City Council Candidate Questionnaire-- Sandy Carmany, District 5

I have received a response from Sandy Carmany.  She has also posted it at her blog site.  I appreciate very much her taking the time to participate.

Her responses are as follows, unfiltered:

1. What do you regard as the single most important function or purpose of city government?

The most important function of city government is to provide the basic city services and infrastructure needed for the health and welfare of its citizens – clean drinking water, sewer and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste collection and disposal, fire and police protection, and a reliable network of streets for mobility. I cannot designate a single service as “most important,” just as one cannot say which is more important – one’s heart, brain, or lungs – all must be functioning well for one to be healthy.

2. What would be your specific plan or approach to attract new employers, and retain existing employers, in the City of Greensboro?

I would continue the same successful strategies we are currently following – 1) Maintain an attractive city with a high quality of life by providing efficient basic city services and infrastructure along with ample recreational and cultural opportunities, 2) Keep the cost of doing business low with a reasonable tax and fee structure, 3) Support efforts of our school system, community college, and colleges and universities to supply a well-educated workforce, 4) Provide advice and troubleshooting assistance through our economic development team headed by Assistant City Manager Ben Brown, 5) Supporting small business start-ups such as “Cheesecakes by Alex” with the Targeted Loan Pool, 6) Use the voter-approved $10 million bond to assist with public infrastructure development (water, sewer, roads) when appropriate to make sure the city has “shovel ready” sites for new businesses, both in new locations and redevelopment sites on existing corridors, and 7) Judiciously approve incentives on a case-by-case basis to “tip the scale” in the city’s favor when a desirable proposed business, the number of jobs, and their rate of pay justify the public investment.

3. What would be your specific plan to reduce crime in the City of Greensboro?

1) Continue to increase the number of authorized sworn personnel to meet the growing call load and investigative needs, 2) Create/strengthen specialized units to focus on specific areas of concern, such as gangs and traffic enforcement, 3) Strengthen the community policing focus and the abilities and effectiveness of neighborhood crime watches which put more “eyes on the street,” and 4) Continue/strengthen prevention efforts such as gang education/intervention programs and working with business owners to make their facilities less vulnerable/attractive to criminals  (better lighting, adequate security systems and procedures, etc.)

4. Would you ever vote in favor of a tax increase?

My priorities in balancing the city’s budget is identifying more efficient ways of providing services, focusing on identified priorities and eliminating outdated or unneeded programs, charging appropriate fees for specialized services that recoup the cost of providing that service, and seeking grants – federal, state, and other – to offset costs (for example, EPA grants for the South Elm-Eugene brownfield redevelopment, state and federal grant funding for the HEAT bus service, etc.). After exploring all these options and finding that the need still exists for additional revenues to cover the provision of essential city services and infrastructure, then yes, I would (and have in the past) vote “yes” for a property tax increases rather than allow the city to deteriorate.

5. Are you going to seek or accept the endorsement of the Simkins PAC?

Believing that voters have the right to be educated on my opinions and stances on a wide variety of issues, I attend candidate forums to which I am invited and respond to all candidate questionnaires (such as this one) and requests for interviews. If a particular constituency organization is satisfied with my straightforward responses to questions on issues important to them, it is certainly within their rights to endorse me.  I do NOT make any promises or commitments to ANYONE in order to secure votes or endorsements. If the Simkins PAC chooses to endorse me, yes, I would accept that endorsement. In past elections, this PAC sometimes HAS endorsed me and sometimes HAS NOT. I have been successful in getting elected both with and without this endorsement.

6. Are you going to seek or accept the support of TREBIC?

One clarification: TREBIC does NOT support or endorse candidates for election; some of its member organizations such as the realtors and the builders do endorse and/or support candidates.  TREBIC facilitates the questionnaire and interview process for those various organizations so that candidates have only one questionnaire and interview on issues common to all those member organizations instead of multiple ones. TREBIC itself takes no official stances on candidates.

Believing that voters have the right to be educated on my opinions and stances on a wide variety of issues, I attend candidate forums to which I am invited and respond to all candidate questionnaires (such as this one) and requests for interviews. If particular constituency organizations are satisfied with my straightforward responses to questions on issues important to them, it is certainly within their rights to endorse me.  I do NOT make any promises or commitments to ANYONE in order to secure votes or endorsements.  I have been endorsed by the realtors’ and builders’ organizations -- as well as by the Sierra Club -- in past elections.  Yes, I would accept support from the realtors, builders, and other member organizations of TREBIC.

7. Do you support same-sex domestic partner benefits for city employees?

No, and I do not support the provision of benefits to city employees’ domestic partners of the OPPOSITE gender either. The continued yearly growth in the cost to provide health insurance and other benefits for employees is one of the main factors forcing continued increases in the city budget. Those expensive benefits should be available only to those persons who have a legally recognized relationship with the employee in an effort to limit expenditures of city tax dollars.

8. What would be your specific plan to clean up the Greensboro Police Department?

A vast majority of our fine GPD officers have always performed their duties efficiently and appropriately and thus have no need of being “cleaned up.” I believe the problems involving a very small number of officers are being effectively addressed with most of those prior problems now resolved. This has been accomplished by 1) new directives adopted by the current police administration to remove ambiguities in some operating policies and procedures such as officers’ off-duty employment, 2) the return of disciplinary investigations to the Internal Affairs unit, 3) the reorganization of some GPD divisions and functions to insure proper oversight and chain-of-command review as mandated by nationally accepted professional standards, and 4) the opportunity for any GPD officer to request a review of any past personnel action concerning the officer he/she believed to be unfair and corrective action taken when documented to be appropriate.  The GPD has high standards and expectations, and I fully expect the Chief of Police to thoroughly investigate all allegations of misconduct and take appropriate action when the facts show it to be warranted.

