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.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
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:
-------------
Correction: This post has been updated with the correct amount of 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.
Monday, February 24, 2014
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:
------------
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:
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
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:
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:
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.
"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.
Friday, February 21, 2014
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.
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:
Documents made available by the city include an email from then city manager Denise Turner-Roth sent to council that says:
Did any of them object then? Because they sure seem awfully indignant now.
"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.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
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?
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
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.)
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.)
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
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:
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.
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
News & Record clear as mud
GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record reported today about the proposed downtown "Union Square Campus":
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.
"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.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Civil rights only for "ordinary people"?
GREENSBORO, NC -- There was a line in President Obama's State of the Union address last night that jumped out at me:
The United States Constitution does not confine its protections to some arbitrary definition of "ordinary" people. Indeed, the notion that venturing to extraordinary means relinquishing the right to privacy is a chilling warning that you better stay in line. Thomas Payne, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Susan B. Anthony were anything but "ordinary people."
What kind of America are we headed to when remaining ordinary is a requirement for keeping one's Constitutional civil rights?
"That's why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that privacy of ordinary people is not being violated."That does not inspire confidence.
The United States Constitution does not confine its protections to some arbitrary definition of "ordinary" people. Indeed, the notion that venturing to extraordinary means relinquishing the right to privacy is a chilling warning that you better stay in line. Thomas Payne, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Susan B. Anthony were anything but "ordinary people."
What kind of America are we headed to when remaining ordinary is a requirement for keeping one's Constitutional civil rights?
News & Record: Sleepwalking through illusion
GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record has reported on more than one occasion of the economic projections of the proposed "Project Haystack" and attributed them to a study paid for by the City of Greensboro.
Indeed, the City paid a company $48,000 to conduct a study of the project. I've obtained a copy of what the City of Greensboro says is that study (you can see it here) and it contains none of the economic projections the News & Record says it does.
Why would the News & Record report the contents of a study they obviously did not read?
From an article by Joe Killian on December 14, 2013:
Why does this matter?
Economic studies, when the do evaluate jobs and investments, begin by making a set of assumptions. We—one assumes that includes local journalists—must have access to those assumptions to evaluate the legitimacy of the conclusions. It is not enough to simply take it for granted that because there was a "study" its conclusions are reasonable and it is certainly not enough to report on the contents of a study without taking a look at it so that we will avoid coming to think it reports something it does not.
It is essential for us to have accurate information in order for us to have a reality-based understanding of our public policy. If local media cannot provide that to us, they have no value and are simply encouraging us to sleepwalk though a dreamscape of illusions.
Indeed, the City paid a company $48,000 to conduct a study of the project. I've obtained a copy of what the City of Greensboro says is that study (you can see it here) and it contains none of the economic projections the News & Record says it does.
Why would the News & Record report the contents of a study they obviously did not read?
From an article by Joe Killian on December 14, 2013:
"A feasibility study funded by the city of Greensboro projected a possible $6.5 billion in private investment and the creation of 5,349 jobs over the next 20 years. "From an article by Nancy McLaughlin on January 24, 2014:
"A study paid for by the city of Greensboro describes a 3-square-mile campus in eastern Guilford and western Alamance counties that could create more than 5,300 full- and part-time jobs and attract $6.5 billion in private investment over the next 20 years."Those estimations are just not there. Not in the source to which they are attributed. Take a look at the study for yourself. There is nothing that relates to job projections or that estimates investment. The study evaluates available infrastructure: roads, broadband, electricity, etc. It does not make any economic projections and mentions nothing about jobs or private investment.
Why does this matter?
Economic studies, when the do evaluate jobs and investments, begin by making a set of assumptions. We—one assumes that includes local journalists—must have access to those assumptions to evaluate the legitimacy of the conclusions. It is not enough to simply take it for granted that because there was a "study" its conclusions are reasonable and it is certainly not enough to report on the contents of a study without taking a look at it so that we will avoid coming to think it reports something it does not.
It is essential for us to have accurate information in order for us to have a reality-based understanding of our public policy. If local media cannot provide that to us, they have no value and are simply encouraging us to sleepwalk though a dreamscape of illusions.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
What if the N&R editors' daughters were sex slaves?
GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record published an opinion today on human trafficking in Greensboro that comes to a nice moderate conclusion:
"Urgency has its place here, but so does patience."
That is the kind of opinion one can form while safely isolated from any understanding of, or empathy for, the real human situation.
Here is what the piece would look like if the women involved included the News & Record editors' daughters.
----------------
Our daughters, "Porche" and "Kitty" (their work names) are trapped. They trusted a man who offered them jobs and glamor in a foreign country and who even offered to pay for their travel and living expenses (as a loan, to be paid back out of their employment with interest.) The man seemed legitimate, he even bought us bicycles (also to be paid for from our daughters' wages, with interest). That was nice.
