Myrene Stanley For County Commissioner

The News and Record has a helpful story about the county commissioner's race for the seat Steve Arnold is vacating in High Point.  The two candidates are Bill Bencini and Myrene Stanley.

Bencini will have certain advantages as a candidate.  As a city council member, he will be perceived as an incumbent with higher name recognition.  However, he is described as being a "moderate" Republican in the article, and seems eager to compromise.  I am afraid we do not need any more Linda Shaw-like situations on the Board of County Commissioners.

Myrene Stanley appears to be a solid conservative, and has signed the pledge devised by Conservatives for Guilford County.  Her website is found here.  If I lived in that district, I would vote for Ms. Stanley.

Comments

[triadwatch]

I live in district and to me bill bencini is the best candidate,who I have known for a number of years back to our zoning issues with council.

[Joe Guarino]

Keith, there is little doubt that Mr. Bencini has certain assets as a candidate. I just am left with the impression that Ms. Stanley would be more of a fiscal conservative after comparing the two.

[Bill Bencini]

Hello Joe, Mr. Killian's description of me as a "moderate" is certainly not my idea. In all my conversations during the campaign I have emphasiszed my strong opposition to expansionist county government...county-wide trash collection, consolidation of municipal services under the county's umbrella (land use planning, purchasing, human resources, GIS, inspections), development of a county water & sewer department when it has the ability to deliver neither, and resistance to incentives like the American Express project under consideration. Check me out at billbencini.com Thanks, Joe.

[Joe Killian]

My description of Mr. Bencini as a "moderate" Republican certainly didn't come from him or his campaign and I regret if the word choice gave an impression of him as less conservative than he actually is.

Anyone who looks at his record will certainly see that he is conservative -- but in relation to Ms. Stanley he seems to hold fewer views based on orthodox ideology.

He has opposes a number of incentives packages on principal, for instance, but was not opposed to one that he thought would create blue collar jobs. Some would call that and his desire to bring his non-partisan board experience to a very partisan board "too eager to compromise" -- but I've had email from a number of readers who find it pragmatic and refreshing as well.

All of the issues he discussed in his above comment came up in our interview and his positions on them were as stated -- but I had two candidates and a limited number of inches in the story so I stuck to those I'd talked about with other candidates as well.

I'll be doing an expansion of my candidate coverage on the Inside Scoop blog this week.

[Joe Guarino]

Bill, I appreciate the clarifications you provide. Certainly, your name recognition in the city of High Point positions you strongly in this primary.

Joe, I appreciate your clarifications also. I just wonder about the overall impression you initially had that led you to label him as moderate. I also wonder about the use of the term "pragmatic". Some of us have grown wary of this type of profile given the proliferation of local politicians like Robbie Perkins and Zack Matheny and Linda Shaw. Even Barack Obama has been described by some as "pragmatic"-- so what does that term mean, and where does it leave us? How do we know what we are going to get?

[Joe Killian]

Well -- I can answer the "what do you mean by pragmatic?" question if you promise not to read into my answer anything about any specific candidates :)

I think of pragmatism in terms of being practical rather than ideological.

It's really a matter of preference in politics, though.

There are many people who criticize Billy Yow, for instance, because he is often content, even proud, to be the only "no" vote on something or primary dissenting voice if he believes something is against his principles, whatever its specifics. On the other ideological end Paul Gibson will often do the same thing.

There are other people who think that's exactly how one should govern...that abandoning or compromising what you believe ideologically even for what you perceive as a greater good is a weakness of character.

For me...I guess it depends on the issue. I've personally supported candidates you'd have to call pragmatists and others who were wholly ideological.

Bonds and incentives are good examples and I used them for illustration in my campaign pieces because they're much discussed in local politics right now.

There are candidates - and commissioners - who are just ideologically against bonds or a bond referendum. They think they mean almost inevitable tax increases and they're against that. They argue that if you know you can't afford something, you don't put it to a vote.

There are other candidates who think you have to let the voters decide these things and then figure out how to pay for them if it's their will that they be built/funded.

This is essentially what the Shaw/Spagnola spat comes down to...and an argument about whether Shaw was honest about where she comes down on that and what she supported when.

Then there are incentives.

