news-record.com

Scoop got a call this morning from a dear reader who was terribly confounded by the marriage amendment story.

Well, she wanted to know, are these council members for it or against it?

I'm not sure what she meant by "it" -- gay marriage? the council's resolution? the marriage amendment? -- and that gets to the heart of all the confusion.

Tuesday night speakers and council members alike used several words  incorrectly and interchangeably. For instance, more than one person said he supported the amendment. But in the context of his speech, he supported gay marriage. That means what he supported was the council's resolution, not the amendment, which he opposed. That probably makes him pro-gay marriage, although not necessarily.

Yeesh. I probably just intensified the confusion.

How about a cheat sheet of where the council members stood on the issue?

Mayor Robbie Perkins: Opposed to the amendment that will make marriage between one man and one woman the only legal union recongnized by the state. He says Greensboro embraces diversity, and this issue should be no different.

Councilwoman Yvonne Johnson: Opposed to the amendment. She fears putting this in the state constitution will have negative effects on a variety of other issues, such as the ability of gay people to get partner insurance benefits.

Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan: Opposed to the amendment. She said the constitution should be amended carefully, and this amendment would amount to marginalizing part of the city's population.

Councilwoman Marikay Abuzuaiter: Opposed to the amendment. She said we should love all people and treat them equally.

Councilwoman T. Dianne Bellamy-Small: Refused to vote on the resolution and did not personally reveal how she will vote on the amendment when she gets the chance. She said it is up to voters to decide for themselves. The council's procedural rules state that if a council member is in attendance, but does not vote, he is counted in the affirmative. Thus, her vote was marked as a yes in favor of the council's resolution, which opposes the amendment.

Councilman Jim Kee: Opposed to the amendment. He said people should not tell each other how to live. "One thing that Jesus said that stands out is, 'Judge ye not.'"

Councilman Zack Matheny: Opposed to the amendment. He did not offer comments at the meeting. Previously he said the issue wasn't necessarily about gay marriage, but about whether the state legislature should be wasting its time amending the constitution for this reason.

Councilwoman Nancy Hoffmann: Opposed to the amendment. "In a democracy we have the responsibility to protect the rights of a minority, not take them away."

Councilwoman Trudy Wade: Supports the amendment and believes marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman.

As today's dead tree edition story indicates, there is some disagreement among council members about whether the proposed marriage amendment to the state constitution will prevent the city from offering homosexual partner benefits.

And so we go to the legal experts for further explanation.

Interim City Attorney Tom Pollard said initially, he believed the amendment would not impact the city's program, which offers committed same-sex partners and their dependents access to the employee insurance coverage.

"My first blush look at it was I didn't think it directly limited our ability to define benefits for the insurance plans," Pollard said.

His opinion was later swayed by the extensive research of UNC School of Law professor Maxine Eichner on the subject. He pointed out that the term used in the amendment, "domestic legal union," has not been used in state law before, thus it is difficult to predict how it will be interpreted. However, Eichner concluded that programs, like the one offered by Greensboro, would not be able to stand if the amendment passes.

Pollard said if the amendment is adopted, Greensboro will have to take a comprehensive look at its program and ensure it is legally defensible if the council wants to continue it.

What: Greensboro City Council meeting

When: 5:30 p.m. Tuesday

Where: Melvin Municipal Office Building, 300 W. Washington St., Greensboro

Watch it: Time Warner Channel 13 or www.greensboro-nc.gov/CityCouncil

How to speak: Sign up before the meeting. Speakers have up to three minutes for items not on the agenda. The speakers-from-the-floor session is limited to 30 minutes.

On the agenda: The City Council will consider:

— Providing $100,000 for infrastructure improvements to the North Martin Luther King Jr. Drive redevelopment site.

— Increasing bus fares. An adult one-way ticket is proposed to increase twenty cents to $1.50. If approved, the rate change will begin in July.

— A resolution that opposes the marriage amendment to the state constitution.

— Adopting an ordinance that will prohibit certain noise from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. The ordinance was prompted by downtown residents complaining about nightclub noise.

— Creating a waste management and recycling task force to advice the City Council on those issues. The group would be made up of residents appointed by the council and include experts in waste management.
 

Greensboro City Councilwoman Trudy Wade registered her objection, via press release, to a proposed resolution to oppose the state marriage amendment.

Wade said she is disappointed with her colleagues for raising the issue without holding a public hearing on the issue.

The council will consider opposing the amendment tomorrow.

Here's Wade's letter on the issue:

Dear Fellow Citizens:

On Tuesday, May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters will either pass or reject “Amendment One.” This amendment defines the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman.

This Tuesday, February 7, the Greensboro City Council will vote on a resolution to oppose the Marriage Amendment. In doing so, the Council demonstrates its disdain for family values, and lack of respect for the institution of marriage, which is supported by the overwhelming majority of North Carolina’s citizens.

The City Council resolution claims to be a reaffirmation of Greensboro's commitment to be nondiscriminatory. In reality, however, it is a frontal assault against the institution of marriage.

