It's about time

Via Billy's blog comes news that John Hardister (R, Guilford) has submitted a bill to the state legislature that would make operations of the state lottery more transparent.

I haven't read the bill, but from Hardister's press release, it sounds like something long overdue. The free market does not mean that marketers are free to dupe people and lottery advertising with its emphasis on the largest of prizes with little if any mention of the preposterous odds is a form of deceit that should not be allowed -- especially by the state.

It is another form of fraudulent marketing to sell scratch-off tickets with no information about whether or not the prize being promoted— the big top prize—has already been won. There is no notification at the point of sale when the top prize has already been won and your chances of winning that prize have become exactly zero. It's a rip-off plain and simple to sell scratch-off tickets advertising a top prize of x amount when winning that prize has become impossible. I don't know if Hardister's bill addresses that too, but it should.

The United States of Barbarians

The morality and ethics of whether or not the CIA can torture people in our name are non-negotiable. There is no argument that can be made to justify this atrocity. The corporate media are treating torture as if it's just another "issue" like immigration reform or the federal budget. It isn't. You cannot justify the unjustifiable. People who attempt to apologize for torture done in their name are embarrassing themselves; raising their heads to be counted as barbarians at the gate.

—  Joseph Polermo

I usually try to avoid letting copied writings stand in for my self expression, but since I've been having such a hard time finding words to describe my reaction to the revelations of United States torture, I will let Joseph Polermo stand in for me, for now.
--------------------------------------------------

Last August, President Barack Obama admitted to the press: "we tortured some folks." But he also added that torturing people "is not who we are." His CIA director, John Brennan, calls the CIA torturers "patriots." So which is it? Are they "patriots," deserving of our admiration, or sadists who engaged in acts that are contrary to "who we are?"

The Senate Intelligence Committee's executive summary report on CIA torture concludes that at least 26 of the people the CIA contractors tortured were innocent of any ties to terrorism whatsoever.

One of the CIA contractors, James Mitchell, was on TV lately where he was called the "architect" of the torture program. His Spokane, Washington company, Mitchell, Jessen, and Associates, received $81 million in taxpayer money for services rendered.

CIA Director John Brennan  argues that people like Mitchell and his business partner, Bruce Jessen, were doing legitimate intelligence work. But isn't it also possible that these "patriots" were acting out their post-9/11 revenge fantasies against a bunch of Arabs and Afghans who fell into their clutches about whom they knew very little?

Mitchell and Jessen had no specialized knowledge of Al Qaeda or international terrorism; they didn't speak Arabic or Pashto, and had no experience interrogating prisoners.

What they did know about as psychologists was how to drill down into the human psyche. And they knew how to reverse engineer the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) techniques designed to help U.S. personnel counter torturers. They applied the same appalling techniques to their own interrogations. Given their lack of qualifications to head such an endeavor it's likely Mitchell and Jessen were just winging it.

Can we get our $81 million back?

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney might have "authorized" the torture program, but it's still a war crime that violates the Convention Against Torture, the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,  and the U.S. Constitution. Letting the people responsible for torture ride off into the sunset free of any criminal charges throws out the window international and domestic law, as well as almost everything we've learned from the Nuremberg Trials, Hannah Arendt, or the trial of Adolf Eichmann.

One of the CIA's "black" (secret) torture sites was located at Guantanamo, which should raise some thorny legal issues because, unlike Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Afghanistan, or Thailand, the Supreme Court has ruled that Guantanamo is considered "U.S. soil."

Absent any criminal prosecutions, the only conclusion we will be left with is that these guys really are "patriots" and torturing people really is "who we are." But we shouldn't need "experts" like Max Boot, Joe Klein, or other apologists for torture to judge the morality of turning to torturers posing as "doctors" to root out suspected terrorists.

