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.

Police unable to identify studies cited in their press release

GREENSBORO, NC -- In a May 6th press release announcing a new round of intensified traffic enforcement, this time on High Point Road, the Greensboro Police Department claimed this:

"Nationwide studies show that intensified traffic enforcement in hot spots serves the dual role of increasing roadway safety while serving as deterrence to potential criminals."

Upon request, Greensboro police were unable to provide or cite such studies. Instead, they provided a variety of documents explaining the methods used for this type of policing, one of which included a reference to a 1996 study of these techniques in Dayton, Ohio, but they were unable to provide or cite a nationwide study, much less the multiple studies they said existed, that demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques.

Is it the role of police public relations to propagandize the public they serve with made up information or to be accurate and honest?

Records contradict police P. R.

GREENSBORO, NC -- At the conclusion of a months-long intensive traffic enforcement campaign on Battleground Avenue earlier this year, the Greensboro Police Department announced that a "benefit" of the campaign was a decrease in "part 1 index crimes"—the worst offenses, like murder, rape, robbery and auto theft—during the period of the patrols compared to the same period the previous year. Records contradict the claim that crime decreased.

From Greensboro Police Department press release.

It is ludicrous to claim that because two things correspond to each other, one caused the other. Without including other factors that influence crime, such as population and demographic changes, weather, economic conditions and other crime-fighting efforts, it is impossible to credibly say that increased traffic enforcement caused a decrease in crime. It's even worse when the numbers used to come to that conclusion are wrong.

Faulty logic did not stop the media from dutifully regurgitating the claim, however. No surprise there considering local media's lazy preference for stenography over journalism. Nonetheless, it turns out that the claim of a reduction in crime during that period, no matter its cause, is actually contradicted by police records.

Information provided by the police in support of their press release said that there were 24 part 1 crimes within a 1/4 mile of the traffic enforcement area in 2013 and 22 during the same period in 2014.

GPD's list of crimes

Among the crimes in 2014, the GPD said there was one motor vehicle theft. Police records contradict that representation. A search of crimes just on Battleground Avenue alone (not even including the 1/4 mile radius the police said they included) in the confines of the enforcement area (Cornwallis Drive to Horse Pen Creek Road) and only during the hours of operation of the campaign showed there were actually four reports of motor vehicle theft during the period of the enforcement campaign, not one.

They were:

01/16/2014 17:09 Incident Case #: 20140116343
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2906 BATTLEGROUND AV

01/30/2014 12:00 Incident Case #: 20140227146
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2605 BATTLEGROUND AV

02/12/2014 12:00 Incident Case #: 20140227152
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2605 BATTLEGROUND AV

03/03/2014 07:00 Incident Case #: 20140317073
Primary Offense: MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOMOBILE 2630 BATTLEGROUND AV

When asked about the discrepancies, Captain John Wolfe, the officer in charge of the enforcement campaign said in an email:

"I can't speak to the numbers specifically as they are generated and reported through our crime analysis unit. I can speak to the methodology but not in this format. I will look into the discrepancies you've noted to determine how they occurred."

With four auto thefts instead of one, the total number of Part 1 crimes actually increased year over year, from 24 to 25. If the correlation-as-causation thinking still applies, one would say that as a result of the traffic enforcement campaign, serious crime rose 4 percent. Of course, the enforcement campaign no more deserves such sloppy blame as it deserved the sloppy credit assigned to it when the numbers were thought to imply something positive.

City acts in interest of drug-dealing market

GREENSBORO, NC -- Two weeks ago, Ben "The Troublemaker" Holder went before Greensboro's city council to bring to their attention the criminal activities at a market in his neighborhood. As Holder noted, the market, within a stone's throw of a public library, city recreation center, elementary school and the Greensboro Aquatics Center, was recently raided for trafficking in methamphetamine. As Holder has documented on his blog, this is the same market that has been previously busted for illegal gambling, cocaine and weapons, including the raid where an innocent bystander was handcuffed and claimed injury by police resulting in a $15,000 payout settlement by the City of Greensboro. (Continued after video)



After Holder spoke, the city manager started to explain that the city is working with the business but was interrupted by councilors Yvonne Johnson and Sharon Hightower who objected to the notion that the city would work with the business instead of shutting it down. After some discussion, the city manager said he got the message.

