Politicians flip-flop all the time. But this week, Nancy Vaughan committed the ultimate flip-flop. She had previously announced, with great fanfare, that she was not going to run for reelection, in part because of the dysfunction she perceived to exist on the Greensboro City Council. But now, she indicates she is going to run for reelection after all. And her mission? To fix any perceived dysfunction on the city council.
Nancy Vaughan is completing her lurch to the left. Perhaps we can refer to her as "Mayor Pro Dem." She previously functioned as a swing vote, or as a moderate; and she had seemed conservative on some issues during the 2009 campaign. But now her true colors are shining through.
Her identification with "business progressivism" as reflected at the Greensboro Partnership is well established. That organization's failure to help develop our local economy has become painfully obvious during recent days, but Nancy is its cheerleader at budget time. It is a profound mistake to lead the cheers for a failed political ideology.
Her identification with the Simkins PAC is a matter of concern.
Recently, she has made public allegations that the city council "pushed out" City Attorney Rita Danish. However, she has offered no credible evidence; and the allegation is untrue.
She has had 18 months to demonstrate leadership on the city council, but she has not done so on a single issue that I recall (excepting perhaps some measure about a dog, or something like that). She has oft expressed her opinions; but she has not led on hardly anything.
She has had to recuse herself on some key votes because of her husband's business activities. Most notably, she has had to recuse herself on the landfill issue. But there have also been rezoning issues such as that which involved a huge development-- the student housing near UNCG off Spring Garden St. Her missed votes mean she was not able to do the job she was elected to do.
When the budget passed a couple of weeks ago, she voted in opposition over two matters-- the cut to the Greensboro Partnership and the withdrawal of pay for reserve officers. But the reserve officers were unpaid when she previously served on the city council. It should be noted that only T. Diane Bellamy-Small joined her in opposition to the budget. That is distinguished company to keep.
Perhaps Ms. Vaughan feels she is entitled to change her mind about running because she is a woman. Some might interpret that as flightiness, however; or even as a reverse form of sexism.
If she is reelected, what is she going to give us? More of the same? Or a new and improved version?
Addendum: Sam Spagnola also has some insight on this situation. He correctly takes her to task over the issue of transparency. What a fraud!
She must be into hypnosis. Why else would she get more votes than anyone running (18,022)in the last election?
You should consider convincing Hyde to run against her. He may be the only candidate ever to run against a husband and wife.
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | June 30, 2011 at 02:00 PM
Name recognition, quasi-incumbency, and being "in" with the "in" crowd all go a long way. But more folks now know what she is all about, so we will see whether she gains or loses votes compared with the last time. We have to assume the east side of town will be more energized; and she will benefit from that, because she is allied with them.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 30, 2011 at 02:29 PM
"Why else would she get more votes than anyone running (18,022)in the last election?"
We won't get fooled again........
Posted by: Bubba | June 30, 2011 at 03:00 PM
Is there word in the English language for a jerk who happens to be a female ?
Posted by: timur | June 30, 2011 at 03:09 PM
Tony, why do you think Nancy justified her re-entry with a thinly-veiled attack on the conservatives on the City Council? She should have been talking about Robbie Perkins if her real concern was transparency, but I don't think that anyone believes that is the case. So what is the point in adopting the liberal narrative of a dysfunctional City Council controlled by conservatives?
Count me among those who are greatly disappointed in her at the moment and it isn't because she decided to run for re-election, it's how she did it.
Posted by: Spag | June 30, 2011 at 04:02 PM
Sam, I was disappointed in her long before she decided to run for re-election.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 30, 2011 at 04:10 PM
"Sam, I was disappointed in her long before she decided to run for re-election."
Agreed. We've discussed that numerous times here, so her trumpeting of the "progressive" anti-conservative meme is not a big surprise.
Posted by: Bubba | June 30, 2011 at 04:48 PM
Spag: "So what is the point in adopting the liberal narrative of a dysfunctional City Council controlled by conservatives?"
Good point Spag.
I'm sensing a friction developed after the city attorney issue that I'm hoping is resolved if I'm correct on that. Frictions come and go. Earlier in the term Zack and Danny were sort of at odds. Zack and Robbie haven't been singing Kumbaya lately. Friction between tdbs and...well...the rest of the world.
The current make up of the At-Large pool consists of one (R), one (U), and one (RINO). With a 29% (R) base in Greensboro that's pretty cool. I don't believe Nancy will or has voted with any "bloc" consistently and I'm glad she chose to run. I say that after disagreeing with her comments about the status of the city attorney and her attempt to add two items back into the budget.
