Council candidate cuts through the bull

Marc Ridgill is a retired police officer running for city council. He is also a prolific blogger, utilizing the medium in ways (like local state legislator John Hardister) that one wishes incumbent council people would, explaining the issues as he sees them and offering his ideas — and he does it on a platform that doesn't require one to log in in order to be subjected to data gathering and privacy invasions. Elected officials (hello city council) and challengers (I'm talking to you Michael Picarlelli) who are okay with confining their online constituent outreach to Facebook demonstrate either unconcern for legitimate privacy issues or a general laziness; neither flattering. But I digress.

While polite commentators and genteel reporters danced around the reasons for state senator Trudy Wade's recent attempt to redistrict Greensboro's city council as mysterious and unfathomable, Ridgill cuts through the bull and comes out and says it.

Our current system lends itself to areas of our city that are more active politically than others.  Part of this problem is the apathy in many parts of Greensboro that feel their vote won't accomplish anything, citing preferential treatment to downtown development and east side Greensboro political leaders.  East Greensboro has long been more organized as a voting block in our city elections and under this system has direct effect on 6 of the 9 council seats; Districts 1 and 2, all 3 At Large seats and the Mayor.  It is for this reason that many in town want to eliminate the At Large seats for more streamlined representation of the city by reducing the size of the districts and eliminating the manipulation of the council by political activists.

Ridgill's survey of the landscape might be a bit oversimplified, as it leaves no room to explain the not so long ago upset of incumbent mayor Yvonne Johnson by Bill Knight in an election that gave city council four conservative members, but premises don't have to be correct to become motivations.

While rejiggering the system to diminish the effects of motivated constituencies and enhancing the influence of the complacent seems counter to the American spirit—or maybe the argument is that, in a different setting the currently apathetic will become motivated—either way, one cannot deny that the motive behind Trudy Wade's plan is to diminish the political influence, real or perceived, of Greensboro's minorities on city council elections, and it's about time someone said it so plainly.

The biggest question for mayoral candidate King

GREENSBORO, NC - Devin King is running for mayor. He is something of an outsider who doesn't like what he sees and thinks he can shake things up. That can be good. The best qualified city council candidates are not necessarily those who put in their time on boards, commissions and civic clubs. That's certainly one route to experience, but it can lead to being subsumed by the insulated power structure. Candidates who go that route often serve to maintain the status quo. Depending on your perspective, that can be a minus or a plus.

No matter where a candidate is coming from, inside or outside, there is one measure by which they all can be evaluated as serious and aware persons.

Voting history.

The 27 year-old King has lived in Greensboro for five years and yet has never voted in the ten elections during that time. In fact, he did not even register until March of this year. While voters across North Carolina may rightly feel apathetic towards the preordained outcomes of our gerrymandered congressional districts, plenty of other important decision are made at the ballot box and King, for all his passionate concern, has consistently left it to others to decide.

Devin King, mayoral candidate

Republican King passed on participating in elections that had Robbie Perkins unseat Bill Knight for mayor and, two years later, had Perkins lose to current mayor and King's opponent Nancy Vaughan. King was silent on the race that had his incumbent district two council representative Jim Kee toppled by upstart Jamal Fox.

King was missing in action in 2011 as two fellow Republican candidates, challenger Chris Lawyer and incumbent Danny Thompson, each aiming for one of three council at-large seats, finished fourth and fifth respectively—just out of the money and leaving all at-large seats in the hands of Democrats. King sat on his hands in 2013 when Lawyer tried again and, again, came in fourth.

Those are just local races of note. During King's time in Greensboro, he passed on voting between Pat MCrory and Walter Dalton for governor, Elaine Marshal and Richard Burr for U.S. senator and between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney.

In his congressional district, King failed to weigh in on the race between Democrat Alma Adams and Republican activist Olga Wright and left it to others to decide a slew of judges, school board members and county officials.

King doesn't like the way thing are. He may have some good points. He's right about the need for greater transparency, for example. But is he part of the solution or part of the problem? One wonders.

Down the tubes

GREENSBORO, NC -- I know a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do and, sometimes, circumstances make it hard to stick to one's principles; but the fall of John Hammer, former publisher of the Rhino Times and now-editor under new ownership, is remarkable to behold and a sad loss for Greensboro.

Always a staunch conservative, Hammer used to have going for him a tenacious allegiance to transparency and authenticity. It used to be that Hammer was a bulwark against public malfeasance and shenanigans that tried to deceive the people—often standing alone against powerful and entrenched interests in doing so. Whatever one thought of his politics, one could always admire him for that.

No longer.

Update: Doug Clark has more.

