Wyndham Championship's 75th year; what a crock

GREENSBORO, NC -- Imagine a wealthy man marries a divorced woman. Her first marriage lasted for 67 years. She and the wealthy man have been married for 7.

Now imagine that the man announces to the world that, on their 8th anniversary, he and his wife will be celebrating 75 years of marriage.

That's just the kind of crock the Wyndham golf tournament is trying to dish up. Coming up on their eighth year of sponsorship of the Wyndham Championship, Wyndham apparently thinks they have purchased the history of what was, for 67 years, Greensboro's golf tournament: originally the Greater Greensboro Open, then the K-mart Greater Greensboro Open, then the Greater Greensboro Chrysler Classic. Greensboro was the rightful and common thread uniting the tournament's storied history. Wyndham deserves no more credit for it than a second husband gets for his wife's first marriage.

Sam Snead did not earn a record setting 8 wins at the Wyndham Championship nor did he become the oldest golfer to win on the PGA Tour at the Wyndham Championship.

Wahoo McDaniel, Evel Knievel,
Bob Bruggers & Lee Travino.

Evel Knievel and Wahoo McDaniel did not play in the ProAm at the  Wyndham Championship.

Fuzzy Zeller did not withdraw from the Wyndham Championship after 21 straight appearances because of controversy over remarks made about newcomer Tiger Woods.

The Greensboro Jaycees did not, for decades, put on the largest Jaycee civic project in the nation at the Wyndham Championship.

No. All of those things happened at the Greensboro Open in one or another of its variational-named iterations. Unlike Wyndham, previous sponsors kept Greensboro in the tournament name. They earned the right to carry the torch of the tournament's history.

The Wyndham Tournament is coming up on its eighth year. Eight. Wyndham began its golf presence here by erasing Greensboro from the name of an historic golf tournament and now they want to pretend they are entitled to retroactively claim its history? To supplant what they've erased with what they seem to think they've purchased? To brand the achievements of others as just another property fully bought and paid for even though they had nothing to do with 67 of its years?

What a crock.


(Hat tip: Knievle, McDaniel ProAm appearance recalled by Ben Holder.)

News & Record changed copyrighted piece without permission

Clarification, from Michael Crowell, the author of the original piece: "I knew they were going to publish it, am glad for papers to do that, did not know they were going to alter it."

GREENSBORO, NC -- There is a letter to the editor in today's News & Record from Michael Crowell, a professor at the UNC School of Government, complaining about the News & Record having published a copyrighted work of his on its editorial pages and editing it without his knowledge or permission. The News & Record attaches a weasley anonymous note to the letter to the editor explaining that the piece was "shortened" to make room for an advertisement. There is no explanation or apology for using the article without permission.

In truth, the News & Record did more than shorten it, substantially, without permission, they also added portions the author did not write and deleted portions that affected the meaning. Here are some selected comparisons of significantly edited portions.

Original:

For the last 30 years North Carolina, like most states, has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s the only way you could register was to go before an official of the local board of elections in person.

In the News & Record's copy:

For the last 30 years, North Carolina has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s, you had to register in person at your county board of elections office.

---------------
Original:

Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote added since 1980 appreciably affect voter turnout or not?

The answer is not clear cut. In tracking voter turnout with election law changes since 1980 it is hard to discern that any particular election law change has made an appreciable difference in how many people vote. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but other presidential elections have not brought as many people to the polls, and turnout in non-presidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 presidential year jumps are simply anomalies, with unusually high interest, and not indicative of any trend.

In the News & Record's copy:

Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote appreciably affect voter turnout?

The answer is not clear. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but turnout in nonpresidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 jumps were anomalies, with unusually high interest.

---------------
Original:

While this review of North Carolina data is not very sophisticated, it is consistent with recent political science research, discussed below, which suggests that early voting may actually decrease voter turnout. The same research shows, on the other hand, that same-day registration and voting can increase turnout somewhat. When done together, early voting and same-day registration neutralize each other. And, as one might expect, factors other than election laws have more to do with how many people vote. 

In the News & Record's copy:

[Removed entirely.]

---------------

Original:

Data about voter turnout and election law changes in North Carolina from 1980 through 2012 is found on this chart... [snip] A list of all elections may be found here.

In the News & Record's copy:

[Removed entirely.]

---------------

Original:

What do the data show about turnout over the 32 years? The chart is a busy document and offers an opportunity for lots of interpretation. Here are a few observations about the data:

In the News & Record's copy:

What do the data show about turnout over these 31 years?

---------------

Original:

Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The turnout percentages for those six elections, and the results of the presidential voting in North Carolina:

• 1980 — 43.9 percent (Reagan edges Carter 49.3 to 47.2 percent)

• 1984 — 48.8 percent (Reagan routs Mondale 61.9 to 37.9 percent)

• 1988 — 43.7 percent (Bush routs Dukakis 58 to 41.7 percent)

• 1992 — 50.1 percent (Bush edges Clinton 43.4 to 42.7 percent)

• 1996 — 44.4 percent (Dole beats Clinton 48.7 to 44 percent)

• 2000 — 49.6 percent (Bush beats Gore 56 to 43.2 percent).

In the News & Record's copy:

Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The low, as noted, occurred in 1988; the high was 50.1 percent in 1992.

---------------

Original:

Possible conclusions?

In the News & Record's copy:

No obvious effects

---------------

Original:

The changes in election law since 1980 do not appear to have appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.

In the News & Record's copy:

The changes in election law since 1980 have not appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.

---------------

Original:

In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 32 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become  noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, the level of media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing their voters. The one state election law change that might be argued to have boosted turnout is the 2007 legislation, repealed in 2013, to extend the  deadline for registering by allowing same-day registration and voting  during the early voting period. With even the most generous assumptions,  however, that change in the law could not be said to account for more than  1.5 percent of turnout.

In the News & Record's copy:

In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 31 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing voters.

Update (4/4/2014): Title changed for accuracy's sake.

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.

It's a matter of transparency

GREENSBORO, NC -- An interesting interchange between Greensboro City Council representative Tony Wilkins and his colleagues at a recent city council work session was captured on video (below).