Right now I'm thinking Danny and Nancy to be reelected with a surprise third At-Large winner.
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | June 30, 2011 at 04:57 PM
Cool song, bubba.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | June 30, 2011 at 05:01 PM
I am very interested in the candidacy of Chris Lawyer. I want to see how he responds to the questionnaire we circulate after it becomes clear who has filed to run.
Let's hope there is a "surprise"-- a pleasant one-- instead of Yvonne Johnson.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 30, 2011 at 05:09 PM
Agreed on the Johnson comment.
Chris Lawyer is quite an impressive young man.
I'm also wondering if Mike Barber is lurking behind the curtain playing peek a boo. We may have the biggest knock-down drag-out of all time in that race by the time filing ends.
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | June 30, 2011 at 05:27 PM
"Sam, I was disappointed in her long before she decided to run for re-election."
"Her" being the important word.
How DARE Nancy not stay barefoot and in the kitchen!
Posted by: Janet Wright | June 30, 2011 at 06:20 PM
"Her" beng the important word.
Puhlease, Janet. Nice try.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | June 30, 2011 at 06:43 PM
"Puhlease, Janet. Nice try."
Expect MUCH more of that sort of thing.
Vaughan has been a disappointment, and there's no reason to expect any improvement.
Posted by: Bubba | June 30, 2011 at 07:24 PM
Let's recall the very first important vote for this particular city council. They had elected to reconsider the previous city council's corrupt, sneaky manipulation of process to get the aquatic center approved and sited at the Coliseum. Nancy Vaughan was going to be the deciding vote. I was there. The council chambers were packed with aquatic center supporters. People were anxiously anticipating what Nancy's comments were going to be, and how she would vote. (Those of us in the blogging community already knew.)
She spoke and made it clear she was going to vote in favor. The crowd cheered, and she smiled as if she enjoyed giving these interest groups precisely what they wanted. She enjoyed receiving the cheers and affirmation. But this was a harbinger of much of that which was to follow later.
It was a corruptly conceived, unnecessary, expensive, wasteful project. And she enjoyed voting in favor.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 30, 2011 at 07:33 PM
Please go to Chris Lawyer's FB pg and/or website and see how to contribute to his campaign. All of you know - campaigning is expensive. He is an impressive candidate and is very sure of his convictions. As a Physicians Asst. in the Emergency Room of Cone Hospital he has seen and dealt with "it all". He is calm and steady and loves Greensboro. He is a fiscal conservative and is committed to working on bringing jobs to the City. He is very honest and forthright and deserves our support.
Posted by: Joanne Wittenborn | June 30, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Joe just helped me make up my mind! I'm a YES for Vaughn. Thanks for the reminder.
And as always... I call BS on Joe's opinion of the GAC. Nuff said by both.
Posted by: Mick | June 30, 2011 at 10:12 PM
"How DARE Nancy not stay barefoot and in the kitchen!"
Yes, that explains why conservatives are such big fans of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
Another disconnect between a time worn liberal narrative regarding alleged conservative views of women and the factual reality.
Posted by: Spag | June 30, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Agreed. Weak Janet. Veeerrryyy weak.
Posted by: Mick | June 30, 2011 at 11:23 PM
An odd comment Janet, as most who congregate here would support Trudy and Mary. What do you base that on?
Did I ever tell you how big of a smile I had on my face as I applied a Trudy Wade door knocker on your door?
And did I ever tell you how hard I was going to try and get your support if I had decided to run. I'm unsure why, but after our initial meeting I was determined to get you to like me. I'm funny that way.
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | July 01, 2011 at 12:10 AM
"I'm a YES for Vaughn."
Why are we not surprised to read that, given your history, and Vaughan's history on the issues?
Posted by: Bubba | July 01, 2011 at 08:20 AM
"Another disconnect between a time worn liberal narrative regarding alleged conservative views of women and the factual reality."
Watch for La Polinski to backstop that particular narrative here, as she is known to do from time to time.
Posted by: Bubba | July 01, 2011 at 08:22 AM
"It was a corruptly conceived, unnecessary, expensive, wasteful project. And she enjoyed voting in favor"
Typical of liberals. Why are we not surprised. She fooled many the last time around. Not again.
Posted by: Enough | July 01, 2011 at 08:35 AM
"She fooled many the last time around. Not again."
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Posted by: Arch Stanton | July 01, 2011 at 09:12 AM
"Yes, that explains why conservatives are such big fans of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann."
This blogger included? I am certain one of his commenters has recently said women should not hold public office.