Riiiiiiiight

GREENSBORO, NC -- Roy Carroll, recipient of $2 million in City tax credits, a block of a city street onto which he will build apartments and a noise ordinance specially crafted to (successfully) close the rooftop bar below his penthouse condo, supports a proposed redistricting of Greensboro city council because he doesn't think city council has been business friendly enough.

Is Carroll a business whiz or less than sincere?

The following from the Triad Business Journal makes one wonder:

"[Carroll] sent an unsolicited $16 million bid for the News & Record to Warren Buffett, the Omaha billionaire who bought the daily two years ago."

and

"Carroll wrote in the letter to Buffett. 'If a local daily publication is out of touch with the needs of its constituents, I can only wonder about its financial performance.'"

Carroll added to his letter "This is not a publicity stunt."

If it's not a publicity stunt, we have to take it at face value: It's a $16 million offer for a newspaper, the value of which the prospective buyer admits he can "only wonder."

Is this revelation a reflection of Carroll's sincerity or of his business acumen?

Why the mystery?

GREENSBORO, NC -- On the mysterious genesis of state legislator Trudy Wade's idea to monkey around with the make up of Greensboro's city council, News & Record reporter Amanda Lehmert writes:

"Council members, former elected leaders and political wonks have been left to speculate which one of them poked the bear."

Add to the list of those left to speculate News & Record readers — which is not where a news organization should want to leave its audience.

A few days ago, Lehmert reported:

"Wade said she was prompted to consider the issue by local business owners, who she said asked not to be identified."

That's fine and dandy, but a reporter should not acquiesce to a preference for such secrecy; in fact, a reporter should challenge it vociferously. Who are the people pushing these proposed changes to city government and what are their motives? If only we had some kind of person whose job it was to challenge authority, to investigate and uncover information for the public benefit.

Communications with Wade on this matter would be public record. They would likely end the "speculation" and fill the gaping hole in this story. A professional reporter covering this should not hesitate to ask for them.

Paper tigers

GREENSBORO, NC -- From the News & Record's digital editor on the refusal of the Greensboro Police Department to make public video footage captured by officer worn body cameras:

"We'll continue to make the requests, and to fight for the information any way we can." 

Two points:

First, I have repeatedly asked the City of Greensboro for copies of the News & Record's requests for these videos and the city's denials. There are none. The News & Record makes these requests verbally and the city, therefor replies verbally. This matters because, without a documented record, it is harder for those of us interested in affecting public policy on this matter to participate. Policy makers, the ACLU or other interested groups or individuals do not have at their disposal a record of the requests and denials they could use to document the circumstances and nature of the City's refusals. The News & Record, ironically, is not contributing to the public record of the City's actions.

Second, it is simply untrue that the News & Record is continuing to "fight for the information any way we can." That sounds good and we might wish it were so, but it's empty rhetoric. The most forceful and definitive means by which the N&R could "fight" for this information would be to sue for it. Under North Carolina law, people or entities denied access to what they believe are public records can take it to court. The News & Record has not done that. They should if they think these videos are public record, but they haven't; so they are clearly not fighting for the videos any way they can. They are, quite contrary to their claims, confining their efforts to the mildest and least effective means: begging and pleading.

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.

Greensboro votes to fund P. R. B. S. while cutting city services

GREENSBORO, NC -- It was sadly ironic that, on a night when Greensboro city council approved a plan to cut city services, they voted to give $35,000 to WFMY for a "marketing initiative." (Story)

Greensboro too often grasps at shortcuts. Rather than doing things, we think we can just manage appearances. To seem, rather than to be is the motto we live by. It's a shame and a fat check to a local TV station for what councilwoman Nancy Hoffman called a great opportunity to "brand" the area is a sign that we remain a city lacking ideas and motivated by desperation. In this case, the desperation is compounded by sloppy thinking.

Even if $35,000 of "branding" has the possibility to net some return on investment, it is not going to happen by marketing on a local TV station to the people who already live here. (Forget too the issue of a news organization accepting money from a government it should cover objectively, that's not something I'd expect to cause a blip on WFMY's ethics radar.)

I could see, maybe, some benefit of marketing the city to people and businesses elsewhere, but how in the world does Greensboro benefit from promoting a brand to itself?

In voting to cut city services, councilman Zack Matheny said it would help the city run more like a business. Where was that business sense on this waste of money to WFMY that passed by a vote of 9 to 0?

P. R. B. S. is what this is and council fell for it in a night of mixed up priorities.

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.

Not for the police to decide; city council needs to act

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record is right about video footage captured by the cameras now worn by all Greensboro police officers and for which police policy dictates that every interaction with a citizen is to be recorded: They are the people's property, not the police's.

First, to state the obvious: Based on what police are willing to tell us so far (which isn’t much), the Aug. 4 arrests of two Greensboro men seems petty and excessive.