The City of Greensboro recently asked the International Civil Rights Center & Museum, to which the city is providing funding, to provide a list of all employee salaries. Similarly, Wilkins had asked for the top two salaries for all of the non-profits the city funds, not just the Civil Rights Museum.

Wilkins' request was denied by the city manager who told him Wilkins would have to get five votes first even though, as Wilkins points out in the video, the council did not vote to request the salary information from the Civil Rights Museum.

The video begins with Wilkins asking his colleagues for the votes to get the top two salaries of all city-funded non-profits. What follows is a disappointing display of resistance to Wilkins' request and sorry excuses for why the Civil Rights Museum is "different;" most adamantly, unfortunately, from Mayor Nancy Vaughan.

Wilkins responds:

"It blows my mind that a simple information request that every person in Greensboro should know is now being blocked by part of this council."

Representative (and congressional candidate) Zack Matheny counters:

"Tony, not everybody in this whole world wants to know or cares."

As the meeting is wrapping up and Wilkins is continuing, in measured tones, to press his point, Matheny says:

“I support you. Don’t shoot the guy that supports you. If you keep shooting me, I’ll change my vote.”

Council will vote on the matter at its next meeting.

Hartzman's mean potshots

GREENSBORO, NC -- Local blogger, Yes!Weekly contributor and former mayoral candidate George Hartzman is a prolific writer. Line after line, paragraph after paragraph, post after post of what appear to be meaningful data and information, often seeming to explain some dire accusation of wrong-doing or malfeasance.

It's all really just so much camouflage, though — textual cover for the unfair and mean-spirited potshots Hartzman launches from behind his deliberately constructed blind of inexactness and misdirection. As local blogger Jeff Martin has rightly said, it's McCarthyism; only the targets are not Communists, but rather anybody simply unlucky enough to find themselves in Hartzman's cross-eyed cross hairs.

Here's how it works. Hartzman beings with some unflattering innuendo or incriminating accusation. Then he sets about creating an illusion that his attacks are founded in reason and supported by facts when, in reality, they are built on rhetorical slights of hand and intentional confusion. Here are some of his common techniques:

Interpretive Grammar : The basics matter. Subject, verb, object. Punctuation. Who did what to whom? The basics are requisite for a reasonable evaluation of the soundness of an assertion. Hartzman will often avoid grammatical precision precisely where it is needed the most, where his attacks meet the facts, in order to slither away from accountability. It is enough for Hartzman that it sounds like he could be saying what you think he might be saying. Clarity, however, means accountability, and that is to be avoided.  

Hartzman Example: "I believe Yvonne voted to enrich Skip Alston and Earl Jones, who she has a financial interest via the Simkins Pac, and Skip and Earl stand to profit from the museum after the debt is paid off via the City of Greensboro's bailout, which Yvonne voted for;"

The Mirage: Instead of a statement of fact, he paints an accusation as an appearance. He often deploys this technique with the words "looks like," — an illusion; an unsubstantiated impression as solid as any fact.

Hartzman Example: "Zack Matheny doing what Roy Carroll told him to on economic incentives after what looks like selling taxpayer money to fund his Congressional campaign?" 

The Ghost: To professionals, this is known as the passive voice, a sentence with no subject, where something happens on its own, unattributed to any earthly actor. "The economic benefits were estimated at $12 million," or "Pollution was released into the river," are examples. Who made the estimate? Who released the pollution? A ghost. This is a journalistic no-no for a reason: It's sneaky. It's a linguistic magic trick;  a misdirection. Without knowing to whom we can  attribute the action we cannot evaluate motives or expertise or know where to look for verification or responsibility. Nobody is accountable. With the passive voice, actions are made by invisible ghosts. Hartzman is fond of ghosts.

Hartzman Example: "City staff and council were informed before the vote that some money the museum was to receive did not look like it was merely meant to pay off loans tied to saving the facility..." [This is actually a two-for-one: the passive voice (who informed?) and another "looks like."]

Befuddle: Like Elmer Fudd hunting Bugs Bunny, Hartzman's readers will find themselves just as befuddled wondering "Which way did he go?" when confronted with Hartzman's intentionally confusing formatting. His inconsistent use of quotations marks, sprinkled with ellipses and a mix of right and left justified paragraphs leave one wondering if one is reading Hartzman's words or something written by someone else. The jumbled mess may make sense to Hartzman, but it's cryptic to the rest of us, which is is part and parcel of Hartzmans intentional obfuscation. The harder for us to follow, the better. No need for full comprehension, he'd rather we just get the gist of his innuendo.

Hartzman Example: Here's a good one.

The Sesame Street Game: Do you remember "One of these things doesn't belong here," the Sesame Street song challenging children to identify a thing that did not belong with the others? It is a good song to keep in your head when reading Hartzman, as you will find him slipping in unrelated items to his lists of particulars to bulk up an assertion light on facts. Here he is explaining how former Mayor Robbie Perkins worked to "enrich" Skip Alston:

Harztman Example: "Robbie Perkins, reported to have personally identified and advocated for Mujeeb Shah-Khan to be hired as Greensboro’s City Attorney, was an honorary Chair of the ICRCM/Simkins 2013 golf tournament. Perkins advocated for the museum bailout, employed Alston’s former campaign manager, voted for what appears to have been an unnecessary police settlement, a television show and Skip Alston’s $150,000 commission via the Bessemer Shopping Center deal." 

Can you guess which does not belong? Here's a hint, they all relate to Skip Alston, however tangentially, except for one — unless Hartzman was just associating it with Alston because it also involved black people. (Answer below.)

The Link Dump: Make a post seem well researched and substantiated with a bunch of links to seemingly supporting sources. Hartzman offers no explanation of why the links matter. Click through and one becomes bewildered as to their relevance but, to the uninitiated, the pile of links looks like solid substantiation.

Hartzman Example: This one will do.

Channel Rube Goldberg: Like the convoluted Rube Golderg contraptions where mechanical events cascade crazily from one to another ultimately to perform some incredibly simple task, Hartzman will send his readers down a chute of incomprehensible logorrhoea  instead of just  being concise and clear. Why? Because to be direct and concise would rob Hartzman of the opportunity to deploy his deplorable rhetorical techniques. There is no room for grammatical obfuscation, mirages, ghosts and irrelevancies in directness.

