Pollard affirms his decision on Nancy Vaughan's eligibility to vote on White Street.
I have reviewed all of the additional information that I have received from Council Members as well as a letter that I received from Mr. Steven Levitas, the attorney for Gate City. After considering all of this information, I do not see any reason to change my opinion.
Letter to Levitas here; full text of Pollard's memo to Council after the jump.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Several questions were raised about my memorandum of August 22, 2011 to Ms. Vaughan about her participation in the vote to award a contract to Gate City following the public hearing scheduled for September 20. I have reviewed all of the additional information that I have received from Council Members as well as a letter that I received from Mr. Steven Levitas, the attorney for Gate City. After considering all of this information, I do not see any reason to change my opinion. Attached is a letter to Mr. Levitas that explains my reasoning. The letter only addresses the points made in Mr. Levitas’ letter. Additional concerns have been raised. First, the proposed push and pack operation may affect the methane gas production at the landfill, and Ms. Vaughan’s husband has represented Cone Mills in contract negotiations relating to the use of the methane gas. Second, Waste Industries’ proposal is technically alive and could be considered if the contract with Gate City is not approved.
As to the first concern, I have been advised that the RFP did not address the methane gas production, and the city will continue to maintain the methane gas operation. In addition, the landfill produces more methane gas than Cone Mills uses. There is no clear link between an award of a contract for the push and pack operation and a financial impact on Cone Mills or Ms. Vaughan’s husband.
While I believe that my letter to Mr. Levitas addresses the second concern, the possible future consideration of Waste Industries proposal is not enough to bar Ms. Vaughan from voting on September 20.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Thomas C. Pollard
Interim City Attorney
City of Greensboro


Wonder what advice Ms. Danish would have provided. Guess you ought to be careful with what you wish for, council.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 31, 2011 at 02:48 PM
I guess this means if council switches from Gate City, Zack will be able to vote and it may still be a 4-4 tie, which means the landfill wouldn't open.
Posted by: Ron | Aug 31, 2011 at 03:05 PM
You can bet the mayor, Trudy, Mary and Danny are running around Frantically trying to figure out how to open this landfill so they don't look like fools. The clock is ticking and election day is roughly two months away.
Posted by: Ron | Aug 31, 2011 at 04:57 PM
"the City Charter Section 4-131 prohibits a financial
interest direct or indirect in any proposed contract.
"...A conflict determination is necessarily dependent
on the facts relating to the matter under consideration..."
What does this mean for Robbie and his undeclared material facts
of the value of NAI signs all over for DH Griffin?
I guess that DH Griffin Sr. gave Robbie $2,500 means nothing.
Posted by: Abner Doon | Aug 31, 2011 at 05:16 PM
How much could the real estate by the landfill rise in value
if the landfill never returns?
Should tax valuations increase dramatically next year when the county/'city revalue
for some around a closed landfill,
if current valuations don't reflect the landfill being closed?
What lower level of taxation was payed by those living near by
who purchased properties at a discount knowing the landfill was down the street?
What higher level of taxation was absorbed by those living farther away
who purchased properties at a relative premium
knowing the landfill was not down the street
but payed more to provide city services for all?
Should most Greensboro's taxpayers feel kind of "ripped off" a little
if a select few to sell out of thier real estate at artificially subsidized prices?
How is this not a "who gets a gain or loss" financial issue
disguised as a civil rights event?
What it ends up costing everybody else $15 million per year more than now,
which may very well happen if Diesel fuel doubles
which may very well happen if the gov keeps printing large sums of money?
Posted by: Abner Doon | Aug 31, 2011 at 06:35 PM
Crickets?
BTW unrelated... Good one Rcoh.
Didn't get it until a few minutes ago.
Posted by: Abner Doon | Aug 31, 2011 at 10:07 PM
It is possible that the "crickets" are so prominently heard because no one can decipher what you are attempting to relate, George. You just don't know how much I love straightforward declarative sentences.
Among other indecipherables in the three posts above, who is 'Rcoh' and what was the 'good one'?
Posted by: David Hoggard | Sep 01, 2011 at 05:45 AM
I believe that if Greensboro's trash continues to go to Montgomery County, via a tied vote by City Council, those voting not to reopen White Street may initiate the need for one of the biggest tax increases in the history of the city.