The morality and ethics of whether or not the CIA can torture people in our name are non-negotiable. There is no argument that can be made to justify this atrocity. The corporate media are treating torture as if it's just another "issue" like immigration reform or the federal budget. It isn't. You cannot justify the unjustifiable. People who attempt to apologize for torture done in their name are embarrassing themselves; raising their heads to be counted as barbarians at the gate.

We don't fight against terrorists to become more like them, but to maintain our differences.

Continue reading... 

Something is wrong

I've been wondering, just who is called to serve on grand juries anyway? Clearly, something is wrong when grand juries become secretive replacements for what is supposed to be the cornerstone of American justice: the accountability of public trials.

From the Federalist on the failure of a New York grand jury to issue an indictment in the homicide (as determined by the coroner) of Eric Garner, an unarmed non-violent man, whose death was caught on video:

"Why, it’s almost as if the grand jury system is just a convenient means for prosecutors to get the outcome they want wrapped in a veneer of due process. Want to indict a ham sandwich? Consider it indicted. Texas Gov. Rick Perry was indicted for vetoing a spending bill, but a New York prosecutor can’t indict an officer who killed another man in an incident that was completely captured on video? Come on." 

N&R flubs take on public records law

GREENSBORO, NC -- News & Record editorial editor Allen Johnson is on the right side of the argument over public access to video recorded by Greensboro Police body-worn cameras. The police are wrong to keep them from public view is his take. I agree. For his devotion to the matter, you would expect Allen to have a degree of familiarity with applicable state law that would keep him from publishing a mistake like this:

"Police records that are considered part of a criminal or internal investigation, or that are placed in an officer’s personnel file, can be concealed."

Although that excuse has been frequently deployed by the police as a reason for denying public access to records, it is not what state law says, which is this:

"The use of a public record in connection with a criminal investigation or the gathering of criminal intelligence shall not affect its status as a public record." [§ 132-1.4(f)]  

That makes perfect sense, of course. Public employees do not get special treatment that would allow their actions to be shielded from the same public documentation other citizens endure. If you or I get arrested, the arrest report is public—the same for public employees. An arrest report doesn't become confidential just because it gets put in a public employee's personnel file. Public records remain public records.

The same goes for records used in criminal investigations. A recording of a call to 911 doesn't lose its status as a public record just because it is also used in a criminal investigation. Those are not just examples of good public policy regarding transparency, they are examples of how the law applies.

The News & Record has the law on its side in these matters, it should get it right when it describes what the law requires, even though—or especially because—it is at odd with what officials assert when withholding these public records.

The News & Record: safe haven for mediocre journalists

GREENSBORO, NC -- It's one thing if a reporter might not have had an opportunity to get up to speed on a community's history or has yet to develop his own professional standards. It is quite another thing when a news organization coddles those inadequacies. That's an environment for professional decay.

Robert Lopez writes a piece at the News & Record today that is so sub par, it should not have been published -- if the News & Record itself had any standards.

The story, about the City of Greensboro settling a police officer's discrimination suit for $25,000, suffers from two grave deficiencies, both, unfortunately, not uncommon at the News & Record.

The first is the despicable, deplorable, lazy and amateurish deployment of he said,she said reporting in place of the facts. Renowned journalism professor Jay Rosen has referred to this technique of pitting the claims of one person against another without aligning their claims to available facts as a wholly inadequate vestige of the pre-internet age of journalism. It's too easy for such reports to be revealed as deficient on the web—"lame," Rosen calls them—as is happening here.

When Lopez reports that police officers who sued the city said a lineup book containing their pictures was used to "frame" them and that the former chief of police said otherwise, leaving it at that, Lopez is positioning his reporting as nothing more than stenography, a regurgitation of competing claims and not a source for fact-finding despite widespread public knowledge that such facts exist. Lame.

In fact, the use of the line-up book was thoroughly investigated by the FBI, the SBI and the Department of Justice. None found any wrongful use of the lineup book. The City of Greensboro swore in an affidavit it had no evidence of misuse of the lineup book and, indeed, none has ever been produced. Lopez fails to report these salient facts. Lame.

