What to Do About the Tom Pollard/ Nancy Vaughan Decision: The Way Forward

Ed Cone reported today that Interim City Attorney Tom Pollard has further considered the matter, and has reaffirmed his decision to allow Mayor Pro Dem Nancy Vaughan to vote on the contract to reopen the landfill to residential waste.  This, of course, means that the matter is probably killed for now.

Pollard-- an outsider-- has single-handedly decided the landfill issue on behalf of more than 200,000 Greensboro residents.   This allows Vaughan to play the role of Joan of Arc, heroically mounting her white horse to slay those evil conservatives who dare discuss reopening the landfill.

In the city of Greensboro, sometimes council members get to vote when they have a conflict of interest, and sometimes they don't.  That's just the way it is.  Ask Robbie and Nancy.  The process to determine whether council members have a conflict of interest is an absolute joke.

Vaughan, who lives in Irving Park, postures in a manner akin to the classical limousine liberal.  She thinks nothing of spending tens of millions on an unnecessary project like the aquatic center; and then perhaps tens of millions more than needed to dispose of our solid waste.  She bows before the city of Greensboro's deeply ingrained, institutional expectation of political correctness and identity politics.  She saw an opportunity to deliver a victory to the old-guard, Melderec con Simkins gang, and she took it.

The question is what should be the way forward for council conservatives.

The fact is that Nancy Vaughan and Robbie Perkins have handed local conservatives an issue for the fall election with their political victory on the landfill.  This has the potential to take some of the steam out of the east Greensboro juggernaut that has been mounting in preparation for the fall election; and also has the potential to focus intently the attention of local fiscal conservatives.  I think city council conservatives should fold their cards, and stop the landfill process acknowledging they do not have the votes.  The question is whether they are savvy enough politically to know how to capitalize on what has happened during the fall election season.

In some respects, pursuing the reopening the landfill to residential waste has been like trying to drive a square peg into a round hole.  At every twist and turn, there were obstacles and sources of resistance.  But the bottom line is that conservatives do not have a reliable majority on the Greensboro City Council-- and they never have.  That is an inescapable fact.

There might be some temptation to try to throw the contract to Waste Industries.  Of course, both Nancy's husband-- Senator Don Vaughan-- and Simkins PAC principal Joe Williams, a local attorney, work on behalf of Waste Industries.  That could potentially be a good route to take; but it would require an affirmative vote by Zack Matheny.  Like Robbie Perkins and Nancy Vaughan, Matheny has been a Simkins endorsee in the past.

Ever since former Mayor Yvonne Johnson reopened this discussion two years ago, it has seemed likely that critical players in east Greensboro would have to get paid handsomely in order for anything to happen regarding the White Street Landfill.  That apparently did not happen to a sufficient extent with respect to the Gate City Waste Services contract.

Comments

[KeepYourHandOutOfMyPocket]

I hope they go through with the vote so that Nancy's vote is on the record on how she cost the tax payers of GSO millions of dollars but offers up no alternative solution to the problem. I agree that the process to determine a conflict of interest is a joke. I am now concerned with Pollard and how he makes decisions. I hope that this stunt is remembered during the elections.

[Joe Guarino]

Keep, Pollard is only an interim, and his stay in Greensboro will be brief. But he has revealed his stripes.

[JC]

The News and Record quotes Vaughan as saying “There was very little discussion about what would happen if we fill up (the current space at White Street),” she said. “We have no backup plan at this point.”

No one ever said White Street would be the final solution. But current inaction is costing the taxpayers of the city millions of dollars annually. Not addressing this problem immediately is horrible stewardship. Mrs. Vaughan is using hypotheticals to validate her position while allowing facts to fall by the wayside. Then again, she also said that three million dollars wasn't a lot of money....

If a building is on fire, your first point of action should be to get to safety, then figure out how to put out the fire.

[bubba]

It's just another day in Our Fair City, where corruption and malfeasance is the accepted way.

[Harold]

"The fact is that Nancy Vaughan and Robbie Perkins have handed local conservatives an issue for the fall election with their political victory on the landfill."