Example at the end of this post.

All of this would not matter if Hartzman were just amusing himself, but Hartzman deploys these techniques in unscrupulous attacks on people. It's malice in a thin disguise.

Sure, many of Hartzman's targets are public officials (but not always) and they are vulnerable to the slings and arrows of any opinion, but that doesn't make what Hartzman does any less malicious. In fact, under the guise of, as he says about himself, wanting to "leave others better off for his having existed," his practices are especially insidious. To the extent they enter the public discourse (and thanks to Yes!Weekly, that is more frequent now) they impede, convolute and distract. They foment fear, mistrust and inspire suspicion. Yes, once in a while, he digs up some nugget of importance, but far too often he is the wolf who cried boy. He's not leaving others better off. He's tearing us down with his malevolent snarling.

---

Answer to the Sesame Street Game: The police settlement. It had nothing to do with Skip Alston. (The television show may also be an acceptable answer. I thought I remembered an association between it and one of Alston's children, but I cannot find anything on the web to substantiate that memory.) Bonus points if you also noticed that the example included a mirage: " voted for what appears to have been..."

Channel Rube Goldberg example: Hartzman writes this as an "explanation" for his claim that Greensboro City Council representative Yvonne Johnson has a financial conflict of interest in the International Civil Rights Center and Museum:

My understanding is if the property pays off the tax credits and debt with the bailout money, the for profit entities go away and the owners of the Sit in Movement non profit own the property, and the exhibits, and won't have property tax obligations.

If the project goes cash flow positive, Skip and Earl can start taking salaries.

The non-profit could sell the property.

The non-profit could become a for profit.

It will be theirs to do what they want with it, after mismanaging the museum.

City Council will have bailed out members of the Simkins PAC, and the Simkins PAC helped put some of the Council in their seats.

Yvonne is in the Simkins PAC. Skip is the Treasurer of the PAC.

Both look like have paid family members from the PAC's assets.

If money changed hands to their kin while the PAC was under their control, Yvonne and Skip have a financial interest in each other.

Yvonne untied herself to the museum to advocate and vote for the museum bailout, which could enrich Skip.

Yvonne was endorsed by the Simkins PAC, whose Treasurer is Skip.

Skip stands to benefit from the museum via Yvonne's actions.

Yvonne stands to benefit from Skip's actions via the Simpkins PAC.

It's a conflict of interest.

According to the city charter, the vote/contract should be nullified by a Council vote.

News & Record erases story about former mayor

GREENSBORO, NC -- On March 19th, the News & Record published a story titled: "Former mayor's ex-wife claims he failed to pay alimony for March."

It began with: "Today the ex-wife of former mayor Robbie Perkins filed a motion for contempt alleging he failed to pay alimony this month" and reported of a claim filed in "Guilford County District Court" alleging that the former mayor missed a $5,292 alimony payment.

The News & Record has removed the story. Without explanation or correction the story has simply vanished. There is only a "not found" error when one visits the previous link to the story. Searches for the story anywhere else on the News & Record's site come up empty.

Why did the News & Record remove this story? If it was in error, we and the parties involved deserve a correction. If it was removed for some other reason, the News & Record, for the sake of its reputation, should explain why.

(Hat tip, Billy Jones)

News & Record's copy and paste "journalism"

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record posted this story to its website today under the byline "staff reports;" the highlighted portions (nearly all of it) were pasted word-for-word from a press release.
--------------

GREENSBORO – Wells Fargo has pledged $250,000 in support of the planned Steven Tanger Center for the Performing Arts, the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro announced today.
“Wells Fargo is proud to support the Tanger Center,” Pete Callahan, regional head of Commercial Banking for Wells Fargo, said in a Community Foundation news release. “This connects directly with the vision and values of our company. We take pride in supporting Greensboro, as well as the arts and culture in our local communities. Our goal is to help build strong and vibrant communities, improve the quality of life, and make a positive difference.”

The $65 million performing center, to be built downtown on land bordered by North Elm and East Lindsay Streets and Summit Avenue, will be financed with $35 million in private donations and $30 million from the city.

Wells Fargo joins other corporate leaders that have pledged support to the Tanger Center, including Lorillard Inc., VF Corporation, Ecolab, Lincoln Financial Group, Morrisette Paper Co., NewBridge Bank, Bank of North Carolina and CityView Apartments, as well as area foundations including the Bell Foundation, the Joseph M. Bryan Foundation of Greater Greensboro, Phillips Foundation, The Cemala Foundation, Tannenbaum-Sternberger Foundation, Zeist Foundation, Toleo Foundation and the Cone Mills Charitable Fund.

“We are so appreciative of this latest show of generosity from our corporate community. Wells Fargo continues to demonstrate the overwhelming, continuing support for this project,” Kathy Manning, who leads the private fundraising efforts, said in the news release.

To date, the Tanger Center has received more than $35 million in commitments, making the project the largest public-private partnership in Greensboro’s history. The Community Foundation, which is assisting volunteer fundraisers who are seeking gifts from the private sector, intends to wrap up the Tanger Center’s major gifts campaign by May 1.

Earlier this month, the Greensboro City Council approved an agreement between the city and The Community Foundation on matters including the design, construction and long-term oversight of the center.

Groundbreaking for the Tanger Center is anticipated to occur this fall, with an opening slated for 2016.

For more information about the Steven Tanger Center for the Performing Arts, visit TangerPerformingArts.com and Facebook.

Mama always said, unequal is as unequal does

From the comments at The Detonator on the International Civil Rights Center & Museum board chair Deena Hayes-Greene's assertion of unequal public scrutiny for city-funded entities:
-----------

She missed an opportunity for some goodwill and positive PR, still, her point remains. Why is the Civil Rights Center and Museum being treated differently? Sure, it’s transparent and proper for the [museum] records to be made publicly accessible, but:

- Why did it take the City nearly four months to respond to a public records request for the publicly-incentivized Wyndham hotel feasibility study?

