1. What do you regard as the single most important function of local government?
To responsibly represent the citizens, enact and enforce city ordinances, oversee the provision of fire, public, safety and environmental services.
2. What would be your specific plan or approach to attract new employers, and retain existing employers, in the city of Greensboro?
I would make it simpler to get through City Planning, Zoning, Engineering and Inspection and the City Council. Greensboro is known as a red tape town and discourages potential new employers and existing employers.
3. What would be your specific plan to reduce crime in the city of Greensboro?
Improve the overall GPD interface with the citizens of Greensboro. I had breakfast with a small business owner this morning who called me about a crime that they just can’t get the Police Department to take any action on whatsoever for over a year, when they have identified the suspect and have provided documentation. We have lost faith in our Police Department, it must be stopped by whatever means is necessary.
4. Would you ever vote for a tax increase?
As I have stated I would only vote for a tax increase in the case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack requiring it. I would also vote for it in the case of the citizens approving through a bond election referendum, I represent the people and if they think it is a good idea then I will support it.
5. Are you going to seek or accept the endorsement of the Simkins PAC?
My campaign is funded by only private contributions and my personal funds. NO special interest support is solicited or accepted.
6. Are you going to seek or accept the support of TREBIC?
My campaign is funded by only private contributions and my personal funds. NO special interest support is solicited or accepted.
7. Do you support same-sex domestic partner benefits for city employees? NO, I think unmarried people have to take responsibility for their partners through wills and insurance policies. I don’t see where “same-sex” has anything to do with it . If you give benefits to domestic partners it shouldn’t matter what their gender make-up is. The law in N.C. doesn’t view any domestic partnership as a valid union. I tried to discover what the current policy is before answering this question and couldn’t get a single city employee to discuss it with me, this also will change when I am elected.
8. What would be your specific plan to clean up the Greensboro Police Department? The solution begins in the City Manager's Office . I think that public hearings on the problems facing the GPD and other departments would reveal the weaknesses in leadership and anyone who was not willing to become a part of the solution would then become a part of the problem and I would make the necessary personnel changes to resolve the problems.
My response: Mr.Wilson provides us with an interesting set of responses. I am grateful that he participated.
In response to the first question, he listed a number of city services and functions even though the question asks for the single most important function.
His approach to attracting and retaining new jobs-- reducing red tape-- probably has considerable merit. He seems to be of the disposition to hold the line on taxes, which also would be helpful in this regard. He does not discuss any types of incentives.
His response on the issue of crime emphasized police responsiveness to citizen's needs, and the need to restore faith in the department. It is clear from his answer to the last question that he regards the current approach to the Greensboro Police Department matter as inappropriate. Obviously, he feels that the new City Council needs to take ownership of this issue. In my opinion, these are very positive responses. The response to question #3 did not discuss any other steps that might be necessary to reduce crime.
His responses on the tax question, and also on benefits for same-sex domestic partnerships, were very good.
He says he will not accept assistance from special interest groups. That is a very positive commitment.
Overall, I think that Mr. Wilson's responses from the standpoint of content are as strong as, or stronger than, any other I have seen thus far. While he could have fleshed out a couple of responses to a greater degree, it appears that he would be reasonably independent, and play an active role in holding city staff accountable. (In addition, I happen to share many of his positions.)
The other candidate responses may be found by clicking "Council Candidates" at the top of the right column on this blog page.
Joe, to follow up on the questions. on the topic of #3 we have an excellent police force the men and women of the GPD are dedicated professionals. The problem in the police force is in administration and accountability. I feel very strongly that the improvement in public interface,response times and more cops on the street would do all that was needed to reduce crime here.You know my position on gangs, that is a specialized problem and has to be handled accordingly. on #7 I was contacted by a city employee after sending this in and was informed that as of Jan 1,2007 the city put in place a benefit providing insurance coverage available only to employees in well-documented same-sex domestic partnerships. The insurance coverage is not available to heterosexual unmarried couples.
Posted by: joe wilson | August 17, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Joe, thank you for expanding on your response on the crime question.
With respect to the issue of extending benefits to same-sex domestic partnerships, it was reported (last year, I believe) that this was being considered. I do not recall it being prominently reported that the change was actually made, but perhaps I missed it. Moreover, I do not recall if the City Council voted on it. If they did not, it would reflect cowardice on their part, and they should then be held accountable at the polls.
In any event, I think those candidates opposed to this policy should make it an issue in the campaign. The current City Council allowed it to happen.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 17, 2007 at 12:51 PM
"The insurance coverage is not available to heterosexual unmarried couples."
