Council candidate cuts through the bull

Marc Ridgill is a retired police officer running for city council. He is also a prolific blogger, utilizing the medium in ways (like local state legislator John Hardister) that one wishes incumbent council people would, explaining the issues as he sees them and offering his ideas — and he does it on a platform that doesn't require one to log in in order to be subjected to data gathering and privacy invasions. Elected officials (hello city council) and challengers (I'm talking to you Michael Picarlelli) who are okay with confining their online constituent outreach to Facebook demonstrate either unconcern for legitimate privacy issues or a general laziness; neither flattering. But I digress.

While polite commentators and genteel reporters danced around the reasons for state senator Trudy Wade's recent attempt to redistrict Greensboro's city council as mysterious and unfathomable, Ridgill cuts through the bull and comes out and says it.

Our current system lends itself to areas of our city that are more active politically than others.  Part of this problem is the apathy in many parts of Greensboro that feel their vote won't accomplish anything, citing preferential treatment to downtown development and east side Greensboro political leaders.  East Greensboro has long been more organized as a voting block in our city elections and under this system has direct effect on 6 of the 9 council seats; Districts 1 and 2, all 3 At Large seats and the Mayor.  It is for this reason that many in town want to eliminate the At Large seats for more streamlined representation of the city by reducing the size of the districts and eliminating the manipulation of the council by political activists.

Ridgill's survey of the landscape might be a bit oversimplified, as it leaves no room to explain the not so long ago upset of incumbent mayor Yvonne Johnson by Bill Knight in an election that gave city council four conservative members, but premises don't have to be correct to become motivations.

While rejiggering the system to diminish the effects of motivated constituencies and enhancing the influence of the complacent seems counter to the American spirit—or maybe the argument is that, in a different setting the currently apathetic will become motivated—either way, one cannot deny that the motive behind Trudy Wade's plan is to diminish the political influence, real or perceived, of Greensboro's minorities on city council elections, and it's about time someone said it so plainly.

The biggest question for mayoral candidate King

GREENSBORO, NC - Devin King is running for mayor. He is something of an outsider who doesn't like what he sees and thinks he can shake things up. That can be good. The best qualified city council candidates are not necessarily those who put in their time on boards, commissions and civic clubs. That's certainly one route to experience, but it can lead to being subsumed by the insulated power structure. Candidates who go that route often serve to maintain the status quo. Depending on your perspective, that can be a minus or a plus.

No matter where a candidate is coming from, inside or outside, there is one measure by which they all can be evaluated as serious and aware persons.

Voting history.

The 27 year-old King has lived in Greensboro for five years and yet has never voted in the ten elections during that time. In fact, he did not even register until March of this year. While voters across North Carolina may rightly feel apathetic towards the preordained outcomes of our gerrymandered congressional districts, plenty of other important decision are made at the ballot box and King, for all his passionate concern, has consistently left it to others to decide.

Devin King, mayoral candidate

Republican King passed on participating in elections that had Robbie Perkins unseat Bill Knight for mayor and, two years later, had Perkins lose to current mayor and King's opponent Nancy Vaughan. King was silent on the race that had his incumbent district two council representative Jim Kee toppled by upstart Jamal Fox.

King was missing in action in 2011 as two fellow Republican candidates, challenger Chris Lawyer and incumbent Danny Thompson, each aiming for one of three council at-large seats, finished fourth and fifth respectively—just out of the money and leaving all at-large seats in the hands of Democrats. King sat on his hands in 2013 when Lawyer tried again and, again, came in fourth.

Those are just local races of note. During King's time in Greensboro, he passed on voting between Pat MCrory and Walter Dalton for governor, Elaine Marshal and Richard Burr for U.S. senator and between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney.

In his congressional district, King failed to weigh in on the race between Democrat Alma Adams and Republican activist Olga Wright and left it to others to decide a slew of judges, school board members and county officials.

King doesn't like the way thing are. He may have some good points. He's right about the need for greater transparency, for example. But is he part of the solution or part of the problem? One wonders.

Riiiiiiiight

GREENSBORO, NC -- Roy Carroll, recipient of $2 million in City tax credits, a block of a city street onto which he will build apartments and a noise ordinance specially crafted to (successfully) close the rooftop bar below his penthouse condo, supports a proposed redistricting of Greensboro city council because he doesn't think city council has been business friendly enough.

