I am challenging Mayor Yvonne Johnson to a series of three public debates during the coming campaign for mayor of Greensboro, and I am happy for her to select the times and places for each.
I am a fiscal conservative and I will fight to eliminate wasteful spending while bringing sound fiscal practices to the city. Mayor Johnson has a different perspective about city government that at her choosing she can present.
We have distinct differences in styles, backgrounds, experience and expectations. Voters should have a chance to hear us debate important issues confronting Greensboro and decide for themselves whether they want a change in leadership or a continuation of the style offered by Mayor Johnson.
I hope an acceptance will be forthcoming.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Ethics and the Mayor's Race in Greensboro
I have answered city council candidate Nancy Vaughan's call for all candidates to complete the ethics form provided by the North Carolina States Ethics Commission. My form has been mailed to the Commission and as soon as I receive acknowledgement of its receipt I will post the notarized form to my website www.knightformayor.com
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Bill Knight for Mayor of Greensboro
I am excited by the prospect of becoming Greensboro's next mayor. I expect the campaign against Yvonne Johnson will be difficult. She is backed by groups that have long held rein over Greensboro politics: groups that will fight to keep her in office. Her record offers little to suggest that she will move Greensboro forward; in fact, while she remained focused on old issues, our business base suffered and unemployment reached double digit levels. She has shown no inclination to work with other Triad communities on a regional approach to restored economic vitality.
I am up to the challenge: I can and will do a better job as Mayor. I intend to get Greensboro focused on the important issues of economic growth and jobs, crime and public safety, and restored leadership in city government.
As a fiscal conservative I will go after ways to control spending, taxes, and fees. Greensboro has the highest tax rate of any large North Carolina city: I will use my business experience to change that distinction.
In November voters will have a clear choice between Yvonne Johnson and me. There are sharp differences in our positions that will come out during the campaign: positions that will help voters understand why I am the better choice.
I offer a lifetime of experience spent in Greensboro as a businessman, employer, and involved citizen. I ask you to visit my website at www.knightformayor.com and learn more about me. I will be a full time mayor for all of Greensboro. If you want real change in Greensboro government I ask you to go to the polls in November and cast your vote for me. We can't let this chance to bring about real change in the Greensboro landscape escape us.
I am up to the challenge: I can and will do a better job as Mayor. I intend to get Greensboro focused on the important issues of economic growth and jobs, crime and public safety, and restored leadership in city government.
As a fiscal conservative I will go after ways to control spending, taxes, and fees. Greensboro has the highest tax rate of any large North Carolina city: I will use my business experience to change that distinction.
In November voters will have a clear choice between Yvonne Johnson and me. There are sharp differences in our positions that will come out during the campaign: positions that will help voters understand why I am the better choice.
I offer a lifetime of experience spent in Greensboro as a businessman, employer, and involved citizen. I ask you to visit my website at www.knightformayor.com and learn more about me. I will be a full time mayor for all of Greensboro. If you want real change in Greensboro government I ask you to go to the polls in November and cast your vote for me. We can't let this chance to bring about real change in the Greensboro landscape escape us.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Speaker from the Floor - City Council Meeting March 3, 2009
On March 3, 2009 I was a Speaker from the Floor at the City Council meeting and read the following statement:
Honorable Mayor Yvonne Johnson
and members of City Council
I call on our city government to take a giant step forward toward healing the rift that has existed for almost 4 years related to the administration of former Police Chief David Wray and many of the subordinates who served under him.
We have listened to members of this and former City Councils say the public’s opinion would be different if only we – the public – knew what the Council and city manager knew. Members of City Council and the manager stated on numerous occasions that investigations of the Wray administration would show that the removal of David Wray and his experienced staff were called for.
Formal investigations and a recent court trial have failed to show one shred of evidence that David Wray, or anyone who served under him, did anything whatsoever in violation of law, city ordinance, police ethical standards, or any other standard of performance. If there is something we should know, now is the time to step forward and tell us the facts.
It appears the charges and allegations that have been harmful to Wray and his fellow officers – professionally, financially, and personally – lack any element of truth.
