April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Long-range planning | Main | Self control »

Aug 24, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nancy Vaughan

Ed, the concluding line of this memo shows it was clearly was addressing the "modification and issuance of this third RFP". It was NOT addressing voting status once a vendor was chosen.

Billy Jones

Nancy, if you're really in this for Greensboro and not for your own political gain then bring us W2E owned and managed by the City of Greensboro using the White Street Location.

Billy Jones

More here and here. I'm tired of the politics as usual and you're as big a part of it as any.

PS. Nancy, tell your mom the guy who used to deliver her flowers says, howdy.

Joe Guarino

The memo was not necessarily the entirety of the guidance provided to the conservative council members by the acting city attorney.

And of course, strictly speaking, the council is still acting on the 3rd RFP, from which Ms. Vaughan was barred, until the matter is brought to completion. It appears to me that the interim city attorney dropped the ball. And Nancy should continue to be regarded as being conflicted, regardless of whatever she might say at any given moment.

Ed, yesterday you reported that she said she did not know how she would vote. But she subsequently told Yes Weekly that she is opposed to reopening the landfill. Which is it?

Ed Cone

Joe, I wrote: "Vaughan says she doesn't know how she'll vote, but she thinks the process to date has been 'amateurish' and needs further deliberation."

And Jordan quoted her: "I think it’ s pretty clear that I don’t want the landfill open at all."

I don't see a contradiction. She doesn't want to reopen the landfill, but she's willing to listen before casting a vote.

Joe Guarino

I don't think that is what she said. On the one hand, she tries to make it appear that she does not know how she will vote as questions are raised about the Pollard's determination; but then she says it is clear what she does not want. Is it logical that she would vote in favor of something that she does not want?


I would think it logical to say " I don't want this open", but vote to open if no better alternative is presented.

Joe - Do you think that maybe Carruthers was trying to be sure the ruling in this memo was as narrow as possible? Wouldn't that be good practice?

Abner Doon

If she votes against,
and Waste Industries ends up with the contract
because she can't vote against,
then how would Nancy have not indirectly given the contract
to her husband's employer,
after her husband voted to close the landfill in 2001?


Time is running short and the November elections are around the corner. Even though the selection process requires a final vote, city council has already selected a company which has no connection with Nancy Vaughan. Yes she can vote no but argument that there is still a conflict of interest is mute. The company her husband represented is no longer a part of the process. If council brought the company back into discussion, Nancy wouldn't be able to vote. Council would have some explaining to do if they do that because it would be a reckless decision to switch companies just to keep a council person from voting. With Nancy in the process, all the political maneuvering in the world isn't going to get that landfill open before the election. After the election we know its not opening back up because some council members voting to open the landfill will likely be voted out of office and replaced with new council persons who want it to stay closed.


Trudy, Bill, Mary and Danny picked their battle, but its going to cost them the war when some if not all are voted out office in November.

Joe Guarino

I think conservative council members certainly could justify going to Waste Industries at this point. Nancy has told Yes Weekly she wants the landfill closed. That certainly telegraphs the way she intends to vote, and what her ultimate intentions are.

If the conservative council members want to save the taxpayers money, their only choice within the context of this RFP is to go to Waste Industries. That is very easy to see.

And it is also very easy to see how Nancy's actions, and her reintroduction into the mix, forces that alternative.

And yes, Abner, she will have indirectly given the contract to her husband's employer.


Joe, time is running short. I'm not familiar with the protocol in how city council votes but if they change companies would that require another a second final vote? If so they may not be able to make that decision before the election. I will say its unethical to take such actions just to keep a person from voting and it throws the democratic process out the window? I'm certainly not a lawyer but wouldn't political maneuvering just to prevent another council person from voting raise some legal issues? It just seems so wrong.

Ed Cone

So the mini-majority would select a vendor they just deemed to have an inferior plan?

Sounds like the recipe for another lawsuit.

This process has been flawed all along.

We need a long-term plan that works for our city, not a victory at all costs for a group that fears its own blunders will soon end its hold on power.


Ed I think you are right. If they switch companies for the sole purpose of preventing a council person from voting, it seems like grounds for a lawsuit. Once a suit is filed, it would halt the whole process which mean nothing would happen before the November election.

Joe Guarino

Ron and Ed, the choice of Waste Industies would be undertaken to allow the conservative council members to proceed with their plan to reopen the landfill to residential trash. I think it could be easily explained that the actions by Vaughan and Pollard left them with no alternative if they wanted to achieve their objective to save the taxpayers money.

And Ed, let's remember that "victory" for these council members on the landfill might mean defeat at the polls-- except, perhaps, for Trudy Wade. I don't think it is credible to suggest they want to win on the landfill because it makes them more likely to be reelected. They are doing this in spite of the effects on their reelection chances.


Joe it doesn't matter if thats the only way they can precede with their plan, the process is still wrong which may open up legal issues. It all about the democratic process. If Trudy, Bill, Danny, Mary lose they just lose.


Joe, your conspiracy is incomplete. Why doesn't Council choose Advanced Disposal the lowest bidder and allow both Matheny and Vaughan to vote?. I think that would result in a better solution. Waste Industries is not necessarily the next choice and even if it is how do you know how Matheny will vote?

Dave Ribar


You often pontificate about moral absolutes and respect for people's rights, yet here you are advocating for the conservative members of the City Council to not only use Waste Industries as a tool but also to keep that company on the hook and its resources committed. There is no concern for the company or its employees only for the end that you want.

Waste Industries devoted resources responding to the RFP in order to have a chance at making a profit running GSO's trash service and operating the window. If that opportunity is now closed, the Council has no right to reinvolve the company.

Using (abusing) people this way is pretty repugnant stuff.

Joe Guarino

Dave, I suspect Waste Industries would appreciate the business.

Ron, I don't know about the legalities on that point; but I think one can easily make a plausible argument justifying the choice to revert to Waste Industries.

Observer, the reasons for not selecting Advanced Disposal were reported in the Rhino Times.

Ed Cone

Joe, sorry for any confusion about the reelection prospects of mini-majority members, I agree they are hurting their chances. As I wrote yesterday, Knight and Rakestraw seem especially vulnerable.

Thompson may win if his supporters single-shot him. Wade seems safe.

The victory at all costs to which I referred would be for a short-sighted plan, which, incredibly, may be advanced by an even worse process than the one undertaken to date.

The mini-majority insisted on the doomed 15-year option, and blew the chance to include the whole community by folding a limited-time reopening of White Street into a longer-range plan. They seem uninterested in possible savings from city management. Hard to say they deserve reelection.

Abner Doon

Why would D.H. Griffin Sr. give Robbie Perkins $2,500,
and why would Robbie take money
from someone looking to do business with the City of Greensboro?


Page 12


"Using (abusing) people this way is pretty repugnant stuff."

I must have missed the today's press release where they complained about "being used (abused)", and informed us they would no longer participate in the process.

The comments to this entry are closed.