Honestly Joe, I don't see how anyone can make political points in a campaign with respect to opening a dump for garbage near a community.

The pro-landfill garbage cabal needs to concede this matter and look at plan b, whatever that might be. Though the matter is for all intents and purposes finished with respect to the GSO landfill, I do believe the Eastsiders (the steam is still there) will be motivated to vote in large numbers in the primary and on election day.

[Joe Guarino]

JC, thanks for some great comments; and yes, I agree.

Harold, I think we need to remain mindful that election day is more than two months away. It remains to be seen to what extent the Melderec con Simkins/East Greensboro machine will retain its steam by then, given the fact that the landfill issue is now dead.

But I think conservatives must presume it will retain its steam, as you suggest. They need to point out repeatedly how Robbie Perkins and Nancy Vaughan have sold out the taxpayers to curry favor with the east Greensboro political establishment. That is what this is all about, and the voters need to be reminded repeatedly about that.

[Val Wiggin]

Is this something that could be on a referendum? Let the people decide. Too many of the Council members either have a financial stake in the outcome or, are using it as a proxy for their other agenda(s).

I think most people would want to receive their city services at the most efficient cost. The City itself, IMO, has been more than fair with the residents out there by offering to buy their houses. I would take that deal anytime.

[Ron]

First and foremost Pollard interpreted the law correctly. Vaughan has a right to vote on the Gate City contract because there is no conflict of interest there. The idea that Vaughan can not take part in any of the process because of a conflict of interest on ONE particular contract is ridiculous. There have been many issues where council members have voted and excused themselves when it came to specific contracts.

Even if Nancy prevents White Street from opening, I don't think it will take the steam out of east Greensboro. They are furious and want the mayor out of office. People from other areas of town are upset with some of the conservatives for other reasons. Remember marymandering?

This entire process was planned for the outcome of opening White Street. It no coincidence that the two remaining companies knock out two (likely opposing) votes on city council. Randolph Landfill will open in a few years. Just suck it up and wait until then.

[Ron]

The conservatives on city council picked the wrong battle with this landfill because its going to cost them the war once democrats replace them after the election.

[Joe Guarino]

Val, I am not sure whether a referendum is possible. I suppose so, but I wonder whether it is too late for this election cycle.

Even if it were possible, however, we need to remember that the Melderec con Simkins crowd still has a majority on the Greensboro City Council. It somehow seems doubtful that they would allow a referendum to happen given the fact that they have been successful in killing the proposal politically.

[Joe Guarino]

Ron, you might be right about the election. I don't know.

But let me ask you. Are you the same Ron who kept insisting over at Ed's that the recovery bonds for the downtown hotel were going to happen?

I really don't know what objective legal expertise you bring to the question of whether Vaughan should be permitted to vote. But the whole matter of who gets to vote looks rather curious. Check out Hammer's article in the Rhino today.

For those concerned about "Marymandering", let's recall that Skip Alston just got through trying to gerrymander the county commissioners' board.

[Ron]

"But let me ask you. Are you the same Ron who kept insisting over at Ed's that the recovery bonds for the downtown hotel were going to happen?"

Elections change everything. When the GOP took over the house in DC, that killed all stimulus money. If it had not been for that, the hotel project would have secured bond money from another round of stimulus money. Yes elections do change things as we will see this November.

During the last election cycles, Mary Rakestraw won by a slim margin. Skip won more convincingly. A few months ago when Mary tried to remove areas in her district that voted against her, that upset the people in those areas. My guess is that Mary Rakestraw and the mayor will be voted out of office. Because Danny Thompson is an at-large council member he is in danger too. Every east Greensboro vote that goes against the mayor will also go against Danny Thompson. Danny better hope he has more support in other areas of the city than the mayor.