For this reason I call on the City Council, at its next meeting, to issue a proclamation offering an apology to David Wray and his subordinate officers for the wrong abetted against them by the city’s inaction and failure to stand behind them; and to undertake prompt reimbursement for legal expenses incurred as a consequence of such failures by the city government to stand by its long-serving loyal employees when it was called for.
Honorable Mayor Yvonne Johnson
and members of City Council
I call on our city government to take a giant step forward toward healing the rift that has existed for almost 4 years related to the administration of former Police Chief David Wray and many of the subordinates who served under him.
We have listened to members of this and former City Councils say the public’s opinion would be different if only we – the public – knew what the Council and city manager knew. Members of City Council and the manager stated on numerous occasions that investigations of the Wray administration would show that the removal of David Wray and his experienced staff were called for.
Formal investigations and a recent court trial have failed to show one shred of evidence that David Wray, or anyone who served under him, did anything whatsoever in violation of law, city ordinance, police ethical standards, or any other standard of performance. If there is something we should know, now is the time to step forward and tell us the facts.
It appears the charges and allegations that have been harmful to Wray and his fellow officers – professionally, financially, and personally – lack any element of truth.
For this reason I call on the City Council, at its next meeting, to issue a proclamation offering an apology to David Wray and his subordinate officers for the wrong abetted against them by the city’s inaction and failure to stand behind them; and to undertake prompt reimbursement for legal expenses incurred as a consequence of such failures by the city government to stand by its long-serving loyal employees when it was called for.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Dave Williams
My best friend, Dave Williams, former deputy chief of police for the Greensboro Police Department, died tonight. His loss to the City of Greensboro has been felt for over ten years. We should all grieve with his passing. He was a good man.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Funding the Greensboro budget
I attended the public hearing on financing for the High Point Road property purchases earlier in January. I suggested more cash could be drawn from the Coliseum fund to finance these property purchases. Two separate facts make me believe additional cash for the city's general fund can be found at the Coliseum.
First, the Coliseum receives annual transfer from the general fund ranging from roughly $ 1.5 million to $ 2.0 million dollars to offset losses. Seemingly, in years when it operated in the black (2005) it would not need a cash infusion from the general fund, but it received and retained $ 1.6 million for that year. One year earlier, 2004, was a loss year and the general fund transfer occurred. Again in 2006 a loss was sustained and a general fund transfer occurred. The question is why was the Coliseum permitted to keep $ 1.6 million in 2005 when it was not needed to offset a loss?
Second, over the past eight years the Coliseum has earned $ 1.3 million dollars on invested cash. Why should this cash be kept by the Coliseum?
The Finance Department staff maintains very detailed and accurate records for the Coliseum, and correctly points out that the Coliseum is required by statute to retain a cash balance that is calculated each year. The information I reviewed showed that the Coliseum had exceeded its statutory requirement by $ 441,000 in 2008. Staff says the Coliseum must retain sufficient cash to meet day-to-day obligations, and I agree with this point. The statutory calculation, however, fails to add accounts receivable as a cash source into the calculation even though a deduction for accounts payable is included.
City Council is faced with difficult choices as it begins work on the 2009-10 budget. I challenge the Council to take a hard look at the Coliseum cash position as a potential source of sorely needed cash in the general fund. City Council should require the Coliseum to refund interest earned on idle deposits and also consider its policy on subsidies in years when operations are in the black.
In 2001 the Coliseum received $12.2 million dollars from its customers for events and parking, and that year had a year end cash balance of $ 1.4 million dollars. In 2008, customer receipts had fallen to $ 10.8 million dollars and the year end cash balance (after removing $ 2.9 million dollars held for capital expenditure purposes) was $ 2.9 million dollars. If the Coliseum made it through a number of years on a smaller cash balance when revenue was greater, it should have more than enough cash now.
Council needs to decide if the Coliseum cash should remain intact, or if a more prudent course would be to require the return of some cash. This will not solve the overall city budget riddle, but a few hundred thousand dollars could certainly fill some gaps in expenditures.