- Why has the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro, to this day, refused to provide to city council representative Marikay Abujuaiter a list of matching donors to the city’s $250,000 contribution to the performing arts center exploratory efforts? A record she has publicly asked for three times, starting in October of last year and which CFGG president Walker Sanders tells her, each time, is forthcoming, most recently two weeks ago when, at a city council meeting, he said publicly and on the record he would provide to Abuzuaiter “tomorrow” and which he did not do?

- Why is the mayor insisting that the non-profit governing the operations of the performing arts center will have its records made public because it will co-own the facility with the city yet is declining to obligate the non-profit to public transparency in the operating agreement or its by-laws?

- Why does city-supported Downtown Greensboro Incorporated get a pass when it declares some of its records to be off limits to public inspection?

Yes, there is a double standard. The solution is not to give the Civil Rights Museum the same cloak of secrecy that other publicly-funded third parties receive but to extend the same expectations for transparency and public access to all others.

Civil Rights Museum response a warning on performing arts center

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

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

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

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

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

----------

 Dear City Council,

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

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

Cordially,

Roch Smith, Jr.

---------

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

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

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

Update: Edited for clarity.

Harris Teeter's false bargains may be illegal

GREENSBORO, NC -- I've noticed a pricing practice at Harris Teeter that is deceptive at best and may even be illegal. Here's how it works, using some actual examples. After months of a steady price on a particular item, such as Harris Teeter brand tuna fish in a can at $0.79, the price suddenly shoots up astronomically to, in the case of the tuna, $1.19. Luck you though, at the same time, the item immediately goes "on sale." The tuna's sale price, the same day as the price increase, was $1.00.

The unsuspecting shopper sees the yellow sale tag and the "savings" of 19 cents without realizing that, far from any discount, they are actually being conned into paying 21 cents more than yesterday's price.

The same thing just happened with Harris Teeter's gallon of organic milk. For a while, it had been $5.99, often it was on sale for $5.77. Yesterday, the price jumped to $7.79 but was "on sale" for $6.99.

I don't know why Harris Teeter feels they have to try to trick their customers. It's not only mean and manipulative, but it may well constitute the illegal practice of deceptive pricing.

Extra: In the case of the tuna, it has now gone back to $0.79. It never sold for $1.19. It was only advertised as on sale from that price at $1.00. In other words, Harris Teeter promoted a months long temporary 21 cent increase in the price of its tuna as a "sale."

Malaysian airplane hacked?

Can an airplane be hacked? Reprogrammed through malware or a backdoor to shut down communications and fly out to sea until it runs out of fuel? I wondered. Yes, it turns out, that might be possible.

The fire theory seems plausible.

Grits Gauger is oblivious

GREENSBORO, NC -- While he is no longer obsessed with grits, wringing his hands about his inability to find a hot bowl of soup in the South or doing his insulting best to mock his new neighbors, Ohio transplant and News & Record editor and publisher Jeff "Grits" Gauger is still demonstrating himself to be incapable of accurately perceiving the community in which he now lives.

In a rambling defense of his paper's misfires on coverage of the Friendly Avenue/Hobbs Road rezoning, Gauger sticks his head in the sand and blows smoke from his exposed end. Incredibly, Gauger writes this:

"These people, the Trader Joe’s fans, were less visible because they had no leaders and did not organize, speak out or attend meetings. They were the silent many, with a less direct stake in, and thus less passion about, the outcome." 

Gauger is apparently oblivious to what's going on around him — oblivious even to what gets reported in his paper.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans were visible. As early as January, 2012, Trader Joe's fans had started a website called "Bring Trader Joe's to Greensboro"

FACT:  Trader Joe's fans were visible II. The News & Record, in a front page lopsided piece, reported on enthusiasm for Trader Joe's in the area.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans did speak out. The News & Record published a number of letters to the editor from Trader Joe's fans on this issue over the past few months.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans did speak out II. The Bring Trader Joe's to Greensboro website encouraged people to email Greensboro city council in support of the rezoning to accommodate Trader Joe's. Council member Mike Barber is reported to have said that, of the emails he received, a lopsided number were in support of Trader Joe's, as reported by the News & Record.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans were organized. As reported by the News & Record, they formed a committee to coordinate their pro-Trader Joe's message, they put online the aforementioned website and put a sign on the proposed location.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans did have leaders. Identified as far back as January 2012 on their website, they included prominent citizens such as Tony Collins and Chris Lawyer.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Clearly Gauger is wrong that Trader Joe's fans were not organized, not vocal and not visible. They were. Their number may have been small, but it is lame for Gauger to ignore their visibility, organization and involvement only so that he can speculate, ignoring facts to the contrary, that their number constituted a "silent many."

If Gauger thinks there was some large second wave of fans beyond those he has ignored, then let him demonstrate as much. Otherwise, Guager is simply offering us more unthinking blather.

Related: Ed Cone: "Show your work, Gauger"

Greensboro March madness: one night, three shootings, six victims

GREENSBORO, NC -- From Greensboro Police reports:

UPDATE: Suspect information corrected for Castlewood Drive shooting.

Time: 10:55 P.M., 03/15
Location: Ogden and Doak streets.
Victim: Kendrick Gilbert, back male, 18
Injuries: Non-life threatening injury, transported to local hospital
Suspects: First, black male, blue shirt and/or blue hooded shirt; second, black male. Both last seen in the area of Lee and South Eugene streets fleeing in a white Dodge Neon.

Time: 2:23 A.M., 03/16
Location: 800 block of Castlewood Drive
Victim: Joseph Majak, back male, 18
Injuries: Non-life threatening injury , transported to local hospital
Suspects: No suspect information.

Time: 3:35 A.M., 03/16
Location: 2216 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Victims: Four victims, no descriptions
Injuries:  All transported to local hospitals, one in critical condition
Suspects: Black male, approximately 5'8" to 5'10" tall, last seen wearing a white shirt and black jeans.

Hayworth, Collins opinion takes flight in myth

GREENSBORO, NC -- There is an opinion piece on the Friendly Avenue/Hobbs Road rezoning by Cyndy Hayworth and Tony Collins published in the News & Record. It wags a callous finger at neighbors concerned about commercial encroachment into their neighborhood and is crafted primarily on name-calling, questionable assumptions and irrelevancies.

