Guarino

Outgoing City Council Leaves Unfinished Business at Police Department

There has been much discussion over the last several weeks regarding the Aquatic Center boondoggle.  The outgoing City Council has been determined to ram through this particular proposal, regardless of how poorly conceived or dishonestly packaged it may have been.

But Ben Holder reminds us today that there are a number of pieces of unfinished business the incumbent City Council leaves behind at the Greensboro Police Department.  He seems to be hinting at information he might be sharing in future posts.

Recall that, during the special meeting called to discuss the reinstatement of AJ Blake, the council gave the police chief certain instructions.  But we have not heard a peep since then.

Here are some obvious police-related issues:

1. What is going to be done to improve control of crime conditions in our city?

2. How are we going to deal with high-ranking minority officers within the department who made false accusations against fellow officers, and who threw the department into turmoil literally for years?

3. How are we going to deal with officers who have associated themselves with criminals, assisted them, or who have likely committed criminal acts themselves?

4. How are we going to deal with officers who have had illicit sexual relations while on duty, for instance in police vehicles; and how are we going to deal with officers who have had sexual relations with subordinate officers?

5. How are we going to make it up to David Wray and the officers beneath him who were unfairly stigmatized and harmed-- financially and professionally-- because of the city's actions during the course of the GPD fiasco?

6. How are we going to handle all the lawsuits?

These are all issues on which the outgoing City Council has, for the most part, punted.  The new City Council, led by mayor-elect Bill Knight, will have an opportunity to deal with these challenges. 

One cannot expect that everyone will agree with each move the new Council makes.  But I sure hope we will see a vast improvement over the previous Council with respect to how it handles the police department.  

I hope we will see an improvement for the sake of the citizens of our city.

Polygamy, Justice Scalia and Barack Obama

Think back to the infamous Lawrence vs. Texas Supreme Court decision that was delivered about five years ago.  Recall how Justice Scalia had implied in his dissent that the decision would create an intellectual basis for establishing a slippery slope toward such outcomes as gay marriage and polygamy.  There was a reaction of outrage on the political left at his statement.

Of course, Scalia was later proved to be prophetic on this particular issue.

The most recent bit of evidence is Barack Obama's nomination of a woman named Chai Feldblum to his EEOC.  It turns out that Ms. Feldblum has advocated in favor of polygamy:

Ms. Feldblum has...been widely criticized for signing onto a radical online petition, the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,” which advocates for polygamy and calls for a "new vision" for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of "diverse kinds of partnerships."

Among the stated "partnerships" the petition seeks to protect is "households in which there is more than one conjugal partner."

Same-sex marriage, the manifesto said, should be “just one option on a menu of choices that people have about the way they construct their lives” and advocates for “many other kinds of kinship relationships, households and families” to be afforded equal recognition.

Barack Obama has made a number of far-left appointments since he was inaugurated.  But this is fairly amazing.  Less than a decade ago, the type of position Feldblum espouses would have been considered unthinkable-- and now a president nominates someone like her who holds it.

Jewish Prejudice Toward Evangelicals?

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist who is extraordinarily gifted, and who also happens to be Jewish.

He said some remarkable things recently about Jewish attitudes toward evangelical Christians:

Many Jews, particularly American ones, are nervous or scornful about the support that American evangelicals have shown for Israel. They say that this support is double-edged, or bad news, or embarrassing. Krauthammer will have none of it. "I embrace their support unequivocally and with gratitude. And when I speak to Jewish groups, whether it's on the agenda or not, I make a point of scolding them. I say, 'You may not want to hear this, and you may not have me back, but I'm going to tell you something: It is disgraceful, un-American, un-Jewish, ungrateful, the way you treat people who are so good to the Jewish people. We are almost alone in the world. And here we have 50 million Americans who willingly and enthusiastically support us. You're going to throw them away, for what? Because of your prejudice.' Oh, I give 'em hell."

The Latest on the Aquatic Center, and Where We Should Go From Here

Amanda Lehmert had a good article yesterday in the News and Record that brings us up to date on the aquatic center boondoggle.

John Hammer had already demonstrated how there was considerable confusion regarding what precisely the city was planning to do.

Meanwhile, the meeting notice the city circulated suggests that construction of the entrance to the ACC Hall of Champions would be performed by the same vendor that builds the natatorium.

But Lehmert's article reveals that Zack Matheny is beginning to ask some questions, and suggests he may be reconsidering his support for the project.

There has been much "tournament town" rhetoric in support of the proposed facility among those beating the drums for the hospitality industry.  But Doug Clark illustrates the absurdity of their thinking.