But it is to homosexual couples.....
Now why am I not surprised to hear that?
Posted by: Bubba | August 17, 2007 at 02:41 PM
"If they did not, it would reflect cowardice on their part, and they should then be held accountable at the polls."
Business as usual for our illustrious City Council.
Just another brick in the wall, Joe.
Posted by: Bubba | August 17, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Why are you not surprised about the way this was structured, Bubba? Because apparently what Joe described is The Rules, before which we should bow, and for which we are supposed to be grateful.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 17, 2007 at 02:46 PM
Joe, I have read several times Wilson's response to question #8.
"solution begins in the City Manager's Office"
"weaknesses in leadership"
"I would make the necessary personnel changes to resolve the problems"
This is the closest that I have heard any candidate state they would replace Mitchell Johnson.
I'll be glad when someone just boldly says it.
Wilson is also the only candidate I've read about that's been going under bridges to experience first hand the gang problems we now face.
Get Wilson a big stick and he may become the "Buford Pusser" of the Greensboro City Council.
Posted by: tonywilkins | August 17, 2007 at 03:13 PM
That would be great if it were true, Tony. Heck, we don't need one Buford-- we need five. But I agree that Joe, on his blog, has shown a focused interest in issues related to crime and law enforcement; and it appears he is not buying the "party line" on the GPD matter.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 17, 2007 at 05:12 PM
Bubba said: "'The insurance coverage is not available to heterosexual unmarried couples.' But it is to homosexual couples..... Now why am I not surprised to hear that?"
You shouldn't be surprised Bubba. Unmarried heterosexual couples always have the option of getting married and can do it anytime, any day, any week, any year. Gay couples are denied that right on both the state level in here in NC and the federal level.
The City of Greensboro seeks to offer some benefits to people who would otherwise not see it because they are denied the basic right to marry a person of their own choosing, a right upheld by Loving v. Virginia, several other court cases and interpreted as a vested component of our citizens' guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I can give you some citations and quotes from court rulings and settled American jurisprudence if you'd like.
Posted by: Matt Comer | August 17, 2007 at 07:35 PM
"Because apparently what Joe described is The Rules, before which we should bow, and for which we are supposed to be grateful."
It's the old "nothing to see here, move on" method of governing.
Joe Wilson is a part of the solution to that.
Many of the other candidates are (or would be)part of the problem.
Posted by: Bubba | August 17, 2007 at 07:37 PM
"You shouldn't be surprised Bubba. Unmarried heterosexual couples always have the option of getting married and can do it anytime, any day, any week, any year. Gay couples are denied that right on both the state level in here in NC and the federal level."
So?
The fact that they are denied equal rights under the current arrangement for choosing not to get married while homosexual couples are not is discrimination.
Your "yeah, but" comments don't change that fact.
There is no doubt about the fact that gay couples have more politically correct influence in these things than hetro couples.
Posted by: Bubba | August 17, 2007 at 07:43 PM
"There is no doubt about the fact that gay couples have more politically correct influence in these things than hetro couples."
There is no doubt that heterosexuals have far, far, far more civil rights and liberties than do homosexuals.
I guess it is easy for a person who already has the civil rights to look down on those who don't.
Gay couples can't choose to be married. Gay couples are denied the right to marry the person of their own choosing, something that is in direct contradiction to our guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Even before the Loving, the [Supreme] Court recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment: 'denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.' Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)." (NAACP Amicus Brief, State of New York, ALbany County Clerk's Index No. 1967/04, New York County Clerk's Index No. 103434, pp 6-7).
"As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) at 579
Posted by: Matt Comer | August 17, 2007 at 08:10 PM
I am happy with Joe Wilson's responses to your questionaire Joe. Of course you know he got my endorsement last week on my blog as he will represent my district.
Posted by: Brenda Bowers | August 17, 2007 at 08:22 PM
Matt, I am sure that some people feel the beauty of our Constitution is its malleability, beyond recognition, in the hands of certain judges.
Brenda, I agree that Joe is a very serious candidate, with some important things to say. A couple of his blog entries have already attracted some attention; and I think he might help provide some balance on the Council-- that it desperately needs.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 17, 2007 at 09:28 PM
It's all beside the point, Matt.
Under the current arrangement, unmarried hetro couples are being denied the rights that gay couples possess.
Even worse, it looks like it was put into effect in an entirely unacceptable way.
The city's policy is political correctness at its worst.
