After nearly five months, the City of Greensboro has failed to adequately respond to the public records request made by Sam Spagnola, Joe Guarino and me. Our only remaining option is to sue. I'll be signing the suit today and we will file it on Monday.
You may recall that in February, City Councilor Mike Barber arranged a meeting with him, then-City Attorney Linda Miles, City Communications Director Pat Boswell and me to try to break the log jam and get the records released. Several promises were made at that meeting. They weren't kept. Among them were:
- A promise by Miles to inform us by February 29th of the records the city intends to release and the legal reasons for withholding information it does not intend to release. No response came by February 29th. The City did send us a letter on March 7th that offered reasons why it will not release the RMA report or the so-called black book and confirming the availability of minutes from City Council closed sessions. There was no explanation of the City's intentions regarding the rest of our request.
- A promise by Miles to comply with our request for communications to and from City Legal relating to Project Homestead and older than three years (as the law allows) by February 29th. To date, those have not been produced.
While some of our request has been adequately fulfilled, much of what has been provided has been problematic. What initially appeared to be a substantial volume of documents turned out to be padded with previously released official press releases, news clippings and blog posts, including volumes 1 - 27 of Jerry Bledsoe's series in the Rhino Times, "Cops in Black and White."
The copies of the minutes from City Council closed sessions we received were also deficient. In addition to the copies being of such poor quality that parts were illegible, they were from a period that was only partially responsive to our request. They were also heavily redacted and done so in a way that indicates an improper understanding of what can be kept secret. For example, "The City Manager xxxxx reiterated the need for confidentiality..." and "Xxxxx provided talking points for council..." are not proper redactions. The protections afforded by state personnel records laws do not exist to conceal any action or statement by a city employee that they wish to keep secret. To redact the names or statements of city employees or city councilors simply to keep their official actions secret exhibits a gross misunderstanding of the law and a disturbing contempt for open government.
It's a weird thing to sue a city one loves, but I guess one can think of it as tough love. Our city is off the track in understanding open government and it appears as if they won't change until a judge tells them to.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
"I was born a poor black child" -- N&R letter-writer channels Steve Martin
In the 1979 rags-to-riches-to-rags film The Jerk, a very white Steve Martin begins his story with "I was born a poor black child." It was a funny set-up for the running gag of Martin's character, Navin R. Johnson, believing himself to be just like the black family he grew up with. Not so funny is the claim by a N&R letter-writer that she is a minority, even though she is not.
Shirley deLong of Jamestown in her letter, published today, describes herself as "Being a minority and growing up in the South..."
Ms. deLong is white.
Shirley deLong of Jamestown in her letter, published today, describes herself as "Being a minority and growing up in the South..."
Ms. deLong is white.
Monday, March 03, 2008
I dig me some Rhino Times, but...
This week's Rhino included a front page headline "Unsubstantiated Allegations Make News." Although about another matter, the headline could have been regarding editor John Hammer's editorial in which he wrote:
"To get the support of the Simkins PAC, City Council candidates reportedly had to promise not to vote to fire Mitch Johnson." [emphasis added]
and
"What reportedly put Mitch Johnson over the hump was an agreement to keep Lt. James Hinson on the police force, which meant getting rid of Wray." [emphasis added]
Reportedly? Where? When? John is too experienced not to know the kind of journalistic prestidigitation he's trying to pull off here. A journalist writing to a higher standard doesn't say something has been reported unless it has been reported. A journalist who can't confirm something but wants to stoke people's suspicions will use "reportedly" in the manner John does. It is manipulative and a sign that John thinks that some of his audience is too unthinking to notice.
That Hammer does not cite a source is not the only indication that his claims can't be substantiated, they are also countered by people with first-hand knowledge of the events in question. Trudy Wade says she wasn't asked by the Simkins PAC to promise not to fire Johnson. Zack Matheny says he wasn't asked to make such a promise. On the promotion of Johnson to city manager, Hammer's "reporting" is refuted by Robbie Perkins and Sandy Carmany, two people who were on City Council at the time of that decision.