There are several alternatives available to the Greensboro City Council:

• borrowing against future hotel tax revenues, as proposed;
• building instead a $12 million community swimming pool;
• proposing a new bond issue for approximately $18 million for a regional aquatic center;
• or scrapping the whole thing. 

I recommend the last option. 

The voters decided against this facility twice when it had been presented to them in an honest fashion.  The move to proceed during 2008 with yet a third bond issue-- this time in stealth manner-- was an enormous, unethical political mistake.  And the city council is now reaping the rewards.  It should heed the message voters sent the first two times.

The City Council should not propose another bond issue to be decided upon by voters.  Members of the city council should possess the will to say no.  When they put bond proposals on the ballot for frivolous projects, they become part of the problem.

We should not feel compelled to salvage anything out of this ugly exercise.

The Day Giuliani Kissed My Mom

A couple of weeks ago, Rudy Giuliani was the featured speaker at an event sponsored by the Molinari Republican Club in Staten Island, New York-- my home town.  Over one thousand folks crowded into a hotel banquet room for the affair.

My mom attended with a small group of relatives.  Cousin Guy introduced her to Giuliani at the event.  And I am told the former mayor readily leaned over and gave my mom a kiss, presumably because of the affection he has for Guy. 

There had previously been talk that Giuliani might run for governor of New York State, but he would face a formidable opponent in the person of Andrew Cuomo.  In the aftermath of his appearance on Staten Island, however, it became increasingly clear that he was considering a run for U.S. Senate against Kirsten Gillibrand, who is Hillary Clinton's replacement.

Politicians have been known to kiss babies when running for office, but this must have been a bit different.

Robbie Perkins Watch: The Aquatic Center

Several readers have requested that I reactivate the Robbie Perkins Watch feature at this blog.  The following kicks off a resumption of that series. 

John Hammer reported this week on the critical role played by Perkins with the recent Aquatic Center fiasco:

When the economy suddenly went south, the council voted not to sell any bonds for a year, in order to keep costs down. However, (Robbie) Perkins convinced the council that it could build the $18 million aquatic center it wanted – with three pools and all the gewgaws and doodads that fancy, state-of-the-art, regional aquatic centers have – for about $12 million because construction costs were so low. The council listened, and although it had agreed not to sell bonds, it did agree to move forward with the aquatic center because of the great deal that the city was going to get.

Guess what? The $18 million aquatic center came in at a little over $18 million. So that left the council in a bind. What the council decided to do was to borrow the money and pass the problem along to the new City Council.

It was around the time Perkins intervened earlier this year that a decision was made to pursue a no-bid contract, presumably because of the imperative need to take advantage of alleged bargain basement costs associated with the recession.  Of course, we know how that worked out.

It is still a bit difficult for me to conceptualize how this particular facility, with certainty, is going to spur greater economic development along the High Point Road corridor.  That is apparently part of the sales pitch with which Perkins assents.

But let us not forget that this proposed facility would cater toward the prerogatives of at least a couple of interest groups, including the local swim community as well as the hospitality industry.  In any case, some observers doubt that the benefits to local hotels will truly materialize to the extent advertised-- and even if they did, why should the taxpayer be subsidizing a boost to one particular industry?

The Greensboro Aquatic Center Boondoggle

My pseudo-break continues.

More information is becoming available about the ill-conceived Greensboro aquatic center proposal.  But first, let's rehash some of the sordid history.

The community votes down the proposed facility on two separate bond referenda.  But the powers-that-be are not even remotely deterred, and are hell-bent on getting this facility approved against the public's wishes.  It was initially conceived as a community swimming pool.  The movers nestle and camouflage the proposal in a Parks and Rec bond issue; and artfully refrain from mentioning the aquatic center in the language that appears on the ballot.  They then strategically refrain from campaigning loudly in support of it, in order to avoid scaring voters away from supporting it.

The prime movers of the project are also warned by city staff that they cannot build the facility they really want-- a regional competition facility-- for the amount that would be allotted from that bond issue.  But they proceed anyway with their plans for the more extensive facility.  There is no rule saying that the City Council is bound by what city staff advises.  But if they do choose to act in a manner different than city staff's financial projections, they need to be reasonably sure they are getting it right.  In this case, the council willfully did not.

And when the aquatic center is transmogrified into a Coliseum project, it raises questions as to whether this was ever to be primarily a community swimming pool.