I've spoken to many politicians and political candidates who feel they just can't justify incentives under nearly any circumstances. There are others who feel that it's one of the best ways to build a tax base and get the local economy moving.

In between those two positions -- on bonds and on incentives and on many other polarizing issues -- are people I would describe as moderates or pragmatists. They believe what they believe but there are circumstances under which they can imagine (or actually do) putting ideology aside because they think it's more practical to put bonds to a vote or even use bonds, to give incentives to companies they think really will put to work segments of the population who need to go to work despite it being "corporate welfare."

In my conversation with Bencini he seemed like that kind of moderate or pragmatist to me.

With Stanley, by contrast, there was a long silence when I asked her if she could imagine a situation whereby she would vote for a bond or incentive package...and then she began talking about how she thought there was only so far she could go from her core beliefs.

Reader reaction to that piece so far leads me to believe there were a lot of people who thought both candidates came off very well...which just goes to show what a judgment call it is.

In such a short piece I certainly don't think I captured ALL of either candidate. But I think I touched on a number of the most important issues and gave a good sense of the candidates and the contrast between them.

[Joe Guarino]

OK, fair enough, Joe. I appreciate your spelling that out.

Obviously it is up to the voters to decide, and I hope they understand the contrast between the two candidates. It will take quite a bit of latent support for Ms. Stanley to overcome Mr. Bencini's obvious advantages. But regardless of whichever candidate they choose, I hope they comprehend what they are getting.

FYI to readers: I did review Mr. Bencini's website before preparing this post.

My preference is for the candidate upon whom we can rely to be a consistent conservative. There is no perfect candidate; and all who are elected will cast votes with which we might occasionally disagree. But the question for me is who will be the most consistent conservative.

[Bill Bencini]

Thanks Joe and Joe for your thoughtful discussion.

[triadwatch]

this from the editorial board at news and record and have to agree with them Bill Bencini will be the right fit as a commissioner

"Bencini, a 58-year-old manufacturer’s representative with a graduate degree in business from Wake Forest, has been a member of the High Point City Council for a decade. He chairs its planning and development committee. He’s built a record of working effectively on the nonpartisan council and serving constituents’ needs so well that he’s been unchallenged in recent elections. Probably his most daunting challenge would be adjusting to the partisan politics on the county board, although his views should command respect across party lines.

Bencini is running in the Republican primary against Myrene Stanley, a first-time candidate for public office. They’re vying to replace Steve Arnold, who will retire after 20 years in the seat. No Democrat filed to run; so the GOP winner will be unopposed in November unless an independent candidate petitions to get on the ballot.

Like Arnold, Bencini is a conservative, but he’s thoughtful, less bound by ideology and more willing to consider other opinions. He promises to look carefully for areas of potential collaboration among county and municipal governments. At the same time, he’s rightly suspicious of proposals to expand the county’s reach and authority. Services are generally provided more effectively at the local level, he said, noting that city residents are more closely represented there, too.

Bencini vows to stand for openness and accountability on the county board. That’s been lacking, and some commissioners let their chairman and vice chairman keep them in the dark. Bencini shouldn’t accept that, and chances are he wouldn’t"

[Jeff]

Joe, multiple life experiences compel me to suggest that Mr. Bencini may be the better choice, as it appears that your decision may have been partially based on Mr. Killian's characterization.

My relatively insignificant service as an appointed member of two county boards remind me that it's much easier to cast stones when one is an "us" versus a "them". Certain inconveniences (such as our bleeping state statutes) realistically prevent elected officials and board members from doing what may seem to be the right thing to do. While we do have some degree of latitude, a candidate who hasn't been in a similar position speaks from a position of cluelessness.

I saw first-hand the (partial) transformation of my father's political beliefs during his service as a Guilford County commissioner in the late Seventies. The realities of the daily challenges he faced tempered his stances considerably.

You may want to reconsider your endorsement, given that Mr. Bencini has emerged from his "trial by fire" experiences with his beliefs largely intact.

[Joe Guarino]

Jeff, it was not just Joe Killian's characterization that concerns me. There was also an editorial.

Keith Brown and John Hammer have also expressed their support for Mr. Bencini. I will certainly keep an open mind in the seemingly likely event that he is elected. I would be more than delighted if my concerns turn out to be unfounded.