Lopez also lacks a knowledge of local history and, here, his editors should have helped him out. When Lopez writes that the officer who sued the city claimed that a tracking device was put on his car and claims that his picture appeared in the line-up book, without reporting how those claims align with the facts, Lopez reveals himself to be ignorant of the facts found in the history of this matter. It was widely acknowledged and reported that a tracking device was placed on the officer's car. That's a fact, not just an individual's assertion, as Lopez would have it. Lame.

Additionally, city council members, some still on council (Zack Matheny and Yvonne Johnson), saw the line-up book in question. There are two credible sources with first-hand knowledge who are in a position to say whether or not the officer's picture was in the book. Lopez ignores those sources, leaving the officer's assertion unchecked. Lame.

Lopez reports as if there is no truth, no facts; only assertions. The worst part is that his efforts pass muster with his editors. That is not only lame, it's common practice at the News & Record. It's bad business too and it's bad for the professional development of the reporters who work there. A reporter who wants to be a mediocre journalist and stay a mediocre journalist will find accommodation at the News & Record.

Four great Greensboro law domain names for sale

For sale or lease, collectively or individually, four great search engine-boosting domain names for attorney or law practice.

greensboro-criminal-lawyer.com   
greensboro-dwi-lawyer.com  
greensboro-speeding-ticket-lawyer.com   
greensboro-traffic-ticket-lawyer.com

Send inquiries to admin@altmedia101.com.

Did sitcom producer try to bamboozle city council with fake magazine cover?

GREENSBORO, NC -- In June of last year, the Greensboro City Council approved a loan to Black Network Television (BNT) to help finance a sitcom titled Whatcha Cookin'. When the borrower could not meet the conditions of the loan, city council took the matter up again a month later to consider modifying the terms. That modification was denied. Now BNT is claiming discrimination and suing the City of Greensboro for $50 million.

At the July meeting, when council considered modifying the terms of the loan, a representative of BNT addressed the council as a speaker from the floor. She included a Power Point presentation and recited all of the good things that were happening for the sitcom, including, she said, an article in Upscale Magazine. That claim was accompanied by a slide that showed what appeared to be a cover of the magazine. On it, was a portion dedicated to Whatcha Cookin'. The presentation zoomed in on it to reveal three pictures supposedly from the article and the headline: "BNT Cooks Up Comedy with Whatcha Cookin'."

Here it is the cover as it appeared in BNT's Power Point presentation to the council (click to enlarge):

Here is the real cover  (click to enlarge):

Here is video of the portion of the BNT presentation to council where the Upscale Magazine cover is shown (twice) and described:

Civil Rights Museum response a warning on performing arts center

GREENSBORO, NC -- Although she gets some of her facts and nomenclature grossly wrong, the director of the International Civil Rights Center and Museum, Deena Hayes-Greene, is right about the inequality of the current city council's expectations of the non-profits it funds and her reactions foreshadow problems with the city's expectations of the performing arts center.

In an answer to the city's request for more information about the museum's operations, Hayes-Greene writes this about the city making the museum's responses public:

"[A]ny time Sit-In Movement, Inc., a non-profit, but a private corporation*, answers in this format its personal confidential and financial information will be published on a City website. [snip] [W]e decline to have our private information published on the City web page unless other recipients of City Money [sic] do also."

The City of Greensboro is currently formulating a contract that will set the stage for governance of the performing arts center. It anticipates the formation of a non-profit corporation to operate the facility. For weeks I have been pleading with city council to include language that would obligate the non-profit to make its records public. Instead of enshrining that in the agreement, what was added was language that limits public access only to "audited financial statements" and "board meeting minutes" and even then those limited records, according to the current text, can be inspected only "to the extent the functioning of the non-profit is not compromised."

