Sensible Conservative

Editor's Note: When Tom Cox was a Republican member of the Charlotte City Council, twenty years ago, some thought he was a rising young star in the party. But after two terms on the council, he “retired” from politics to raise a family and devote himself to his software business. Three years ago, his children grown, he re-entered political life, first winning the district 5 county commission seat and then the at-large county commission seat. A regular at Don Reid's conservative breakfast meetings, Cox is sometimes criticized as being a “moderate” by the city's hard-core conservatives. Cox defends himself by saying he has been a life-long Republican who “no one has called liberal in a long while.” He believes that if conservative ideas are going to hold sway in Charlotte, then conservatives must do more than hold the “safe' Republican district seats.

WS: When you originally ran for county commission, you ran with the slogan “sensible conservatism.” The implication there is that others are perhaps not so sensible, or perhaps too conservative. What is a “sensible conservative”?

TC: Well, your assumption is not exactly right. I decided to run primarily because I have always had an interest in local government. I was on the Charlotte City Council for 4 years, from '77 to '81. I was president at the Mint Museum for 2 years. Little League baseball coach for 10 years. Sunday school teacher for 8^th graders. I have always had a sense of commitment to service in the community.

When the opportunity came up in 1998, I still had one in high school, but the rest of them had left. I got out of politics in 1981 to raise a family and a business. But all the children are gone right now. When I told people I was going to run, George [Higgins] was on record as saying he wasn't going to run, so I really didn't run to get rid of George. I ran because I wanted to resume my career in public service.

But your question is what is a sensible conservative? I think it is a person focused on solving problems. I am a conservative by nature person. My lifestyle is conservative. Some would call me a moderate, but I haven't been called a liberal in a long time. A sensible conservative is one that takes a position for or against something in order to solve a problem. He asks, “What's the problem and does the action we are talking about address the problem effectively or not.” I guess you could put labels on people all day long, so I guess in that sense I am a pragmatist. I am a businessman. Most businessmen have that kind of problem-solving mentality.

WS: When I look at some of the county commission's votes, a lot of the votes are 5 to 4 and the 4 tend to be Bill James, Ruth Samuelson, Jim Puckett and you. However, a lot of votes are 6 to 3. And typically it's you that has moved over to vote with the Democrats.  

TC: I don't vote with the Democrats. I don't vote with the Republicans. I never ever vote on a matter simply to be with the Democrats or simply to be with the Republicans. It's just not the way I am.

WS: Well, let me say it another way then. Often, you are the only Republican who...

TC: Give me an example of that.

WS: Well, I actually brought some minutes from the county commission meeting and...

TC: You're saying “often” so what specific vote are you referring to?

WS: Here's an example. This is a June 18^th meeting and I just circled some of the ones that were 6 to 3 votes, with you voting with the 6. Commissioner Mitchell made a motion to add $100,000 to the budget for a “drop-in child care center.” You were the only Republican to vote for that.

TC: These are the straw votes.

WS: That's right.

TC: I think that is a mistake. I don't think I voted for that.

WS: Well, it's in the minutes and it says that James, Puckett and Samuelson voted no and Carney and...

TC: Let me see that. I don't have any idea what that is.

WS: OK. I am not trying to pick on a single vote, Tom. Let's look at another. Here is an appropriation above what the county manager recommended for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

TC: Right. I did do that one.

WS: $25.5 million additional dollars to the budget for Charlotte Mecklenburg schools. James, Puckett, and Samuelson voted no. You and the Democrats on the commission voted yes.

TC: I voted with that decision because I felt like it was important to give schools enough money for them to be accountable. I also proposed changes which would have mostly offset that increase.

WS: Again, I don't want to nit-pick individual votes. The spirit of my question is that when it's a 5 to 4 you are usually with the 4, but you are more likely than the other Republicans to vote with a 6-3 majority. I appreciate that you say you are trying to solve problems, but the implication of that statement is that those who are not voting with you are not trying to solve problems.

TC: No, that is not what I am saying. I would say to you in my own assessment of my voting record is that I can think of more 8 to 1 votes, for example, where I was the only one voting against going into closed sessions when the matter in front of the board is not worthy of closed sessions status.

WS: Since you brought that up, let me ask a few questions along those lines. As a journalist that is an issue that is obviously important to me -- the whole idea of openness in government. It seems like that this issue has been more contentious than it needs to be in Mecklenburg County, where there is a lot of stuff going on behind closed doors. It seems Chairman Helms wants to pull the county commission into closed sessions...

TC: It's not the chairman. Let me explain. You are half-right. Chairman Helms has a management style. I call it the old general assembly style, and that is essentially a small group makes a directional decision and then announces it to the rest of the commission. The courthouse is the best example of that. Parks and one or two commissioners charted a course for the courthouse that most of us did not know about. But the force inside county government that wants to put us in closed sessions is county attorney [Marvin Bethune] and Jerry Fox.

Marvin's approach is anytime the attorney needs to consult with his client that is where they have a closed session. When we started this term it was pretty much always that way, and then we got into trouble. I perceived we got into trouble because some members of our board -- no one knows who -- would disclose 100% of went on the closed session meetings.

WS: No one knows whom?

TC: Well, everybody thinks they know whom. Bill [James] will have to tell you if he did it or not. But that would be Bill's style. I am not critical of that because what came of that was asking the question of when we should or should not be in closed session. We changed our procedure. We began to vote whether to go into closed session or not.  