"To get the support of the Simkins PAC, City Council candidates reportedly had to promise not to vote to fire Mitch Johnson." [emphasis added]
and
"What reportedly put Mitch Johnson over the hump was an agreement to keep Lt. James Hinson on the police force, which meant getting rid of Wray." [emphasis added]
Reportedly? Where? When? John is too experienced not to know the kind of journalistic prestidigitation he's trying to pull off here. A journalist writing to a higher standard doesn't say something has been reported unless it has been reported. A journalist who can't confirm something but wants to stoke people's suspicions will use "reportedly" in the manner John does. It is manipulative and a sign that John thinks that some of his audience is too unthinking to notice.
That Hammer does not cite a source is not the only indication that his claims can't be substantiated, they are also countered by people with first-hand knowledge of the events in question. Trudy Wade says she wasn't asked by the Simkins PAC to promise not to fire Johnson. Zack Matheny says he wasn't asked to make such a promise. On the promotion of Johnson to city manager, Hammer's "reporting" is refuted by Robbie Perkins and Sandy Carmany, two people who were on City Council at the time of that decision.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Oral Polygraph Results
One of the things I found puzzling about the response to our request for the results of the polygraph administered to Greensboro City Council members was being told, as I was, that there are no written results. Because the whole endeavor seemed incredibly silly to me to begin with, I just figured the silliness included giving someone who might have lied to a polygraph examiner the opportunity to lie about the results of the polygraph. As if we might hear, "I took the polygraph, and I was found to be deceptive..." Right.
As I was looking through the documents I received yesterday, I found a summary of a polygraph examination administered to Randal Brady by a contractor for RMA. Its layout seemed formulaic -- as if these kinds of summaries are standard practice. It raised two questions in my mind:
1. Where are the other polygraph summaries conducted as part of RMA's investigation into the administration of the police department under David Wray?
2. Is it possible that such written summaries were provided for the council polygraphs and the person who has them is unaware of our records request and/or is it possible that the examiner retained such written records and they can yet be retrieved by the city?
As I was looking through the documents I received yesterday, I found a summary of a polygraph examination administered to Randal Brady by a contractor for RMA. Its layout seemed formulaic -- as if these kinds of summaries are standard practice. It raised two questions in my mind:
1. Where are the other polygraph summaries conducted as part of RMA's investigation into the administration of the police department under David Wray?
2. Is it possible that such written summaries were provided for the council polygraphs and the person who has them is unaware of our records request and/or is it possible that the examiner retained such written records and they can yet be retrieved by the city?
Uh, er... About those public records
I took a little time today to take a closer look at the documents I received from the City yesterday in response to our records request. You remember? The reams that I estimated to be around two thousand pages? As it turns out there were a lot of duplicates. There is also a lot of information from other sources, like articles from the N&R, The Jerry Bledsoe series Cops in Black & White, Volumes 1 - 27, copies of N&R columns by Ed Cone and David Hoggard and a blog post by Joe Guarino (a party to the records request) with an unattributed, "Came across this -- Have you seen?" scrawled across the top.
Also included are numerous previously released press releases and public statements, relevant, but not new. There are also several emails sent to city council expressing displeasure with Wray's dismissal and materials regarding the accreditation of the Police Academy.
The bottom line is that what originally appeared to be a volume of information that would benefit from a group effort to read and analyze, is not so. The vast bulk of our request still remains unfulfilled. However, I was promised at our meeting yesterday that those remaining areas would be fulfilled or addressed by next Friday. I'll keep you posted.
Also included are numerous previously released press releases and public statements, relevant, but not new. There are also several emails sent to city council expressing displeasure with Wray's dismissal and materials regarding the accreditation of the Police Academy.
The bottom line is that what originally appeared to be a volume of information that would benefit from a group effort to read and analyze, is not so. The vast bulk of our request still remains unfulfilled. However, I was promised at our meeting yesterday that those remaining areas would be fulfilled or addressed by next Friday. I'll keep you posted.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Public Records Project: An Invitation to Journalists, Bloggers and the Civic-minded
The city has started to seriously respond to Sam's, Joe's and my request for public records today with the delivery of what I estimate to be close to a couple thousand pages of documents. Previously we have received perhaps several hundred pages of documents and 30 DVDs. More are expected by March 5th.