Council has been resistant to changing this language and actually obligating the performing arts center governing non-profit to public transparency, insisting that the city's co-ownership of the building will somehow magically compel the independent non-profit corporation to make its records public and that obligating the non-profit to public transparency in the contract is unnecessary. Seeing Hayes-Greene's objection to public transparency prompted me to write the following to city council.

----------

 Dear City Council,

I have previously expressed my concerns with you that the portion of the performing arts center agreement regarding public access to the governing non-profit's records is inadequate and an invitation to secrecy, obfuscation and mistrust. Lest you may have doubted the potential for an uncooperative future board to take an adversarial posture towards transparency under the current terms of the agreement, I invite you to see Deena Hayes-Greene's latest response to the City's inquiry regarding the finances and operations of the International Civil Rights Center and Museum.

I encourage you, again, to consider the implications of the performing arts center contract on situations just such as this and to enshrine in the agreement, in no uncertain terms, public access to the performing arts center's board's records. Not only will you be shirking your duties to protect the interests of Greensboro's public if you do not more strongly mandate public access to the performing arts center governing board's records in the agreement, but you will put truth to Ms. Hayes-Greene's assertions that the International Civil Rights Center and Museum is being treated differently than the performing arts center.

Cordially,

Roch Smith, Jr.

---------

The City of Greensboro is committed to providing $30 million in public financing to the performing arts center (compared to $1.5 million for the museum) and, by design, will be the financial backstop for operational shortfalls. It is simply irresponsible for the city not to obligate to public transparency the entity that will be governing an operation vested with so much public support. Simply saying that the governing non-profit probably will be transparent or that one could make the argument that their records should be public is not enough. It gives the board room to raise the kinds of objections raised by Ms. Hayes-Greene.

If this council actually expects the records of the performing arts center governing non-profit to be public, they should put that obligation in the contract. Anything less is a wink and a nod that this council is prepared to allow the governing board to operate with a degree of secrecy.

* This is exactly the same type of organization proposed to govern the performing arts center -- a non-profit LLC.

Update: Edited for clarity.

Should Greensboro council have voted on attorney in open meeting?

GREENSBORO, NC -- Jeff Martin purports to know that there was a vote in yesterday's closed session of City Council to fire the city attorney. That got me wondering? Shouldn't the votes of the body that has the final authority on the employment of an individual regarding employment of such individual be public?

That lead me to inquire with an assistant city attorney about making the results of the closed session votes public, but while waiting to hear, I checked the state statutes and it does seem, indeed, as if votes taken on the attorney's employment should have been made in public session. From the governing statute:

 "Final action making an appointment or discharge or removal by a public body having final authority for the appointment or discharge or removal shall be taken in an open meeting." 

That makes sense, especially in this case. Working at the discretion of City Council, the city attorney essentially works for us, the public. We should, therefore, have every expectation that we know how our representatives voted in acting to keep or remove that employee. Whether or not the city attorney ultimately decided to resign, as he did, it seems to me the statute requires that the votes to remove him prior should be made public.

Not so fast, pally; Council shares responsibility

GREENSBORO, NC -- Regarding the issuance of a $750,000 loan by the City of Greensboro to the International Civil Rights Center & Museum without a contract, the News & Record opines:

"Council members, for whom [city attorney Mujeeb] Shah-Khan works, didn’t know the contract wasn’t signed."

Maybe, but that doesn't mean they weren't informed.

Documents made available by the city include an email from then city manager Denise Turner-Roth sent to council that says:

"I am comfortable moving forward with the first loan installment of $750,000."

and

"Legal is working with Museum representatives to finalize an agreement between and the ICRCM that memorializes the terms expressed by Council through its September 3 vote, including how the City's interests will be protected."

That second paragraph, records show, was actually included in Roth's email at the suggestion of Shah-Khan. So it may have been a bonehead move to issue a three quarters of a million dollar loan without a contract, but Council cannot pin it all on city attorney Shah-Khan. They were informed what was happening and either did not understand what Roth's email was telling them, did not read it or were okay with it. But they were informed and only because of Shah-Khan's recommendation.

