Goldsboro’s Recent Political History
THE WAY IT WAS
Once upon a time, not too long ago, the city manager Richard Slozak (in conjunction with the city attorney Harrell Everett), who was hired by the city council to run the City of Goldsboro, somehow turned the tables and ran the city council as well.
Slozak micro managed each department and kept a tight reign on them. He told the city council what to do and how to vote and to a large extent was quite successful in having his way. His major pawns were William Goodman and J. B. Rhodes with some controlling influence over the other council members as well.
I talked with an attorney in a neighboring municipality and asked him if he would be interested in taking Everett's position, he said that he would be happy to represent Goldsboro for an annual salary of $60,000.00 per year. Harrell Everett worked for the city on a part time basis to "save the city money". His annual paycheck was $120,000.00. Twice as much part-time as a full time position would have been! And for what!?
Whether full time or contractual, Everett was paid to protect the city of Goldsboro and look out for it's best interests. An excerpt from a 12/23/2004 News Argus story, City to lose lots in failed Project Homestead housing plan, says: "Project Homestead agreed to return to the city the ownership of any land not developed, but the agreement wasn't recorded with the deeds office. Former City Attorney Harrell Everett acknowledged.......And it's still not certain if the city will eventually have to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state for not meeting the requirements of a grant". Just who's job was it to make sure the agreement was recorded with the deeds office? ...and what has become of this incident? Has anyone heard anymore from it or was it brushed under the rug? Was this just an innocent act (or omission of an act) of ignorance, or was it an intentionally 'mistake' ?
" It sounds to me like Everett cost us, the taxpayers of Goldsboro, close to $630,000.00 by being negligent. (Over one half a MILLION Dollars on a stupid mistake!) Not to mention 15 years of retirement contributions paid into his account (by the city/us) that he did not qualify for. If I understand it correctly, Everett will have ALL of HIS money, invested over the last 15 years, refunded (maybe even with interest). While Goldsboro will be allowed only one year's rebate of matching funds contributed to Everett's retirement account over the last decade and a half..
When Mayor Hal Plonk died, a new mayor was hand picked to replace him. Al King, a retired city employee (personnel director) was selected by the council (under Slozak's "guidance"). There was a little dissension as Goodman wanted the position. However King was selected and put in office to fulfill the remainder of Plonk's term.
When election time came, King had made the statement that he didn't want to run, but nonetheless did so. (He was again undecided this term). I ran for city council against Goodman and another candidate Naomi Williams. At a city meeting, Monday night, the day before the Primary, Rhodes made the statement that he wanted "Everyone to vote for his good friend William Goodman". I was in the audience, but couldn't stand up and announce my bid for the seat, as the council was still in open session and I would have been out of order.
I felt this was an abuse of his position and to compound the situation, the meeting was live and being televised on PACC 10 TV a local cable channel contracted by The City of Goldsboro to air the meetings. [Can you say: Government sponsored candidates?]. Prior to 1995 this would have been illegal, but the FCC had changed the ruling.
Both Goodman and Williams received more votes than I in the May Primary, and went on to battle it out in the General Elections in November. I announced that I was a write-in candidate for Mayor. Goodman won, .....and write-ins hardly ever win, unless there is enough time to let the voters know that they're running. Another reason is, if the voting public is so fed up and disgusted with the candidate, then they will welcome a write-in, in an unopposed race.
Prior to the election Goodman was under investigation, (he retired from the DOC in July 2002, after the allegations first surfaced) and subsequently was charged, by the SBI with falsifying reports (embezzlement from the prison system where he worked). There probably were also some other irregularities in his moral character that never surfaced and/or made it to court. Goodman plead guilty, became a felon and had no choice but to resign, which he did, as he was unable to hold office. He received probation and had to repay the State of North Carolina the embezzled money along with a small fine, cost of court and a slap on the wrist etc.
Again, Slozak, I mean, the city council "voted" to replace his seat with a hand selected retired city employee, (planning director) Don Chatman. But first they had to go through the motions. Council sets out procedure to name Goodman replacement, and applications were solicited, Although I applied for Goodman's replacement, I feel Naomi Williams, the runner up in the November election, should have been sworn in as she was the peoples' choice. A few days later, with my encouragement she did apply, but to no avail.
As the Deadline approaches for council candidates, July 9th, Chatman applies for council vacancy, the screening committee interviewed the finalists, and lo and behold...Chatman was picked as new Goldsboro councilman. "New member to join City Council" and Chatman was sworn in on Monday. Chatman did not receive any votes, because he didn't run. The reason being, he didn't file in February! He could have, if he really wanted to serve the public, but certainly, Slozak knew that if charged and found guilty, Goodman would have to be replaced.
Chatman had been working in planning for years and definitely knows that area, and basically, was a good choice, however, he was close to retirement before the Goodman scandal and I feel it was well orchestrated that he 'retired' at the right time to accept the position. (and a coincidence, that Goodman wasn't actually charged until after the election) There was no question that he was going to be Goodman's replacement even though Slozak, I mean the city went through the formality of taking applications for the position.
