Greensboro Mayor Robbie Perkins is all over today’s N&R. It’s hard to know where to start.
Let’s begin with Perkins’ bankruptcy filing. The N&R headline Perkins bankruptcy may be moved to Greensboro is somewhat misleading. That might indeed be true, but the gist of Amanda Lehmert’s article is a bankruptcy administrator is accusing Perkins of forum shopping his bankruptcy case. Perkins claims he filed his case in Charlotte’s Western District court — instead of Greensboro’s Middle District court — as the N&R puts it —“he knows most of the judges and his attorney is from Charlotte.” (Emphasis mine.)
Next is Perkins’ desire to limit how often citizens may address the City Council during the public speaking period of regular council meetings:
The mayor made the request at the end of the council meeting Tuesday night.
Councilwoman Yvonne Johnson had gotten into a heated exchange with former police officer and frequent speaker Charles Cherry during the “speakers from the floor” period.
Perkins said he’s tired of speakers who address the same issues every meeting.
“My patience has worn thin with the amount of time people take up of this council,” Perkins said.
While the article mentions Johnson’s exchange with Cherry –which was interesting to say the least —- it does not mention Perkins’ exchange with local blogger George Hartzman, a regular speaker at council meetings. Hartzman was actually speaking on an agenda item, the council’s proposed carrot and stick policy regarding maintenance of downtown properties.
As is his style, Hartzman began rambling before Perkins pinned him down, after which Hartzman made an interesting point —is it a conflict of interest for council member who have interest in downtown property– namely Nancy Hoffmann, who owns downtown property, and Nancy Vaughan, whose husband –former state Sen. Don Vaughan –operates his law office downtown? Council member Tony Wilkins asked City Attorney Mujeeb Shah-Khan if there was any conflict of interest and –no surprise — Shah-Khan ruled there was none.
Last but not least, the N&R editorialzes on Perkins’ run for reelection is spite of his considerable personal problems:
Perkins insists he’s up to the job. “Nobody has ever accused me of lacking energy or fortitude,” he said.
Voters will decide if they agree in the November election. They may worry how it looks to the rest of the world that the city’s chief “economic cheerleader,” as Perkins describes himself, faces his own economic recession. Or they may look past his personal problems and decide that it’s no one else’s business as long as the city’s business gets done.
Either way, there ought to be good choices.
This is why it is especially important that the field of candidates for the post be strong. And why it would be important even if the mayor faced no financial problems.
Agreed. My gut reaction is to say former Mayor Bill Knight–whom Perkins defeated in 2011 and who also sought to limit speakers from the floor during council meetings — should make another run. While some say that anyone who supported reopening the White Street landfill would be rejected again, it’s also true that a lot has changed in two short years. Should Knight run again –admittedly a long shot –perhaps he will not ‘pick at old wounds.’