Apparently word did not spread. Police Attorney Jim Clark crafted the city's official response. It is a letter to the market owner requesting that he contact Clark to discuss "corrective action." Clark describes this invitation to have a talk as "entirely in your own interest" leaving one to wonder why the neighborhood's interests have been ignored in favor of action entirely in the interest of the market owner.

Clark's letter also says that if the market's "problems cannot be addressed by you" the only remaining option is for the city to seek "assistance" from a court of law. That is not the City's only option. As Ben Holder prodded the city to do recently with an illegally operating massage parlor, the city can revoke the business license of a business conducting illegal activities (city ordinance 13-48). It is unclear why the city has ignored this immediately available option (and councilors Johnson's and Hightower's preference) in favor of action that is "entirely" in the interest of accused drug dealers, but Holder says he is going to tomorrow's city council meeting to find out why those take precedence over the health and safety of his community.

How WGHP "corrects" a story

GREENSBORO, NC -- Despite WGHP having had an error of fact brought to their attention last week and correcting it, WGHP reporter, and Elon University journalism graduate, Jasmine Spencer, repeated the error again this week. Here it is as it appeared in the her story on Sunday*:

As WGHP had previously acknowledged, there was not a drop in traffic accidents corresponding to the increased traffic patrols, but actually an increase. Reporting a "21 percent drop in the number of traffic accidents" was wrong, and I emailed Spencer to let her know.

How does a professionally trained journalist make a correction at WGHP? Silently, without acknowledgement and without supplying the actual facts instead: that there was in increase in crashes. Here is how the story appears now*:

I am not a trained journalist, but if I had as my goal supplying my audience with accurate and complete information, I might have added something like this after changing the story:

This story originally reported erroneous information about the number of traffic accidents during the period of increased patrols on Wendover Avenue. According to police, there was a slight increase in accidents compared to the same period during the previous year. We regret the error but are happy to make the correction because we value your trust and strive to keep you accurately informed.

But what do I know?

* Actual screen captures.

WGHP stubbornly immune to the facts

GREENSBORO, NC -- Last week, Bob Buckley of WGHP MyFox8 reported of a multi-month Greensboro Police Department intensified traffic patrol on Wendover Avenue, that:

"the number of crashes dropped dramatically as a result."

That was at odds with what other media had reported, so I emailed Bob and the news director to ask them what their source was. The news director attributed the reporting to a GPD press release that he forwarded to me. However, the press release itself actually contradicted WGHP's reporting of a decline in crashes. It claimed that, as a result of the Wendover traffic initiative:

"There was a slight increase in the number of crashes."

Once this was brought to WGHP's attention, Bob said they'd correct it on the next newscast and in the accompanying website article.

It didn't stick. Once again today, WGHP MyFox8 is reporting on their website:

"During the same initiative on Wendover Avenue, police reported a 21 percent drop in the number of traffic accidents."

That's false and in direct contradiction to the GPD press release WGHP previously cited.

Regurgitating press releases is bad enough—a correlation between crime, accidents and increased traffic patrols does not prove a cause and effect and it's lazy to say so—but completely misreading a press release when doing so and grossly misreprorting what it says is really amateurish.

You may recall that WGHP MyFox8 was the instigator for the wildly exaggerated story of "Nearly 400 people" and "hundreds of students" involved in a "massive brawl" in downtown Greensboro last summer. (Police reported there were a handful of small fights over a seven hour period that Saturday night, never a several-hundred student brawl.) That malpractice by WGHP was one of many among a persistent pattern of WGHP getting their facts wrong, a pattern that continues today.

It seems to me as if WGHP would benefit from a focus on increasing its attention to detail, fact checking and critical analysis. You know: journalism.

