On the heels of last week's political hit piece based solely on anonymous sources taking aim at the controlling majority of the ICRM board, reporter Margaret Moffett launches another unfounded salvo so preposterous it seems as if it should be beneath even the very low standards of the very terrible News & Record.
Let's break it down (it won't take much). Moffett begins with:
"The sit-in museum's chief financial officer and interim leader may be violating North Carolina law by representing himself as a certified public accountant."Says who? Nobody. Although Moffett has demonstrated her willingness to print unfounded assertions* in the past, this one isn't just unfounded, it's unattributed—to anybody. So it is Moffett's accusation. Can she make her case?
For all the rolling around Moffett does in the law and regulations, it all is predicated on one criterion. It's what we programmers recognize as a conditional statement: If a is true, then b; Moffett writes it like this:
"[A] CPA licensed in another state who moves to North Carolina to practice accounting 'must obtain a certificate of qualification from the board prior to using the CPA title in any way in this state,' according to the law."What is the condition? What is the if that must be true for the law to apply? "WHO MOVES TO NORTH CAROLINA." If a person does not move to North Carolina, the laws Moffett says Swaine may be violating do not apply.
So has Swaine moved to North Carolina? Has he satisfied the condition that would make these laws apply? No. According to whom? According to Moffett herself, who writes:
"Swaine, who commutes to Greensboro from his home in Roanoke, Va., has held a CPA license in Virginia since 1999."Her conditional fails. MOVED TO NORTH CAROLINA does not equal true. So all that stuff about what is required of a CPA who moves to North Carolina—those laws Moffett says Swaine "may be violating"—do not apply.
Additionally, Moffett cites as examples of Swaine "representing himself as a CPA" in North Carolina posts to Twitter and Linkdin. That's absurd. Such posts are no more "in North Carolina" than they are in Texas or Sri Lanka.
Moffett doesn't let logic and the facts get in her way though. With no regard for whether or not the law even applies in Swaine's case she doesn't hesitate to write that he "may" be breaking the law. Maybe—maybe he's double parked—but Moffett offers nothing to back up her suggestion that Swaine may be breaking the laws pertaining to CPAs. This is the kind of untenable character assassination that has had bloggers kicked off of Greensboro 101. It is shocking to find it in the "professional" media.
Whatever one's opinion on the best policy for the ICRCM, and there are advantages and disadvantages to the options on the table, we cannot allow slander to influence our decision making. Advocacy journalism has its place, but to do it, one must get her facts straight and think.
This is not journalism, it is a horrible and unconscionable smear piece. Greensboro deserves better.
* Moffett is Margaret Banks in the post at this link.
Is Swaim doing the accounting for the ICRCM?
ReplyDeleteFrom the N&R article you link to:
ReplyDelete"John Swaine, who has managed the International Civil Rights Center & Museum’s money since 2009, isn’t a licensed CPA in North Carolina."
It would appear Swaine has been doing the job of a CPA for the ICRCM and thus as usual Roch is wrong.
Now if you'd like to provide me with the name of another CPA who manages the money for the ICRCM I'll gladly stand down.
I'm not sure what it is you think I'm wrong about, Billy, but if you'll specify, I will not delete your comment.
ReplyDeleteAs COO and CFO of the ICRCM, John Swaine has been doing the accounting for the ICRCM but John Swaine is not licensed to do accounting in North Carolina. Therefore he has misrepresented himself.
ReplyDeleteThat is: unless the ICRCM employs a third party accountant. Now other than the occasional audit as required by the City of Greensboro can you point out the name of an accountant other than John Swaine who is employed by the ICRCM?
PS. Your threats to delete comments make you appear petty and small. I once thought you better than that.
Can you back up a bit? I asked, what did I write that is wrong? You haven't addressed that. You said I'm wrong. About what, exactly?
ReplyDeleteIf I understand you correctly you are saying that John Swaine did not represent himself as an accountant in North Carolina but he works as the accountant for the ICRCM located in Greensboro, North Carolina and therefore has misrepresented himself as an accountant.
ReplyDeleteYou have concentrated solely on the social media aspects of the issue while I'm talking about what he actually did in the commission of his job.
It is not against the law to work as an accountant in North Carolina if your certification/license is from another state.
ReplyDeleteHere:
Working as an accountant in NC even if your certification is from another state: Legal. Swain does this.
Promoting yourself as a Certified Public Accountant in North Carolin after having moved to North Carolin and not having received certification from North Carolina: Illegal. Swain did not do this. He NEITHER moved to North Carolina nor is promoting himself as a CPA in N.C.
You are taking the legal thing and saying it equals the illegal thin. It does not. I think that makes you the one who is wrong.
But Roch, the question remains, did John Swaine represent himself as a CPA to the ICRCM, its Board, Managers or members?
ReplyDeleteBecause if he did he broke the law. And apparently that is the angle Margaret is coming from.
Expect Swaine to be leaving soon as the entire Board and membership now knows he misrepresented himself to them all-- get it.
Remember: my world's tiniest crystal ball sees all.
So another conclusion jumped to by you without substance and for the purpose of besmirching another person.
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea: When "questions remain" answer them first before attacking people based on your assumptions of what the answers are.
That's okay Roch, delete my comments and try to hide from the truth all you wish. It still haunts you or you would never delete them in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI win even if you delete.
Billy, you started with an accusation that I was wrong about something that, it turns out, was based on you misunderstanding. Rather than acknowledge your mistake, you fell back to your despicable tactic of impugning people by doubling down with more unfounded assumptions and misunderstandings.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to be blunt, your fallback position of "more cards to play" and more to come from your "little crystal ball" when your mistakes are exposed have become a running joke. You are welcome to keep that alive elsewhere; here, I will not allow your reckless unfounded character assassinations.
In other words, put up or stay away.
I thought I was clear, but the fact that you perceive a threat makes me think it is still not getting through to you. I'll try one more time, but this is the last.
ReplyDeleteYou are not allowed to bring your character assassination by innuendo to this blog. Your boy who cried wolf act will have to stay elsewhere.
If you cannot back up the accusations you make logically, substantively, correctly and publicly (crystal ball visions, more cards to play and whispers from fairies are not permitted), then don't comment here or your comments will be deleted.