Then, predictably, it turns out that the city cannot build it for the $12 million allowed in the bond package.  There is nearly a 50% price overrun, and it was now going to be almost $18 million.  So a scheme is concocted to borrow against future hotel tax revenues to finance the difference.  This means that the taxpayers ultimately will be stuck with the difference, or maintenance will deteriorate further at the Coliseum complex.

If the facility is successful in attracting numerous competitions, and standing reservations from area swim teams, then it will be less available to the general public.  But the converse is also true.  If it is very available to the general public, then it will not be generating the economic impact that is being advertised.

Again, this is a sordid tale-- with a shameful lack of integrity and honesty and honor and ethics and character on the part of numerous participants vividly displayed.

So who have been the drivers of this particular fiasco beside the local swim community?  First, it is obvious that the proposal has been aggressively embraced by the Greensboro Coliseum management.  Second, the Guilford Tourism Development Authority, the Greensboro Sports Commission and the local hotel/motel association also spoke in favor at the council meeting.  Greensboro taxpayers are effectively being expected to pay to generate the higher levels of local "tourism" dollars this facility will theoretically generate for hotels and motels and restaurants.

But Action Greensboro also is a supporter.  Remember again that it has a history of giving thousands of dollars illegally to the Simkins PAC ostensibly to get bond issues like this one passed.  There seems to be a fervent belief that continually adding more public facilities via the assumption of ever-increasing debt loads will somehow attract more employers and contribute to "economic development".

One interesting snippet at the council meeting was uttered by the new city manager, Rashad Young.  He indicated the financing would be arranged through the "Center City Corporation".  Remember that Center City Park is an Action Greensboro project; and it would be interesting to know how this particular corporation fits into the picture.

But remember that Action Greensboro is a consortium formed by eight local philanthropic foundations.  So when it pushes a proposal, we have some unelected elites throwing their weight around.  While this organization is a part of the Greensboro Partnership, which includes the chamber of commerce, it functions like an oligarchy.  It is an organization funded in large part by the wealthy; and its agenda has often been to get taxpayers to underwrite the projects it supports. 

When Action Greensboro throws its weight behind various bond packages and projects, it represents the well-heeled trying to get you and me to subsidize its wish list through our hard-earned tax dollars.

In any case, the City Council is now egregiously compounding its errors on this matter.  It has scheduled a special session at 4:00 PM on December 1, precisely 90 minutes before the new council is scheduled to be sworn in.  The plan is to approve the financing for the price overrun. 

It is extremely sleazy for this particular council to take such an extraordinary measure during a transition period;  and to pass these costs along to a new city council to be sworn in only within the next couple of hours.  Indeed, one longtime observer described it to me as being "unprecedented".  Their eagerness to push this project through has caused the incumbent city council to forego any semblance of propriety.

Once again, the new city council needs to find a way to scuttle this project.

George Hartzman brought his concerns about the aquatic center before the city council a couple of months ago.  A YouTube shown below highlights the City Council's discussion in response to his stated concerns.  This discussion occurred long before we learned about the price overrun.  

In response to Hartzman, the various council members trumpet the putative benefits of the proposed facility.  When one considers the entire history as recounted above, however, they appear a bit foolish.  Note how they avoid responding directly to Hartzman's stated concerns:

Scott Sanders Calls for Accusers to be Investigated

I keep trying to take this break, and stuff keeps coming up.

It is a terrible thing to be the victim of utterly false allegations-- to be falsely accused.  That is what happened to Scott Sanders and the other officers of Special Intelligence within the GPD, as well as their commanders.

The news was released yesterday that Sanders and his fellow officers have been completely cleared; and Sanders is being permitted to resume patrol work.

WFMY had a remarkable news segment on this story in which Sanders speaks in front of his fellow officers.  It may very well be the first objective news story that particular TV station has had on this topic.  The city now needs to release all the reports and documents on this matter that it possibly can. Sanders calls for the "people who perpetuated the falsehood that there was racial discrimination" within the department to be investigated.  Check it out:

Swim Center Scheme Passes Vote By Council Lacking Integrity

I am interrupting my break because the Greensboro City Council voted tonight to borrow against future hotel tax revenues to pay for the shortfall in the swim center funding.  This means the project will proceed with more taxpayer dollars required.  And the approach chosen merely augments and accentuates the utter lack of integrity this council has displayed ever since this project was initially advanced.

Robbie Perkins made some stunningly disingenuous comments, even for him.