Posted by: Roch101 | July 01, 2011 at 09:17 AM
It is well established that this blog demands the strictest allegiance to what its author deems to be the proper right wing agenda. Any deviation and out comes the wet noodle. Pragmatic, open-minded and independent public servants don't stand a chance. That's fine, the author is free to try to apply his spin to events, however absurd the attempts.
However, misrepresentation of the facts is unacceptable.
Joe writes this above:
===================
"Let's recall the very first important vote for this particular city council. They had elected to reconsider the previous city council's corrupt, sneaky manipulation of process to get the aquatic center approved and sited at the Coliseum. Nancy Vaughan was going to be the deciding vote. I was there. The council chambers were packed with aquatic center supporters. People were anxiously anticipating what Nancy's comments were going to be, and how she would vote. (Those of us in the blogging community already knew.)
===========
First of all, this was a project approved by the voters. What came before the outgoing council, on the evening of and before Vaughan was seated, was a vote approving the construction contract and using additional funds from the hotel tax. The approved both.
Then the new council, with new members Vaughan, Thompson, Knight and Kee, was sworn in. One of their first actions was to consider the actions the outgoing council had just approved regarding the swim center. It was Vaughan who made the motion "to reconsider the previous city council's corrupt, sneaky manipulation of process to get the aquatic center approved and sited at the Coliseum," as Joe describes it, that was approved by the new council.
Two weeks later, the reconsideration Vaughan shepherded to approval happened. Two proposals emerged for how to address the additional funds needed for the swim center: one was to put to a public vote a bond referendum (borrowing); second was to use the hotel tax (no borrowing).
The first proposal was defeated 6 to 3, with Danny Thompson voting against. When Thompson wanted to change his vote, Vaughan voted to approve a suspension of the rules so that council could "re-vote" and Thompson change his vote, which he did and which did not change the outcome.
Vaughan made a motion that the second option be adopted. That passed five to four.
Those are the actions of a deliberative and fair-minded representative. One may disagree with any of her votes, but her actions where not as simple as portrayed by this blog's author nor where they ideologically-driven, the accommodation of Thompson's vote change and advancing a financing solution that avoided borrowing being strong evidence.
Posted by: Roch101 | July 01, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Roch: "Those are the actions of a deliberative and fair-minded representative."
Roch is right in his post. Any debate?
I now recall Nancy stating she wanted this council to "own the decision" on the GAC and not be force fed by the outgoing cancel.
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | July 01, 2011 at 10:55 AM
"First of all, this was a project approved by the voters."
Let's stop right there.
Shall we discuss how that happened?
http://guarino.typepad.com/guarino/2009/12/aquatic-center-deceptions.html
Shall we further discuss the implications?
"The most recent revelations remind us of the support Mr. Brown's various proposals received from such council members as Robbie Perkins, Zack Matheny and Nancy Vaughan. They are each responsible for much of what has happened."
http://guarino.typepad.com/guarino/2011/04/should-city-council-members-demand-matt-browns-resignation.html
Posted by: Bubba | July 01, 2011 at 12:15 PM
"I am certain one of his commenters has recently said women should not hold public office."
Roch, I assume that you're referring to my comments in a thread about Michele Bachman. I'm a traditionalist about gender roles. I don't recall Joe agreeing with me.
On the other hand, I don't agree with Joe's negative characterization of Nancy Vaughan (or her husband, either.) The Nancy that I know has wisdom, integrity, compassion and common sense.
This post is unproductive and unseemly.
Posted by: michele | July 01, 2011 at 12:32 PM
All I see is lots of cud chewing in your links Bubba. Didnt "prove" anything other than the battle lines we already knew existed. Since that time The GAC has landed TWO NATIONAL level, multi day meets and several smaller weekenders. Things are going as well as could be expected at The GAC. Certainly better than most here expected/predicted. I know that sucks for you guys. I hear, though I dont know, the project is reasonably on time and on budget. Long way to go though. Any insight Tony W?
When do you guys switch gears and start complaining about all these meets pushing out tax paying citizens? That is next on the list right?
Posted by: Mick | July 01, 2011 at 03:19 PM
"I hear, though I dont know, the project is reasonably on time and on budget."
Really?
Did you also hear the Moon was made of green cheese?
We know what you are. You prove it every time you post about this fiasco, and your little song and dance routine doesn't change a thing about the fraud and malfeasense you endorse.
Posted by: Bubba | July 01, 2011 at 10:00 PM
"She must be into hypnosis. Why else would she get more votes than anyone running (18,022)in the last election?