It should not be considered as an unintended consequence
when it occurs.
I believe Robbie, Nancy, Diane and Jim
intend to make everyone but those who will profit
who live near the landfill
pay for their re-election with higher taxes.
At this point, they should be unable to say
they didn't see it coming.
I believe the incumbants running for re-election
are trying to make what most beleive should be a pragmatic decision
into a race baited emotional lever
to get as many misinformed voters to the polls as possible,
at the expense of everyone else.
Thoughts David?
Posted by: Abner Doon | Sep 01, 2011 at 12:43 PM
My thoughts?
Those are some mighty fine declarative sentences.
Posted by: David Hoggard | Sep 01, 2011 at 04:09 PM
Glad you got over that twat thing, Hogg.
With the election season coming up how about firin' up the ol' blog over your way?
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | Sep 01, 2011 at 04:14 PM
Ah oh! Typo!
Nobody twitch. That twat was supposed to be a twit.
Come to think of it. After Billy Ray Cyrus had the #1 hit "Achy Breaky Heart" didn't his sister come out with "Itchy Twitchy Twat"?
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | Sep 01, 2011 at 04:16 PM
FYI: Ladies read this blog, too.
Posted by: michele | Sep 01, 2011 at 06:13 PM
Good one, CM!
Posted by: Billy Jones | Sep 01, 2011 at 06:26 PM
I thought just me and Hogg were left at this thread Michele. My sincere apologies.
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | Sep 01, 2011 at 06:35 PM
Forgiven.
Posted by: michele | Sep 01, 2011 at 06:37 PM
Just not a word you hear very often these days, but I vaguely remember a joke about a jockey with a speech impediment.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Sep 01, 2011 at 06:51 PM
Laughing about that jockey, Ed.
Billy, let me know next time when there is a lady in the room!
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | Sep 01, 2011 at 09:59 PM
You know another word you don't hear any more, Ed?
"Salve".
I said it in the company of a few people lately and nobody knew what I was talking about. Doesn't anybody remember Raleigh Salve? It would cure the mange.
You remember that, Billy?
Posted by: Tony Wilkins | Sep 01, 2011 at 10:04 PM
You say twat, I say twit... let's call the whole thing off.
The punch line, as I always told it, was...
"Let me wefwaze that... I'd like to see her wun awound a wittle bit..." But I could hardly ever get the line out as I couldn't stop giggling in anticipation of its delivery. As I am doing now.
Tony. Re re-firing up my blog: I wouldn't want to devastate Ed's hit count, and thus lower his immense revenue, by doing that. Although it would be a needed salve for the local discourse.
(Truth is, I don't even remember how to access the thing...Sue???)
Posted by: David Hoggard | Sep 02, 2011 at 07:10 AM
Not one defense of keeping the landfill closed?
No one?
Posted by: Abner Doon | Sep 02, 2011 at 01:43 PM
Abner says: "Not one defense of keeping the landfill closed?
No one?"
--You should attend a city council meeting.
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | Sep 02, 2011 at 03:33 PM
By that, I mean you might find some opponents of reopening the landfill at city council meetings.
But hey, they aren't blogging about it so they must not be serious.
By the way, what is the ratio of opponents vs. proponents who have appeared during speakers-from-the-floor over the past couple of years?
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | Sep 02, 2011 at 03:37 PM
Yes, I am in support of keeping the landfill closed. It's not about additional property taxes. We are already paying to have our trash hauled outside the city. I have not heard any of the city council members who are supporting re-opening the landfill say that they would put the savings towards reducing property taxes. Regardless, my husband and I support keeping the landfill closed. We wouldn't want it in our neighborhood, so why would we advocate a landfill in a different neighborhood. It's a quality of life issue for that neighborhood and the entire city. We should be putting our energy into finding a long term solution.
I enjoy reading this blog, but sometimes it sounds like a discussion in a fraternity house.
Posted by: Gerry Alfano | Sep 02, 2011 at 04:53 PM
Sorry Tony, CM is so quite and tiny she slips by me like a little mouse.
Posted by: Billy Jones | Sep 02, 2011 at 05:04 PM