My reaction:

Ms. Carmany has provided very thoughtful, detailed, well-expressed responses.  I appreciate the time and effort she expended.

Her response to the first question follows a familiar pattern.  The difference is that she understands the question-- and says so-- but affirmatively elects not to identify a single municipal service as most important.  She seems to feel this cannot be done.

Her response to the second question is good, but she states elsewhere that she is amenable to raising taxes.  She opts to use the taxpayers' money to be pumped into "quality of life"-- theoretically to attract employers-- even if it means raising taxes.  Some employers, however, may be driven away by our combined state/local tax rates, which are among the highest in the southeastern US.  There is little discussion about an overall attitude of business-friendliness.

The third question asks about reducing the crime rate.  Her responses are good.  It would be good to see objective data demonstrating how many more policemen we need, and on what basis this is determined, because the need to add officers has been discussed by at least several candidates, and is obviously a matter of concern.  Ms. Carmany's responses, however, stop short of using more aggressive techniques to reduce crime, and tend to rely to some extent on more "soft" proactive approaches.

Her response to the question on taxation is not unexpected.  The premise is that if we do not increase taxes, we allow "the city to deteriorate".  Some of us do not agree.

She would accept support from both the Simkins PAC and TREBIC.  I think this is unfortunate.  She states that she does not make promises or commitments to gain endorsements.  That is good.  Sometimes, organizations lend their endorsements to candidates who might otherwise be predisposed to support their agenda.  That is legitimate also, but the public has a right to know about it.  One of the potential problems, of course, is whether an endorsement alters subsequent behavior as a public official inappropriately in order to remain qualified for that support.

Her response on the matter of domestic partner benefits is excellent.  It is unfortunate she was unable to vote according to her convictions on this matter, because it was handled administratively by Mitchell Johnson with the blessings of the mayor instead of being placed before the city council.  Unfortunately, the council allowed it to happen.

She not unexpectedly supports the city's current approach to the GPD matter. 

We have already heard from one of Ms. Carmany's opponents, Angela Carmichael; but we have not yet heard from Dr. Trudy Wade. 

The remainder of the questionnaire results may be found by clicking "Council Candidates" below, or at the top of the right column; and links to the questionnaire results may also be found by going to this web page.

 

Comments

[Nick]

Good answers from Sandy and good reaction from you. She is one of the sole candidates to repeatedly support the blog community and responds to most questions whether we like the response or not. She deserves re-election. I am especially glad to see that she hasnt bowed to the Simpkins Pac and has won with or without their endorsement. Now if only other bloggers will stop attacking her personally. (hmmm who could that be that starts with a T) Can you imagine having more GC commissioners on the City Council? I cannot. I have not forgotten the fiasco with Wade refusing to give up her seat.

[Joe Guarino]

Nick, thanks for your comments. And I agree-- I am not in favor of personal attacks; but I think raising questions about decisions or actions taken as a public official has to be fair game.

Sandy has been a very conscientious public official. And as someone who, during a former life a quarter century ago, worked in legislative offices over a period of almost three years, I can appreciate the risks she undertook when she decided to plunge into blogging.

The concerns I have are over taxes, spending and the handling of the GPD matter. And we have not done very well with crime control with the composition of the city council in recent years.

While I am leaning myself toward favoring Trudy Wade, I would really like to see her questionnaire response.

[StoneSetter]

I would (and have in the past) vote “yes” for a property tax increases rather than allow the city to deteriorate.

If raising our property taxes prevents the city from deteriorating, then why were "2/3 bonds" authorized to pay for repairs at War Memorial Stadium and repairs to various other city buildings at the city council meeting.

It seems to me that it is not how MUCH money you have, but how you SPEND the money you do have.

I hope in this election, the people of Greensboro elect some people who can understand this concept.

Carmany is not one of them.

[Bubba]

It's noticable that she would not answer "yes" directly to #5 and #6.

StoneSetter's comment hit the target in the area of taxes.

Plus, her cheerleading for the current city mangler and her rubber-stamping of his actions is quite enough to disqualify her as a choice for those who want to change our city's operation for the better.

Carmany is clearly part of our problem and NOT part of our solution.

She should NOT be returned to office.

[jw]

"If the Simkins PAC chooses to endorse me, yes, I would accept that endorsement." SC

"Yes, I would accept support from the realtors, builders, and other member organizations of TREBIC." SC

"It's noticable that she would not answer "yes" directly to #5 and #6." Bubba

I don't understand your comment, Bubba. Have I missed something?

[Bubba]

Where did she answer with a "yes" or "no" to this part?

"Are you going to seek .....the endorsement of the Simkins PAC?"

Do you understand the difference and the importance between "seek" and "accept"?

[Bubba]

The same criticism is appropriate for number 6 also.

As for this statement:

"I do NOT make any promises or commitments to ANYONE in order to secure votes or endorsements."

Of course not.

A candidate doesn't have to do that if his/her positions on issues and agendas are well known beforehand.