Did any of them object then? Because they sure seem awfully indignant now.

Civil rights only for "ordinary people"?

GREENSBORO, NC -- There was a line in President Obama's State of the Union address last night that jumped out at me:

"That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated."

That does not inspire confidence.

The United States Constitution does not confine its protections to some arbitrary definition of "ordinary" people. Indeed, the notion that venturing to extraordinary means  relinquishing the right to privacy is a chilling warning that you better stay in line. Thomas Payne, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Susan B. Anthony were anything but "ordinary people."

What kind of America are we headed to when remaining ordinary is a requirement for keeping one's Constitutional civil rights?

Greensboro City Council's unequal treatment

GREENSBORO, NC -- Billy Jones on Mayor Robbie Perkins insisting that speakers from the floor at city council meeting provide their home addresses:

"To add insult to injury, Mayor Perkins often exempts friends, high rollers and connected elites from having to state their home addresses. Others openly use their office addresses."

That's true. The Mayor cut the mic and had city council candidate Ben Holder escorted  from the chambers for giving his address as "blah, blah, blah lane" (to make the same point) yet, as Billy rightly notes, certain insiders and city staff are allowed to speak without giving their addresses.

This kind of preferential treatment extends to the City's practice of reporting the public records requests of certain individuals while giving an unspoken exemption to insiders, the connected and former employees. Oh, yeah, the exemption extends to city council people too, who, of all people—with their obligation to public accountability—should have their interactions with city government transparent and open and, instead, get a comfy cloak of secrecy bestowed by city staff who never, ever include their records requests with the regularly published list of requests. Never.

This is not just the mayor's doing though, none of the incumbent councilors have lifted a finger to make any changes. It's going to be really hard to vote to re-elect any of them.

Zombies or Naive?

"For an agency like the NSA, the data storage units are a goldmine, combining in a single device almost all the information that would interest an intelligence agency: social contacts, details about the user's behavior and location, interests (through search terms, for example), photos and sometimes credit card numbers and passwords." -- Der Spiegel 

On the heels of public revelations that the United States National Security Agency has the capabilities of collecting "a broad spectrum of user data from smart phones," comes Apple's announcement that its new phone will now also collect fingerprints.

 "Who knew in 1984... that [Steve Jobs] would be big brother... and the zombies would be paying customers?" -- NSA presentation 

Was the N.S.A. right, are smartphone users zombies or just confident in the perpetual good intentions of government?

Johnson, Vaughan, WIlkins should demand end to questionable corporate contributions

GREENSBORO, NC -- Local developer Marty Kotis is at it again, his political enthusiasm leading him to run afoul of elections laws. Last fall, he adorned some properties he owns with giant Mitt Romney signs in violation of Greensboro's sign ordinance limiting the size of campaign signs. Now, according to the News & Record's Travis Fain he is providing free advertising on an electronic billboard promoting the re-election of City Council candidates Yvonne Johnson, Nancy Vaughan and Tony Wilkins.

As Fain reports these "in-kind" contributions do not appear on any of the candidates' campaign financial reports, as all contributions, in-kind or cash, are supposed to. That's only part of the problem though. In North Carolina, it is against the law for corporations to make a donation, in-kind or otherwise, to a candidate.

Form the North Carolina Board of Elections Campaign Finance Manual:

"It is unlawful for any corporation, business entity, labor union, professional association, or insurance company to directly or indirectly contribute to a candidate."

While Kotis' may not be aware of this provision of campaign law, the candidates surely are. They should immediately ask Kotis to stop displaying ads they have no intention of paying for and they should pay Kotis for the ill-gotten publicity they've already received.

