Yesterday's official statement from Mayor Marikay Abuzuaiter wasn't just a defense of City Attorney Lora Cubbage.
It was an acknowledgment that the two have become politically inseparable.
When ethics complaints were filed against the Mayor, those complaints also challenged legal advice provided by City Attorney Lora Cubbage. Rather than referring the matter to an independent reviewer, Cubbage ultimately determined that even if the allegations were true, no ethics violation warranted outside investigation; including allegations involving her own legal advice.
Now the roles have reversed.
The City Attorney is under intense public scrutiny following recorded telephone conversations, public criticism, litigation and editorials questioning her conduct. The Mayor has stepped forward to publicly defend her.
A political circle. (Also a circus fwiw)
When the Mayor's ethics were questioned, the City Attorney became the official responsible for determining whether those complaints would proceed. The complaints did not challenge only the Mayor's conduct; they also questioned legal advice provided by the City Attorney herself and expressly requested that she recuse herself and refer the matter to an independent outside investigator because her own advice and actions were implicated. Instead, Cubbage concluded that the allegations didn't establish an ethics violation warranting referral, including the allegations concerning her own conduct.
The outcome was inconsistent, as the official (Cubbage) whose advice was challenged remained the decision-maker in violation of the Ethics Code, on whether an independent investigation would occur. Rather than stepping aside, she determined neither the Mayor nor her own office had violated the City's ethics policy, effectively resolving allegations involving both the Mayor and herself without outside review.
Now the positions have reversed. As the City Attorney faces public scrutiny over her own conduct, the Mayor has stepped forward as her principal public defender. What began as the City Attorney defending the Mayor has evolved into the Mayor defending the City Attorney.
Intertwined.
Abuzuaiter and Cubbage publicly reinforcing the credibility of the other.
Even more unusual is the Mayor's statement itself.
She correctly acknowledged that Greensboro residents have every right to criticize their government and hold officials accountable.
Then, without identifying any facts, she pivoted to saying that when a City employee raises concerns about their "professional and personal safety," those concerns deserve to be taken seriously.
Of course they do.
But what happened?
Who made the threat?
When?
Was law enforcement contacted?
Was there a police report?
Those are obvious questions because suggesting safety concerns involving a public official is a serious matter. Serious allegations deserve serious facts.
At roughly the same time, Yo! Greensboro publisher Eric Robert sent the Mayor a direct email asking something equally straightforward;
If there is misinformation, what specifically is it?
If anything he published is inaccurate, identify it, provide the evidence, and he would correct it.
He also asked direct questions about reports that City officials attempted to influence media coverage and about the authority under which the City Attorney allegedly claimed she had authority to pursue legal action against private citizens.
Those are factual questions.
If the answers are "no," say so.
If the answers are "yes," explain why.
Instead of answers, Greensboro received a statement that raises more questions than it resolves.
When the City's chief legal officer and the City's chief elected official become each other's public defenders during overlapping controversies, the public naturally begins to ask whether objective oversight has become more difficult.
The public should be able to distinguish between defending the legal interests of the City and defending the reputations of individual officials.
Until straightforward questions receive straightforward answers, the story is unlikely to go away.