The new plan adopted means that there will be a shortfall of overall city hotel tax revenues to pay for Coliseum maintenance; so maintenance will be deferred, or other taxpayer dollars will have to be used.  This means the council tonight was voting to place a claim on tax revenues that would otherwise be available to the next city council.  I believe this was a calculated move.  There was even a plan to have a 4:00 meeting on this topic scheduled for December 1, immediately before the installation of the new city council.

The only "no" vote was Trudy Wade.  Mary Rakestraw was absent.  Perkins and Matheny and Bellamy-Small voted yes.  Barber made the motion, and has clearly been one of the main supporters of this tax-and-spend proposal.  Bellamy-Small's cast her "yes" vote even though she made some fairly cogent comments expressing concern about the manner in which the whole concept had been developed and advanced.

One of the supporters of the project said that he could guarantee the lanes would be "booked up" by swim teams and the like almost immediately.  This, of course, would diminish the extent to which the general community would have access to all the facilities.  They made it sound as if the swim center would be awash with competitions drawing folks from out of town to stay at hotels locally; but Mick here last week implied there would only be a few dates like this every year-- suggesting it would be available to the community much of the time.  Which is it?

I think the new city council should reverse as soon as possible this brazen, irresponsible move tonight by the incumbent Greensboro City Council.

Update: Sam Hieb discusses how certificates of participation might be the vehicle through which this move is effected.  In addition, he raises the spectre of auditorium funding becoming an issue at the special December 1 meeting.

Update II: Ed Cone notices a "ripening" of the smell associated with this process.

Update III: David Hoggard sums up the history. (HT: Roch)

The New Greensboro City Council: The Makings of an Agenda-- and a Break

Recently, I ran a series of posts that envision a positive agenda for the new Greensboro City Council to take office on December 1.  I have based this agenda in part upon Mayor-elect Bill Knight's campaign platform, but I have also expanded upon that to some extent.

We have discussed crime and the Greensboro Police Department. We have talked about how to restore trust and pride in the department.  We related some of the considerations involved in recruiting a new police chief.  We highlighted an outstanding paper that emphasizes the need to establish and maintain order using proactive techniques.  And we talked about the obligation to make things right for David Wray and his men. 

We have related some general principles regarding taxes and spending, and called for a tax cut to be delivered to citizens.  We also expressed concern about our tendency to add evermore to our city's debt levels.

We attempted to describe the best way to create an environment in which more jobs will be created.

We talked about some nuts-and-bolts municipal functions. like water and trash disposal.

We discussed some of the new interpersonal dynamics on the city council, including the role Robbie Perkins is expected to play-- sooner or later-- obstructing Mr. Knight's agenda, or otherwise creating mischief.  And we also raised certain red flags regarding the new city manager.

Finally, we talked about the need to clean up our libraries for children.

I hope this "series" has been helpful to readers.

I have been blogging continuously for the last 10 weeks or so, with a heavy concentration on city of Greensboro issues.  During this time, we have been fortunate to have newly elected, incumbent and former city council members comment here including Bill Knight, Tom Phillips, Zack Matheny, and Sandra Anderson Groat.  In addition, other recent and former candidates commented including Ben Holder, Joe Wilson, Cyndy Hayworth, George Hartzman, and Ryan Shell.  There may have been one or two others that have slipped my mind, and if so, I apologize.  All of these folks have enriched the dialogue here; and I am honored that they spoke at this forum.

I think one of the most surreal moments during the campaign came after it was revealed that the North Carolina Democratic Party had involved itself in this so-called non-partisan election; was mailing postcards with a slate of Democratic candidates to recommend to local residents; and was working the polls.

At that moment, in response to a post on that ominous development, Bill Knight posted here a prediction of victory:

"There is no doubt the mayor is running scared. She is entrenched and desperate to retain her grip on power, where she can play to special interests. She has held office for sixteen years, but is about to be ousted by a newcomer who never held an elected office. Add to that the fact that this is an off year election where voter turnout typically is low - not so this year!

"The responsible and caring citizens of Greensboro have had it with poor leadership and will express themselves on Tuesday. It's time to retake control of city government and place it back on the right track."

I was feeling a bit uneasy about the whole thing, and was not sure I could believe Knight's prediction.  But the rest is history.

I am going to take a break from blogging for a couple of weeks.  It has been a momentous election season.  I hope readers will spend some time reviewing the posts to which I linked above detailing a proposed agenda for the new City Council.

Update 11/24: The City Council also needs to scuttle the aquatic center.