Posted by: Bubba | August 17, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I must agree, Bubba. This appears to be overtly discriminatory against heterosexual unmarried couples who may wish to access domestic partner benefits. (I don't think either should get domestic partner benefits, but allowing only one discriminates.)
And I agree that the manner in which it was enacted arouses concern. Perhaps the adoption of this change was voted on by council, and prominently disclosed and reported, and I missed it-- maybe I was out of town when it happened, perhaps-- but I get the sense this may have happened beneath the radar screen. If it did, that is a real problem, and the position of council candidates on this issue is of even greater interest and importance.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 17, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Alright... two separate issues I'll consider here... the actual issue of domestic partner benefits and then the way it was enacted.
First... the DP issue itself. So, Bubba, let me see if I get this right. The government denies marriage to gay couples. Therefore gay couples are denied health insurance and other benefits from the City of Greensboro. So Greensboro enacts DP benefits to allow gay couples who can prove they've been in a committed relationship like that of marriage in order to even the score and give them the same benefits that married heterosexual couples get. And this is discriminating against straight people? Sorry... I'm not getting it. DP benefits give gay couples the same benefits as straight couples because gays aren't allowed to get married. If straight people wanted to get the benefits all they have to do is get married. Gays *never* have that option; ever.
Now... the second issue... The City Manager had the power to update the City insurance policies on his own. This is how it was enacted; it was not voted on by the City Council. The City Manager has this authority. The enactment of the DP benefits was done by the book and was totally legit. Joe, if you have a problem with it, maybe you should push to have the City Manager position's powers taken down a notch.
Posted by: Matt Comer | August 17, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Matt, my point is that a decision of this magnitude should have been voted upon by the City Council even if the City Manager strictly speaking had the power to make this change. Why? Because it is a momentous issue that would alienate large numbers of citizens if they were fully aware of it. The City Council supervises the City Manager, of course, but a vote would have been the honorable, ethical thing to do. It would have taken responsibility in a direct way for the change.
Of course, by allowing it to happen, the City Council is still responsible, but the fingerprints are a bit more difficult for the general public to detect, especially when it is not prominently reported in drumbeat fashion, as some issues are.
And I dispute your characterization that "the government denies marriage to gay couples". Marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman; so gay couples are not even included in the definition. It is like saying the government denies baseball players the right to score touchdowns.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 17, 2007 at 11:14 PM
"Marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman; so gay couples are not even included in the definition."
Before 1967 (Loving vs. Virginia) the "traditional" definition of marriage also excluded bi-racial couples. In 1967, the majority of Americans still believed that marriage between two people of different races was wrong. Even up into the last decade about a third of the US population thought that marriages between two people of different races was wrong and should not be allowed. Alabama still has anti-miscegenation laws on the books.
The benefits offered through marriage are civil rights. They are provided by the government - a government which is not supposed to infringe on civil rights and offer those rights and benefits equally.
Gays are asking for the same rights and benefits - as well as the responsibilities and hardships - of marriage, the same ones straight couples have and get. No more, no less. Instead we are offered secondary "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions." And then straight folks claim they are the ones being discriminated against? Give me a break.
The right to marry a person of one's own choosing is a proven civil right in this nation, allowing free persons to pursue happiness in life. Denying this is denying the overwhelming promises of liberty, equality and justice for all established by our brave, visionary founding fathers. Denying this is to deny the very principle of what it means to be American and a part of this Great Experiment.
Posted by: Matt Comer | August 17, 2007 at 11:33 PM
By the way... your baseball player-touchdown analogy is about the most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard when it comes to trying to make up (yes, make up, since there are no real reasons) a reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Just sayin'
For the record.
Posted by: Matt Comer | August 17, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Matt, I feel as if we may have done this debate at least a couple of times, here and elsewhere. I am stopping after this comment. If it is any consolation to you, Greensboro is a very liberal city, and overturning Mitchell Johnson and Keith Holliday's grovel before the local gay community is going to be difficult.
I thought the baseball analogy was a good one. Baseball players don't score touchdowns because that is what the predetermined rules are. Gays have not had legally recognized marriages because that is what the predetermined rules have been.
Your analogy with the phenomenon of interracial couples doesn't work for various reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the 14th amendment was enacted to provide equal protection under the law based on race. That was the original understanding and purpose and motivation for the amendment, even though its spirit was not fulfilled until much later. Your soaring rhetoric seeking to expropriate the work of the Founding Fathers for the gay marriage debate is breathtaking. One can see them rolling over in their graves.
