News-Record.com

This is a LOADED question because it puts into play the other question of "Is Keith Holliday effective as mayor?"

Would we be asking this question if Keith was effective? Would we be asking this if we thought the best way to resolve the effectiveness of our current mayor was to replace him with a Full-Time Mayor because Keith is such a nice guy?

We have a POINT MAN for the city - that is Mitch Johnson. If we aren't happy with the way things are going, we need to replace the people he is responsible - The City Council.

If a cure is needed, be sure we treat the correct problem.

Greensboro is going to have some big city problems that come along with the big city development that's underway. I believe we need a full-time, high profile mayor to lead and guide the city and be more publicly accountable. I don't think the weak mayor, strong council setup is going to serve us well as we grow. Holliday has done alright given the inanity of the mayor having to kowtow to council, business interests, the Chamber, and everyone else in town.

That said, if Florence Gatten is elected, shoot me in the head. Is there anyone she hasn't pissed off as resident Councilnag? She has fairly well insulted everyone in the city, save a few white well-to-dos that she may consider her betters. Everyone else in the city she seems to regard as chewing gum on the bottom of her sensible flats. The black and handicapped have enjoyed special disdain during her tenure.

God save Greensboro from Florence Gatten. She's a huge part of the problem. I'd be willing to give Yvonne Johnson a chance.

I think a fulltime mayor is well worth considering

My take.

And what's up with the lede editorial not being posted online?

Thanks, Ed. I actually missed John Hammer's piece back in November. Your 2003 column makes very good points.

Don and anon, I don't think the question of a full-time mayor should revolve around personalities because the change would apply long after current leaders are gone.

Probably the greatest concern I'd have is that you could end up paying $75k a year or so for an expensive ribbon-cutter if the mayor isn't a strong or effective leader or lacks support from the council. The mayor may be first among equals under a new setup, but without majority backing he or she could end up simply advancing a personal political agenda -- until the next election.

That said, there are a lot of leadership opportunities begging for someone to fill them. This could be one way to go.

Is it true that Greensboro is the largest city in NC without a full time mayor? I wish someone will tell me what ideas or plans Holiday has ever come up with, and seen them through to completion. I can not think of one, and he has been in office how many years?

No North Carolina city has a mayor who draws a full-time salary.

Some mayors may in effect serve full time, but they do so on a voluntary basis.

I do not think the present Greensboro Council and Mayor are the problem. When we went to the ward system about twenty-five years ago, we kept the same weak-mayor, strong manager form of government. As I recall, Jim Melvin warned of the problems to come with that system. The power has shifted from NW GSO to East and Se GSO. That has produced political correctness and thus Homestead, David Wray, and now WILLOW OAKS and many, many other situations. I think most people familiar with Greensboro would agree with me, but are afraid of being branded a racist by the PAC'S.

The old form of NW Gso control was wrong. But this political correctness is equally wrong. It traps a potential candidate either to go along with them , the PAC's, or suffer the same fate that Tom Phillips did when he ran for Mayor. It's not the people running our city, it's the form of government.

I think that we need to find a way that's fair and honest to ALL of Greensboro. Political Correctness was a political tool that probably was needed several years ago, but it is certainly not needed today. If we continue to pretend and refuse to deal with this, it will destroy all the progress we have made and totally polarize our community.

This is my take on this and I really wish that I was wrong, but I don't think so. Anyway, thanks for listening.

"Our Sunday editorial (not posted) raises the question of whether Greensboro needs a full-time mayor."

We already have one. His name is Keith Holliday. The real question is whether we will ever pay our full-time mayor a full-time salary, so that he can give up the second full-time job he works in order to compensate for being a full-time mayor without a full-time paycheck. ;)

And no matter who's mayor of Greensboro in the future, it's clear the job has been full-time for a while now.

It probably wouldn't matter if any of them ran and won because the office of Mayor is nothing more than a figurehead position.

Of course, we want our Mayor to be a fairly presentable and astute public figure. In this case, Holliday presents well when he deftly handles the scissors that cuts the ribbons to open up new restaurants and such in our fair community.

Really all the Mayor is is a co-equal with the other council members, with an expanded role of presiding over the meetings. Other than handling meetings and skillfully manipulating the scissors as well as meeting celebrities, they're useless.

I believe an indication of how unimportant the job is, is that Holliday ran unopposed during this most recent election.

He would have been hard to beat in 2005, and he likely would be hard to beat this year. That's Yvonne Johnson's opinion, and it's possible she won't run if Holliday does. I don't think Gatten will be afraid to challenge him, though.

But the larger question: Are we happy with a mayor who doesn't have much power? Would the city be better off if he or she carried more clout?