Is Carroll a business whiz or less than sincere?

The following from the Triad Business Journal makes one wonder:

"[Carroll] sent an unsolicited $16 million bid for the News & Record to Warren Buffett, the Omaha billionaire who bought the daily two years ago."

and

"Carroll wrote in the letter to Buffett. 'If a local daily publication is out of touch with the needs of its constituents, I can only wonder about its financial performance.'"

Carroll added to his letter "This is not a publicity stunt."

If it's not a publicity stunt, we have to take it at face value: It's a $16 million offer for a newspaper, the value of which the prospective buyer admits he can "only wonder."

Is this revelation a reflection of Carroll's sincerity or of his business acumen?

Matheny's fill-in-the-blank endorsement

GREENSBORO, NC -- I received a campaign mailer from 6th district congressional candidate Zack Matheny yesterday. It included this endorsement attributed to Greg Walden, Chairman of the National Republican Committee:

"Zack's conservative principles and priorities provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama's irresponsible agenda. North Carolina's hardworking families deserve better than skyrocketing health care costs, financial instability and mountains of debt on their backs. I am certain that Zack Matheny will be a strong contender this election cycle."

Impressive.

But wait...

Here's what Walden had to say about congressional candidate Ryan Costello from Pennsylvania:

"Ryan’s conservative principles and priorities provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama’s irresponsible agenda. Pennsylvania's hardworking families deserve better than skyrocketing health care costs, financial instability and mountains of debt on their backs. I am certain that Ryan Costello will be a strong contender this election cycle."

About congressional candidate Andrew Walter from Arizona:

"Andrew’s conservative principles and priorities provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama’s irresponsible agenda. Arizona’s hardworking families deserve better than skyrocketing health care costs, financial instability and mountains of debt on the backs of their families. I am certain that Andrew Walter will be a strong contender this election cycle."

About congressional candidate Lee Zeldin from New York:

"Lee’s conservative principles and priorities provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama’s irresponsible agenda. New York’s hardworking families deserve better than skyrocketing health care costs, financial instability and mountains of debt on the backs of their families. I am certain that Lee Zeldin will be a strong contender this election cycle."

About congressional candidate Matthew A. Doheny from New York:

"Matt’s conservative principles and priorities provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama’s irresponsible agenda. New York’s hardworking families deserve better than skyrocketing health care costs, financial instability and mountains of debt on their backs. I am certain that Matt Doheny will be a strong contender this election cycle."

About congressional candidate Jeff Gorell from California:

"Jeff’s conservative principles and priorities provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama’s irresponsible agenda. California’s hardworking families deserve better than skyrocketing health care costs, financial instability and mountains of debt on their backs. I am certain that Jeff Gorell will be a strong contender this election cycle."

About congressional candidate Ryan Zinke from Montana:

"Ryan’s conservative principles and priorities provide a stark contrast to Barack Obama’s irresponsible agenda. Montana’s hardworking families deserve better than skyrocketing health care costs, financial instability and mountains of debt on their backs. I am certain that Ryan Zinke will be a strong contender this election cycle."

And on and on...

Team Matheny fools the News & Record again

GREENSBORO, NC -- Last month, the News & Record published a letter to the editor in support of Zack Matheny, the Greensboro District 3 City Council representative who is running for congress. Although the News & Record failed to identify him as such, the writer of that letter was a paid consultant to Mathney's campaign.

Today, the News & Record publishes another letter in support of Matheny from Tiffany Clark of Greensboro. Clark's husband is Director of Client Engagement for G-force Marketing, a company to which Matheny's campaign has paid over $80,000 this year to market his candidacy.

Clark's relationship to the Matheny campaign was not noted by the News & Record.

Pro-Berger Jr. PAC behind attack ads

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record reports that a political action committee has launched attack ads against Republicans running for the retiring Howard Coble's seat in congress. The N&R reports of a mailer attacking Mark Walker and an online video ad attacking Bruce Voncannon.