Reading, evaluating and digesting these documents will be a huge task and one that demands serious attention. Even if it were something that Sam, Joe and I could handle alone, the subject matters are of such importance that they deserve as many keen minds as possible to assess. So I'm proposing The Public Records Project.
This will be an open meeting where interested parties can come together to examine these documents, share what they find to be important and copy what they want. I'm hoping this can be collaborative, with sharing of labor and good give and take about what we find.
Greensboro Public Affairs Director Pat Boswell suggested that such a meeting might be accommodated at city hall. She did stress that she'd have to check to make sure this would be okay, but this would be a great place if possible. Copiers would be available and Pat would be nearby should questions arise. If not at city hall, some place with a copier and room for people.
We are expecting more documents by March 5th. I'd like to do this as soon as possible after that. If you think you'd like to participate, drop me a line or leave a comment.
Reading, evaluating and digesting these documents will be a huge task and one that demands serious attention. Even if it were something that Sam, Joe and I could handle alone, the subject matters are of such importance that they deserve as many keen minds as possible to assess. So I'm proposing The Public Records Project.
This will be an open meeting where interested parties can come together to examine these documents, share what they find to be important and copy what they want. I'm hoping this can be collaborative, with sharing of labor and good give and take about what we find.
Greensboro Public Affairs Director Pat Boswell suggested that such a meeting might be accommodated at city hall. She did stress that she'd have to check to make sure this would be okay, but this would be a great place if possible. Copiers would be available and Pat would be nearby should questions arise. If not at city hall, some place with a copier and room for people.
We are expecting more documents by March 5th. I'd like to do this as soon as possible after that. If you think you'd like to participate, drop me a line or leave a comment.
Breakfast with Mike Barber, Linda Miles and Pat Boswell
I had breakfast with Greensboro city councilor Mike Barber, city attorney Linda Miles and the city's director of public affairs, Pat Boswell today to discuss the status of the November 6th, 2007 public records request made by Sam Spagnola, Joe Guarino and me. (Sam and Joe were invited but couldn't make it.)
The meeting was Mike's idea when he heard that the response to our request had been slow and narrow and that suing seemed to be our only remaining option. Mike originally suggested a meeting with the newly formed City Council Subcommittee for Legal Affairs, but when it became apparent that such a meeting couldn't happen swiftly, Mike set up this breakfast at Tex & Shirley's.
Upon arriving, I found Linda and Pat already there and they greeted me with two hefty reams of documents -- I'm guessing close to two thousand pages. I've only given them a cursory glance, but I think they are the kinds of records that will go a long way towards giving the public significant insight into what happened with the "Wray affair," answering some lingering questions and dispelling suspicions that the City has something to hide.
There are still some important parts of our request that remain unfulfilled, but we had a frank and productive discussion about how and when those will be addressed and why some documents simply are not available, either because they do not exist or because they cannot be released until after certain criminal proceedings have concluded.
I learned, for example, that there is nothing in writing that can be provided regarding the results of the polygraph tests administered to city council members. Apparently, each city council person was told his or her results by the examiner and then self-reported those results to then-Mayor Keith Holliday. It was a silly, expensive waste of government funds: A dead end road to "truthiness" as N&R editorial editor Allen Johnson put it that raised more questions than it answered. And wasteful. Did I mention wasteful? Wasteful and un-documented in a way that just adds to my final perception of it as a futile exercise.
I was also reminded that the city has received requests from a US Attorney and state prosecutor not to release information that is part of an upcoming trial. These requests do not carry the weight of law, but it is unlikely the city council would acquiesce to a request for the release of such documents. There remain three options for the release of documents of this kind, appeal to the city council to release them in the interest of restoring public confidence, file a motion with the trial court judge for their release, or wait until the trials have concluded. I think it would be prudent to wait and see just what gets denied by this rationale before deciding how to proceed. Of course, Sam and Joe will have something to say about this too. (The "black book" has been denied by this rationale and Sam and I agree that it is probably reasonable to wait and ask for this again later.)