NOTE: Now, at this point, it would appear that I am running a negative campaign. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be cynical. But I am just being factual. I didn't write the stories. I have simply put them in chronological order as they appear in the newspaper. It is up to you, the voter, to read them and decide if this is the kind of city government you want to represent YOU for the next four years.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, there is a lot more going on behind closed doors that hasn't surfaced here yet, and some of it, may never be known. I will add other comments after the filing period closes in July. Some may be only a paragraph or two and others can contain a whole book, (again, supported with documentation and articles) it just depends on which council member wants to run. Be sure to check the FORUM part of this website often, as the public may have a few select words to add also.
J. B. Rhodes, the author of "Brainwash and Bar-b-cue" (which was the process of picking up certain disenfranchised citizens on election day, taking them to the poles in nice funeral home limousines, telling them how to vote and then treating them to a barbecue sandwich....or a little ‘nip' ...whatever worked) won the election by 40+ votes, enough not to have a re-count called by his opponent.
Rhodes didn't even live in the district he represented, but did maintain a run down mobile home trailer for occasional rendezvous with his mistresses (so I am told). His explanation was that he lived in the trailer but his wife who was confined to a wheel chair as a double amputee needed to stay at their other house in another district because of her disability. He was successful in his Clinton type explanation of the situation ("That depends on what the meaning of "IS" is. And, "I smoked it, but I didn't inhale") that the State allowed his story to stand and he was able to keep his seat.
Unfortunately, at least for Rhodes, a Board of Elections official, Joe Daugherty, played back in his mind, the events of the election day tally and felt something was not quite right. Finally, Daugherty, over the course of a sleepless night, questioned how there were more votes in one particular district, than there were voters. Daugherty could have passed it off, but he courageously acted on his convictions and brought the matter to the attention of the Board of Elections.
A recount was ordered and Rhodes' "political election machine", completely surprised, could not reproduce under close scrutiny, the same results, on a recount as on the first count. Wayne gets state orders on elections His opponent, Jimmy Bryan, was upheld, took office with a gain of 40+ votes as Rhodes "Appealed the Unfairness", (Which maybe goes to show dead people should not be allowed to cast votes.) While an Election rematch was set for March 23 between Goldsboro City Council candidates Danny Roseborough and Jackie Warrick, J.B. Rhodes files election appeal, ......Rhodes's stay request denied, ....... Judge denies stay, ......... Rhodes drops appeal.
As a result of this irregularity, the polls, I'm sure will be watched with a much greater degree of observation... Lest history repeat itself.
NOTE: I remember during the last election, we had a 'meet the candidates' forum at the Wayne County Library, sponsored by the NAACP. During Mr. Rhodes' spiel, he made sure that he took most of the credit for 'putting all those houses on Harris Street.' The following January this article appeared..... City has trouble with Homestead land followed by this one...... City to lose lots in failed Project Homestead housing plan, in December. I think he deserves most of the credit but should share it with a few select others.
With the ouster of Goodman and Rhodes, Slozak lost his ability to manipulate city hall. Shortly thereafter, on June 8th, 2004, Slozak announced that he would be retiring at the end of the year. The very next day, June 9th, 2004, Harrell Everett resigned. Slozak tried to get Everett retirement benefits, arguing that the city had paid into the retirement fund for 15 years. Attorney General still reviewing Everett retirement. Eventually... Everett was ruled ineligible for retirement pay, so Everett sues to get retirement,
Mayor Al King, (former city personnel director, hand picked by Slozak) who I depicted during my write-in campaign for mayor as "Slozak's puppet", very quickly advised Slozak that Everett was NOT a city employee, but had a contractual agreement. The State of North Carolina issued a verdict to that effect, with Everett claiming that he never received it. Hearings and motions were filed but the state agreed with Mayor King and as of yet, Everett has not received anything, although there may still be another appeal out there somewhere.
Once Al King actually got elected and realized that he was the people's choice, (at least at that time) and no longer obligated to the City Manager, developed some backbone and stood up to those that put him in power, in the first place. I give him credit for that.
What's wrong with this picture?
05/05/05 Goldsboro feels pain in increased gas cost
I found this article interesting, you can click on the title above for the full story, but here's an excerpt:
"The City Council also agreed to add $70,000 to the amount budgeted this year for legal services.
City Attorney Tim Finan told the board his firm has had numerous, out-of-the-ordinary expenses this year. For example, the firm billed $10,200 for 125 hours between January and March that were accumulated due primarily to the annexation debate.
The lawyers also were heavily involved with the city's unified development ordinance, which overhauled a large section of city codes dealing with subdivision and commercial building regulations.
The city sought legal advice when it filled a vacancy on the City Council last year and again when it hired a new city manager this year.
The City Council also agreed to add $70,000 to the amount budgeted this year for legal services.
None of the council members raised questions about Finan's expenses."
By Matt Shaw
Published in News on May 5, 2005 01:49 PM
Shouldn't WE raise questions about the council members NOT raising question?
 |
 |