The New City Council: Our Debt

Brian Balfour reports in the News and Record regarding our local unfunded debt:

At the local level, Greensboro taxpayers are facing $2.5 billion in debt and unfunded obligations. The total figure includes: $2.2 billion in debt (Greensboro city government, $865 million; Guilford County government, $1.3 billion);

$343 million in unfunded retiree health benefit obligations (city of Greensboro, $59 million; Guilford County, $284 million).

The new City Council will need to refrain from proposing bond issues to satisfy every whim and desire, and every demand posed by an organized interest group.  It will need to rethink its policy regarding annexations, which seem to generate more bond-related spending.  It will also need to refrain from feeling compelled to implement every bond issue that has been approved by voters.  And it will need to resist the continuous manipulations on the part of groups like Action Greensboro to increase bond spending. 

Finally, it will need to get a much better handle on employee and retiree health insurance costs.  It needs to explore more creative options for health insurance, including consumer-driven, free-market products, to reduce costs to taxpayers.

The New City Council: Our Libraries

The News and Record this morning reports how minors are able to access and accidentally view porn at our city's libraries.  Ryan Shell had raised concerns regarding this situation during the recent city council campaign.

It has been my observation over the years that many library professionals take a strident, rigid position that the public must be provided with unfettered access to print and electronic materials.  Our local library director, Sandy Neerman, is an example of this phenomenon.

While this may seem like a firm adherence to principle, in reality, it is a form of weak-mindedness.  It is a failure to meet certain responsibilities and to be accountable and to make hard decisions that will yield a much better outcome.  It is a tendency to emphasize the wrong priorities.

The new City Council needs to direct the city manager to assure that within two months, minors will not be able to access or accidentally view porn at our city's libraries. There should be no excuses.  If Ms. Neerman does not like it, her bosses need to let her know that she is directly accountable for what happens within her domain.  She works for the taxpayers-- not just for some misbegotten professional ideal.

Cops in Black and White, Part LXXXIX

Jerry Bledsoe continues his series in the Rhino Times with a continuation of his examination of the conclusions in the RMA Report.  I will summarize. 

The conclusions in the report, and Bledsoe's response for each, are as follows:

1. It alleged David Wray violated personnel privacy laws and engaged in collective bargaining with the union when he met with its leaders.  However, RMA provided little evidence, and did not explain how he violated any laws.  He answered questions sufficient to demonstrate that James Hinson's investigation was based on due cause to alleviate their concerns; but did not reveal information from Hinson's personnel file.  He did not negotiate with the union.

2. It alleged Wray misled the public regarding the investigations of Hinson.  This was untrue.  Wray said nothing that was misleading.  Instead, what he said was misinterpreted and, in one case, portrayed incorrectly by a news reporter.

3. It alleged Wray knew there was no basis for investigating Hinson, but proceeded to order an investigation anyway.  Again this was untrue.  There was ample basis for investigating Hinson.

4. It alleged Wray directed Scott Sanders and Special Intelligence during the latter part of 2005 to continue investigations against Hinson and Julius Fulmore.  This was false.  RMA provided no evidence.  Wray did not make that order, and Fulmore was not investigated. 

5. It alleged there was an effort to "pile on" Hinson after a Walton report cleared Hinson.  There is untrue.  There was no report, there had been no investigation, and Hinson therefore could not have been cleared.  RMA provided no evidence of a "pile on". 

6. It alleged Randall Brady lacked objectivity and demonstrated malice because of a comment he made.  The comment was not appropriate, but an examination of the context reveals it was not made with malice.  And it did not prove any lack of objectivity on Brady's part. 

7. It alleged DA Stuart Albright brought "additional concerns" to Wray about a couple of Special Intelligence officers.  But those officers were not discussed.

8. It alleged Albright recommended any future investigations of Hinson and Fulmore be referred to the SBI.  But it was unclear that Albright, in fact, had made any such recommendation regarding Fulmore.  He would have had no reason to do so because Fulmore's investigation had been already completed.

9. It alleged Wray did not share the DA's recommendations with Brady, and so the investigations continued.  This was false.  It had been shared, and no new investigations were initiated.

10. It alleged a climate of divisiveness among the command structure prevented good operational and management practice.  There was division, because some commanders were loyal to Bill Stafford who had competed with Wray to become chief.  But it did not preclude commanders from ensuring sound practices.

11. It alleged unprecedented visits by an SBI supervisor and the DA to Wray to relay their concerns regarding Special Intelligence.  But a visit by the DA was not unprecedented; and was cordial.  No concerns were relayed about inappropriate investigations.  The SBI supervisor did not relate such concerns either.  