WS: To change gears just a bit, there is a matter that has been floating around the Internet for the past few weeks. The Republican Tax Limitation Caucus, led by Don Reid and Tom Ashcraft, are calling on Republican candidates to pledge that they will not vote for a tax increase during their term. You have expressed some concerns about that pledge.

TC: Well yes. First, remember that Don and Tom are only talking about the city council and mayor right now. Bill [James] said he would sign it too. But I think it's too early to be taking a pledge and, more importantly, taking the pledge is an empty gesture. It is an empty political gesture if one is unwilling to do the hard work of figuring out how to cut budgets.

WS: I understand that, but doesn't taking the pledge create a higher level of obligation for those who do take the pledge to do that hard work?

TC: No, it doesn't. It creates a false level of obligation because it abdicates. It hides the real issue, which is how do you get the high cost out of local government. We have a cost problem in local government, not a tax rate problem. We have to get cost out of local government.

WS: I'm sure that both Don and Tom would agree with that, but as long as you can keep raising taxes, then you have no motivation to deal with the cost issue. The Citizens For A Sound Economy creates such a pledge at the state level and got enough signers to hold the line on a tax increase – or at least to create some significant public accountability if legislators reneged on that pledge. Why can't we do that at the city and county level?

TC: It may work for others but not on me. Taking a pledge doesn't make me any more motivated.

WS: You're saying you're already sufficiently motivated?

TC: I am saying that I have developed an approach that I think will work. When the 15 percent tax increase came down I think we Republicans were unprepared. We did not have an alternative in place that was intellectually honest and that reflected the votes we had taken the year leading up to it. I haven't gone back to every single vote, but there was plenty, too many -- let's say enough -- votes in the previous year that guaranteed that we there would be a tax increase. I am not going to be in that position again.

WS: Which is why you're coming up with an alternative plan, I understand that. But let me go back: if a pledge is presented to the Republican county commissioners next year, you won't sign it?

TC: I won't sign it right now.

WS: Well, it's not being presented right now. You guys are running next year.

TC: I might sign it as soon as I can develop a budget that doesn't require a tax increase and I have that in hand. Sure, I will sign that all day long.

WS: Are you working on that? You personally -- or are you working with other republicans -- to create that budget?

TC: I am working on that. With a billion-dollar budget, getting that kind of money out of the budget is a structural problem. You can't just go into the budget and start whacking lines off because there are too many consequences. 

But here's another point. The only way I know to make such a plan work is to gain and retain control of the board. To do that I am going to be ready next May with a no tax increase budget that is intellectual honest and that is backed by votes throughout the year. I think you have to vote right to prepare the budget in May. I have asked Parks [Helms] to put me back on the budget committee so I can start restructuring the budget process. So we can be ready with a feasible alternative in May.

The second thing I am going to do is build political credibility throughout the year by being more active at the business meetings with board. You will hear me say things like, “at this rate the tax rate will double in the ten-year period from 1997 to 2007.” Things from the “bear letter” that I authored for the four Republicans. I am going to make sure the majority feels the political and the budgetary consequences of their votes throughout the year.

You will hear more no votes from me, although I have my share already.

WS: So it sounds like your strategy is to make sure the voters keep in mind that it was the Democrats were responsible for that tax increase.

TC: That's not the way I think.

WS: You just said that you want to keep the tax increase in the minds of the voters. The tax increase was voted for by the 5 Democrats and against by the 4 Republicans.

TC: That's right, but the key to understanding me is I am proud to be a Republican. I have always been a Republican. My father was a Republican in the South when being a Republican in the South was not something you did. But I don't wake up every morning thinking about how the Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong. That's not my motivation. I try to be driven by the best idea. If that comes from a Republican, I will salute it proudly. If it comes from a Democrat, I go with it. I am not a partisan. That separates me many times from my friend and colleague Bill James. Bill thinks differently than I do in that regard.

WS: This raises a few questions for me about the direction of Charlotte politics. What do you think the vote on the arena said about the direction of politics in the city of Charlotte?

TC: I don't think it said anything other than it was a bad idea. People rejected it because it was a bad idea. It's funny, but even the supporters of the package didn't think it was that great an idea. I had many people tell me that they didn't like it so they were going to vote against it, but I had a lot of people tell me that they didn't like it but they were going to vote for it anyway. No one thought it was a really great idea.

WS: So you didn't think it was a sign that the county politics is shifting in a more conservative direction.

TC: No. I don't think there has been an overall shift in county politThe jet stream that controls county politics has been shifting more to the conservative side for 20-30 years, but this vote was about something different.

WS: Do you think annexation has anything to do with that conservative shift?

TC: Yeah. Statewide branch banking and annexation have been the most important forces on the city of Charlotte in the past decade.

WS: Now, of course, we have annexed to the county line in some areas and approaching county lines in other areas. Is that going to cause an end to these trends?

TC: it will cause an end unless we get serious about building an inner city. I think this is our time. I think this is the city of Charlotte's time. I don't think we are taking advantage of it like we should. Twenty percent of the land in downtown Charlotte is made up of parking lots.

It may sound silly, but I think Charlotte ought to be like Paris. Paris is the most livable city in the western hemisphere and it was created by design. It just didn't happen. What happens in the next 15 years will determine the way Charlotte looks forever. I think Charlotte needs to be a community of choices about where you live and work. It is becoming that, but not at a fast enough pace.