Although such political action committees (are supposed to) operate independently of candidates, this particular pac, the ironically named Keep Conservatives United, recently conducted a poll in support of candidate Phil Berger, Jr. That the ads target Walker and Voncannon may be an indication of whom the poll found to be the front runners.

News & Record's superficial endorsement of superficial candidate

GREENSBORO, NC -- Is the News & Record even serious any more? In endorsing Greensboro district three city council person Zack Matheny in the Republican primary for United States House of Representatives, N.C. district 6, they ask readers to ignore important issues, ignore the realities of the political climate, local and national, and suggest we join them in a willful suspension of critical thinking.

The News & Record touts what they see as Matheny's:

"[W]illingness to work across party lines for the benefit of the people [he] represent[s]. That approach is sorely needed in Congress."

The fact is, Matheny is a member of a non-partisan city council where party matters so little that the mayor has served on council as a Republican, then unaffiliated and now as a Democrat. Such an environment gives us no indication of how Matheny will operate in the partisan pressure cooker of the U.S. House of Representatives. A better indication is in Matheny's campaign platform and here, the News & Record gives Matheny cover from scrutiny. They write:

"Matheny’s top issue in this campaign isn’t repealing Obamacare, opposing same-sex marriage, banning abortion, denying climate change or impeaching the president — topics that occupy some of the other candidates. It’s finding ways to create more jobs."

In congress, Matheny will have to—we, his potential constituents, will want him to—act on health care, marriage equality, reproductive issues, climate change, economic inequality and more, including budgetary, foreign affairs, defense, and entitlement issues such as Social Security. Yet, the News & Record is asking us to dumb down our examination of Matheny by suggesting that we ignore how he might act on these important issues and, instead, be swayed by rhetoric on "jobs." Voters will be wise not to oblige.

Despite what the News & Record may wish us to ignore, Matheny has staked out some positions that give a better picture than the News & Record's wishful thinking of how he'll operate if elected. No matter one's political inclinations, it will interest voters to know what Matheny has to say on the issues (and on what he has remained silent).

Health Care:
In January, Matheny's website called for an unequivocal repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: "Congress must repeal Obamacare," he wrote. Now, along with some good news about Obamacare, Matheny's website no longer calls for repeal. While he still remains critical of what he calls "government intrusion" in health care and maintains that Obamacare "hurts far more people than it helps," he seems confused about the role of government in health care as he cites as a good example of the delivery of health services the medical testing company LabCorp, which happens to be North Carolina's single largest recipient of Medicare payments (i.e. "government")  — some $157 million in 2012. (As it turns out, LabCorp made a $5,000 campaign contribution to Matheny days before he came to use them as an example on his website.)

I wrote to Matheny, in whose congressional and city council districts I live, to ask if he still opposes Obamacare and why. I also, separately, asked if he supported Republican changes to expand Obamacare signed into law by President Obama. Matheny replied that he was out of town and would get back to me when "time permits." That was two weeks ago. Matheny's views on health care have been inconsistent, confused and self-contradictory. Had the News & Record been serious, it would have explored the implications of Matheny's muddled thoughts on this issue. Voters will.

The Budget:
Matheny promotes a Constitutional amendment "requiring the federal government to balance its budget every year." As with the Affordable Care Act, it's not clear to what extent Matheny has thought this through or his level of commitment as he qualifies his support by saying we should "consider" it.

Taxes:
We'll let Matheny speak for himself here and leave it to the reader to decide if this is something the News & Record would have ignored in a serious endorsement.

"As your Congressman, I will fight for legislation to sunset our current tax code and create a simple, fair, and honest tax system. Our current code is too complex, 70,000 pages and growing every year. No one knows what’s in it, or understands the current system. If we sunset our tax code after 3 years, that gives Congress 1000 days to take out a clean sheet of paper headed 'Fair, Simple, Honest.' "

Education:
Again, Matheny's words themselves are the most illustrative and, again, the reader will evaluate the seriousness of a News & Record endorsement that, in a city with six colleges and universities, ignores Matheny's idea for education:

"We must TEACH FOR THE JOB." [Emphasis in original]  

Guns:
Yet again, another topic on which the News & Record would have had something to say, were they serious. Here's Matheny:

"As your Congressman, I will continue to support gun owners and protect their right to bear arms. Protecting Second Amendment rights is not only a Constitutional issue. Our region has an economic interest to protect these rights as well. Remington Arms has been headquartered in North Carolina’s 6th District for nearly 20 years and Ruger Firearms opened a manufacturing facility in Rockingham County just last year. Guns equal jobs in North Carolina’s 6th District."