One of the few "facts" Hayworth and Collins put forth in their attempt to justify their opinion that neighbors shouldn't complain about development threating the peace and sanctity of their homes is this:

"We didn’t want FedEx but it is one of the reasons our economic losses weren't greater during the recession."

The recession lasted from December of 2007 until June of 2009, ending the very month in which the hub opened — and worse for Hayworth's and Collins' assertion, it opened by transferring some 160 existing airport facility jobs to the new hub.

Name-calling, supposition and fantasy do not make a persuasive argument.

An open letter to Greensboro's mayor

Dear Mayor Vaughan,

I hope you are enjoying your time as mayor. Just a few months in and you and your colleagues have tackled some big issues. From the cheap seats, it looks like you are doing a pretty good job (I really appreciated your willingness to engage a speaker from the floor at the last meeting who had questions about the performing arts center deal — you were respectful and knowledgeable, as was he, and that exchange addressed some important matters. It was a refreshing change from the curt and arrogant dismissals of your predecessor.)

Remember when you had just been elected and I made you aware of the giant Chinese electronics manufacturer Foxconn's announcement of its intentions to open two new manufacturing plants in the United States—one east and one west—and suggested that you should take the initiative to personally, as mayor, begin a dialogue with Foxconn to recruit them here? You replied that you intended to do as much as you could to recruit new industry to our city.

There is news today of another economic opportunity that could benefit greatly our fair city, news that should, once again, motivate you to take on the role of Greensboro's ambassador and personally act on our behalf. RST fiber, a North Carolina company, has announced it has activated a new super fast internet backbone in the state. It intends to provide internet and other broadband services to rural and urban customers.

I know nothing about this company, nothing about their capabilities and reputation, but we can get to that later. Today, you should call the CEO of RST, his name is Dan Limerick, tell him what a great market Greensboro would be for his company's services and invite him to begin an exploration of how to bring his broadband to Greensboro with you as a personal liaison between him and Greensboro's government.

You could tell him of Greensboro's long dissatisfaction with Time Warner Cable's price gouging, how, with TWC about to be taken over by Comcast (two companies that consistently both rank near the bottom of customer service surveys) it is sure to create even greater demand for an alternative in this market where TWC is the only broadband provider, how Greensboro demonstrated great exuberance for Google fiber, how our 110,000 households and broad range of industries will all make an excellent market for RST and that we should be at the top of his list.

Now, I'm sure there will be people waving you off of this idea with the caution that this is just not how it's done, that there are certain protocols and experts in economic recruitment at your disposal who can work up a proper pitch involving the eleven county greater piedmont triad conglomeration of sticksvilles, hicksvilles and backwater boonies but, in the words of the late great George Harrison, "F*** all that."

For now, today, let's have Greensboro — yes Greensboro, our city, not the nebulous "region" — get its foot in the door, first, prominently and personally, for a change.

Will you do that for us?

Cordially,
Roch

I'd short the heck out of Adobe

GREENSBORO, NC -- As a web developer, I use a variety of software. One of my favorites is Adobe's Dreamweaver. I'm looking for an alternative now. The reason I'm willing to start looking for an alternative to a product I love is that Adobe will no longer sell updated versions. Instead of allowing people to purchase their software and update it with new versions (Dreamweaver and other applications), Adobe has moved to a "software as service" model, where one "rents" the software as part of Adobe's "Creative Cloud", paying a monthly or yearly fee.

Adobe is trying to market this new model as an improvement, touting constant updates and project storage in the "cloud." Here's the thing, though: even under the purchase model, regular updates can be made periodically, so there really is minimal advantage there and the whole cloud storage "advantage" is ignorant of a couple of factors.

First, who uses Dreamweaver? Web designers and developers. We have servers, our own or our clients'. Our work already has a home in the "cloud." Inviting us to store our work product on servers over which we have no control is not appealing, and that leads to the second point: Adobe was just hacked a few months ago and 3 million user accounts were compromised. I had such an account, my user name and password were among those compromised. Fortunately, I only used that information to access Adobe message forums and the password was unique to Adobe.

Imagine if I was storing my clients' data and code with Adobe at the time of the hack. Sure, hacks happen, but to store my work product with a big juicy target like Adobe when there is no real benefit (remember, I'm already storing it online elsewhere) is just not a selling point.

For these "advantages" that aren't really advantages, Adobe wants me to start paying a monthly fee. Like I said, I'll look at alternatives first (and there seem to be some good ones).

Yes, this is anecdotal, but I'm likely not alone. And yes, Adobe is undertaking some new endeavors beyond software that could pay off big, but they are in a crowded field. And I'm no investing expert by any means, but when a fan of a core product starts to feel compelled to consider alternatives, I have to doubt the legitimacy of a $70 stock price that reflects a 121 price to earnings ratio in a company with declining top line revenue.

The short interest in Adobe is small right now (1.2%), so I must be wrong, but I won't be surprised to see those shorts rewarded, not that I'm happy about it.


(DISCLOSURE: I don't have any investment, short or long, in Adobe or any of its competitors.)

Update: PE ratio corrected.

Speak up when it's not your backyard

GREENSBORO, NC -- There is a letter to the News & Record today in which writer Spence Miller complains about the News & Record's lopsided coverage of the Hobbs Road/Friendly Avenue rezoning which, if approved, would accommodate expansion of commercial development into a residential neighborhood. The development would, reportedly, include a Trader Joe's grocery store.

Miller is right to complain. The News & Record has a very long history of slanting its reporting, often not so subtly, when it decides to abandon its role as a news organization and become, instead, a champion of some project or development. I can remember lopsided reporting as far back as the coverage of the FedEx cargo hub, some fourteen years ago, when information in support of the hub was put forth as unassailable gospel while the concerns of neighbors were misrepresented or challenged at every turn. That's what happens when the News & Record chooses boosterism over reporting and it's a choice it makes time and time again. Even now.