[sensei]

"First and foremost Pollard interpreted the law correctly."
No, he did not! Vaughan voting against Gate City results in Waste Industries being the choice of the four (4) council members who have Greensboro's best interest in mind. And, because there is the possibility that WI could get the contract (Matheny votes YES), Vaughan's conflict of interest continues. It never went away. This ain't 'rocket science'!!!
It's also quite interesting that, in his letters, Pollard cites several cases that are around 100 years old. It seems to me that Pollard is one of those individuals who will not change his opinion no matter what. He has nothing to lose and could probably care less if the Council fired him today!

[Ron]

You are wrong sensei, The law addresses voting on "specific contracts" where there is a direct or indirect conflict of interest. As long as Vaughan doesn't vote on Waste Industries she can vote.

[Joe Guarino]

Ron, does the fact that Skip represents a lopsided, gerrymandered district make it ethically more acceptable that he would engage in gerrymandering? It is pretty clear to me that Vaughan has an indirect conflict of interest. This is, at best, a matter of interpretation. But I think your side wanted Robbie and Nancy to vote because your side wanted to win. I can't speak to Mr. Pollard's motivations.

Oh, and I seem to recall that the parties pushing the downtown hotel took a while producing a letter of credit from the bank that was being requested. Am I not right? The stimulus bonds were there, but it took too much time to access them.

Sensei, I don't know if this will play out as you seem to predict; but we shall see.

[KeepYourHandOutOfMyPocket]

Looks like an indirect conflict to me. If she votes down the present contract then it could be opened up to vote for WI, if that isn't a conflict then I do not understand what one would be. Nancy needs to stay out of this but I know she will not. Just hope it is pointed out to the voters that she is costing the tax payers millions of dollars for her liberal hypothetical views. There may be a better solution down the road and if there is fine but don't penalize the tax payer while we wait for that solution.

[Spag]

The contract is a zero sum proposition. To the extent that Gate City gets it, Waste Industries does not. Seems like a conflict to me.

[JC]

"The conservatives on city council picked the wrong battle with this landfill"

If you mean trying to address an unnecessary $8,000-$10,000 a DAY expense, then I guess you're right. But of course we should all wait a few years so we've only lost $10 million or so. Maybe then it would be real money?

[Abner Doon]

I recall Wade saying the city has already lost about $55 million.

I figure if landfill closing costs were included
in the $3 million savings number,
but the landfill has to be closed regardless
and the number is actually about $7 million per year,
then we lose about $19,178 per day
to artificially prop up the real estate values around the landfill
which they are currently not taxed for,
leaving everyone else the bill.

[sensei]

Joe - I'm not predicting that Matheny would vote YES on WI, just that the possibility continues Vaughan's COI. I highly suspect that Matheny would vote NO.
Ron - It isn't so, just because YOU say it is. How about some "law" to back it up? While you're researching that, look up "indirect."

[Ron]

"does the fact that Skip represents a lopsided, gerrymandered district make it ethically more acceptable that he would engage in gerrymandering? "

no I agree it is unethical no matter who does it. But because Rakestraw only won by a hair last time around, she risks losing her seat because of a handful of upset people in her district.

sensei...read clearly.

The Greensboro Conflict of Interest Policy defines a conflict as “a financial or other interest in the firm selected for THE AWARD.” In this case, the City Council selected Gate City. Vaughan has “no financial interest, direct or indirect, in GATE CITY.

[Joe Guarino]

That policy is not the only thing that guides this particular determination by my recollection.

The fact is that the right people connected to the east Greensboro political establishment were not getting paid with the selection of Gate City. That is why we have the outcome we are now discussing, regardless of perceptions of conflicts of interest or the lack thereof.

[bubba]

"That policy is not the only thing that guides this particular determination by my recollection."

But it IS the only thing that matters to people like Ron, who will say or do ANYTHING to benefit his/her worldview agenda.

[Ron]

you mean people like Bubba who want to twist the clear definition of the law to fit their political views.

[bubba]

"..you mean people like Bubba who want to twist the clear definition of the law to fit their political views."

"The law" has nothing to do with your comment or your agenda.

It's not political.....it's common good sense, good stewardship of public resources, and the desire to provide what's best for ALL the people.

Too bad you don't share those values.