If I remember correctly, that during the 2007 campaign for city council. Not only did the other candidates, and incumbents speak about accountability and credibility, so did Mr. Matheny.So, do I take it, that we are questioning Mr. Matheny's actions/conduct, while he is a sitting member? Or, are we questioning his ethics of representation? Either way, he screwed up. Of course, his response would be that:1) Either he did not know fully, the issue before the council; or2) At that time, he did not have full disclosure of the information presented to him; or3) He felt comfortable of the issue, and decided with his gut instincts, instead of the consensus of his constituency.Well, either we vote him out of office, or, if he is re-elected. Hold him totally accountable for his demeanor as a representative of the people. It maybe like stalking, but it's not. It'll be called, "Matheny Watch."I'm just blabbering here. But I agree with the blogs.
9/15/09
From Questions for Greensboro reader EK on Zack Matheny
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I have two questions for George Hartzman:
1. Since you posted this without commentary(Hey, EK, you can post your own comments directly, even use your own name if you want), does that mean, Mr. Hartzman, that you agree with it?
2. How about some specifics, Mr. Hartzman? What exactly are the facts surrounding these unspecified "screw ups?"
"check out the contributions, all i was saying is that Mega Builders mike winstead and joseph mckinney both gave well over and i do mean well over the average donation to one candidate with that being $1,000 please show me how many other city council members got $2,000 from 2 people who had a very contentious rezoning case off of friendly avenue. It would have been a great time for him to recuse himself from the case like mike barber did , not vote like he did on the issue. Take Cyndy Hayworth for example, she sends them a note saying thanks but no thanks it is a conflict of interest. We need more cyndy's on boards and commissions."
Posted by: keith brown | Mar 03, 2008 at 05:42 PM
http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/2008/03/a-question-for.html
"Not ALL candidates accept questionable contributions. When I ran for City Council (2007) I received contributions from several attorneys who come before me on the Zoning Commission. I promptly returned their contributions with a personal, hand-written note, explaining that I felt it would be a conflict of interest for me to accept their donations. I did accept contributions from several attorney's that I have never seen come before the zoning commission. I can assure you that if the circumstance ever arises that I need to recuse myself from a vote, I will not hesitate to do so."
Cyndy Hayworth
Posted by: Cyndy Hayworth | Mar 03, 2008 at 04:31 PM
http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/2008/03/a-question-for.html
"As much as I admire and respect Cindy, you must realize the irony you raise: namely that she didn't get elected. And it probably had to do with a lack name recognition... usually brought on by a lack of money.
A local candidate can stand on principle all they want on this issue, and I will admire them for their stance. But unless a candidate raises enough money from those who offer it, it isn't likely that I will ever call them "councilman/woman"."
Posted by: David Hoggard | Mar 03, 2008 at 05:59 PM
http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/2008/03/a-question-for.html
"Kirnard and his neighbors presented a sheaf of petitions on Jan. 15 containing what they said were more 221 signatures of those opposing the rezoning of property south of West Friendly Avenue near the new Urban Loop from general business to residential to allow Mega Builders to put up three-story apartment buildings. At the Jan. 15 meeting, the council voted 4-3 to approve the rezoning, with Councilman Mike Barber abstaining because of a direct or indirect financial interest in the property. On the advice of the legal department, the council postponed consideration of the matter to its meeting today. Assuming he supports the rezoning, the vote of Councilman Robbie Perkins, who was absent on Jan. 15 due to an injury, will break the impasse."
http://yesweeklyblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/greensboro-city-council-preview.html
Dear Committee,
I really don't have the time or inclination to solve your puzzles. I have asked you two direct questions which you think are appropriate to answer with a variety of comments by other people while offering not one word of your own.
Zack Matheny could be a baby eating vampire and I'd vote for him before someone incapable of respecting a constituent enough to give plain straight answers to direct questions. Care to try again?
Dear Roch,
I believe Greensboro may be partly governed by something like an oligarchy profiting by targeted political campaign donations.
The game seems rigged. I was unaware before I decided to run. I ran because of how much we are borrowing from our children's future income. I have a sick feeling for our community after what I have found. It is all legal. But look who get's to make the rules while most everyone watches TV.
Look at how many voters showed for the debate at the Historical Museum. Greensboro's attorney Terry Wood says conflicts of interest is a grey area.
No one has broken any laws. But I am pretty sure of the difference between right and wrong.
How could I explain it to my kids?
I realize through our past conversations you have a bias, but this is an example of what's wrong with America.
The whole "We the people" thing.
Look at what we have become.
This thing is broken and needs fixed.
You can't do this stuff in Loudoun County, Virginia, or Greenburgh, New York, which you wrote about, or San Antonio, Texas, or multiples of other places, but politicians can do it in Greensboro, NC.
Let's make it illegal.
g
Roch should disclose his advertizing solicitations for some of that campaign cash.
"I realize through our past conversations you have a bias, but this is an example of what’s wrong with America."
Another puzzle. What are you trying to say?
Bog Joe C (if that is your real name), I have offered all city council candidates an opportunity to advertise on We101.com and Greensboro101.com. I think my comments here will indicate that I have not let my commercial interests moderate my civic interests.
Let’s prohibit candidates and elected officials from accepting campaign contributions from those with conflicts of interests, including leading members of organizations receiving taxpayer money, and/or developers, contractors or their lawyers or agents, for 12 months before and after doing business with Greensboro and Guilford County’s governments.
“I realize through our past conversations you have a bias, but this is an example of what’s wrong with America.”
Another puzzle. What are you trying to say?
I am saying our political system is broken because special interests interested in recieving legislated appropriations are funding the political campaigns of the appropriators.
The problem is this game is being played with someone elses money.
Our money, taxpayer money, the money we are borrowing from our kids to preserve a pleasant present.
We are spending more than we make on what we don't need.
I get the impression that when bids go out for Greensboro City contracts, they are kind of like campaign fundraising letters in disguise, especially in Greensboro because there are no restrictions.
Come on, Committee, I have spoken to you on the phone and I know you are not this dense. I would have dropped this long ago except that I am finding it illuminating, to your detriment, of your unwillingness to give a direct answer (which I think is rude and contemptuous).
You said I have a bias, for the third time, what do you mean?
Sorry Roch, I thought you wanted specifics as to "what is wrong with America."
I have had conversations with many people who don't see themselves as exibiting bias.
I have a chapter in "Questions for America," which I use to teach continuing ed and ethics, called "Cognative Dissonance," of which I believe you suffer.
Please consider this:
"A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed, because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports that myth."
Edward de Bono
In other words, if I were to find and point out bias in your rhetoric, I don't think you would believe it.
Please don't take offense.
George Hartzman
I think you are an idiot. If I were to explain why I don't think you would believe it. Please don't take offense.
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding, because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”
Margaret Thatcher
george: i understood your responses, but i'm afraid the planet is in a 1 step backward social mood. two steps forward will begin soon, i hope. someone else's money is an entitlement or right in Roch's preferred political model. a privilege to plunder could be considered a bias but it's standard operating prodecure in every political paradigm. moral objectivity must remain a chimera for the system to continue. moral truth cannot exist because moral concepts are based on emotions and the contents of emotions lie outside of the category of truth. this myth must be embraced and massaged or one must reevaluate his model.
Post a Comment