Miller is right that the News & Record has, as he put it, "confused the issue" surrounding the rezoning threatening his neighborhood. The N&R has once again decided to cheer-lead instead of report with clarity. One need look no further than Jonelle Davis' recent front page puff piece stuffed with Trader Joe's employees, public relations consultants and out-of-town fans singing the praises of the chain and lacking any substantive reporting of the reasons for the objections to the rezoning to see what the News & Record is doing.

Their cheering continued yesterday with a "report" about a seemingly grassroots "pro" Trader-Joe's group that failed to explore who is behind the group or what their interests might be.

So, yes, Miller is absolutely correct, the News & Record is engaged in "lopsided journalism," as he wrote. Here's the thing though: If you wait to speak up about lopsided reporting only until it affects your backyard it will never change. The next time Miller sees neighborhoods being unfairly overwhelmed by News & Record boosterism, he should speak up even if it is not his backyard under threat — just as I am doing now on his behalf on an issue that does not affect my neighborhood. We have to stand up for each other, not just ourselves.

Friendly Center's opportunity

GREENSBORO, NC -- Friendly Center is cracking down on panhandlers. Arrests have been made and the News & Record reports that Brad Rogers, the center's general manager, is pushing the police to do more. The N&R's report includes a profile of a regular panhandler who lost his food service job.

Here's an idea, instead of making life harder for people down on their luck, why doesn't Mr. Rogers take a different kind of initiative. Friendly Center is home to something like 150 stores, some 40 or so are dining establishments. Maybe Friendly Center can help the people hovering around its property out of economic need find some employment within instead of adding trouble to their  lives by calling the cops on them.

Doug Clark's cloudy view; "Nay," I say, "Nay!"

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record's Doug Clark bemoans what he perceives as a pervasive "coarseness" in Greensboro's public discourse. He cites what he sees as multiple examples of "naysaing" ranging from objections to the downtown baseball stadium to questions asked about the performing arts center. It is typical to the antiquated South that merely challenging people in authority is considered coarse, but that is a vestige of this place that lingers on, I don't fault Clark for that.

Clark falters, however, in assuming that his myriad examples are all of a piece. They are not. While Clark would have us believe progress in Greensboro is impeded by some monolithic group of "naysayers," suspicion and distrust springs forth from people as varied as Clark's examples. Sometimes there are objections from people interested in protecting their property or enterprise against encroachment or subsidized competition, sometimes there are civic-minded objections to the self-dealings of people in power, often there are genuine high-minded concerns of fiduciary responsibility of public funds or the protection of the disenfranchised. There is no one group nor one motivation that explains the "naysayers" however convenient to to his misconception it might be for Clark to think so.

There is, however, one common consistency across Clark's examples. It is the News & Record's failure to stand up for transparency and an honest brokering of the facts; to, in a nutshell, capitulate to a favorable opinion under the guise of being prudent and fair but without transparency or complete information. By so often siding with unchallenged propaganda, the News & Record contributes to the need for "naysayers."

From the Fed-Ex hub, to the Ballpark, to the Black Book, the News & Record opinion writers pretended to exercise prudence and sound judgment while failing to ever acknowledge, much less learn from the lessons of time. To these examples that they promoted, specifically, the News & Record never acknowledged: that the promised hub jobs they touted never materialize, that the stadium built with non-profit funds did get quietly transfered to the private team owners, one of whom is president of the non-profit, and its predecessor War Memorial stadium has been left to crumble, and that when we "got to the bottom" of the black book, as they insisted we must, it was nothing like what was described by elected officials for whom the News & Record had carried water.

The News & Record never sought to restore public trust by revisiting these issues and examining how well, or not, their opinions ended up aligning with eventual realities. Although Clark will write a litany of complaints against the "naysayers" neither he nor his colleagues have ever written about time having proven the "naysayers" to have been right about some things. Neither the News & Record nor the "naysayer" have a perfect record, but from the News & Record's perspective, their own misfires are to be ignored while citizens who engage and ask questions are an annoyance to be mitigated. Failing to ever acknowledge their misjudgments — and those occurred on some pretty darn big issues — while at the same time attempting to marginalizing the "naysayers" whose concerns and opinions time has proven legitimate is despicable.

Too often the "naysayers" were right in recognizing some bullshit in the public discourse and too often, the News & Record has carried water for propagandist and been but paper tigers in their pretense of objectivity.

If there is any doubt of this indictment against the News & Record, we have a convenient and timely test: In January, the News & Record wrote this about the negotiations between the city of Greensboro and the non-profit pushing for a downtown performing arts center:

"[C]ity leaders should negotiate an agreement that protects taxpayers’ best interests and preserves the public’s trust."

Now that a tentative deal has been reached, will the News & Record be an honest broker and weigh the facts against its own expectations for protection of the taxpayers' interests? The deal struck relies on blatantly unrealistic financial projections ($25 VIP parking will be sold-out not only for every performance, but for every rehearsal and every load-in, for example). That revenue will surely fail to materialize and taxpayers will be on the hook for additional financial subsidies. The deal also puts the city on the hook for any donor contributions that do not materialize, will the News & Record incorporate these facts and other facts about taxpayer risk into their support of the deal and acknowledge that additional taxpayer subsides are surely in the cards or, with calm assurances and a blind eye, will they gloss over the details and tell readers everything is copasetic and their expectations have been met? Watchdogs or paper tigers? We'll see.

In the mean time, Greensboro needs its naysayers who, often, are really just boosters without blinders. If the News & Record cannot rise to meet the needs of this community for real advocates of honesty and transparency, it can at least avoid trying to marginalize those who care enough to give a damn but who also have enough respect for themselves and their neighbors not to acquiesce to half truths and propaganda. It is, after all, difficult to remain cordial when being marginalized.

On closer inspection, PAC scheme worse than thought

GREENSBORO, NC -- After posting yesterday's open letter to Greensboro's City Council, I have come to better understand the financing scheme being put together for the performing arts center. It's worse than I thought for the people of Greensboro. In a nutshell, rather than the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro (CFGG) or donors putting put up a portion of their own assets to guarantee their $35 million in pledges towards the project's $65 projected costs, a separate non-profit will be created that will own the center for the first ten years and put it up as collateral for the donor pledges.