The New City Council: Crime, David Wray and his Men

I have previously made reference to a Manhattan Institute paper.  It was co-authored by George Kelling, one of the chief architects of the huge advances in policing that have taken hold in various urban areas around the country.  Check out some of its wisdom:

"While some cities across the nation have made great strides, driving down the national crime rate to levels unseen since the 1960’s, there were many that missed out on the national trend, reducing crime only marginally, if at all.  (My note: think Greensboro)...

"If the success of urban America is to continue, it is essential that police departments and civic leaders not rest on their laurels, but rather continue to improve and refine their crime prevention strategies, adopting the most effective methods displayed in recent years...

"The guiding vision for law enforcement must be to maintain order within each city, not to catch criminals. Creating an environment that is not conducive to illegality, rather than seeking to punish illegal conduct after the fact, is the key to preventing crime. Having adopted this vision, implementing it on the streets requires that local police units have the resources to do their job properly and the freedom to use them innovatively, and that they be held strictly accountable for the results, whatever they may be. This naturally requires careful tracking of crime patterns and close communication within police departments in order to target resources appropriately and to place responsibility accurately. It also requires the integration of other law enforcement and public sector agencies, as well as the local communities, into an order maintenance framework. By adopting the combination of an order maintenance philosophy and a flexible, accountability-driven law enforcement structure, cities that have made little progress to date can achieve reductions on par with the most dramatic declines in urban crime during the last decade."

This is great stuff, and directly applicable to the city of Greensboro.

Once again, the new City Council would do well to drink copiously from the fount of information contained in this paper; and to insist that a new police chief be recruited who is well prepared-- indeed, who is eager-- to implement its vision.

But there is also some unfinished business the new council will need to address.

David Wray and his men have been treated in a very unjust manner by the previous city administration and Chief Bellamy.  Their legal fees have not all been paid.  Some were driven out, and lost considerable earnings and benefits.  Others remain within the department, but have not been restored to positions comparable to those they previously held.

The new City Council needs to assure that these injustices are remedied.

While we need to do everything we can to fight crime, we also need to act in good faith toward those police officers who have conscientiously served the community helping us to do that.

The New City Council: The City Manager, Robbie Perkins and Various New Faces

Mayor-elect Bill Knight has his work cut out for him.  He will be working with a new city manager, Rashad Young, who is still a relatively unknown entity.  The council itself is populated with several new faces, including Danny Thompson, Jim Kee and Nancy Vaughan.  And of course, the mayor-elect himself represents a new face, albeit one with considerable life experience.

But there is another party on the council who may present certain challenges.  That is council member at large Robbie Perkins.

It has been suspected for some time that Mr. Perkins might be interested in running for mayor one day.  He has a significant knowledge base with respect to municipal affairs, and preexisting relationships with city staffers.  He has a certain degree of experience, which places him at a strategic advantage compared with many of his colleagues.

The problem, of course, is that he has been wrong on many of the issues, and that he is closely allied with the Simkins PAC.  He is a liberal who often has tended to make the wrong choices for the wrong reasons.

One can only hope that Robbie will not try to undermine much of what Bill Knight and the new city council will be trying to achieve.  One can only hope he will not engage in gamesmanship at city council meetings to set the stage for running for mayor in two years.

One of the challenges Mayor-elect Bill Knight will face, therefore, will be a potential need to overcome any attempt by Perkins to undermine his leadership-- overtly, or behind the scenes.

Knight will need to take advantage of Nancy Vaughan's experience on the issues they agree upon.  Vaughan seems to be good on some issues; and it will serve Knight well to make common cause with her on these issues. 

The mayor-elect will benefit from harnessing the energies of Danny Thompson, who seemed to overflow with ideas at a recent forum I attended.  Thompson has some experience working as an employee for a couple of legislators; and it is hoped this will serve him well in terms of engaging issues, developing proposals and bringing them to the forefront.

Jim Kee is a big question mark right off the bat particularly on the waste disposal issue-- and Knight will need to approach him with discretion.

The mayor-elect should be able to make common cause with Trudy Wade and Zack Matheny on a fair number of issues; and I hope he will be able to count on Mary Rakestraw as a reasonably steady ally.

City Manager Rashad Young has an entire career ahead of him.  It will be to his benefit to work productively with the Mayor-elect, and to refrain from undermining behind the scenes what the City Council is trying to do.  It is the job of council members to set policy and to supervise Young's activities.  Young needs to follow their leadership.

And the City Council needs to take responsibility for Young's work.  There needs to be a chain of accountability--- Young to the City Council, and the City Council to the voters.