Well, wouldn't you know it, it turns out that the "jobs" Porche and Kitty have are all about rubbing naked men. All of the money the customers pay goes to the employer; Porche and Kittly earn their own money, to pay off the travel and bicycle loans, by performing "extra" services.
We really, really, really wish our daughters would just leave, but they are under the constant supervision of their employer (they live at his apartment) who reminds them that they still owe him money and that his associates know where we, their families, live.
The local police visited once and Porche and Kitty ran out the back door and hid behind some bushes, but the police gathered them up and brought them back inside. We are not sure why the police didn't take them to a safe place. There was probably a language barrier.
We would like for the police to go back, this time with a translator who can understand Porche and Kitty and perhaps with some sort of social worker who can help them get to a safe place, but the police tell us that they are conducting a larger investigation of a criminal nexus across the region that makes this impractical. They can't say much about it but, apparently, attempting to get Porche and Kitty out of indentured servitude would thwart their larger plans. So they have to stay put.
We understand.
We love our daughters very much and we'd like to have them stop being coerced to perform sex acts with men for other peoples' economic gain as soon as practical, but let's be reasonable: if it takes a few more months or another year or two of our daughters prostituting themselves so that the police can continue their ongoing investigation, that's fine with us.
Urgency has its place here, but so does patience.
We love you, Porche and Kitty. We hope to see you soon. Stay safe and remember to brush your teeth.
"Urgency has its place here, but so does patience."
That is the kind of opinion one can form while safely isolated from any understanding of, or empathy for, the real human situation.
Here is what the piece would look like if the women involved included the News & Record editors' daughters.
----------------
Our daughters, "Porche" and "Kitty" (their work names) are trapped. They trusted a man who offered them jobs and glamor in a foreign country and who even offered to pay for their travel and living expenses (as a loan, to be paid back out of their employment with interest.) The man seemed legitimate, he even bought us bicycles (also to be paid for from our daughters' wages, with interest). That was nice.
Well, wouldn't you know it, it turns out that the "jobs" Porche and Kitty have are all about rubbing naked men. All of the money the customers pay goes to the employer; Porche and Kittly earn their own money, to pay off the travel and bicycle loans, by performing "extra" services.
We really, really, really wish our daughters would just leave, but they are under the constant supervision of their employer (they live at his apartment) who reminds them that they still owe him money and that his associates know where we, their families, live.
The local police visited once and Porche and Kitty ran out the back door and hid behind some bushes, but the police gathered them up and brought them back inside. We are not sure why the police didn't take them to a safe place. There was probably a language barrier.
We would like for the police to go back, this time with a translator who can understand Porche and Kitty and perhaps with some sort of social worker who can help them get to a safe place, but the police tell us that they are conducting a larger investigation of a criminal nexus across the region that makes this impractical. They can't say much about it but, apparently, attempting to get Porche and Kitty out of indentured servitude would thwart their larger plans. So they have to stay put.
We understand.
We love our daughters very much and we'd like to have them stop being coerced to perform sex acts with men for other peoples' economic gain as soon as practical, but let's be reasonable: if it takes a few more months or another year or two of our daughters prostituting themselves so that the police can continue their ongoing investigation, that's fine with us.
Urgency has its place here, but so does patience.
We love you, Porche and Kitty. We hope to see you soon. Stay safe and remember to brush your teeth.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
N&R's online commenting scheme shrinks youth access
GREENSBORO, NC -- When the News & Record implemented a mandatory Facebook login for story comments last year, I originally thought that bringing to their attention the fact that people could not even read comments on the N&R site without allowing Facebook tracking cookies might have inspired them to implement an alternative to the Facebook-or-nothing comments. Not so.
Maybe this will have them reconsider: Young people are leaving Facebook in droves.
Since 2011:
AGE
13-17: -25.3%
18-24: -7.9%
A mandatory Facebook login to comment or read comments should never have been implemented to begin with. Although it was defended as a way for people to have to use their "real" (haha) identities and, therefore, raise the quality of comments, it was short-sighted and deficient ( -- and a policy so conducive to the free exchange of ideas that the government of Communist China has just implemented a real-identity mandate too).
Now that the must-Facebook requirement has tied the N&R to a diminution of young readers will the N&R take note and make a change?
Maybe this will have them reconsider: Young people are leaving Facebook in droves.
Since 2011:
AGE
13-17: -25.3%
18-24: -7.9%
A mandatory Facebook login to comment or read comments should never have been implemented to begin with. Although it was defended as a way for people to have to use their "real" (haha) identities and, therefore, raise the quality of comments, it was short-sighted and deficient ( -- and a policy so conducive to the free exchange of ideas that the government of Communist China has just implemented a real-identity mandate too).
Now that the must-Facebook requirement has tied the N&R to a diminution of young readers will the N&R take note and make a change?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