That inspired another letter to city council:
-------------

Hello Folks,

Since writing to you yesterday with some questions about the memorandum of understanding on the performing arts center, I have come to better understand the ownership issue and it is even more discomforting.

If I have this right, the City will not own the center for the first ten years while it is used as collateral for the bank backing of the donor contributions. Then, after ten years, even if all has gone according to plan and ownership successfully transfers to the city, the city can only further transfer the center by giving it away to the non-profit; no other options.

I hope it is as obvious to you, as it is to me, the kind of financial jeopardy to which that scheme exposes the citizens of Greensboro. Should something go awry in the first ten years -- cost overruns, donor contributions fall short, loan default by the non-profit or some other fiscal speed bump -- the people of Greensboro will be over a barrel: Either come up with more money to ameliorate whatever problem may have arisen, even if it was the responsibility of other parties, or lose ownership of the center and our tens of millions put in it. Even if we successfully pass the ten year mark and the center transfers to the city, the center would be encumbered in a way unlike any other city property: ours, but not to do with what we will.

This alternative strikes me as simpler and more fair: Have the CFGG and the PAC donors, especially those whose names will supplant Greensboro in the naming of the facility (even though we are its largest financial contributor), have them get a bank letter underwritten by their assets instead of "borrowing" public property to underwrite their financial promises. The Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro has $146 million in assets, why must it put public property at risk to back its donor pledges instead of using its own massive assets? If that is a risk they are unwilling to take, we should ask why.

Yours,

Roch

Correction: This post has been updated with the correct amount of the donor pledges.

Letter to city council on performing arts center agreement

GREENSBORO, NC -- The City of Greensboro has released a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the terms by which the city and the Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro (CFGG) propose to proceed with the performing arts center (PAC).

Reading it prompted me to send this to City Council:
------------

 Hi Folks,

 Regarding the PAC MOU:

 1. How about memorializing some transparency? Specifically: agreeing that all records pertaining to the operation and governance of the facility, including those generated by the non-profit entity, shall be publicly available in conformity with North Carolina public records law.

 2. Where is it specified who will own the center? Although one of the final paragraphs refers to the possibility of what happens if the CIty no longer desires to own the PAC, nowhere do I see where it is specified that the city will own it to begin with.

 3. It seems a really bad idea that, if the city no longer wants to own the PAC, CFGG will assume ownership. That is ripe, in my opinion, for trouble. A future council could decide that they don't want the PAC and, instead of selling it to the benefit of taxpayers, they would have no option but to give it to CFGG. Shoot, they could decide not to own it just to make that happen.

 4. The donor's bank loan will be collateralize by the facility? Has anyone thought about the implications if they should default? How does that then work with a bank owning half the facility or eventually selling it to a private entity? Do the donors remain in the governing body if they default?

 5. It seems unwise to exempt certain board members from term limits.

Yours,

Roch

Dang right!

GREENSBORO, NC -- Blogger Dang (Eric Robert) recently joined the board of tax-payer funded Downtown Greensboro Incorporated (DGI). Although having only attended two meetings so far, he is bothered by the board's lack of transparency, tight-fisted rule and self-dealings. He has some excellent suggestions for improving public trust in DGI that should apply to all non-profits that receive public funding.

He suggests:

• Record board meetings electronically. 
• Respond to requests for information about the organization in accordance with public records law.
• Structure organizations so the operations are transparent and understood without multiple layers of foundations, shelters and holding companies.
• Don't use P.R. consultants as a means to avoid being honest and forthcoming.
• Diversify boards so that the members reflect the community at-large.

Some of these recommendations can only serve as guideposts at best. Only records of government business are subject to North Carolina public records law, for example, but that doesn't mean that non-profit boards receiving public largess cannot strive to be more open.

Also, when elected officials and public staff who sit on non-profit boards in their official capacities receive records from the non-profit, such as meeting minutes and audits, they should, as a matter of course, make those publicly available as the City of Greensboro refreshingly did last week, posting online minutes and audits from board meetings of the International Civil Rights Center & Museum. In the possession of government officials serving on boards because of their official capacities, such documents become public records (see Greensboro Attorney's opinion, page 2).

Robert was a long-time critic of Downtown Greensboro Incorporated. I was rather surprised when I heard he got a seat on their board. They must have thought he could bring something to the table. Now, he has. These are good ideas not just for DGI, but for all non-profits that benefit from public financing. The City of Greensboro should consider making them mandatory conditions for receiving public funds.

Should Greensboro council have voted on attorney in open meeting?

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

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

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

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

Yes! Weekly publisher resorts to plagiarism

UPDATE: Yes!Weekly's publisher, from the comments:

"Obviously, it was not intentional on my part to confuse you or anyone as a reader of our blog as in no way did I try to claim it as my original work. I just posted it. My goal was to get the information "released" to me...the "press" out to our readers as timely as possible."

GREENSBORO, NC -- The publisher of Yes! Weekly recently dismissed its editor. The reporting staff soon left too, leaving Yes! publisher Charles Womack in a tough spot. Still, desperation is no reason to resort to publishing press releases word-for-word under the publisher's name even though he did not write them.

That's plagiarism.

Here is the post on Yes! Weekly's blog attributed to publisher Charles.

Here is the press release from the City of Greensboro. They are identical.

Rolled

GREENSBORO, NC -- You know what would be good for the struggling News & Record? Another big advertiser. One who isn't in this market yet - a brand new revenue source; one that would regularly do large advertising runs a few times a week. Someone like a grocery store.

Thus we get this shameful puff piece of front page crap boosterism by Jonelle Davis singing the praises of Trader Joe's. Although neighbors are fighting the location of a Trader Joe's in their neighborhood, pushing back against further expansion of commercial development, Davis' cheer leading barely acknowledges their existence much less their concerns.

Instead of balanced reporting or actual news, Davis brings us a lopsided Trader-Joe's sploogefest, droning on with enthusiastic anecdotes from media relations people. Once again, the News & Record has thrown a neighborhood under the bus, but never have its self-interested motives been so obvious. This marks a new low.