UPDATE: To be clear, Tony Wilkin's campaign report does list receipt of a "Donation of digital billboard-partial month" which is good for Wilkins. It still leaves me wondering why Kotis is explaining that there have been no invoices because customers are billed only after their ads have run for thirty days and wondering how billboard space is Kotis's to donate if it is corporate-owned.

The headline of this post has been edited from its original.

Parks & Rec anti-campaigning rules lack force of law

GREENSBORO, NC -- The City of Greensboro confirms that the rules of the Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department against campaigning in parks and parks facilities were never approved by city council and, thus, lack the force of law.

Rush is wrong (and Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein too)

I just heard Rush Limbaugh say of the domestic spying revealed to be taking place on all americans (yes, it's lower case now):

"It matters because of who is collecting all this data. It would be one thing if it was Colonel Sanders, but it's not, it's Barack Obama and we know what he's all about."

No Rush, that is wrong and it is the very kind of shallow thinking that got us here.

What matters are the infringements on privacy and the lack of restraint on government NO MATTER WHO is doing it. Those who thought it was okay when Geoetrge W. Bush was in the White House are the very people who laid the foundations upon which the Obama administration is now carrying on. Those who make excuses now for what was objectionable under George W. Bush because they "trust" Barack Obama are no better. Both groups are civic deadbeats. Small, dangerous, petty idiots.

Right is right and wrong is wrong and this country will be sucked into totalitarianism if we continue to object only when we perceive it to be the "others" dragging us down that dark road.

Common cause

Now, remind me again: Why was the assault on the Fourth Amendment begun under George Bush and continued with the support of Republicans and Democrats alike necessary?

"It's just for the bad guys."

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."

Do I remember that correctly?



(Thanks to Fred for the vid.)

Idiocracy

I don't know how I made it for so long without getting called to jury duty, but I finally was today. I was excited for a chance to finally participate in an important part of democratic civic life in which I had not yet participated.

As it turns out, we were dismissed just before lunch without making it to a courtroom. But what really caught me off guard was the uproarious cheer that arose when the clerk announced we were being dismissed.

I know people have places to go and things to do, but the celebration was contrary to the serious duty, one might even say privilege, to which we were called. I really wonder what democracy means to people some times. Is jury duty really something people think is best left to others?

Ye shall know them by their fruits

GREENSBORO, NC -- I'm inclined to agree with Rhino Times editor John Hammer when he writes: "Council seems fine with building a huge wall between government and the people."

Why? Because of council's actions—or rather, their inaction. They are taking no action to participate in or make the public partners in the changes underway to the City's public records procedures. It's just not that important to this Council.

Trees are important. Council formed a subcommittee to examine the tree cutting ordinance.

Substandard housing is important. There is a subcommittee for housing. 

There is a subcommittee for economic development and one for downtown entertainment facilities.

Mayor Robbie Perkins now wants to form a subcommittee to accommodate the interest of "young professionals" in influencing downtown. 

When an important issue needs a sustained effort with everybody at the table, council forms a subcommittee.

They will not do so for public records. Transparency and openness—and the accountability they bring—are bedrocks, fundamentals without which everything else is in jeopardy, yet City staff have been behind closed doors for seven weeks crafting new policies that clamp down on access to public records that they only now want to "explain" to the public with a day of meetings. These meetings are not to collaborate, but to give the imprimatur of legitimacy to a one-way, top down, exclusive process.

By their inaction, Council approves.

As the Bible says, "Ye shall know them by their fruits," and lip service on transparency and openness are not going to cut it in the next election.

City public information response: delay, obfuscate & manipulate

GREENSBORO, NC -- In an insightful piece about the City of Greensboro's plans to add multiple new layers of bureaucratic intervention to public records access, Rhino Times editor John Hammer warns "that public records requests that should take minutes may take months."

Hammer is right to be concerned about additional delay to a process that is already woefully slow and I have a convenient and disturbing recent example.

