Should some City Council Members and Candidates have accepted campaign contributions from the President of Kotis Properties in September and October, 2009, after Council Candidates received a “Statement of Facts,” mailed by the Public Affairs Department on July 21st, 2009, concerning a legal dispute involving Kotis Properties vs. City of Greensboro and HorsePen Commercial, and should they recues themselves on Agenda Items 10 and 11, until the City Manager reviews the circumstances?
Source: http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/0F8BED47-164E-46BF-8F1E-3E6401816D85/0/cmobriefkotisproperties.pdf
Political Contributions by William M. Kotis III
President, Kotis Properties Inc.
P.O. Box 9296, Greensboro, NC 27429
for 2009’s Greensboro City Council Elections:
Yvonne J. Johnson for Mayor 10/15/2009 $1,000.00
Committee to Elect MariKay AbuZuaiter 9/21/2009 $500.00
Robbie Perkins for City Council date unknown $1,000.00
Sandra Anderson Groat for GSO City Council 9/14/2009 $500.00
Elect Nancy Vaughn 9/15/2009 $1,000.00
Jim Kee for City Council 9/17/2009 $2,500.00
Committee to Elect Zack Matheny 9/9/2009 $1,000.00
Mary Rakestraw for City Council 9/15/2009 $250.00
Total through 2009 pre-election campaign filings $7,750.00
Source: http://guilfordelections.org/
On Item 15: Who are the principal owners of the Four Farms Area Outfall Project on City of Greensboro City Council Agenda Item 15?
http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/EA3AA1E2-6E60-4512-AF10-236FE134D1BB/0/091110ag.pdf
2 comments:
First, I would encourage you to get the facts regarding the pending lawsuit. Secondly, as was pointed out as yesterday's meeting, the law does not allow for the recusal along the lines that you suggest. If the law were as you apparently wish it to be, your elected officials could evade making tough decisions by pointing to some contrived conflict of interest. Finally, I would encourage a more complete and balanced review of the contributions made in this election cycle by parties interested in this dispute.
Hi Charles,
I think if these type of contributions were prohibited, it would not constitute an issue with tough decisions. If anything, I would think they would be easier to make.
Interesting point on recusal. I believe I would counter that the direct financial interest argument by pointing out salaries of elected officials are dependent on winning. Campaign Money = Winning = Salary. I believe contributions to committees should be considered a direct financial interest if the winner of the election recieves taxpayer money, and the ability to maintain power.
What are you reffering to about balance by interested parties?
Post a Comment