With Sandra Anderson garnering more votes than Yvonne Johnson in tonight's results, one has to wonder if the Simkins PAC's (PDF file) at-large strategy might have backfired.  They decided to only endorse two candidates for the three available spots, and that may have been just the nudge that caused Anderson to out-poll Johnson and have a clear shot at becoming Greensboro's new mayor pro-tem.

By focusing the black vote so heavily on only two candidates, they may have inadvertantly propelled new-comer Anderson into what here-to-for had been a fairly safe position for Greensboro's first and only black mayor pro-tem.

Sandra was probably not thinking she would be elevated to Greensboro's #2 elected spot when she filed as a first-timer, so she may or may not choose to accept the position.  It is only because of tradition that the highest at-large vote getter has always been Greensboro's mayor pro-tem - it is not mandatory. 

The municipal code states:  "The council shall organize by the choice from its members of a mayor pro-tem who shall hold office at the pleasure of the council."   So, it is conceivable that Anderson could say 'thanks, but no thanks' to the time-sucking job of mayor pro-tem.  It all will depend on how much time she has to spend on her real job and family.  Perhaps her decision could also hinge on how much indebtedness she feels she might owe to Greensboro's black community and work to keep Yvonne Johnson in Greensboro's number two position.  But then again.. if she accepts the position- I'm sure she'll do a bang-up job.

The implications for the mayor's race in two year's time is the biggest question raised by tonight's surprising results.  Before tonight, common wisdom said that Yvonne Johnson was the front runner to succeed Mayor Holliday.  But as things look right now, all bets are off.  Anderson could affect the 2007 mayoral race by givng the pro-tempore nod to Yvonne while she gains her sea legs for Greensboro politics.  Could be interesting

The other big news is that 14 year veteran Don Vaughan was ousted from the Council.  It seems that the three-woman at-large force of Anderson, Johnson and Gatten was what the voters needed this time around.

As far as I know, this is the first time in Greensboro City Council history that females will out number males with a 6-3 super majority (ed. note: originally stated as "5-3 majority" - nod to the pilot).  Greensboro's new matriarchy is now enthroned with Anderson, Johnson, Gatten, Carmany, Goldie Wells and T. Diane Bellamy-Small. 

I think we can now safely can the Commission on the Status of Women - because the women are doing just fine, thank you.  Now fellas... that's progress.

Update 10/9: "The oldest rat in the barn", Sandy Carmany, has other ideas on the status of women.

Update II 10/9: Allen Johnson concurs on my observations about Anderson taking the pro-tem job.  He also weighs in on the scare that Bellamy-Small received last night.  In the Bellamy-Small post he gives some bonus thoughts on why that scare may have occured.  As the N&R print edition suggests, Rep. Earl Jones was acting like a woman scorned in the weeks leading up to the election.

9:38:11 PM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

The Carolina Peacemaker's Afrique Kilimanjaro had tea with County Commissioner Billy Yow at the Cracker Barrel last week and files a remarkable report about the meeting.  She apparently likes him and compares his style to others...

"Billy Yow looked me square in the eye and spoke quite plain. He did not stutter as Skip Alston did in his press conference. He did not stammer, he did not waiver...  If you go on what public officials such as Alston, Jones, Davis as well as the media say, it's easy to get the impression that Yow doesn't want anything to do with African Americans. This is not true "

Then, in a statement that gives big hint as to how Guilford's black community might be becoming more and more dis-illusioned with some long-elected leadership, Kilimanjaro lets fly...

"When our officials such as Skip Alston and Earl Jones decide to remove their own personal gain from "sensitive situations" like St. James Homes and payday lending, the community at large benefits across all racial lines. You can't run with the fox and hunt with the hound.  Elected officials like Alston and Jones need to remove their hands from the public cookie jar and as Yow put it, "Make a living like regular people."

The truth be told.

5:30:32 PM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

Time-Warner's Road Runner is experiencing some big problems with their (my) email and internet connectivity service here in Greensboro according to the network status page. 

Three days now. Do you figure I'll get a refund for all the down time? .... me either.

10:30:46 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

I'm going out to vote but... I'm not telling you of my selections.  Here's why.

This neighborhood I am so intimately involved with will have some major initiatives come before the newly elected City Council.  I'm not willing to jeapordize the future of Aycock by publicly alienating any of the potential votes of the new Council.  It is a coward's way out perhaps, but also quite pragmatic, because I know how this stuff works.

Let's say that we are in need of funding to implement the recommendations of the the long awaited Summit Avenue Corridor Study.  We will go before Council... hat in hand... to ask for millions of dollars.  In tight budget times, each Council member will weigh their priorities not just on need, but on personal relationships with the hat holders (of which I will be one).

As it is, I feel as though my neighborhood has excellent and positive lines of communication open with the city's staff, management, and Council.  Not to put too fine of a point on any influence I may or may not have with those entities, but the whole dynamic could easily turn on a public endorsement of any candidate who might show up on the short end of the vote.  Or more to the point... if a candidate gets seated and such a public endorsement was for his/her opponent... let's just say memories are very long in this town.   Such is local politics.

But anyway... go out and vote.  It is a bright, sunny day and you have no excuse not to do it.  And take your children with you to get the voting habit ingrained through Kids Voting.  Its important.  And it is the right thing to do.

I can never recall any local election that has been covered as well as this one.  From the heroic efforts of Greensboro101, to the greatly expanded print coverage by the the N&R, the Rhino and Yes!Weekly, voters should be as well informed on the candidates as anyone could hope for.

9:25:35 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks

Roch Smith Jr. did some follow-up on two at-large City Council candidates' votes to oppose the Truth & Reconcilliation process.  As Roch correctly points out, the July vote was a statement of opposition to Truth & Reconcilliation, and it passed 6-3 with the six white council members voting "yes" and the the three black members voting "no".

So the question for at-large candidates was this:

"Why did you feel it was necessary for the City to officially oppose this process? What public interest compelled you to vote the way you did?" 

Because of the format of that particular question, Vaughan was not required to respond during the forum - so Roch emailed him for an answer.  In Roch's analysis, he states that Vaughan's answer...  "...illuminates a key point of the original question, by missing it completely".   Then he turned to Gatten. 

During her public statements made just before the vote, Florence Gatten said...

"...citizens have felt not only uninvited to the table but threatened and intimidated.  ...I noted with interest the NC A & T student who spoke to council at our last meeting who said he had been warned that it was 'dangerous to be involved.'  That something 'might happen' to him.  Ironically, when I voiced my opposition to this two years ago and subsequently, I have received the same warnings."

So Roch followed up in an email exchange and uncovered something remarkable...

"...The same warnings? Was a City Council person warned that it was "dangerous to be involved?" Was she warned that something "might happen" to her? Were these threats reported to the police? When I asked Gatten who made these threats and whether or not she reported them to law enforcement, she replied, "There were no threats or I would have reported them to the police immediately." She said she was being ironic and that  "The media, especially the electronic media, has no way to convey emotion -- least of all irony."

Stating from her council seat that she had recieved "warnings" to stay away from the issue, but then later saying that such warnings had not occured is not "ironic" in my book.  Unless I am missing something, doesn't this indicate a lie?

8:15:31 AM     comments to the above post so far, join in.   Trackbacks