I presented our opinion that the RMA report is not protected by state personnel privacy laws because any information given by the city to RMA constitutes a release of the information and, because RMA is not a public employer, anything they collected is not protected by personnel laws to begin with.
This opinion is guided by the North Carolina State Supreme Court case of N&O v. Poole in which the News & Observer successfully sued the Poole Commission (a UNC-appointed commission looking into wrongdoing among college athletes) for the release of its records. Pertinent to the RMA report, the Court decided that even a limited release of personnel information to an outside party constitutes a forfeiture of privacy protection for that information. In the Court's words, one cannot "unring a bell." The Court also noted that privacy protections apply only to information first gathered by the employer, that a public employer cannot claim for itself privacy protections for information gathered by another entity.
Ms. Miles said she would re-acquaint herself with Poole, discuss it with staff, and let us know by next Friday what she thinks after reconsideration.
The other areas of our request that remain unaddressed are going to be reviewed and we'll have a response by next Friday of either acknowledgment that the information is coming or specific legal justifications for continued confidentiality.
I'm hopeful that we've turned a corner on lifting the veil of secrecy that has shrouded this affair. I thank Mike, Linda and Pat for a sincere effort to address this cooperatively. (And an additional thanks to Pat and other city staff for doing the heavy lifting of retrieving and compiling these documents.) There are significant issues yet to be addressed and even if our request is answered to our satisfaction, that will be just the beginning of what will likely be a loud and rancorous discussion as the community digests what is revealed. But the good news? We will have begun the ending. Maybe, just maybe the biggest questions will have answers so clear and compelling that we will finally be able to move forward, confident that we know what really happened. We'll see.
The meeting was Mike's idea when he heard that the response to our request had been slow and narrow and that suing seemed to be our only remaining option. Mike originally suggested a meeting with the newly formed City Council Subcommittee for Legal Affairs, but when it became apparent that such a meeting couldn't happen swiftly, Mike set up this breakfast at Tex & Shirley's.
Upon arriving, I found Linda and Pat already there and they greeted me with two hefty reams of documents -- I'm guessing close to two thousand pages. I've only given them a cursory glance, but I think they are the kinds of records that will go a long way towards giving the public significant insight into what happened with the "Wray affair," answering some lingering questions and dispelling suspicions that the City has something to hide.
There are still some important parts of our request that remain unfulfilled, but we had a frank and productive discussion about how and when those will be addressed and why some documents simply are not available, either because they do not exist or because they cannot be released until after certain criminal proceedings have concluded.
I learned, for example, that there is nothing in writing that can be provided regarding the results of the polygraph tests administered to city council members. Apparently, each city council person was told his or her results by the examiner and then self-reported those results to then-Mayor Keith Holliday. It was a silly, expensive waste of government funds: A dead end road to "truthiness" as N&R editorial editor Allen Johnson put it that raised more questions than it answered. And wasteful. Did I mention wasteful? Wasteful and un-documented in a way that just adds to my final perception of it as a futile exercise.
I was also reminded that the city has received requests from a US Attorney and state prosecutor not to release information that is part of an upcoming trial. These requests do not carry the weight of law, but it is unlikely the city council would acquiesce to a request for the release of such documents. There remain three options for the release of documents of this kind, appeal to the city council to release them in the interest of restoring public confidence, file a motion with the trial court judge for their release, or wait until the trials have concluded. I think it would be prudent to wait and see just what gets denied by this rationale before deciding how to proceed. Of course, Sam and Joe will have something to say about this too. (The "black book" has been denied by this rationale and Sam and I agree that it is probably reasonable to wait and ask for this again later.)
I presented our opinion that the RMA report is not protected by state personnel privacy laws because any information given by the city to RMA constitutes a release of the information and, because RMA is not a public employer, anything they collected is not protected by personnel laws to begin with.
