Remember the polygraph tests that city council members took in 2006 to prove that they were not responsible for the "leak" of the RMA Report? Eight of nine council persons took the test.
At the time, the eight who were subjected to the polygraph were told their results in private, by the examiner, and allowed to orally report their results to the public -- as if someone determined to be a liar would not also lie about their results.
The whole thing was absurd, a waste of thousands of dollars of public funds, intended to back into a corner the one council person who would not take the test, T. Dianne Bellamy Small -- to make her guiltiy by implication. We were left to deduce that the one who did not take the test, T. Dianne Bellamy Small, was hiding something because she would not take the test.
With their consent, the polygraph examiner has now released a written report for the examinations of Mayor Yvonne Johnson and council persons Mike Barber and Sandra Anderson-Groat. The resutls? Each said they did not leak the report and the examiner reports there was "no deception detected." (Amanda Lehmart at "The Inside Scoop" has more, including the reports.)
Having yet to give their consent for a written report to be prepared of their results are former mayor Keith Holliday, former city council persons Tom Phillips, Sandy Carmany, Florence Gatten and current city council person Goldie Wells. What are they hiding?
"...as if someone determined to be a liar would not also lie about their results..."
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not a logical conclusion. It's speculation. There are other possible reasons; you're drawing a conclusion.
"...former mayor Keith Holliday, former city council persons Tom Phillips, Sandy Carmany, Florence Gatten..."
They're all "former" and perhaps not technically public persons. They have a right not to be drawn back into the public person category, IMO.
I understand their not wanting to be drawn back into a tiresome, ugly and public nasty event (not to mention stupid - that whole lie detector thing). Concluding that they are hiding something is simply specious and speculative reasoning when alternative choices exist.
"No, that's not a logical conclusion. It's speculation. There are other possible reasons; you're drawing a conclusion."
ReplyDeleteExactly! It's not logical, but that wasn't my speculation, that was the speculation that we were asked to accept when they agreed to report their results orally: "Although I lied on the polygraph, I will not lie when I tell you my results."
You are right that it is illogical and an unsupportable conclusion, but you wrongly attribute it to me when, in fact, it was what we were asked to accept with oral reporting of results by the subjects themselves.
True enough that they may have reasons other than hiding something for not wanting to authorize the release of their results (just as T. Dianne Bellamy Small may have had reasons other than hiding something for not wanting to take the polygraph to begin with.)
Sue said, "They're all "former" and perhaps not technically public persons. They have a right not to be drawn back into the public person category, IMO."
ReplyDeleteWrong! If these persons are in any way involved in any kind of cover-up or suspected of such then it remains the public's right to know no matter if they are no longer in public service.
There is no amnesty simply because one no longer holds public office.