News-Record.com

"there's nothing the council can do for them anyway. It's a state issue, not a local one."

Well, that was debatable, but did the majority base their decision on that? Yes! Weekly cites public relations as a factor. From your observations, was council motivated by an impression that such an ordinance was illegal or pressure from groups who were concerned that it might suceeed?

Oh, and city council, way to take a steamy crap on your constituents -- first give this group tacit support at a regular evening meeting, then reverse yourselves at a daytime meeting when nobody expected this to come up. That's some real backbone there, folks.

Can we please conclude that this was a really bad idea and just move on.

Whether this was a good idea or a bad idea should be beside the point. (For what it's worth, I think a citywide minimum wage would be a bad idea.) A majority on the city council worked hard to undermine a citizen petition made in good faith, and that's unfortunate. There was a fair and reasonable (and non-rigid) way for the council to address this petition effort, and it chose the other way. Do we really want the city council to be fair only to those petitions with which it agrees?

As bad an idea as this is, and regardless of whether it's unconstitutional (let the courts decide that), this minimum-wage initiative should go to Greensboro voters in a referendum. Who's to say that a strong vote for such a referendum wouldn't influence state legislators?

A bad policy implemented by a good process is better than a good policy implemented by a bad process, and it's a shame more people don't understand that.

Howdy, Roch.

Mike Barber seemed concerned about the public relations aspect, but others seemed more concerned about the fruitless nature of the whole thing. In other words, they said it was pointless to give people false hope that the minimum wage is going up, when the court would probably rule that unconstitutional anyway (I guess a court could rule the other way, too).

Anyway, everyone seemed to agree last night that the whole issue was handled improperly.

Hi Margaret,

Thanks for the additional info. I guess I'm still left wondering if the council felt that its wee-morning reconsideration was a remedy to the poor handling or a continuation of it.

As Andy so thoughtfully observed, it was wrong of council to do an about face on this, whether for PR concerns or because of what they speculated a court might decide. Yes, the petitioners fumbled, but it was not up to city council to jump on the ball and declare "game over."

[For what it's worth, I was intrigued by this initiative, never quite enough to sign the petition, but I was supportive of the process.]

Margaret, do you know who had the actual authority to tell the petition campaign group that though they were 1000 signatures short they could have until Jan. 17th to get additional signatures? Did members of the City Council disagree with the Jan. 17th extension and simply conclude that the group did not have sufficient signature? Is the City Council planning on clarifying the referendum, petition process because of all of the confusion in every corner?

John, I believe the Guilford County Board of Elections had the authority. As to the second question, the council wasn't challenging the number of signatures or the extension last night, but rather whether the a referendum would be legally valid.

I can't answer your third question. I was swamped today doing the "Black Book" story and didn't look into it.