This opinion is guided by the North Carolina State Supreme Court case of N&O v. Poole in which the News & Observer successfully sued the Poole Commission (a UNC-appointed commission looking into wrongdoing among college athletes) for the release of its records. Pertinent to the RMA report, the Court decided that even a limited release of personnel information to an outside party constitutes a forfeiture of privacy protection for that information. In the Court's words, one cannot "unring a bell." The Court also noted that privacy protections apply only to information first gathered by the employer, that a public employer cannot claim for itself privacy protections for information gathered by another entity.
Ms. Miles said she would re-acquaint herself with Poole, discuss it with staff, and let us know by next Friday what she thinks after reconsideration.
The other areas of our request that remain unaddressed are going to be reviewed and we'll have a response by next Friday of either acknowledgment that the information is coming or specific legal justifications for continued confidentiality.
I'm hopeful that we've turned a corner on lifting the veil of secrecy that has shrouded this affair. I thank Mike, Linda and Pat for a sincere effort to address this cooperatively. (And an additional thanks to Pat and other city staff for doing the heavy lifting of retrieving and compiling these documents.) There are significant issues yet to be addressed and even if our request is answered to our satisfaction, that will be just the beginning of what will likely be a loud and rancorous discussion as the community digests what is revealed. But the good news? We will have begun the ending. Maybe, just maybe the biggest questions will have answers so clear and compelling that we will finally be able to move forward, confident that we know what really happened. We'll see.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Is it about David Wray or government secrecy?
In a N&R article today by Jason Hardin titled "Greensboro's messy politics:"
"'What this whole thing is about is a small group of people who support David Wray,' said Tom Phillips."
This bothers me--the idea that this "whole thing" can be distilled to being for Wray or agin' him. It's an oversimplification that is deaf to the most important issue.
There are some people, well, at least one, who think the most significant issue of this "whole thing" is a city-created climate of secrecy. Explanatory documents contemporaneous to the events and decisions made by our government exist. Those that by law should be in the public realm have not been released. Others could be released with the recognition by City Council that they are in the interest of restoring public confidence, but they remain secret too.
Instead of a serious and swift effort to expose the city's workings to the sunshine the law demands, city leaders have responded with ever-changing excuses of convenience for why they will not release these documents. For example, we have witnessed City Manager Mitch Johnson's reasons for not releasing the RMA report devolve from it being part of an on-going investigation, now completed, to the absurd excuse that to release it would violate "common sense."
The city's limited release of documents has been of those that support the official narrative. They have demonstrated a bias towards releasing documents that implicate the accused too--releasing documents when the accused objects but prosecutors do not and withholding documents when prosecutors object but the accused do not.
Maybe the secret documents will indeed reveal the real story to be just as the city has described. But sitting on documents that would clarify does not inspire confidence that this is the case.
I do not conclude from any of this that Wray is innocent or guilty. I'm not for or against Wray. I'm for the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. For me, this "whole thing" isn't about the personalities involved, it is about a very fundamental principal of democratic government--that citizens have a right to monitor their government and that our government has an obligation to let us see its inner workings. Surely Tom Phillips and others in positions of authority get that. Right?
"'What this whole thing is about is a small group of people who support David Wray,' said Tom Phillips."
This bothers me--the idea that this "whole thing" can be distilled to being for Wray or agin' him. It's an oversimplification that is deaf to the most important issue.
There are some people, well, at least one, who think the most significant issue of this "whole thing" is a city-created climate of secrecy. Explanatory documents contemporaneous to the events and decisions made by our government exist. Those that by law should be in the public realm have not been released. Others could be released with the recognition by City Council that they are in the interest of restoring public confidence, but they remain secret too.
Instead of a serious and swift effort to expose the city's workings to the sunshine the law demands, city leaders have responded with ever-changing excuses of convenience for why they will not release these documents. For example, we have witnessed City Manager Mitch Johnson's reasons for not releasing the RMA report devolve from it being part of an on-going investigation, now completed, to the absurd excuse that to release it would violate "common sense."