You should consider convincing Hyde to run against her. He may be the only candidate ever to run against a husband and wife."
It's so nice to see a good, established "R" who wants to start the conversation of having Jeff Hyde run against Nancy Vaughan.
It's not hard to imagine with the 20,000+ votes Jeff received in the last election he could garner more than enough support to be our newest At-Large member this year.
Posted by: 3hourtours4gc | July 02, 2011 at 09:08 AM
GAC was not the bond that I voted on. The bond sat in parks and recs for a community pool ($12 m) and various park maintenance projects.
The bait and switch took place after the bond approval. Just another scam to expand the Coliseum Complex.
GAC will never break even.
I hear plenty of comments out there who insist on talk up additional revenue for the City. However, what they don't mention is that expenses have always exceeded revenue for the past 16 consecutive years.
The Coliseum complex is a flawed strategy.
Clearly, it needs to be fixed; however, at minimum, business 101 would never support expanding a proven loser.
Posted by: Jim Lewis | July 03, 2011 at 11:41 AM
"...business 101 would never support expanding a proven loser."
Doesn't make a difference to the Business As Usual crowd, who know they can appropriate Other People's Money to facilitate their corrupt cronyism.
All the more reason to retire Perkins and Vaughan from City Council. to keep Matheny on a short leash, to re-elect Thompson, Rakestraw, and Wade, and to replace Perkins and Vaughan with people who will help us eliminate the arrogance, corruption, and malfeasance.
Posted by: Bubba | July 03, 2011 at 03:31 PM
Jim, Bubba, Enough and Arch, I agree. Thanks.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 04, 2011 at 09:26 PM
Again, cud chewing.
Bubba, do you have news on the GAC being over budget and/or late? I freely admitted what I have is little more than rumors? What do you have? Or are you just hoping?
Posted by: Mick | July 05, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Who gives a fat rats a-- if its on time and budget? Bottom line is it will NEVER turn a a profit and only get more expensive as upkeep is needed. And we know that Matt wont take the money that comes in from events and use that for upkeep, he'll just go to his buddies on council and ask them for more money. He reminds me of a kid born to rich parents that was never made to work for a living, always has his hand out, never willing to do anything for it and always feels entitled.
Posted by: blah blah blah | July 05, 2011 at 11:53 AM
To my knowledge no one ever promised The GAC would turn a profit as a "business entity". And any taxes, etc brought in due to the GAC dont go to the bottom line. But again, we have all been over this and no minds are changing here (on either side). BTW, do parks turn a profit? Do you hold parks to the same standard.... collectively or individually?
I for one am glad it is apparently on time and on budget. However, my real point on the budget situation is that just about everyone here (many rather vocally and some very recenly) predicted the project would be over budget. Understandable due to the historical ability of government to do anything on time and on budget. Furthermore, most (if not all) here predicted failure in regards to meets and attendance. Neither assertion appears to be anywhere near remotely true at this time. We have a ways to go yet on the budget but we should know soon. And only time will tell if The GAC remains a popular destination for national and regional meets, events, etc. It will always have a built in local demand. The GAC is off to a good start "meet-wise". I personally hope that local citizens take advantage of the facility and Matt Brown and Co have to really strive to balance business and rec usage. We shall see.
Posted by: Mick | July 05, 2011 at 12:32 PM
This project should have been stopped cold before it got started. It did not happen. The perps are laughing at us, and will undoubtedly try this type of thing again.
People like the above apologist need to be ignored.
Posted by: bubba | July 05, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Bubba, By all means ignore all who have a differing viewpoint, opinion or belief. That is a great life strategy. Works every time.
Jim, I challenge you to find the bond language that refers to the facility (now known as The GAC) as a community pool. You venture into urban legend territory there my friend. Also, how much bond money is being used? However, we are probably somewhat in agreement about Parks and Rec not being involved. The location is/was not my first choice either but land acquistion was cost prohibitive. Ah, cud chewing again!
Posted by: Mick | July 05, 2011 at 01:49 PM
Why does the memory of Charlie Brown trying to placekick the football remind me of the situation with anything that is related to the Coliseum?
Matt Brown has the Lucy role. The Business As Usual cronies and the self-serving Useful Idiot crowd are cheering him on. The citizen suckers are, of course, expected to play the Charlie Brown role.
On faith, we're expected to believe that Matt Brown and Friends are not manipulating the whole thing to satisfy some warped form of megalomania.
The situation is outrageous.
Posted by: bubba | July 05, 2011 at 07:01 PM
Great analogy, Bubba.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 05, 2011 at 10:20 PM