Gary Marschall's big ol' gaping logic hole

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record publishes a letter today from one Gary Marschall of Greensboro in which Mr. Marschall lights his hair on fire, warns of same sex marriage marking the end of "our culture" and  laments: "If only reason and logic would rule."

Mr. Marschall then proceeds to send his screed down a sink hole void of the very logic and reason he just wrote should prevail.

The reason Mr. Marschall has for thinking the Supreme Court should reject same sex marriage? Because there is, he writes, no "homosexual gene." Therefore, he concludes, homosexuality must be a "choice to fill felt needs" and such motivations do not justify a marriage.

Science agrees with Mr. Marschall, there does not appear to be a single determinant of sexual orientation.

And now for that logic and reason Mr. Marschall pleads for...

Just as there is no "homosexual gene" there is also no heterosexual gene. Mr. Marschall's sexual orientation is also merely a "choice to fill felt needs." Because that was his point: That without a gene to explain one's sexual desires, they can only be a choice.

Of course, for Mr. Marschall, his "felt needs" are God-ordained. He has every right to believe that, as I'm sure many gay people do also, but when he worries about damage to America's culture, he should take heart. 

The issue of same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court is not about mortals trying to read the mind of God, it is about what the Constitution of the United States of America says about equality; about whether a man who loves a woman has the same rights to legally sanctify that union as does a man who loves a man. Do adults acting on their "felt needs" have the right to be treated equally under the law? 

The promise that they do is American bedrock. God bless America.

Speaking of idiots

A Mark Underwood writes a letter to the News & Record in which he takes to calling the victims of the November 3rd, 1979 murders by Klan and Nazis in Greensboro "idiots."

Mark then goes on to write:

"Passions still run high among the few interested, but the true facts are impossible to determine."

Let's get this straight: Mark is convinced that the "true facts" are impossible to determine yet, despite this, he is confident enough to know that the people killed and wounded were/are idiots.

That's the convenience afforded by ignorance: One can put forth any opinion at all if one willfully leaves them unexposed to the facts.

Mark should read the Truth & Reconciliation Report. It's chock full of "true facts," gathered from a vast array of reputable sources. Were he to read it, Mark might come to understand who the real idiot is.

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." 

Looking before we leap: How to think about surveillance cameras

GREENSBORO, NC -- The city of Greensboro has rejected, for now, a plan to put police surveillance cameras downtown and beyond but those in favor haven't lost their fervor, however impulsive their motivations may be.

Here is how we—our elected officials, decision makers and citizens—should evaluate surveillance cameras:

Need and Effectiveness: An evaluation of the need for surveillance cameras, specifically: the impact they are expected to have on crime and how their effectiveness in meeting those expectations would be evaluated.

Data Collection and Use: Evaluation of the types, storage, public accessibility and use of data that such systems might collect on law abiding citizens, including, for example, license plate numbers, facial recognition information and wireless device (phone, tablet) tracking*, and the purpose of collecting such data on law abiding citizens.

Deployment Criteria: An evaluation of the criteria for deciding when and where to deploy these cameras; considerations of how to avoid arbitrary use; how to avoid unfair or unwarranted monitoring or targeting of certain populations; the circumstances under which a camera would be installed in any given location and under what circumstances would groups or individuals within range be subjected to additional inspection (zoom, tracking, recording) and data collection (facial recognition, wireless device ID capture, locations visited.)

Civil Impact: Evaluation of the social, civic and economic impact of the indiscriminate monitoring, tracking, collecting and storing of data broadly collected on law abiding citizens.

Were we to make these evaluations honestly and unemotionally, we would have a clear understanding of why we should or should not deploy these kinds of systems.

* The system proposed—and thus far rejected—would have had cameras operating with wireless connections, a system whereby they could ping passing phones, tablets and other wireless devices for their identification.

Incongruous

GREENSBORO, NC -- Downtown Greensboro, Inc. is floating a proposal to add more places for people to sit, read a book or just people watch, according to the News & Record. They are calling them "parkletts." They sound like a great idea to me.

It is unclear how well this idea would work with downtown's city council representative Zack Matheny's ideas for surveillance cameras and his desire "for people that are loitering to know that we’re watching them."

Councilman: Militarize downtown

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record reports district 3 councilman Zack Matheny's ideas for public safety downtown:

“I want there to be an army down here,” he said. “Because I want people who are coming from Winston-Salem, from High Point, from Siler City to know that we mean business. I want cameras downtown. I want people that are loitering to know that we’re watching them.”