Foreign Policy, National Defense, Social Security, Agriculture, Domestic Surveillance, Climate Change, Poverty, Marriage Equality, Reproductive Rights/Abortion, Income Inequality, Civil Liberties, Energy, Trade, etc:
On these issues, Matheny offers no comments on either of his two websites. Yet, silence on these issues is a plus in the minds of the News & Record editors. That should tell you all you need to know about the quality of their endorsement: A superficial endorsement for a superficial candidate.

Another one gets by the News & Record

GREENSBORO, NC - On March 9, 2014, the News & Record published a letter to the editor in support of Congressional candidate Zack Matheny. Although the author was identified merely as Nick Wilkinson from Greensboro, the fact is Wilkinson is a paid consultant to the Matheny campaign. Wilkinson received over $2,300 from Matheny in the weeks prior to the publication of his letter in the News & Record.

From time to time, the News & Record will append information to a letter if it further explains the author's relationship to the issues or parties being discussed. This was certainly a circumstance where such an explanation was warranted. Wilkinson's position as a Matheny campaign consultant should have been revealed.

Campaign reports shed light on Matheny's nonsensical Obamacare objection

GREENSBORO, NC -- Last week I wondered why my Greensboro City Council district representative and congressional candidate Zack Matheny, in explaining his opposition to Obamacare, touted medical testing company LabCorp as a good example of keeping government out of health care delivery, even though, as it turns out, LabCorp is the single largest recipient of Medicare funds in the state, getting some $157 million in government payments in 2012.

Why would Zack have explained his position on government involvement in health care by offering an example that so contradicts his position?

I think I know the answer now. From Matheny's campaign finance report's list of contributors:

$5,000 from LabCorp's political action committee, the maximum legally allowed.

News & Record changed copyrighted piece without permission

Clarification, from Michael Crowell, the author of the original piece: "I knew they were going to publish it, am glad for papers to do that, did not know they were going to alter it."

GREENSBORO, NC -- There is a letter to the editor in today's News & Record from Michael Crowell, a professor at the UNC School of Government, complaining about the News & Record having published a copyrighted work of his on its editorial pages and editing it without his knowledge or permission. The News & Record attaches a weasley anonymous note to the letter to the editor explaining that the piece was "shortened" to make room for an advertisement. There is no explanation or apology for using the article without permission.

In truth, the News & Record did more than shorten it, substantially, without permission, they also added portions the author did not write and deleted portions that affected the meaning. Here are some selected comparisons of significantly edited portions.

Original:

For the last 30 years North Carolina, like most states, has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s the only way you could register was to go before an official of the local board of elections in person.

In the News & Record's copy:

For the last 30 years, North Carolina has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s, you had to register in person at your county board of elections office.

---------------
Original:

Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote added since 1980 appreciably affect voter turnout or not?

The answer is not clear cut. In tracking voter turnout with election law changes since 1980 it is hard to discern that any particular election law change has made an appreciable difference in how many people vote. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but other presidential elections have not brought as many people to the polls, and turnout in non-presidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 presidential year jumps are simply anomalies, with unusually high interest, and not indicative of any trend.

In the News & Record's copy:

Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote appreciably affect voter turnout?

The answer is not clear. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but turnout in nonpresidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 jumps were anomalies, with unusually high interest.

---------------
Original:

While this review of North Carolina data is not very sophisticated, it is consistent with recent political science research, discussed below, which suggests that early voting may actually decrease voter turnout. The same research shows, on the other hand, that same-day registration and voting can increase turnout somewhat. When done together, early voting and same-day registration neutralize each other. And, as one might expect, factors other than election laws have more to do with how many people vote. 

In the News & Record's copy:

[Removed entirely.]

---------------

Original:

Data about voter turnout and election law changes in North Carolina from 1980 through 2012 is found on this chart... [snip] A list of all elections may be found here.