Emails: WFMY scripted Greensboro Police 'interview'; submitted for police approval

GREENSBORO, NC -- Emails recently obtained by this blogger show a local TV station submitting a script to a Greensboro police officer in advance of an upcoming live interview about door-to-door solicitors and the script getting forwarded to the police public affairs liaison for approval. The email, from WFMY anchor Tanya Rivera, includes what she calls a "working script" for the police officer's review. It includes Rivera's questions and suggested answers for the officer. "Anything you say is in the <…>," Rivera writes.

Although the anchor says the scripted answers are "examples" and "placeholders," the script reveals that, rather than probing the police for information, the anchor had already formed an opinion of the subject and was suggesting answers to the police officer that would conform to her narrative.

Excerpt (emphasis added):

Tanya: and usually... if it's in one neighborhood...it makes the rounds. 

<your answer: example-- right. so while it just happened in the north part of the city-- these people don't stay in one place. they move around, trying to get the most victims possible. they use everything from magazine sales to ****. and just because they have a nice sounding or charity sounding name...don't let that fool you.>

The email was subsequently forwarded to the Police Department's public affairs liaison for approval:

"I need your approval of this script Tanya Rivera of News 2 has prepared for an interview this evening."

Here are the emails in their entirety:

---

From: Uehlein, Pat C
To: Danielsen, Susan
Subject: FW: WFMY script for Wednesday 5:30pm
Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:41:34 AM

Susan,
I need your approval of this script Tanya Rivera of News 2 has prepared for an interview this evening
with Officer Eric Rasecke.

Pat

P. C. Uehlein, Sergeant
Western Community Resource Team
Greensboro Police Department
City of Greensboro
Phone: (336) 412-3910; Fax: (336) 373-4663
PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136
www.greensboro-nc.gov

---

From: Rivera, Tanya [mailto:trivera@wfmy.gannett.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:02 PM
To: Rasecke, Eric H
Subject: WFMY script for Wednesday 5:30pm

Hey Eric—thanks again for being available for a live interview tomorrow. The newscast is at
5:30pm…please be here by 5:15pm and you will be done by 5:45pm. Here is the working
script. Anything you say is in the <…> You can see I put in examples…these are just
placeholders. Please email me back your answers so we can make sure we are on the right
track. I’m thinking of adding one or two tidbits of the code enforcement information at the end of
your interview and then putting the other code enforcement info in the web story. Would you
please pick out the number 1 or 1&2 points you think viewers need to know & then email me the
entire list.

Thanks again! –tanya

Tanya: On this neighborhood alert email--it says.. contact police if a solicitor shows up at your
door...
chances are... the solicitors won't show up in the this neighborhood again...but they could
show up in yours.

{***TANYA & GUEST***}
Officer Eric Rasecke with the Greensboro Police Department has seen his share of door-to-door
calls.

<your answer: example-- door-to-door scams happen in every neighborhood-- and it doesn't
seem there is a season without them.>

Tanya: and usually... if it's in one neighborhood...it makes the rounds.

<your answer: example-- right. so while it just happened in the north part of the city-- these
people don't stay in one place. they move around, trying to get the most victims possible. they
use everything from magazine sales to ****. and just because they have a nice sounding or
charity sounding name...don't let that fool you.>

Tanya : i imagine tracking down the people going door to door isn't all that easy unless a
neighbor calls you right then and there.

<your answer: example -- most of the time people call 20 minutes later when they get to thinking
about it. its usually too late. etc>

Tanya : and getting your money back from these people....

<your answer: example -- it's just as hard.....etc >

Tanya: the one thing we can count on...is if it's making the rounds in one neighborhood...there is
a good chance this could be in your neighborhood next.

(possible points 1 or 2 of the code enforcement—what every solicitor should have on their
person when they come to your door…..)

{full screen}

Tanya Rivera
2 Wants To Know
Office 336.379.5685
Twitter: @TanyaRiveraOn2

Failure of leadership

GREENSBORO, NC -- The negative fallout for Greensboro continues on the heels of WGHP's and WFMY's fabrications regarding downtown fights and Mayor Robbie Perkins' and his colleagues on council unwillingness to stand up for the truth on behalf of the city they claim to serve.