Think about a downtown policed by militarized patrols where the city "wants you to know" that lingering a little too long will have you subject to closer secret and remote observation, where all of your movements are subject to being covertly tracked and monitored.

These ideas, were they to come to fruition, would be costly, oppressive, hostile and, worst of all, they would kill downtown.

On Greensboro's next police chief

GREENSBORO, NC -- The City of Greensboro is searching for a new police chief and is soliciting public comments about the traits and qualities they should look for. You can offer your two cents worth with this online form.

Here are parts of my suggestions:

A chief who is sensitive to the problems of technological encroachment on citizens. One who is not enamored with the capabilities of technology to identify, track, monitor and store information about law abiding citizens as they go about their business. One who is confident he or she can provide a high level of public safety while letting law abiding citizens live their lives in obscurity, if that's what they choose. 

and

Transparent. A better understanding of public records law than the previous chief and a sincere willingness to default towards openness on matters where police have discretion on whether or not to make information public. A willingness to be forthcoming with citizens about how they are being policed. 

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.

City panel on cameras informative, but ignores citizen questions

Frayda S. Bluestein

GREENSBORO, NC -- The City of Greensboro sponsored a panel discussion today regarding public access to video recorded by police body-worn cameras, which the City maintains are not public records. It was an informative discussion, but it fell short of its full potential. Despite having previously announced that it would include "time allotted during the panel discussion for questions from the in-person and online audience," according to the City's publicity, the forum was brought to a close without a single citizen's question asked. The City got to ask its questions, but citizen questions were not addressed.

Jan Pritchett

That was a big disappointment, especially since the last half hour or more of the discussion was given over to panelists largely repeating points they'd already made. Nonetheless, there was some very interesting and thought provoking discussion and the video is worth watching if you weren't in attendance and have an interest in these matters. View it here.

Here are the questions submitted by citizens, as provided by the City. Some are just statements and some are off topic, but there are some good questions that, had they been asked, would have made the panel discussion more beneficial.
-------------------------------------

Online questions/comments submitted via e-mail regarding panel discussion on video footage:

Why not put the cameras up and make them public access except in emergencies. The resolution could be easily degraded for public access and enhanced for official business. This could be a draw for downtown.

I believe this is a case of BIG BROTHER watching over us and can easily be miss-used for political control. This threatens to be a gross invasion of personal privacy.

Worst idea I ever heard of. "The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions".
We don't need someone making everyone a suspect in a surveillance state

1) Does an actual written policy exist within the GPD and/or City of Greensboro, re: release of body cam video? If there is, what is it? If there is not one, why not?

2) The lack of a concrete written policy and/or guidelines seems to create the impression that any release of video to the public is arbitrary, depending on whether or not the GPD wishes to raise the issue of personnel laws or not. The presumption should be to always release absent a specifically cited exception, not never release unless no loopholes are found.

What is the purpose for this open forum? Are decisions being made or simply discussed? Lastly, what is the potential impact on me as a civilian? Thank you.

Why in the world would you do this? Thank you Mayor Vaughn. If these cameras go up it will be the LAST time I go down town. You will NEVER create a perfectly safe environment. Downtown Greensboro can forget my business coming there if this goes through.period. More reason for malls and outlets to move their business out of the cities.

Please cite for me EXACTLY WHERE in the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution, you are given the authority to spy on citizens. We are CITIZENS, not subjects, and the government rules with the CONSENT of the governed. We do not consent to this. If you don't believe it, give us a chance to vote on it!

You would better serve the citizens by providing this panel at a time when most people could attend. That the panelists could not attend at another time tells me you didn't try hard enough to find panelists who could. As for me, I won't be going downtown if the cameras are installed. I view it as a gross invasion of privacy and agree with Mayor Vaughan, I don't want to live in a police state. Thank you, Nancy

Questions/Comments collected during the discussion to be answered by the panelists:

The City records calls to its help line, creating a record that, like body cameras, records interactions between city personnel and the public. The City advises callers that these recordings are public records and has, in fact, released them in response to records requests. How is it that the personnel records exception is applied to body camera recordings, but not help line recordings? Isn’t it just a policy position? (This one was submitted by this blog's author.)

Question for the City Attorney: Has the officer involved in the March shooting of the knife wielding woman, the video of which is being withheld under the guise of personnel records, been asked if he would consent to release of the video?  (This one was submitted by this blog's author.)

If all video is released, how do you prevent a rush to judgment and lynch mob mentality before a full investigation can be completed?

Why should we have to pay or help pay for something we don’t have access to?