In the News & Record's copy:

[Removed entirely.]

---------------

Original:

What do the data show about turnout over the 32 years? The chart is a busy document and offers an opportunity for lots of interpretation. Here are a few observations about the data:

In the News & Record's copy:

What do the data show about turnout over these 31 years?

---------------

Original:

Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The turnout percentages for those six elections, and the results of the presidential voting in North Carolina:

• 1980 — 43.9 percent (Reagan edges Carter 49.3 to 47.2 percent)

• 1984 — 48.8 percent (Reagan routs Mondale 61.9 to 37.9 percent)

• 1988 — 43.7 percent (Bush routs Dukakis 58 to 41.7 percent)

• 1992 — 50.1 percent (Bush edges Clinton 43.4 to 42.7 percent)

• 1996 — 44.4 percent (Dole beats Clinton 48.7 to 44 percent)

• 2000 — 49.6 percent (Bush beats Gore 56 to 43.2 percent).

In the News & Record's copy:

Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The low, as noted, occurred in 1988; the high was 50.1 percent in 1992.

---------------

Original:

Possible conclusions?

In the News & Record's copy:

No obvious effects

---------------

Original:

The changes in election law since 1980 do not appear to have appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.

In the News & Record's copy:

The changes in election law since 1980 have not appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.

---------------

Original:

In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 32 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become  noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, the level of media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing their voters. The one state election law change that might be argued to have boosted turnout is the 2007 legislation, repealed in 2013, to extend the  deadline for registering by allowing same-day registration and voting  during the early voting period. With even the most generous assumptions,  however, that change in the law could not be said to account for more than  1.5 percent of turnout.

In the News & Record's copy:

In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 31 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing voters.

Update (4/4/2014): Title changed for accuracy's sake.

Grand advice for the GOP

Tom Ridge, Republican, former Governor of Pennsylvania and the first secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, offers some sage advice to the Republican party, including this:

"In order to govern, we must win national elections. To do so the narcissists and ideologues within our party need to understand that Americans are, more conservative than liberal, but are more practical than ideological and more tolerant and open minded than judgmental. They are also looking for real not rhetorical solutions.

"They are not attracted to a party that imposes an even more severe litmus tests on its own members, projects an unacceptable rigidity and self-righteousness on social issues, and spends more time and energy objecting to bad law rather than proposing alternatives."

Read the rest.

Jim Kee campaign finance discrepancies

GREENSBORO, NC -- How much money has district 2 City Council representative Jim Kee received from William M. Kotis of Kotis Properties? There are discrepancies in Kee's campaign finance reports that raise questions.

According to Kee's latest filing, he has received an aggregated total of $4,000 in contributions from Kotis for this election, the legal allowable maximum. But only a single $500 contribution in September of this year is itemized in any of Kee's reports for this election cycle. When and for how much were the other contributions and do they, in fact, add up to only $4,000?

I emailed Kee yesterday morning to ask for clarification. He has not replied. Should I get a response, I will post an update here.

Superb

GREENSBORO, NC -- This is what passes for campaign coverage at the News & Record. Amanda Lehmert on mayoral candidate George Hartzman:

"He wrote two self-published books of meandering musings, some of which were wrote from his backyard hot tub. (“Think: What to do Now,” by George Hartzman. Chapter 4: 'There are no straight lines. Stability destabilizes. Non-random events cause random effects.') He drives a Jeep without a race car engine and is a regular at the Bench Tavern on Lawndale Drive." 

Screenshot:

Yes! misses the point on Holder/Abuzuaiter confrontations

GREENSBORO, NC -- With the Rhino Times gone (although rumored to be coming back on October 3rd), the remaining local weekly has a real opportunity to fill the vacuum on election coverage. It looks like they are not going to take it.

In addition to the silly mistake of identifying Greensboro's mayor as "Robbie Knight" (a concatenation of the current and previous mayors) today, a (justifiably) unsigned editorial completely misses the point of at-large city council candidate Ben Holder's recent attention to at-large incumbent Marikay Abuzuaiter.