Not so fast, pally; Council shares responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

Triad Stage triumphs with "Anna Christie"

GREENSBORO, NC -- I went to see Triad Stage's production of Eugene O'Neil's Anna Christie on Saturday.

O'Neil's plays famously give actors and audiences plenty to chew on. With Anna Christie he takes us on a soul wrenching exploration of failed people certain they are beyond redemption and what they discover about the restorative power of forgiveness, both extended to others and given to ourselves.

It would be easy to take the serious themes of Anna Chrsitie and sink a production into one-dimensional gloom. Under Preston Lane's able direction, however, the play succeeds brilliantly at reaching the depths of existential angst while bobbing back up to moments of glimmering hope and twinkles of love. This beautiful interplay has us wondering until the very end if we are in for a tragic or uplifting story.

The play's real triumph is the acting. It is not easy to draw characters who are, in many ways, repugnant and yet have us pulling for them. To be at once convincingly decayed and yet inspire affection and hope, as does this cast, requires a complexity that is often out of reach for all but the best of professionals. Gardner Reed as the prodigal Anna and Gordon Joseph Weiss as Chris, her drunken barge captain father, craft such overwhelmingly complete and robust characters that they manage the rare feat of being more real than real whilst maintaining believability and credibility. Truly, these are awe inspiring performances.

Supporting actors Christine Morris, a professor at UNC-Greensboro, as Chris' crusty drinking buddy and Matthew Bellows as Anna's hothead suitor deliver compelling performances. Morris also was the production's vocal coach. Weiss and Reed's characters were enthralling in no small part because of their voices. From Weiss' wonderfully authentic Norwegian accent and Anna's perfectly blended Norwegian-born/Minnesota-raised dialect, to Weiss' snorts and chortles and Anna's breathy sobs, to the extent these perfected vocals were fostered by Morris' coaching, her greatest contribution may have been off stage.

Anna Christie runs through March 2nd. Tickets may be purchased online. The play is presented in three-quarter round which might tempt one to avoid seats on the sides, but the production was blocked (staged) so well that sight lines were never a problem from our seats stage right and, since this is where one is closest to the stage, you may find you enjoy, as did I, the more intimate proximity of section 101 (or section 211, stage left). No matter where you sit, Anna Christie is a great story with stellar performances. You should not miss it.

Room for improvement

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

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

No need for befuddlement on Civil Rights Museum

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

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

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

It's not about the Civil Rights Museum

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

That's a bad idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greensboro's off-limits mayor

GREENSBORO, NC -- Why does Mayor of Greensboro Nancy Vaughan post her commentary on city government behind a mandatory Facebook login? I'd like to read what the mayor has to say about possible criminal actions of city staff in improperly executing a contract awarding a $750,000 loan to the International Civil Rights Museum -- especially after the Mayor recently voted to approve raises for the City staff utlimatley responsible: Former City Manager Denise Turner-Roth and City Attorney Mujeeb Shah-Kahn.

I can't read the mayor's commentary though, because, like 60% of Americans, I don't use Facebook and the mayor's online communications are exclusive to Facebook.

Madam Mayor, we're interested in what you have to say. How about saying it on the public side of Facebook's walls?

(Same question for you, Councilman Tony Wilkins.)

Over the head of the News & Record editor

GREENSBORO, NC -- News & Record editor and publisher Jeff  "Grtis" Gauger has a problem with his weekly competitor, The Rhino Times. He finds the Rhino's headline accompanying an article about the retirement of Guilford County commissioner Linda Shaw "odd and daft."

The headline is  "Harper Valley Honey Hangs It Up" -- Grits says the headline is a real "head-scratcher" for an accompanying article he describes as a "straight-ahead account" of an interview with Shaw.

100 bucks says he didn't read the article. If he had, he'd find therein this more than obvious reason for the headline:

Shaw got an early start in life in high-profile elected positions when, at the age of 26, she was elected to serve as president of a PTA in Nashville.  Normally, PTA president isn’t something that counts as a high-profile job.  However, while Shaw was serving in that capacity in 1968, it became one of the highest profile positions in the country: At that time, the hit song Harper Valley PTA, written by Tom T. Hall and sung by Jeannie C. Riley, took the country by storm.

“I was living in Nashville, Tennessee, in the ’60s,” Shaw said.  “When I lived there I was president of the Harpeth Valley PTA, on which the song was based.”

“Tom T. Hall lived a few blocks away,” Shaw said of the songwriter.

The giant hit, Harper Valley PTA, is the story of a mother who wears her skirts too short and perhaps drinks too much, and who gets a note from the PTA rebuking her actions.  In the song, the woman goes to a meeting and calls out the PTA members on their hypocrisy, and the daughter recounts, “the day my momma socked it to the Harper Valley PTA.”

Shaw said that, when the song became a hit, her phone was ringing off the hook from reporters calling.

“I got calls from all over the country,” she said.  “They would ask, ‘What do you think of the song?’”

Shaw said that, at that time she wore some short skirts, but hers weren’t too short she said, adding that they generally fell just above the knees.

One might think the Rhino could have written a more laudable headline appropriate to the carreer of Shaw's public service but, regardless, the headline is not the mystery it was to Gauger. It was relevant to the interesting anecdote of the beginning of Shaw's long political career. Gauger's knee jerk potshots are the real head-scratcher.  

News & Record clear as mud

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record reported today about the proposed downtown "Union Square Campus":

"Organizers plan to build a $40 million health care building in the first phase of the project. UNCG, N.C. A&T and GTCC will move nursing programs to this new location." 

I don't know about you but that sounds all encompassing, as if the nursing programs would be moving. Not "some" programs, not "a program," but a mass relocation of the nursing programs -- that's the way I read it. You?

The dean of UNCG's School of Nursing,  Robin Remsburg, confirms to this blogger, "Most of the nursing programs in the UNCG School of Nursing are currently and will continue to be delivered on the UNCG campus."

Remsberg did say UNCG plans to lease space in the proposed downtown facility for its new Doctor of Nursing program.

The News & Record certainly could have made that more clear, but they've been known to let boosterism cloud their reporting before.