A pseudonymous commenter, Dayton, recently said some things about Young.  This was nestled within a thread in response to a News and Record story about the election.  I cannot know if these statements were true.  But the city Young last served is a bit rough.

I have expressed during previous posts that the new City Council cannot primarily rely on Young as their source of information, and as the driving agent for policy initiatives.  They cannot allow him to be the filter through which they receive information.  They need to do their own work, and conduct their own research.  They need to develop their own proposals.  The young new City Manager is their employee, and works for them.

I have one last observation.  The new City Council will need to be genuinely responsive to east Greensboro residents.  That does not mean kowtowing before the Simkins machine or succumbing to the practice of identity politics.  Instead, it is a matter of returning calls, showing up at meetings, demonstrating concern and treating communities fairly with respect to the delivery of city services.  It is a matter of making communities safer and a better place to do business. 

The New City Council: Waste Disposal

Scott Yost had a very engaging account this week of the clash between Mike Barber and Robbie Perkins at the City Council meeting on Tuesday.  In two weeks, we will not have Barber to call Perkins out when he does and says things that are inappropriate, or when he engages in shenanigans.  I hope somehow that void is filled.  Barber and Perkins were discussing community reaction to the recent proposals to turn trash to energy at the White Street Landfill.

There is a reason the issue of solid waste disposal vexes the city of Greensboro.  Several years ago, our City Council succumbed to the city's prevailing machine-based identity group politics; and closed the landfill to residential trash.  This was a mistake of monumental proportions.

Many city council candidates this year discussed the need for a "regional solution" to our waste disposal needs during the campaign. 

As far as I can tell, a majority does not exist on the new council in favor of reopening the landfill to residential trash.  That is unfortunate.  A majority-- Perkins, Vaughan, Kee, Matheny, and Wade-- are affliated with the Simkins machine; and it is doubtful they would have gotten that endorsement had they taken a position in favor of expanding use of the landfill.

A regional solution and regional cooperation may seem appealing on the surface, but let us recall how many years were required to bring the Randleman Dam project to fruition.  One jurisdiction will not want to take the trash of another without being paid some type of premium.  Perhaps it might be quicker for us to "go it alone" with whatever proposal we prefer-- if this is economically possible.  It is doubtful that other nearby jurisdictions are in the compromised position we are in, because they have not made foolish decisions, as we have, regarding waste disposal.

Whether any of the "regional solutions" will materialize at the White Street Landfill is difficult to know.  One thing is certain, however.  We should not have to pay off east Greensboro community leaders, or parties connected to them, in order to make a "regional solution" happen.

Technical issues abound with these proposals.  We need to be exceedingly confident that the technologies discussed are cost-effective and economical.  We need to be sure that they produce a lot more energy than they consume; and that they truly work as advertised.

The new City Council must have some vehicle to evaluate these proposals objectively from all these vantage points.  Council members need to get it right the first time-- because we do not want to have to do it all over again, and correct another error.

Joel Gillespie's Availability

Those in the local blogging community are likely familiar with Joel Gillespie, a former local pastor who is at a moment of transition in the midst of a difficult recession.

Joel posted an item Thursday announcing that he was available to assist folks with various odd jobs.  I hope a lot of people will take him up on his offer. 

I can vouch for the fact that Joel is a fine man.  He led a vital, creative local congregation for many years.  And in addition, he is a former teacher who was one of the two "founding fathers" of Caldwell Academy, a local classical Christian school that has turned out to be a huge blessing for this community.

Some lucky employer, business or agency is going to benefit from Joel's talents one day. 

Until then, I hope some of my readers consider Joel's offer to assist with various odd jobs they may need to get done. 

And if there is anyone out there in a position to offer him employment or some other type of longer-term opportunity, that would be great, too.

Berlin Wall 20th Anniversary

The New City Council: Recruiting a New Police Chief

Chief Tim Bellamy made it official this week that he will be retiring.  Earlier this week, I had commented on what considerations should drive the recruitment of a new police chief. 

The new chief will need to be well positioned and equipped to carry out a new agenda for the GPD.  I am reprising some of what I said here earlier this week:

The Buracker Report, released about 18 months ago, is a starting point for those that want to make the department a more effective crime-fighting institution.  The department certainly needs to use its existing personnel more effectively; achieve better supervision of line officers; enforce higher accountability among officers and command staff;  make sure enough officers are working when crime is most likely to occur; and do proactive policing.  We can have little confidence that those things are happening at this time.