While Yes!'s editorial reminds us of their stories last winter (here and here) about emails that revealed Greensboro Police identifying Abuzuaiter as a confidential informant and appearing to show Abuzuaiter sending information to the police, that has not been the meat of Ben Holder's gripe. As Holder has made clear in his two recent appearances before City Council to speak to the issue, his interest is in having Abuzuater reconcile her statements of denial surrounding those emails with the facts.

When confronted with emails appearing to be sent from her AOL account to the police reporting on the activities of groups such as Occupy Greensboro and the local Tea Party, Abuzuaiter denied sending them, according to Yes! Weekly reporter Eric Ginsburg. This incongruence prompted people to wonder if there shouldn't then be an investigation into how emails could be sent to the police from a council person's email account without her sending them.

Respected local attorney Lewis Pitts even went to a city council meeting to demand an investigation.



Abuzuaiter's "explanations" have thus far included protestations that she couldn't have taken the pictures included with some of the emails because her only camera was on a cell phone that she says was broken at the time; that she couldn't have accessed her AOL account at the time of the emails because her computer suffered a "blue screen of death;" that someone must have impersonated her because she doesn't sign her name the way it appeared on the emails in question; and that she wasn't even a council person when the emails in question were sent (not accurate).

When confronted with the possibility that the police may have "framed" her, she said "time will tell."

But time will not tell. Not on its own. Not without an investigation that Abuzuatier has not called for and which, although requested by citizens, the city has declined to undertake.

Abuzuaiter now says the issue has been "resolved," but the public remains as much in the dark as when Yes! first reported the story. It is this failure of a sitting council person to explain herself to the public that Holder is insisting be addressed. It is not the matter of her being identified as a police informant or her sending information about peaceful assemblies to the police. Although those matter, the Yes! editorial misses Holder's larger point, that Abuzuaiter is avoiding giving the public a straight answer.

The issue is one of honesty, public accountability and can be illustrated in this question I emailed to Abuzuaiter eight days ago and to which she has not replied:

Did you send the emails you told Eric Ginsberg you did not send?  

Yes! Weekly weakly

GREENSBORO, NC -- From Yes! Weekly's election coverage:

 "Tanya Wiley is managing Mayor Robbie Knight's reelection effort."

Greensboro's mayor is, of course, Robbie Perkins. Our previous mayor was Bill Knight. Yes!

Johnson, Vaughan, WIlkins should demand end to questionable corporate contributions

GREENSBORO, NC -- Local developer Marty Kotis is at it again, his political enthusiasm leading him to run afoul of elections laws. Last fall, he adorned some properties he owns with giant Mitt Romney signs in violation of Greensboro's sign ordinance limiting the size of campaign signs. Now, according to the News & Record's Travis Fain he is providing free advertising on an electronic billboard promoting the re-election of City Council candidates Yvonne Johnson, Nancy Vaughan and Tony Wilkins.

As Fain reports these "in-kind" contributions do not appear on any of the candidates' campaign financial reports, as all contributions, in-kind or cash, are supposed to. That's only part of the problem though. In North Carolina, it is against the law for corporations to make a donation, in-kind or otherwise, to a candidate.

Form the North Carolina Board of Elections Campaign Finance Manual:

"It is unlawful for any corporation, business entity, labor union, professional association, or insurance company to directly or indirectly contribute to a candidate."

While Kotis' may not be aware of this provision of campaign law, the candidates surely are. They should immediately ask Kotis to stop displaying ads they have no intention of paying for and they should pay Kotis for the ill-gotten publicity they've already received.

UPDATE: To be clear, Tony Wilkin's campaign report does list receipt of a "Donation of digital billboard-partial month" which is good for Wilkins. It still leaves me wondering why Kotis is explaining that there have been no invoices because customers are billed only after their ads have run for thirty days and wondering how billboard space is Kotis's to donate if it is corporate-owned.

The headline of this post has been edited from its original.

Arrogant or complacent? Incumbents blow off Conservatives' forum

GREENSBORO, NC -- The Conservatives for Guilford County (C4GC) held a candidates forum last night for those running for Greensboro City Council. According to the News & Record:

"Only eight of the 26 people seeking council seats — and none of the incumbents — turned out for Conservatives for Guilford County’s forum."