Why has the City Council been hesitant on voting for authority over cameras and subsequent footage?

If GPD is adamant about cameras being personnel property, then we must have a citizen review panel.

The personnel argument is weak – just because a record is created with a secondary possible use (officer evaluation) it does not make it a personnel record. How do those advocating this position reconcile that with attempts to apply the exemption in this way completely undermine the transparency objective of wearing cameras?

What is the truth about who funded the camera imitative and whose idea was it to begin with?

The police officers file may not be public information, why not?

GPD wants city-wide surveillance cameras

UPDATE: At the city council meeting, district 3 representative Zack Matheny said, "This is something we should support whole heartedly." District 2 representative Jamal Fox said his only concern was that the program would not be "city-wide" to begin with. Mayor Nancy Vaughan and at-large representative Mike Barber offered the most resistance with other representatives being variably inbetween.

GREENSBORO, NC -- The Greensboro City Council will be asked at its work session today to consider establishing a "city-wide wireless video surveillance camera network" for the Greensboro Police Department. The cameras, described as "patrolling cameras" would have pan, tilt and zoom capabilities and the first proposed locations would include views of single and multi-family residences. Read the proposal.

A proposed location for a GPD "patrolling camera" with pan, tilt and zoom capabilities.

Another proposed location.

For local elected officials (and the News & Record)

GREENSBORO, NC -- To our local elected officials who insist on planting their online presence exclusively on Facebook (usually with a mandatory log in, no less): I'm sure the ability to be able to "block" people who ask inconvenient questions has its appeal, but you should think about what the guy in this video has to say and the implications of requiring your constituents to use Facebook as the online conduit to you.

What are you asking us to acquiesce to to be able to connect with you? This applies too to the News & Record too, who not only requires a FB log in to post comments, but requires that users accept the FB tracking cookie just to be able to even see comments.

Judge: eye contact with police equals reasonable suspicion

From the News & Record, in an article describing an appeals court decision throwing out a weapons possession conviction for a man who was stopped by Greensboro police for walking away as officers approached:

"In his dissenting opinion, Judge Chris Dillon said that if someone walks away from police after making eye contact with that officer, there is justification for an officer to stop the person."

News & Record's superficial endorsement of superficial candidate

GREENSBORO, NC -- Is the News & Record even serious any more? In endorsing Greensboro district three city council person Zack Matheny in the Republican primary for United States House of Representatives, N.C. district 6, they ask readers to ignore important issues, ignore the realities of the political climate, local and national, and suggest we join them in a willful suspension of critical thinking.

The News & Record touts what they see as Matheny's:

"[W]illingness to work across party lines for the benefit of the people [he] represent[s]. That approach is sorely needed in Congress."

The fact is, Matheny is a member of a non-partisan city council where party matters so little that the mayor has served on council as a Republican, then unaffiliated and now as a Democrat. Such an environment gives us no indication of how Matheny will operate in the partisan pressure cooker of the U.S. House of Representatives. A better indication is in Matheny's campaign platform and here, the News & Record gives Matheny cover from scrutiny. They write:

"Matheny’s top issue in this campaign isn’t repealing Obamacare, opposing same-sex marriage, banning abortion, denying climate change or impeaching the president — topics that occupy some of the other candidates. It’s finding ways to create more jobs."

In congress, Matheny will have to—we, his potential constituents, will want him to—act on health care, marriage equality, reproductive issues, climate change, economic inequality and more, including budgetary, foreign affairs, defense, and entitlement issues such as Social Security. Yet, the News & Record is asking us to dumb down our examination of Matheny by suggesting that we ignore how he might act on these important issues and, instead, be swayed by rhetoric on "jobs." Voters will be wise not to oblige.

Despite what the News & Record may wish us to ignore, Matheny has staked out some positions that give a better picture than the News & Record's wishful thinking of how he'll operate if elected. No matter one's political inclinations, it will interest voters to know what Matheny has to say on the issues (and on what he has remained silent).

Health Care:
In January, Matheny's website called for an unequivocal repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: "Congress must repeal Obamacare," he wrote. Now, along with some good news about Obamacare, Matheny's website no longer calls for repeal. While he still remains critical of what he calls "government intrusion" in health care and maintains that Obamacare "hurts far more people than it helps," he seems confused about the role of government in health care as he cites as a good example of the delivery of health services the medical testing company LabCorp, which happens to be North Carolina's single largest recipient of Medicare payments (i.e. "government")  — some $157 million in 2012. (As it turns out, LabCorp made a $5,000 campaign contribution to Matheny days before he came to use them as an example on his website.)