Two weeks to forward a message from the Chief of Police

In July of last year, I made a request for records documenting access to City surveillance cameras. In recent months, I have been going back and forth with a city public relations employee about why the response to my request only included information about private security guards (no city employees or others). After months of what felt like banging my head against a wall, the employee admitted she did not have an answer for that and said she would forward my question to others, including the Police Department, for an answer.

The next day, on a Saturday, no less, Police Chief Ken Miller responded to the city employee. When did I finally receive the Chief's response? Two weeks later. 

That's right, the Chief of Police jumps to answer a citizen's question on a weekend and the City's handler lets it hibernate in her inbox for two weeks before forwarding it along (and that only after the Chief's reply was misrepresented to me and I asked for his original response—more on that in a minute). Hammer is right to be concerned.

Here is the header from the Chief's original response:

Here it is being forwarded to me:

Get me a rewrite!

As I mentioned, I had to prod the City employee to send me the Chief's email after I received from her what she falsely represented as quotations from the Chief of Police and a police officer. Yes, she took emails sent to her, rewrote them, put them in quotation marks and wrote, "Here is the response I received..." (and sent it 12 days after the Chief's response.) Here is what she sent:

Good evening,

Here is the response that I received from the Police Chief and also from the Officer who supervises Lankford who provides our security for facilities:

“The City hires Lankford to provide security to facilities, which includes monitoring City cameras in the video room. GPD cannot access these cameras from the cars and Police does not yet have a command center, so Lankford would be the City’s eyes/ears on the cameras.”

“Two unarmed Lankford Security Service Officers monitor the cameras in the Camera Room located in the basement of the MMOB. The Camera Room is a secure room with a swipe card access. The only people who have access to the room are the two Security Officers, the Police Lieutenant who supervises facilities security and the three Security Office employees. If a visitor comes to the Security Office to request a video a request form must be completed by the requesting party, reviewed by and approved by Police. Also anyone that comes into the room must fill out a roster form that is kept at the entrance to the room. The Security Guards gain access to the system through a password protected log in. David Hayes (City IT) is the System Administrator.”

Here is the actual email from the Chief. The portions edited by the City employee are in brackets:

The City hires Lankford to provide security to facilities, which includes monitoring City cameras in the video room. [It is cheaper than hiring police officers for the same task and doesn't require the training or authority that police officers require.  While I have not seen the document that the City sent to Roch, I suspect it reflects this monitoring activity, which is why he only sees security access.  I am not aware that] GPD [can] access these cameras from the cars and [we do] not yet have a command center, so Lankford would be our eyes/ears on the cameras.

[I think a meeting with Roch may help him understand things a little better.  We have no conspiracy going on anything, but the PIRT process is not a very good way to address his concerns on this or the DNA issue.  I do not expect him to agree with our position on things, but it may help reduce the constant barrage of PIRTs from him.]

The other reply from the supervising officer was also edited from its original, but you get the point.

Barrage or cascade?

Did you read the last paragraph of the Chief's real response? I find it troubling that the Chief is of the opinion that it is for him to decide what is the best way for the city to "address" my "concerns." The records of the City are the people's records. They are to be provided when requested, no questions asked. That's the law. The Chief should know that. It's not for him or anybody else to determine whether or not providing public records is the best way to respond to a citizen who has asked for public records. If the City wants to try to manipulate a message or manage public perception, they are free to try do so, but not as a substitute for providing public records.

As for the "barrage," my original request for records documenting access to surveillance cameras was a single request—made eight months ago. It is only because the city's response was deficient that I had to make subsequent requests to learn how my request was handled, who saw it, who didn't and what types of records actually exist that should have been provided in response to my original request. This is not a barrage, it is a cascade—a bothersome result of the City's own pathetic actions.

As a result of those additional requests, I've identified at least nine types of records that should have been provided in response to my initial request — records I did not receive. I've made nine new requests for those records specifically. It's not my fault nor my pleasure that the City couldn't simply fill my request when I first asked.

[Updated for clarity]