C4GC is being underestimated. They put people to work in last year's Guilford County Commissioners race and, in my opinion as a voter in the district, made the difference in Jeff Phillip's defeat of incumbent Paul Gibson. They will only have learned and improved since then and, I suspect, will be even more effective in council races of more concentrated geographic area where shoe leather and word-of-mouth make a difference.

Dismissing them out of hand reflects poorly on candidates—especially incumbents. Even to those not in sync with their political alignment, it says of the candidates who won't engage them that those candidates are insulated and narrow minded. It wasn't just the 60 people in attendance who will form an opinion of the candidates who ignored the forum, but those of us reading and hearing about it are taking note too.

As it turns out, lack of transparency by city government emerged as a theme at last night's forum. That is a problem—one that is not ideological, that interests a wide swath of voters and that this current council has been completely unwilling to address. Too bad they avoided the subject yet again.

There is plenty of time left in this election and the spending hasn't begun yet, but it seems as if some candidates are complacent, maybe even cocky, about their prospects. I will not be surprised if there are some "shockers" to come.

Those who attended C4GC's forum were:

George Hartzman (mayor)
Marlando Pridgen (at-large)
Chris Lawyer (at-large)
Jean Brown (at-large)
Tigress McDaniel (district 1)
Wendell Roth (district 3)
John Alexander Underwood (district 4)
Alex Seymour (district 5)

Learn more about the candidates on GreensboroCouncilCandidates.com

The fantastical imaginings of the Triad Conservative

GREENSBORO, NC -- If one has an interest in influencing local elections, as Conservatives for Guilford County's Dr. Joe Guarino does, it helps to know the electorate. That's best done by leaving behind ideological assumptions and getting in touch with, well, the facts.

In arguing against allowing college students to vote where they reside, Dr. Guarino writes on his blog Triad Conservative:

"Here in Greensboro, for instance, students attending local colleges and universities can be extremely disruptive of local elections because they can skew the results against the interests of taxpayers."

Not just "disruptive," Guarino says, but "extremely disruptive;" and by disruptive, one assumes that means that, but for those meddling kids, local elections would have different results.

As is frequently Guarino's pitfall though, he has substituted some phobic assumption for an examination of the facts. Using a voter intelligence web application I'm developing, I took a look at the participation of college-aged voters in the last local election (2011 general).

Here are the facts to which Guarino attributes extreme disruption:

36,387 voters total voted in Greensboro's 2011 municipal election.
135 ( 0.37%) voted on-campus at NCA&T
36 (0.09%) voted on-campus at UNCG

What about off-campus students? That's a little harder to pin down, exactly, but let's use as a proxy voters 18 to 22 years old. Some college students will be older, but not all people 18 to 22 are college students either. How many 18 to 22 year-olds voted in the last local election?

598 (1.6%) voters city-wide ages 18 to 22.

In fact, only one age group voted less than 18 to 22 year-olds in the last local election, those 93 years-old and up.

The interest and passion Conservatives for Guilford County have for local elections is admirable. Representatives like Guarino would better serve the group by engaging the facts rather than attacking a group of people without reason.

Katei Cranford adds profile to GreensboroCouncilCandidates.com

Katei Cranford, candidate for Greensboro City Council at-large, has added her profile to GreensboroCouncilCandidates.com.

Cranford, 28, works as an advocate for the creative community and is registered as unaffiliated. She says her three top issues are embracing innovation for job creation, increase transportation connectivity and develop a cohesive identity for Greensboro.

In answer to what she will do, specifically, to increase transparency in city government, she says, "As a huge proponent of two-way communication, I will ensure a legitimate response to any inquiries or critique with which I'm presented & strive to eliminate the hierarchy between citizens & leaders."

Ben Holder adds profile to GreensboroCouncilCandidates.com

GREENSBORO, NC -- Ben Holder, candidate for Greensboro City Council at-large, has added his profile to GreensboroCouncilCandidates.com.

Holder, 42, is a property manager and is registered as Democratic. He says his three top issues are to hire a new police chief, hire a new city manager and hire a new city attorney.

In answer to what he will do, specifically, to increase transparency in city government, he says, "I have been the guiding light for Greensboro for a decade. Nobody in this city, not the media or the government, has fought for transparency and uncovered lies as successfully as I have. I do it."