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.

Link in the comments

I'm the pro se plaintiff in Hartzman v. City of Greensboro (Guilford County Superior Court, No. 26CV014985-400), a procedural challenge to how the City adopted its FY2026-27 budget. The preliminary injunction hearing is set for Monday, July 20, at 10am, in Courtroom 3H at the Guilford County Courthouse. It's open to the public.

The case contends the public hearing on Greensboro's adopted budget never happened; the single hearing required by N.C.G.S. § 159-12(b) was held June 2 on a 58.30-cent rate, but on June 16 the Council adopted a materially different 79.85-cent budget without ever opening that version to comment, and did so just five days after presenting the revised budget on June 11, short of the ten-day minimum in § 159-13(a).

The cleanest concrete harm falls on motor vehicles, taxed roughly 18.7% higher with no revaluation offset to soften it. The strongest evidence is the City's own words; its filings concede the adopted budget "differed materially" from the one heard and call the Council's changes "substantial," the City Manager on the June 16 recording described a "pre-revaluation scenario," and officials acknowledged "two different budgets" while the City Attorney dismissed the lack of anyone commenting before the vote as "form over substance".

The amended complaint, the injunction motion and reply, my affidavit, and the hearing exhibits are here;

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BwAwBvCGLmiew9JsUBk82uEsh5w6N_fa

Sort by name and A to Z; I recommend downloading the first three and uploading them into a thinkomatic machine and tell it to analyze for a brief summary etc...

Thanks,

g

Pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Law, N.C.G.S. Chapter 132, I request copies of the following records relating to the FY 2026-27 budget process.

Please provide:

1. The certified taxable valuation (tax base) furnished to each municipality in Guilford County for preparation of its FY 2026-27 budget, including:
   • Greensboro
   • High Point
   • Jamestown
   • Summerfield
   • Oak Ridge
   • Pleasant Garden
   • Sedalia
   • Whitsett
   • Gibsonville (Guilford portion)
   • Kernersville (Guilford portion)
   • Archdale (Guilford portion)
2. Any municipal tax abstract, certified tax abstract, tax base certification, valuation certification, or similar document showing:
   • Prior year's taxable valuation
   • Current year's taxable valuation
   • Dollar increase
   • Percentage increase
   • Real property
   • Personal property
   • Public service property
   • Discoveries
   • Exemptions
   • Any other adjustments used in determining each municipality's certified tax base.
3. Any spreadsheets, reports, or summaries prepared by the Tax Assessor's Office comparing the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 certified municipal tax bases.
4. Any transmittal letters, memoranda, or emails transmitting the certified tax base figures to municipalities for FY 2026-27 budget preparation.
5. If the certified figures changed after the initial certification, please provide both the original and revised certifications and identify the reason for the revision.

If these records exist electronically, I request them in their native electronic format (Excel, CSV, PDF, or similar).

Thank you.

Guilford County Public Records
Your record request #26-903 has been submitted successfully.

Pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1 et seq., I request copies of the following records concerning Ordinance No. 2026-451, establishing the City of Greensboro's FY 2026-27 Annual Operating Budget:

1. The copy of Ordinance No. 2026-451 that was filed with the City Clerk pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 159-13(d).
2. The date and time the ordinance was filed with the City Clerk.
3. Any file stamp, receipt, routing sheet, transmittal email, cover memorandum, or other record documenting when the ordinance was received and filed by the Clerk's Office.
4. Any records reflecting when copies of the ordinance were filed with:
   • the Finance Officer;
   • the Budget Officer; and
   • the Clerk to the Governing Board, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 159-13(d).
5. If the City's position is that the ordinance was adopted on June 23, 2026, any records identifying that date as the official adoption date, including any memorandum, legal opinion, or communication explaining that determination.
6. If the ordinance was not filed within five days after its official adoption, any records explaining the reason for the delay
7. City of Greensboro Public Records Request Tracking System

Date/Time Requested: 06-29-2026 22:49

Your request has been submitted and is public records request # 35332.

Pursuant to the North Carolina Public Records Law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1 et seq., I request copies of the following records relating to the City of Greensboro only.

1. Summary Reports

Please provide any existing reports, spreadsheets, database queries, or summaries showing the total assessed value added to the City of Greensboro tax base from:

• New construction
• Major improvements
• Additions
• Other improvements that increased assessed value

for:

• Tax Year 2024
• Tax Year 2025

2. Category Breakdown

If available, please provide the totals broken down by property class, including:

• Single-family residential
• Townhomes/duplexes
• Multifamily residential
• Commercial
• Industrial
• Office
• Retail
• Hotel/Hospitality
• Institutional
• Other property classifications used by the Tax Department

3. Tax Base Reports Furnished to Greensboro

Please provide any reports, worksheets, spreadsheets, memoranda, or other records furnished to the City of Greensboro for budget preparation showing:

• Estimated tax base
• New construction value
• Growth value
• Taxable value added
• Net tax base growth
• Revenue-neutral calculations

for the FY2025-26 and FY2026-27 budget processes.

If any portion of this request is available electronically, I request the records in their native electronic format (Excel, CSV, Access, SQL export, or similar) whenever possible.

If portions of the request are exempt from disclosure, please provide all non-exempt records and identify the legal basis for withholding any material.

If responsive records become available on a rolling basis, I request that they be produced as they are completed rather than waiting until the entire request is finished.

Thank you for your assistance.

Guilford County Public Records
Your record request #26-893 has been submitted successfully.

Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-6, please provide the record or records showing how the City of Greensboro calculated the increase in its estimated taxable property value from the FY2025-26 tax base to the FY2026-27 adopted budget tax base.

If available, please include a breakdown of the estimated increase attributable to:

• New residential construction
• New multifamily construction
• Commercial and industrial construction
• Annexations
• Improvements to existing property
• Any other category used by the City

If no breakdown exists, please provide the record showing the calculation of the total estimated increase in taxable value used in the FY2026-27 adopted budget.

City of Greensboro Public Records Request Tracking System

Date/Time Requested: 06-28-2026 23:45

Your request has been submitted and is public records request # 35319.