The city's limited release of documents has been of those that support the official narrative. They have demonstrated a bias towards releasing documents that implicate the accused too--releasing documents when the accused objects but prosecutors do not and withholding documents when prosecutors object but the accused do not.
Maybe the secret documents will indeed reveal the real story to be just as the city has described. But sitting on documents that would clarify does not inspire confidence that this is the case.
I do not conclude from any of this that Wray is innocent or guilty. I'm not for or against Wray. I'm for the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. For me, this "whole thing" isn't about the personalities involved, it is about a very fundamental principal of democratic government--that citizens have a right to monitor their government and that our government has an obligation to let us see its inner workings. Surely Tom Phillips and others in positions of authority get that. Right?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Greensboro Mayor Yvonne Johnson on the "black book"
Greensboro Mayor Yvonne Johnson answers a question about the "black book" at the February 11, 2008 Mayor's Forum sponsored by the Greensboro Neighborhood Congress.
What was the name of that prosecutor in Durham?
Here's what I learned from the documents released by the city of Greensboro yesterday that were described as "the basis upon which we made many of our decisions concerning release of documents."
When a prosecutor objects to the release of information, but the accused does not, the city withholds the information.
When the accused objects to the release of information, but the prosecutor does not, the city releases the information.
When a prosecutor objects to the release of information, but the accused does not, the city withholds the information.
When the accused objects to the release of information, but the prosecutor does not, the city releases the information.
WFMY and Chief Bellamy can correct the record
On January 27, 2006, WFMY put a story on their web site (unsigned) with the headline "Interim Chief: No Evidence Supporting Validity Of "Black Book".
The story reported then-interim Chief of Police for the Greensboro Police Department Tim Bellamy (now the current Chief), as saying:
"We checked that system and no where [sic] can we find a report that fits the nature of what we've been investigating involving a police officer committing a sexual offense against a suspect," Bellamy said.
Bellamy refers to "that" system. It's impossible to know from WFMY's reporting what system he is describing, but in the Ken Keller letter to city council Keller also describes Detective Scott Sanders as coming up empty when searching for calls for service. (Sanders eventually determined the date in question of the alleged assault by examining motel records and receipts, Keller says.)
Unfortunately WFMY put the story on their website under the misleading headline: Interim Chief: No Evidence Supporting Validity Of "Black Book". The Chief, at least by what is in the WFMY article, didn't say there was NO evidence, only that he couldn't find a certain kind of evidence (apparently the same kind of evidence Sanders couldn't find either.)
Still, since WFMY created the impression that the Chief could find NO evidence, somebody should clarify that there is now some sort of evidence (acknowledged, but kept secret by Chief Bellamy) of the alleged assault that led to the creation of what came to be known as the "black book." WFMY should have an interest in setting the record straight or Chief Bellamy could make a statement refuting WFMY's headline and explaining that he now has some evidence.
The story reported then-interim Chief of Police for the Greensboro Police Department Tim Bellamy (now the current Chief), as saying:
"We checked that system and no where [sic] can we find a report that fits the nature of what we've been investigating involving a police officer committing a sexual offense against a suspect," Bellamy said.
Bellamy refers to "that" system. It's impossible to know from WFMY's reporting what system he is describing, but in the Ken Keller letter to city council Keller also describes Detective Scott Sanders as coming up empty when searching for calls for service. (Sanders eventually determined the date in question of the alleged assault by examining motel records and receipts, Keller says.)
Unfortunately WFMY put the story on their website under the misleading headline: Interim Chief: No Evidence Supporting Validity Of "Black Book". The Chief, at least by what is in the WFMY article, didn't say there was NO evidence, only that he couldn't find a certain kind of evidence (apparently the same kind of evidence Sanders couldn't find either.)
Still, since WFMY created the impression that the Chief could find NO evidence, somebody should clarify that there is now some sort of evidence (acknowledged, but kept secret by Chief Bellamy) of the alleged assault that led to the creation of what came to be known as the "black book." WFMY should have an interest in setting the record straight or Chief Bellamy could make a statement refuting WFMY's headline and explaining that he now has some evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