First, the Coliseum receives annual transfer from the general fund ranging from roughly $ 1.5 million to $ 2.0 million dollars to offset losses. Seemingly, in years when it operated in the black (2005) it would not need a cash infusion from the general fund, but it received and retained $ 1.6 million for that year. One year earlier, 2004, was a loss year and the general fund transfer occurred. Again in 2006 a loss was sustained and a general fund transfer occurred. The question is why was the Coliseum permitted to keep $ 1.6 million in 2005 when it was not needed to offset a loss?
Second, over the past eight years the Coliseum has earned $ 1.3 million dollars on invested cash. Why should this cash be kept by the Coliseum?
The Finance Department staff maintains very detailed and accurate records for the Coliseum, and correctly points out that the Coliseum is required by statute to retain a cash balance that is calculated each year. The information I reviewed showed that the Coliseum had exceeded its statutory requirement by $ 441,000 in 2008. Staff says the Coliseum must retain sufficient cash to meet day-to-day obligations, and I agree with this point. The statutory calculation, however, fails to add accounts receivable as a cash source into the calculation even though a deduction for accounts payable is included.
City Council is faced with difficult choices as it begins work on the 2009-10 budget. I challenge the Council to take a hard look at the Coliseum cash position as a potential source of sorely needed cash in the general fund. City Council should require the Coliseum to refund interest earned on idle deposits and also consider its policy on subsidies in years when operations are in the black.
In 2001 the Coliseum received $12.2 million dollars from its customers for events and parking, and that year had a year end cash balance of $ 1.4 million dollars. In 2008, customer receipts had fallen to $ 10.8 million dollars and the year end cash balance (after removing $ 2.9 million dollars held for capital expenditure purposes) was $ 2.9 million dollars. If the Coliseum made it through a number of years on a smaller cash balance when revenue was greater, it should have more than enough cash now.
Council needs to decide if the Coliseum cash should remain intact, or if a more prudent course would be to require the return of some cash. This will not solve the overall city budget riddle, but a few hundred thousand dollars could certainly fill some gaps in expenditures.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Greensboro City Attorney
The city's present staff attorney, Terry Wood, is an expert in municipal legal matters, experienced, and well spoken. Mr. Wood has been able to restore confidence and trust in the legal department, following years of behind the doors wheeling and dealing and treacherous tactics.
Terry Wood returned out of retirement to assume the City Attorney position, and for that we owe him a great debt of gratitude. However, Mr. Wood will need to or want to retire fully at some point in the forseeable future; he is doing a first rate job, but his heart could be elsewhere. It is time for the city to begin planning for a competent replacement who can handle the legal affairs of a complex, middle sized metropolitan city.
The City Manager should determine if Mr. Wood has a timetable in mind for his current turn as city attorney. Due to the length of time he has already served, and his otherwise retired status, it is prudent for the city to begin planning for an eventual successor, with some certain date in mind. Mr. Wood can serve a valuable role as adviser to this process when a job description is created, as well as establishing a planning process that will culminate when his replacement is found.
Mr. Wood could agree to serve as an outside consultant to the city legal department after a replacement begins, until the new individual is firmly planted in the new position. Deliberate planning now might avoid crisis planning at some date in the future.
Terry Wood returned out of retirement to assume the City Attorney position, and for that we owe him a great debt of gratitude. However, Mr. Wood will need to or want to retire fully at some point in the forseeable future; he is doing a first rate job, but his heart could be elsewhere. It is time for the city to begin planning for a competent replacement who can handle the legal affairs of a complex, middle sized metropolitan city.
The City Manager should determine if Mr. Wood has a timetable in mind for his current turn as city attorney. Due to the length of time he has already served, and his otherwise retired status, it is prudent for the city to begin planning for an eventual successor, with some certain date in mind. Mr. Wood can serve a valuable role as adviser to this process when a job description is created, as well as establishing a planning process that will culminate when his replacement is found.
Mr. Wood could agree to serve as an outside consultant to the city legal department after a replacement begins, until the new individual is firmly planted in the new position. Deliberate planning now might avoid crisis planning at some date in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