I'm done.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 18, 2007 at 08:39 AM
"Sorry... I'm not getting it."
That is correct.
The only question would be WHY you are not getting it.
Posted by: Bubba | August 18, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I'm sorry Joe, but I'd have to say that the spirit of the 14th Amendment - The Equal Protection Clause - goes far beyond race. It is a spirit that says, "Yes, we know things in America aren't perfect, but all citizens are guaranteed equality."
As the Supreme Court (and these aren't "radical" "judicial activists" either): "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) at 579
If we were to use the "original intent and purpose" of every one of our governing documents, legislations and amendments, we sure wouldn't be going any where would we? The original intent of our Revolution was to free rich, white, land-owning and slave-owning men from paying their taxes to Britain. Should we uphold the original intent and purpose of the Constitution: Only white, land-owning men can vote?
Our nation progresses because we have a constitution and system of government that is able to progress with it, bringing freedom to more people.
Posted by: Matt Comer | August 18, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Matt,I am interested in discussing this matter with all concerned but, I still feel there is inequality in the program .I spoke with the Mayor today and he explained that it was totally Mitchell Johnson's decision. The Mayor saw my point about not offering it to heterosexuals as appearing to discriminate. To the current City Council they saw it as a budget item and as such,having minimal effect on the bottom line it didn't get much thought .I would welcome your opinion but, I have heard excerpts of the report the City Manager used to institute the policy and I think my views are correct. The program is in place and a small percentage of city employees are getting the benefit. so in my opinion the whole thing is a non-issue. I was just asked a question and I gave my honest opinion , Had I known it was already city policy I could have have copped out like the panderers who said " yes " , it's just not my way.I was blessed(cursed?) to speak my mind on the issues and I think people are ready for the truth . Remember I said "same-sex has nothing to do with it". The City Council has once again set itself up for a discrimination lawsuit by not taking command of it's responsibilities and letting the City Manager's office dictate policy.Please feel free to contact me in this matter although there is not a thing you or I can do about it currently.
Posted by: joe wilson | August 18, 2007 at 06:19 PM
Thanks for your honesty Joe. I appreciate that you’d be willing to discuss the issues. I hope that you will attend if the Guilford Green Foundation or another group like Triad Equality Alliance actually plans a candidates forum (Disclosure: I’m on the Board of Directors of Guilford Green and I’ve already spoken to the Exec Dir about the possibility of a forum).
You said: “..there is not a thing you or I can do about it currently.”
You are correct and I don’t think anything should be done, if that “thing to be done” is, in fact, taking away the domestic partner benefits. I don’t see a problem with expanding them to cover non-married heterosexuals, but the argument that heterosexuals are being discriminated against is a lame one at best and an extremely prejudiced one at worst. I’d like to explain more on this topic in person if we ever meet (which I’m counting on).
Thanks for your comments, your honesty and your openness.
Posted by: Matt Comer | August 18, 2007 at 06:36 PM
No need to retreat, Joe. And of course, the policy can be reversed or overturned if that is the Council's decision.
I would add, Joe, that when this was being discussed, offering the benefit to hetero couples was considered and weighed. Mitchell Johnson and Keith Holliday apparently opted not to offer it to them. But if we agree with Matt's premise that gay partners are being discriminated against if they are not allowed to access domestic benefits in the same manner as married couples; then it is inevitably true that hetero unmarried partners are now being discriminated against, on the basis of their marital status and their sexual orientation. Some heterosexuals don't want to get married, or do not believe in marriage, or are not right for marriage, so goes the logic-- so why should they be discriminated against in gaining benefits to which they feel entitled if that is their plight?
I suppose if we pay heed to the expectations of one interest group on shaky grounds in this area, we need to accommodate all of them, as the definition of the family is twisted beyond recognition. Are polygamists next? Some legal scholars are pushing in that direction.
I think the benefit should be restricted to hetero married couples, Joe.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 18, 2007 at 06:55 PM
I just loved how you pushed the polygamist card in there.
Red herring.
No one I know of in Greensboro is advocating for that, and the LGBT community certainly isn't. Don't make us party to something we haven't asked.
Posted by: Matt Comer | August 18, 2007 at 07:22 PM
"Red herring"
Not a chance.
What part of this.....
"But if we agree with Matt's premise that gay partners are being discriminated against if they are not allowed to access domestic benefits in the same manner as married couples; then it is inevitably true that hetero unmarried partners are now being discriminated against, on the basis of their marital status and their sexual orientation."
....do you not understand?
Posted by: Bubba | August 18, 2007 at 08:16 PM