I had already recommended Hartzman during the primary season.
In response to that recommendation, I heard from various commenters and readers who expressed their concern and disagreement. But for the general election, I think I need to stick with Hartzman.
He performed very well during the recent Greensboro Neighborhood Congress candidate forum, which I attended.
Then we learned last weekend that Zack Matheny, his opponent, got the endorsement of the Simkins PAC.
In addition, we have seen during the last council meeting the type of pattern that gives me mixed feelings about the incumbent. He admirably made the right call, and advocated his position well, when he shot down the demands for a vote to move forward with the expensive, fanciful landfill proposal. But he erred severely when he refused to vote in favor of the city paying the legal expenses of David Wray and his men.
In any case, I still feel that if I lived in district 3, I would vote for Hartzman.
I'm glad you don't live in District 3. Hartzman would be a disaster.
Posted by: Tom Phillips | October 23, 2009 at 07:56 PM
What's the matter, Tom?
Doesn't George meet the standards to join the D3 tag team gang?
Posted by: bubba | October 23, 2009 at 08:56 PM
Phillips has no room to talk. IMHO, no one can be more of a disaster for this city than council members that helped get rid of David Wray and smear his good name. We are paying dearly for that bonehead decision.
I'm surprised Zack is against the city paying for Wray's legal bills.
Tom, any regrets on the Wray matter or are you still convinced Wray deserved to be locked out and forced to resign?
Posted by: Walt | October 23, 2009 at 10:30 PM
I wouldn't have locked Wray out. I would have fired him long before that.
Posted by: Tom Phillips | October 23, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Tom " If you only knew what we know " Phillips.
There was no there there and you should be ashamed for your role in the sordid affair. A better man would offer David Wray an apology. You and the herd fell for Mitch's game and were deceived by the now discredited RMA report.
Speaking of firing police officers, Tom. What would you do about Ahmed Blake and the other rogues at the Police dept, if you were still on the City Council today ?
You weren't a bad member except for that one serious lapse of judgement but that is going to be your legacy. Hopefully one day you will discard the foolish pride and do the right thing.
Posted by: Timur | October 24, 2009 at 12:48 AM
"I wouldn't have locked Wray out. I would have fired him long before that."
Tom, on what grounds would you have fired him earlier?
You had no balls to get rid of the likes of Hinson, Fulmore, Wallace, and the other troublemakes in the GPD and went after and destroyed the ones who were trying to clean up the filth in the department. You have no evidence they did anything wrong. You were wrong about Wray but you are not man enough to admit it.
Posted by: Walt | October 24, 2009 at 07:58 AM
Tom, why don't you give us some background about how Matheny's candidacy came into existence in 07?
Who was involved in recruiting him?
What promises were made by certain parties in support of the candidacy?
What was the nature of the conversation that Team Matheny had with Zack's general election opponent in 07 regarding future arrangements?
Posted by: bubba | October 24, 2009 at 09:51 AM
Zack promised me he'd let me mow his yard if I lost in '07.
Posted by: Zack's general election opponent in 07 | October 24, 2009 at 10:19 AM
You guys give Tom a break. He hasn't gotten over making one of the worst decisions in the history of the city by backing the hiring of Mitchell Johnson. In fact, I think I heard he was the master mind behind hiring Johnson. He's also a master at making a comment and not coming back to back it up.
Tell us Tom, why would you have fired David Wray? That statement might have just got you a supeenie.
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | October 24, 2009 at 12:02 PM
...but I do agree with Phillips that Hartzman would be a disaster for the city of Greensboro. Can you imagine how many questions he would ask in a single council meeting?
"VOTE MATHENY, He's No Weeny" yard signs are still available.
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | October 24, 2009 at 03:46 PM
Considering his personal involvement with both candidates, I am disappointed that Tom Phillips has injected himself into District 3’s election.
I would be happy to publicly discuss with Mr. Phillips and Mr. Matheny any concerns they may have in a two on one debate before the election, with their choice of moderator.
George Hartzman
Posted by: The Committee to Elect George Hartzman | October 25, 2009 at 01:04 AM
I have been out of town since Friday night, and just got back. I appreciate the comments.
A number of people I respect, including Tom and Tony, have disagreed with my recommending Hartzman. And I am aware also that John Hammer has endorsed Matheny.
I found this to be somewhat of a tough call, but ultimately the Simkins endorsement suggested to me that the incumbent will continue to throw a number of key votes in that direction. And the vote against paying the legal fees of Wray and his men arouses some real concern. While I think the incumbent probably has some good intentions, and has done some good things, that is not quite enough in my mind-- especially when there is a challenger who, it appears, may be more independent and whose votes overall may turn out to be better, at least by appearances.
I like and have admired former Councilman Phillips; and in fact I was a relatively small contributor to his campaign way back when he ran for mayor during the mid-90's. I have agreed with him on the vast majority of issues over the years, although we disagree on the GPD mess-- and that, unfortunately, has turned out to be a huge issue.
Tom, if you are still following this thread, as I think I have indicated to you privately in the past, I honor and appreciate very much all you have done over the years, in spite of these particular areas of disagreement.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 25, 2009 at 01:23 PM