Less than a block from his home, Rufus Scales, 27, was pinned to the ground and handcuffed for resisting arrest, walking in the middle of a street and “impeding traffic” where there seemed to be none.

Scales’ brother Devin, 22, captured a portion of the incident on camcorder footage that has been posted on the Internet. He pans the camera to show streets with no sidewalks or traffic, then two more police cars arriving.

The camera shakes as a hand suddenly appears in front of the lens and the filming suddenly stops. The officer, T.B. Cole, appears to confirm while on camera why he is arresting Scales: “You cannot just sit there and run your mouth and start cursing in the middle of the street.”

The incident has been seized by police critics as evidence of the mistreatment of some citizens, especially African Americans. It also adds another arrow to the quiver of the mounting argument against the Greensboro Police Department’s insistence on keeping footage shot by officers’ cameras shielded from public view as “a personnel record.”

In a meeting last week with News & Record editors and reporters, Police Chief Ken Miller, interim Chief Anita Holder and the interim city attorney, Tom Carruthers, stood by that interpretation, arguing that to do otherwise would be to break state law. But the footage’s value as a public record should hold greater weight. After all, these are taxpayer-funded recordings of officers’ interaction with the public in public places. Also, we’re talking about a tool that was advertised as a chance to build community trust in police and improve accountability. The city accomplishes neither by keeping such a stubborn grip on the footage, and may, in fact, erode trust in the process.

During the Scales arrests, Cole, a training officer, was not wearing a body camera that is now standard issue for patrol officers. The officers who later arrived on the scene were, but their footage won’t be released to the public or media, either.

State law does allow the city to release such video if city leaders believe doing so is essential to maintaining public confidence in local government. Certainly, in the wake of national tensions following the fatal shooting of a black 18-year-old, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., this seems like such an instance.

Miller did say last week that Rufus and Devin Scales may see the available footage, but no one else. Meanwhile, to her credit, Mayor Nancy Vaughan has expressed concern that the city invokes the personnel-records defense too often. As for the rest of the council, it remains conspicuously silent.

It had nothing to say when an officer fatally shot a knife-wielding woman in March and refused to release that video. And it has said not one syllable so far in the case of the Scales brothers.

Miller insists, “We have nothing to hide in the Scales case.”

Then, by all means, let’s go to the tape.

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.

The News & Record stinks so bad

From Joe Gamm in the News & Record today, reporting on the City of Greensboro settling a lawsuit brought by former police officers:

"[Former Police Chief David] Wray resigned in 2006. Plaintiffs alleged he maintained a “black book” that was used to unfairly investigate black officers. Wray contended the department used the book to investigate a sexual assault."

The News & Record continues their atrocious willingness to let competing assertions substitute for fact, but the truth is the realities of the "black book" are far different from what the News & Record portrays. It wasn't just Wray who said the book was a legitimate investigative tool, it was the City of Greensboro, in a sworn affidavit, signed by the very city manager who locked David Wray out of his office, who said the book was compiled for the purpose of solving a crime.

Furthermore, the city also admitted in that affidavit, that it had no evidence of the line-up book being misused. Finally, the use of the book was investigated by the SBI, the FBI and the Department of Justice, all of whom found no improper use of the book. Only one police officer was tried as a result of investigations into the "black book"—for improper use of a federal computer—and he was acquitted.

The News & Record ignores the context of these details and reports the purpose of the black book as unknown beyond the competing assertions of two parties. There is no truth here as far as the News & Record is concerned, they are content to commit what renowned journalism professor Jay Rosen calls the ethical lapse of he said/she said reporting. It makes them look incompetent, or worse, contemptuous.

Opaque "Union Square Campus" demands answers

GREENSBORO, NC -- I have a wish. I wish that someone in our local paid media would stop, take a breath and realize they've gotten ahead of themselves in reporting on what has come to be described as the "Union Square Campus." This project, to be located on publicly owned land at the south sides of the downtown intersection of Elm Streets and Lee Streets, was once considered too contaminated for development until I identified federal funds to pay for for environmental remediation.

Twelve years later (nobody ever accused Greensboro of being supersonic), the site is ready for development and, in the blink of an eye, it has become "Union Square Campus." While the impression created so far is that this will be some sort of satellite campus for area universities, the ownership and money interests have been hard to follow. Instead we've had misrepresentations of the role of project's first building and tortured descriptions like this that are obviously more about hype than clear explanation:

"[A] catalytic higher education development with a first-building focus on training and education for health care professions..."

A catalytic higher education development?

It doesn't help that there is no online resource that describes the project in any detail—no web page, no Wikipedia entry—nothing other than disparate press release-driven announcements regurgitated by local media.