I am providing a link to an excellent article that provides details on the subject of proactive policing, and on the advances in police work that have been demonstrated to work in other cities.  Each conservative council member needs to study this article, and insist that the next police chief selected be committed to adopting this type of approach. 

This approach includes, but is not limited to, "broken windows".  It needs to be adapted to a city like Greensboro that has considerable "sprawl".  I had summarized this article and posted about it a couple of years ago.  Again, every council member who cares about crime needs to master the content of this article.

CLEANING UP THE GPD

A tough new police chief needs to be hired in anticipation of Chief Bellamy's expected retirement.  This should preferably be someone from outside this area in view of the internal problems the department has had.  And it needs to be someone committed to the implementation of proactive policing as described in the above linked article.  The City Council should be actively involved in the process of selecting a new police chief, and prescribing what attributes he should have.

The general public distrusts the police department, and will continue to distrust it until the bad actors within the department are removed.  I think the City Council needs to pass a directive instructing the City Manager to assure that all officers who have knowingly associated themselves with criminals (aside from first degree family relationships) or engaged in criminal activity in the past must be removed from the department.  Officers must also be removed who have had illicit sexual contact while on the job, or who have had sexual contact with subordinate officers. 

And the standard of proof for determining whether these things things have happened should be an administrative standard-- i.e., greater than 50% likelihood.  The directive should be applied across the board, to police officers from every racial group.

The city of Greensboro has previously adopted a stance that officers are entitled to a presumption of job retention and "due process".  It has a procedure that makes it very unlikely officers will be terminated.

The new City Council must act quickly to determine what our prerogatives are under state law to change this procedure.  I think it would be best if City Council members concerned about the police department actually read the law on this point, instead of relying upon verbal representations provided by others as to what the law says.

If it can, I think the City Council needs to reduce substantially the number of appeals to which police officers are entitled on matters such as these.  And I do not think these officers should be entitled to appeal to the City Manager any disciplinary action, as long as state law permits eliminating that step.  As we have seen in the past, allowing the involvement of the City Manager invites inappropriate politicizing of these decisions. 

At the same time, the City Council should not undermine the police officer's right to due process when he has been accused of improper actions such as excessive force or firing his weapon inappropriately.  We should not abandon police officers when they have had to make tough, split-second decisions under intense pressure.  We need to keep faith with these officers, because they are putting their lives on the line for us...

(T)here will (need to) be high expectations of officers of every rank.  And with these high expectations, the department will begin to regain trust in the community, and also its collective sense of pride that the department's mission is being accomplished.

Communication is very important, and the department's officers need to hear this message directly.

But in order to meet these objectives, the city council and the department will need to do those things I suggested in my post yesterday.  This means adopting a better crime-fighting approach, removing corrupt officers from the department, and instituting a new "dual track" procedure for employee discipline-- one that deals with excessive force, use of weapons and complaints from the public; and another that deals with matters of integrity and corruption in the discharge of their duties.

For the first group of offenses, officers need to be assured of due process with full appeal rights. 

But there needs to be a faster, more effective, streamlined procedure for dealing with that second group of alleged offenses.  Some types of infractions may need to lead to automatic termination.  The city manager needs to be taken completely out of the loop if possible; and some steps need to be eliminated. 

The officers who handle those processes internally need to be of unquestioned integrity and impartiality.  And they need to be precisely schooled in the "more than likely, greater than 50%" standard for making administrative determinations to discipline or terminate.

I think what is needed is leadership.

Media Feeding Cancer Hysteria Around White Street Landfill

An above-the-fold, prominent headline in the News and Record this morning proclaims, "Cancer cases higher near landfill".

The story written by Amanda Lehmert was reasonably balanced.  It contains statements from two health officials that essentially refuted the implications of the headline.

The problem is two-fold.  First, the implications of this study, as reported, have previously been debunked.  It does not even come close to demonstrating what people will perceive.  Second, many readers will only read the headline and the lead paragraph.  Those elements would lead the reader to believe there is a problem.

I think the burden is on the News and Record to demonstrate how its editors were not using the headline, placement within the paper and the lead paragraph to sway the public debate.  I think that will be a very difficult burden to meet.

It is not appropriate for the news pages to become a participant in the debate of a public issue.  Its role is to report the news. 

Instead, the News and Record this morning cast its lot with the east Greensboro civic and political forces who have made wild, unsubstantiated public assertions on this matter.

Update: Sam Hieb has some additional analysis, and touches on how it all relates to the new proposals for the White Street Landfill.