Local blogger Kristen Jeffers and News & Record reporter Joe Killian discuss the issue on Huff Post Live. Killian, especially, does a superb job of explaining the facts and context. Would that the TV's talking heads or any of our city council people were as informed and articulate.



(Hat tip: Billy Jones)

N&R racist bullshit: "Video of young black people fighting and running as a shot rang out..."

GREENSBORO, NC -- Joe Killian of the News & Record writes:

"Video of young black people fighting and running as a shot rang out was played repeatedly on local TV stations."

Questions for Mr. Killian:

1. To what video are you referring that shows people fighting? I have seen multiple videos of the evening in question and none show anybody fighting. What video Mr. Killian? Can you make a screen shot or link us to some video and tell us where in it you see fighting?

2. To what video are you referring that records a shot ringing out? Again, I have not heard such a thing on any of the videos, most of which are silent.

Show us. Prove it.

UPDATE: Joe Killian says he agrees that the videos shown on TV do not show people fighting.

Under cover brother

GREENSBORO, NC --

"Only two people are certified to work at this location and one of them is a man. I was given the choice of three different ladies."

The Troublemaker is at it again, exposing Greensboro's accommodation of the sex trade.

News & Record fabricates "dodging bullets" quotation

GREENSBORO, NC -- Without comment or acknowledgement, the News & Record has quietly rewritten a posted news story to remove a fabricated quotation.

In a story about possible police misconduct, reporter Joe Gamm originally reported a woman telling a 911 operator that she "must have dodged some bullets" from a police officer. That's not true—she didn't say that.

“A police officer just tried to kill me. I must have dodged some bullets,” she said. 

Although the N&R posted a recording of the 911 call with this story, it did not, in fact, have anybody saying: "I must have dodged some bullets." The fabrication has been removed without comment from the story with no explanation of why a made up quotation found its way into the story to begin with.

City public information response: delay, obfuscate & manipulate

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

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

Two weeks to forward a message from the Chief of Police

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

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

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

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

Here it is being forwarded to me:

Get me a rewrite!

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

Good evening,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barrage or cascade?

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

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

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

[Updated for clarity]

Council unanimously consents as police circumvent state DNA collections law

GREENSBORO, NC -- At their January 15th meeting, Greensboro City Council unanimously gave their consent to a new program whereby the Greensboro Police Department (GPD) will begin collecting DNA and sharing it with regional law enforcement agencies and a private lab. The resolution passed nine to zero with no discussion and no public hearing.

There was no discussion of why the GPD wants to use a private lab instead of the state lab, why the extra expense of $125,000 is necessary or why the state lab is inadequate.

There was no discussion of the wisdom of a private company storing Greensboro citizens' DNA (on their internet accessible server, no less) or of signing a contract with a private lab that explicitly says in the contract that the company:

"accepts no responsibilities or obligations for [GPD's] compliance with federal or state laws or regulations regarding the collection of DNA samples, or the storage, maintenance, or use of DNA samples, data or profiles."

There are numerous state statutes that apply to the collection, use and storage of DNA samples by the SBI and the state databank that the GPD will escape by creating their own databank. Those include:

• Oversight: State law requires an annual report from the SBI to legislative committees accounting for the handling and use of DNA samples. 
• Proper Use: State law restricts the SBI and state databank to specific legitimate uses, such as crime scene evidence and casework. 
• Restricted Access: State law demands the SBI maintain procedures for "verification of the identity and authority of the requester of a DNA profile."
• Removal and Destruction: State law mandates that "The State Bureau of Investigation shall remove a person's DNA record, and destroy any DNA biological samples that may have been retained, from the State DNA Database and DNA Databank" upon certain conditions, such as dismissal of charges or acquittal.

These legal protections and restrictions apply to the SBI and the state databank. They do not apply to the GPD's private databank. GPD deprives Greensboro citizens of these protections by having a private company create a separate database and it further puts Greensboro's citizens in jeopardy of abuse by signing a contract where the vendor explicitly says they are not responsible for complying with whatever other laws may still apply to the GPD.

Who thought this was a good idea? All of of your City Council members.