As City Councilwoman, it is my responsibility to alert my constituency to Council actions that impact them. It is also my responsibility to be a voice for my constituents on the issues that matter to them.

It is important that the citizens of District 5 understand that I am against the City Council’s resolution to oppose the Marriage Amendment. In contrast to the writers of this resolution, I do not believe that the passing of the Marriage Amendment would in any way compromise the City of Greensboro’s ability to be nondiscriminatory in policy or practices.

To be clear, I am convinced that most citizens of North Carolina believe that marriage:

• Is the sacred union, ordained by God, of one man and one woman;
• Is the backbone of the family, an institution that benefits individuals and society, and which the state should encourage;
• Generally provides the best possible emotional and nurturing environment for children;
• Encourages familial responsibilities from the parents of children, thus protecting children;

Therefore, I cannot and will not support the City Council’s resolution to oppose the Marriage Amendment.

The May 8th election is an important one for the future of our state. The very basis of our legal system — our Judeo-Christian principles — is on the ballot. I hope that each citizen will register to vote and make sure that conservative family values are not compromised in our great state.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Dr. Trudy Wade, Greensboro City Councilwoman, District 5

At this week's Guilford County Commissioners meeting, there were a few citizens who gave the commissioners a hard time about authorizing roughly $184 million in bonds without much discussion.

Local gadfly -- and financial professional -- George Hartzman raged over the county's ballooning debt and falling revenues. He questioned why the county would continue to borrow so heavily, voting to do so without any debate.

The problem with that line of reasoning? The bulk of this bond debt was debated back in 2008, when voters approved $651.4 million in bond debt for school projects and a new jail. This week's commissioners vote was just on issuing actual bonds for that debt.

In fact, the debt has been debated -- among commissioners and by the public at meetings -- every year since. It's happened during budget cycles. It's happened when school board officials come to give reports. It's happened when new guards for the new jail are debated and when the sheriff defends the structure of the new jail.

The debate has not gone the way many conservatives -- Commissioner Billy Yow, along with Hartzman -- would like. The county has continued to borrow heavily, even in the face of falling revenues. It has cut staff and services and increased taxes to deal with the problem. And those moves have led to still more debate.

The problem, as Commissioner Kirk Perkins pointed out, is not that the commissioners aren't discussing or debating the issue. They simply didn't debate it while doing what was procedurally necessary to do the borrowing they'd already decided on.

Being surprised by that is a bit like deciding to buy a house, getting approved for a loan, choosing a house, making an offer, having the offer accepted, picking out carpets and drapes and then being SHOCKED when there isn't a huge discussion over whether it's a good idea as you're putting pen to paper on the mortgage documents.

Hartzman and other conservatives may argue that you SHOULD have that discussion, and at that moment if necessary, when you're broke and already deeply in debt.

They may be right. That's why it's worth them keeping the debate -- which is certainly not lacking -- alive.

The city manager hiring consultant has a survey for residents to provide their ideas for the search.

Fill it out here.

You can call him a headhunter, although he prefers the term "executive recruiter."

Really, Robert Burg is a salesman. The same salesman who sold Rashad Young on the Alexandria, Va., job that lured him away from Greensboro.

Burg's the guy who will spend the next four or five months — and at least $30,000 — helping council finding someone to replace Young.

"Someone said we want another Rashad," said David Moff, one of about two dozen residents to meet with the consultant Wednesday morning. "I suggest we kick it up a little."

It's going to be tough, Mayor Robbie Perkins said, to find qualified candidates for the job.

Burg, who met with council members over the last two days to get their insights, said he's going to look for someone who will make a long-term commitment to the city.

How about someone with a private sector business background, as opposed to only government experience, residents wondered?

That is tough to find, Burg said. He won't rule anyone out.

Burg hopes to bring the council six candidates to be interviewed by April. The goal is to have a candidate selected by May.

Residents won't be included in the process until council members have made their choice. Council members debated whether to make two finalists for the job public, but ultimately a split council decided it was in the best interest of the job search to keep it confidential.

This afternoon, City Council members will meet with their consultant about the city manager search.

Tommorrow it will be residents' turn.

The council has invited residents to an open forum with the consultant from 10 a.m. to noon Wednesday at Schiffman’s Diamond Club at the Greensboro Coliseum Complex.

Mayor Robbie Perkins took his first lobbying trip to our nation's capital last week.

He had two jam-packed days of meetings with staff members from the local federal delegation, the governor's D.C. representative, and staff for the DOJ and DOT.

The trip was arranged by the city's brand new lobbyist. It's a switch in strategy from the last city council, which said it wasn't worth the city's money to pay a lobbyist.

Perkins said he spent him talking up the aerotropolis concept and the joint nanotech school. He said he is confident the city has a strategy to "bring money home from Washington."

"We are long overdue in putting together a lobbying strategy in Washington," Perkins said. "They’re spending lots of money in Washington all of the time. There are places that have programs that could help us achieve some of our community’s goals."