I wrote to Matheny, in whose congressional and city council districts I live, to ask if he still opposes Obamacare and why. I also, separately, asked if he supported Republican changes to expand Obamacare signed into law by President Obama. Matheny replied that he was out of town and would get back to me when "time permits." That was two weeks ago. Matheny's views on health care have been inconsistent, confused and self-contradictory. Had the News & Record been serious, it would have explored the implications of Matheny's muddled thoughts on this issue. Voters will.

The Budget:
Matheny promotes a Constitutional amendment "requiring the federal government to balance its budget every year." As with the Affordable Care Act, it's not clear to what extent Matheny has thought this through or his level of commitment as he qualifies his support by saying we should "consider" it.

Taxes:
We'll let Matheny speak for himself here and leave it to the reader to decide if this is something the News & Record would have ignored in a serious endorsement.

"As your Congressman, I will fight for legislation to sunset our current tax code and create a simple, fair, and honest tax system. Our current code is too complex, 70,000 pages and growing every year. No one knows what’s in it, or understands the current system. If we sunset our tax code after 3 years, that gives Congress 1000 days to take out a clean sheet of paper headed 'Fair, Simple, Honest.' "

Education:
Again, Matheny's words themselves are the most illustrative and, again, the reader will evaluate the seriousness of a News & Record endorsement that, in a city with six colleges and universities, ignores Matheny's idea for education:

"We must TEACH FOR THE JOB." [Emphasis in original]  

Guns:
Yet again, another topic on which the News & Record would have had something to say, were they serious. Here's Matheny:

"As your Congressman, I will continue to support gun owners and protect their right to bear arms. Protecting Second Amendment rights is not only a Constitutional issue. Our region has an economic interest to protect these rights as well. Remington Arms has been headquartered in North Carolina’s 6th District for nearly 20 years and Ruger Firearms opened a manufacturing facility in Rockingham County just last year. Guns equal jobs in North Carolina’s 6th District."

Foreign Policy, National Defense, Social Security, Agriculture, Domestic Surveillance, Climate Change, Poverty, Marriage Equality, Reproductive Rights/Abortion, Income Inequality, Civil Liberties, Energy, Trade, etc:
On these issues, Matheny offers no comments on either of his two websites. Yet, silence on these issues is a plus in the minds of the News & Record editors. That should tell you all you need to know about the quality of their endorsement: A superficial endorsement for a superficial candidate.

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.

Room for improvement

GREENSBORO, NC -- The City of Greensboro has posted online the minutes it has from two board meetings from the International Civil Rights Center & Museum. (As part of the agreement with the Museum for the City's loan to them, the City Manager and Mayor now have seats on the board.)

The minutes answer some questions, such as when the board voted to elect Deena Hayes as its new chair (December 16, 2013) and that it was reported to the board on January 10th that the audit required by the terms of the City's loan was behind schedule. Why those items of interest did not get reported by the City's representatives to City Council or the public, I do not know, but here's an idea: When the City has people serving on boards in their official capacities, it is presumably because the City has some official interest in their operation (often, as is the case with the Museum, fiduciary) so how about, as a matter of course, posting minutes from those board meetings on the City's website?

No need for befuddlement on Civil Rights Museum

GREENSBORO, NC -- Allen Johnson at the News & Record is befuddled by the lack of transparency and "surprises" coming from the International Civil Rights Center & Museum surrounding its dealings with the City of Greensboro. What Allen seems to be forgetting is that the City has two representatives on the Museum's board, the City Manager and the Mayor.

To the extent the city has been in the dark or there is confusion about the actions of the Museum's board of directors and their dealings with the City, it is the responsibility of the City's representatives on the Museum's board to rectify that.

Many of the questions surrounding these matters could be answered by the Museum board's meeting minutes. I have asked the City and Mayor Nancy Vaughan to provide those minutes. Allen Johnson might join me in doing the same.

It's not about the Civil Rights Museum

GREENSBORO, NC -- According to the News & Record's Allen Johnson, the revelations that the City of Greensboro made a $750,000 loan to the International Civil Rights Center & Museum without a signed contract and that the city, purportedly, gave the Museum a secret extension of time to provide documents required by the terms of the loan, are being met by some city council members with a desire to claw back the loan.

That's a bad idea.

