Asking City Council for action on city attorney's stonewalling

The City of Greensboro attorney Terry Wood's explanations for why the public comments on the search for a new police chief were redacted have prompted me to ask the City Council to review the document without the redactions and determine if, as Wood maintained, "only names" were redacted. I sent the following to the mayor and city council.

The City made available on its website the responses it received to its request for public comment on the search for a new police chief. Some of the responses were redacted.

I asked City Attorney Terry Wood to provide the legal justification for these redactions. He said that the redactions were justified by personnel law because the comments "were employee opinion of other employees' performance;" that "statute prohibits the release of any comments or opinions (good or bad) related to an employee's, or past employee's, performance;" and he assured me that "only names were redacted." (Our email exchange is available on request. Document here: http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/4523E186-E7FB-4D1D-ADC0-AC59B4087BDB/0/PoliceChiefSurveyComments.pdf)

I believe this information to be incorrect in the following respects. One, it seems unlikely that "only names were redacted." Several of the redactions are of two or three letter words, indicating they are likely pronouns. Other redacted words are preceded by articles such as "a," "an," and "the," words that would not precede proper names.

Two, the City website identifies the comments as "Police chief search public comments" and, indeed, I see my comments among the responses. These are not "employee opinions of other employees' performance," as the city attorney described them.

Three, the City publicly recognizes the achievements and accomplishments of employees. The city attorney's response that "comments or opinions (good or bad)" related to an employee are prohibited from release by the City is inconsistent with the City honoring outstanding employees -- a public opinion of the employee disseminated by the City. The City does not apply this "rule" evenhandedly and it is unfair for the City to subscribe to it only when it is convenient to frustrate public inquiries.

In the interest of maintaining government transparency and to abide by laws of the North Carolina, I respectfully request that City Council undertake the following actions in this matter: Review the document in question without the redactions in closed session. Determine if anything other than "only names" were redacted as the City Attorney represented to this citizen and, if so, instruct the City Manager to make this document available without the improper redactions.

Sincerely,
Roch Smith, Jr.