Between few public records, sparse news stories and the rumor mill, there are more questions than answers. Here are some things the professional media ought to clear up for us:

Who will own it?
Currently, the land for the project is owned by the City of Greensboro. Unpublished sources say that a developer was chosen who was to purchase the land but was disqualified for some unknown reason and a new developer was chosen but they have not taken possession of the property. In other words, they haven't purchased it but remain identified as the developer. Who is the intended eventual owner of the land and is the City of Greensboro going to sell it to them at fair market value or will be it be "donated"? Was the developer chosen through an open and fair process in the best interests of the citizens of Greensboro? Who will own the buildings, and not just the first; what is the ownership plan for additional buildings? Who is deciding?

These are matters of fiduciary responsibility of public property. Answers to these questions are of the utmost public interest.

How much is education related? Really.
Supporters hype the project as devoted to education—"A catalytic higher education development"—but only a single building has been described as being education related. Previous discussions and people who claim to know say that the property is also to include apartments and condos as well as commercial and office space.

Is the project being promoted as education related to procure public funding and public support when some portion, if not most of it, will be for other purposes?

Who gets the money?
It has been announced that the first building is to house classroom space, to be rented, hopes are, to local universities. Presumably, there will be other future rents, no matter the purpose of other eventual buildings. To whom will those rents go? Is that arrangement, whatever it may be, in the best interest of the citizens of Greensboro?

The next time reporters type "Union Square Campus" in a story, I wish they'd stop and ask themselves, "How much do my readers know about what this is? How much do I know?"

Councilwoman Hoffman mum on business relationship with city loan recipients

GREENSBORO, NC -- In a recent post about a company receiving city development funds despite being out of compliance with the terms for receiving those funds, I cited local bloggers who claimed that Greensboro City Councilwoman Nancy Hoffman is partners in a separate business with the principals of the company that received the loan, Greensboro Parking Group, LLC. An anonymous commenter questioned the veracity of the claim that Hoffman and the loan recipients are business partners.

So I attempted to verify it directly with Hoffman. After more than a week of multiple emails, to her city account and personal account, and numerous attempts to reach her by phone, including two messages left on her voicemail, I have not heard back from her. If Hoffman is not in business with people to whom she voted to give city funds, it would be a simple thing to say as much—with a phone call or email reply.

Did Hoffman vote to give city funds to business partners (who also happen to have failed to have lived up to their end of the agreement)? People who claim to know say yes. Hoffman, for her part, isn't talking.

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:

News & Record gets crucial sitcom lawsuit fact wrong

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record is reporting that the City of Greensboro is getting sued for a loan it approved then "pulled." The city council approved loan offer was made to Black Network Television (BNT) to help finance their production of a television sitcom titled Whatcha Cookin'. Reporter Joe Gamm writes:

"BNT owners Michael and Ramona Woods sued the city, seeking more than $50 million in connection with a loan the city had approved for the sitcom but then pulled." [Emphasis added.]

That is contrary to the facts, and the News & Record, with a reputation for repeating the assertions of sources without checking them against the available record, gets another crucial point wrong.

The Greensboro City Council, in June of 2013, approved a $300,000 low interest loan to BNT with the condition that the loan be collaterized by a lien on the BNT's owners' house. That condition stipulated that the city of Greensboro was to be in no worse position than second in the line of creditors for liens on the house. It was subsequently discovered that there were two liens, a mortgage and a home equity line of credit, on the owners' house already. That would have put the city third in line, a condition not in conformity with the agreement passed by council.

In July of 2013, council considered (p. 46) revising the terms of the loan so that the city would accept third position. Council rejected that change, with a majority voting to deny it. That left standing the original agreement. Indeed, in responding to a letter from BNT's attorney claiming the city reneged on its loan offer, the city attorney, on October 31, 2013, reiterated that the loan was still available. He wrote:

"If anything, the City and your clients could proceed under the original terms as was mentioned during the meeting. The original terms are still available."

The News & Record is wrong, the city did not "pull" the loan. It declined to modify the original terms of the loan offer, but left it standing.

UPDATE: Owen Covington at The Triad Business Journal makes the same mistake. These reporters need to review the video record of the July, 2013 Greensboro City Council meeting. The council voted to deny modifications to the original loan agreement, they did not rescind the original loan offer.

Paved in gold: $13 million per mile sidewalk needs construction audit

GREENSBORO, NC -- Dang asks some good questions (in his usual brash way) about the City of Greensboro staff's recommendation that another $26 million be authorized for the downtown greenway.

The public should see an audit of the money spent so far. An official construction audit. We were initially told that the four mile loop would cost an already lofty $26 million. Now it needs another $26 million? That would bring the cost to $13 million per mile. That's more than half of the cost of the four mile portion of the urban loop being built from Bryan Boulevard to Battlegournd Avenue, and that is a six lane highway with four bridges and an interchange.

Something doesn't smell right at all.