The circumstances that convinced council to approve the loan in September of last year by a 6 - 3 vote have not changed. The reasons given for supporting the museum have not changed. The reasons for the glowing praise spoken by city councilors when they approved the loan have not changed. No. What has happened are failures of oversight by the City and pushing to get the City's money back is a diversion from holding accountable those responsible for those failures.

We can start with City Council themselves. Councilors who take a hands-off approach to city governance, who see their responsibilities as only to set policy and not to follow up as watchdogs are only doing part of their jobs. These failures fall on them more than anybody. A fully engaged councilor would have had the January 1st date by which the Museum was supposed to have provided an audit on his or her calendar. She would have asked to see it on January 2nd. Apparently, not a single representative had the wherewithal to do that — or, apparently, to even wonder about it for six weeks past the deadline until Amanda Lehmert of the News & Record broke the story that the deadline had been secretly extended and still not met.

Had councilors been more involved, this surprise and embarrassment could have been avoided. Punishing the Museum for the lack of attention of City Council is unfair. Where Council should be directing their attention, in addition to some introspection, is toward city staff.

How does the City cut a $750,000 check without a signed contract (as it did)? Start with the person whose name is on the check. Who told her to cut the check? Follow the trail until you reach the source of the directive. Then let us hear what that person has to say. Do the same with circumstances surrounding the issuance of the extension. Who is responsible for these decisions and why did they make them? Knowing these would be more productive than undertaking the charade of pretending the Musuem is no longer deserving.

Councilors will then have two choices, either they find there are circumstances under which they agree it is acceptable for the City of Greensboro to loan hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds without a signed contract and to offer secret extensions of deadlines or they will decide that the personnel responsible for those things are not meeting the expectations of Council.

What should not happen, cannot happen, is for Council to give cover to themselves and staff by shifting blame to the International Civil Rights Center & Museum. These circumstances call for some genuine accountability, not melodramatic diversions.

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?

From beyond the grave: Dead people accessing city surveillance network

GREENSBORO, NC -- I spoke at last night's Greensboro City Council meeting about city records that appear to show large numbers of unauthorized accesses to city surveillance cameras, including by a couple of people identified by the City as former employees long retired and now deceased.

Here is the text of my remarks and the video, which includes commentary by city council and the City Manager.

Tonight, I am here to bring to your attention an example of the harmful consequences of the city of Greensboro's climate of obfuscation and hostility towards transparency.

In July of last year, I requested all records documenting access by anybody to city surveillance cameras for a one-week period. 

Rather than receiving copies of any kind of contemporaneous original records, I received a document obviously created in response to my request. A fake.

Although my request was officially closed, I reminded city staff that I had requested all records of anybody accessing surveillance cameras and requesting an explanation for why I had been provided a manufactured record. I had to ask three times. After my third request, I received a reply.

"The information listed is the names of the security guards who have access to view live and archive video from surveillance cameras thru out the city facilities."

For the sake of time, I must quickly summarize what happened over the next several months. My pursuit of the records I had originally requested was stonewalled at every turn. At various times, I was mislead, intimidated and ignored.

It became very frustrating.

For months on end, the City stood by their story, insisting that only security guards were authorized to access surveillance cameras and that I had been provided an accurate record of surveillance camera access.

I was even given this list, presented to me as those people authorized to access surveillance cameras. As you can see, it is a list of fourteen people. 

After seven months of city stonewalling, six months after my request was officially closed, I finally received a copy of an original record recording access to surveillance cameras.

It did not match the manufactured record I originally received, the one that was described as recording access by security guards because only security guards had access to surveillance cameras, supposedly. Instead, the real record showed people other than security guards accessing surveillance cameras.

So I asked for the log files for a longer period of time for a better idea of the extent to which City staff were watching surveillance cameras. What I found was shockingly different from what the City had said for month about who was accessing surveillance cameras.

Instead of the fourteen authorized users, log files showed well over fifty people accessing city surveillance cameras. Who?

According to the City's human resources department, those included not only security guards, but laborers, mechanics, and tax collectors -- over 50 people with various positions other than security guards.

It gets worse:

The City could not identify 21 of the people who the log files showed accessing surveillance cameras.

That's bad. But incredibly...

Two of the people recorded as having accessed city surveillance cameras are identified by the City's Human Resources as having long since retired and being deceased.

Questions:

- Why was I provided a manufactured record instead of a copy of an actual record?

- Why are people not authorized to do so, logging into surveillance cameras?

- Who are the people logging in that the city could not identify?

- Who was logging in using the names of deceased city employees?

- When is city council going to get serious about changing the culture of secrecy and hostility towards transparency that exists in city government?