In a N&R article today by Jason Hardin titled "Greensboro's messy politics:"
"'What this whole thing is about is a small group of people who support David Wray,' said Tom Phillips."
This bothers me--the idea that this "whole thing" can be distilled to being for Wray or agin' him. It's an oversimplification that is deaf to the most important issue.
There are some people, well, at least one, who think the most significant issue of this "whole thing" is a city-created climate of secrecy. Explanatory documents contemporaneous to the events and decisions made by our government exist. Those that by law should be in the public realm have not been released. Others could be released with the recognition by City Council that they are in the interest of restoring public confidence, but they remain secret too.
Instead of a serious and swift effort to expose the city's workings to the sunshine the law demands, city leaders have responded with ever-changing excuses of convenience for why they will not release these documents. For example, we have witnessed City Manager Mitch Johnson's reasons for not releasing the RMA report devolve from it being part of an on-going investigation, now completed, to the absurd excuse that to release it would violate "common sense."
The city's limited release of documents has been of those that support the official narrative. They have demonstrated a bias towards releasing documents that implicate the accused too--releasing documents when the accused objects but prosecutors do not and withholding documents when prosecutors object but the accused do not.
Maybe the secret documents will indeed reveal the real story to be just as the city has described. But sitting on documents that would clarify does not inspire confidence that this is the case.
I do not conclude from any of this that Wray is innocent or guilty. I'm not for or against Wray. I'm for the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. For me, this "whole thing" isn't about the personalities involved, it is about a very fundamental principal of democratic government--that citizens have a right to monitor their government and that our government has an obligation to let us see its inner workings. Surely Tom Phillips and others in positions of authority get that. Right?
Roch, despite what many may believe, you and I approach this from exactly the same point.
ReplyDeleteI'm not for or against Wray either. I just want the truth, and because I have seen no evidence to support the allegations against Wray, I can reach no conclusion other than that the allegations are false.
If they aren't false, it is the City's failure to substantiate the allegations with evidence that leads me to believe otherwise.
Roch: Out of curiosity, what is the urgency of releasing the RMA report? Since, you, me and a multitude of others have had it in our possession for more than a year now, would releasing it not be merely ratifying an action already taken? And if the city was to release it, should they redact the many names of police officers discussed (black, white, male, female, those who were part of Wray's clique, and those who raised concerns about his management style)?
ReplyDeleteI have said from the beginning that in January 2005 I didn't know David Wray from Mitch Johnson from Joe Blow. I did however from my training in psychology (and plain common sense) have to question the City's allegation that David Wray was a racist. There had to have been another reason for the City Council allowing the City Manager to force the Police Chief to resign, along with all but one of his command staff. So why were we being told such a blatantly absurd lie? In time, with learning more of the story from Jerry Bledsoe mainly but also from others, and the City's obstinate reluctance to give a reasonably believable reason for their actions, my interest turned to a demand for Justice. Yes, Justice. Men's lives and careers and dreams were callously destroyed and no good reason was given. These men did not deserve this treatment. No one does, but after a lifetime of outstanding service to the City of Greensboro David Wray and his command staff especially deserved justice. Not revenge as some people seem to think, but justice. There is a vast difference.
ReplyDeleteMy main concern is still Justice for these men I believe wrongly accused, but it has also evolved into a demand for clean and open government. Only when people and governing bodies have something to hide do they conduct business behind closed doors. BB
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting. I'm puzzled by your sense that releasing the RMA report now would be acquiescing to a sense of urgency. The RMA report was delivered to the city nearly 2 1/2 years ago. The SBI investigation which supposedly precluded its release was concluded over six months ago. A public documents request for its release was filed nearly four months ago. I think you confuse dwindling patience with urgency.
The report should be released because the law demands it. That others have it, is, in fact a legal reason (N&O v. Poole, NC Supreme Court) why it should be made publicly available by the city. To continue to try to justify refusing its release is, as the Supreme Court ruled, like trying to "un-ring a bell."
Publicly available means publicly available, it doesn't mean that citizens who know who to talk to can get information through clandestine means; it means that anybody, regardless of their connections can have access.
But I'm curious, by the challenging nature of your questions, I have the impression that you don't think the RMA report should be released, at least not any time soon. Why not now and when?
Roch, this is the spin machine in operation. I am for transparency in government. I do think that the documents that have been released shed a different light on the David Wray ordeal, but that is secondary. I am for resolution to the drama that can only come as the city ends the secrecy. I wouldn't know David Wray if he walked up and slapped hand cuffs on me, and I doubt one gets to be a police chief by being a choir boy, as one person has put it. Public trust will not be regained by spin but buy openness and transparency.
ReplyDeleteJoel
"There are some people, well, at least one, who think the most significant issue of this "whole thing" is a city-created climate of secrecy."
ReplyDeleteExactly! Tom Phillips is part of the problem and proves it by trying to place all the blame on people who are only seeking the truth. So what has Phillips got to hide?
I'm always in favor of any and all documents being released, but as a journalist I'm most interested in documents being released that contain information that was not previously known. Since there are only so many hours in the day, my priority is fighting for access to documents that will advance the story. But maybe there's an argument for making the RMA report available to all citizens, and not just those who know how to navigate We101, or have helpful inside sources. If your priority is securing the public release of the RMA report, then I applaud your First Amendment efforts.
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted that the RMA report included a list of supporting documents or attachments. These supporting documents or attachments were NOT disseminated to the public when the leak occurred. We have not seen them. It is important that we do.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I am told that at least one of these documents contains an irrefutable justification for why Hinson was monitored. We need to know that the report and its conclusions are defensible from the standpoint of the primary documents relied upon.
Joe Guarino
Joe, et al...
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure, but I think I have a copy of the unredacted RMA report along with the city staff's addendum somewhere on one of my many hard drives.
I've not pulled them up and read them in a long, long time. So I have no idea if what you suspect is there is there.
If I were to look it up and post it, what would be the legal implications? Anyone know?
My understanding is that I, as a recipient of the information, can do with it what I please without fear of prosecution. Am I right?
Hogg, I may put it back up on my site.
ReplyDelete"Only when people and governing bodies have something to hide do they conduct business behind closed doors."
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
And what is this "additional information" about Wray which makes the case against him "so compelling", according to what a city council member supposedly told Cone?
Hogg, this is not intended as legal advice for you. Rather, I am considering doing the same thing and I believe that I am protected by The Pentagon Papers case from any prosecution for publishing a confidential government document. I also believe that I am protected by New York Times v. Sullivan against any libel action. I also interpret N.C.G.S. 160A-168 as limited to persons who view confidential personnel records in their regular place of keeping, who copy such records or who remove such documents from their regular place of keeping. Not having done any of these, then I can't see how this law would apply.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I dispute that the RMA report is a personnel record in the first place.
But these are the arguments I would present if I publish the RMA and there is any legal fallout based on my own reading of the law and do not constitute legal advice to you or anyone else. You should only do what you feel comfortable doing or speak to a lawyer in the context of a lawyer-client relationship before acting.
Thanks Sam,
ReplyDeleteYugo. I don't think my servers could handle the bandwidth.