News-Record.com

John, if you aren't willing to release the whole report so the public can interpret it, you had no business characterizing/interpreting it yourself in today's story. That really isn't fair, is it?

Mr. Spagnola, please explain why you think it "isn't fair" for the N&R not to distribute the report.

I will give you my opinion. Lorainne and Eric have hinted from day 1 that Wray is a racist and that Hinson was unfairly targeted.

Now you have a leaked copy of a confidential report that all but certifies your original thesis (don't give the objectivity line, we all know humans have emotional filters) but are not distributing it in full view for the public to digest. Given the spirit of the web and the easy dissemination via .pdf files (ex. Manning letter posted on Chalkboard) why can't you post the RMA report?

It isn't fair for the newspaper to pic and chose what parts of an as yet undisclosed document to make public while hiding behind the source agreement shield. If the document does not contain identifying information, then by all means it should be released.

Lex, you are the champion of the freedom of the web. Let the web be free.

Fairness really isn't the issue, Lex. Failure to share the report is antithetical to the idea of the free flow of information. If you have any understanding of and appreciation for open journalism, you'll publish the report in its entirety post haste. To not do so sends a message, loud and clear, that the N&R is interested in continuing it's antiquated role of gatekeeper -- as the informed elite, above and superior to the hoi polloi who do not deserve to know what it knows.

Did your source have permission to "leak" the report to the N&R? If not, is the source in violation of an employment agreement requiring him NOT to disclose confidential information?
Since this is confidential work info available only to employees of the city government, isn't the N&R a party/co-conspirator in a serious ethical violation by a government employee?
If the "leaking" employee is fired or sued because of his ethical and confidentiality violation, how does that reflect on the N&R?

Lex, why do you keep butting in when people ask questions of Mr. Robinson? Why don't you stick to your own pathetic little blog and let mr. Robinson defend himself?

Lex, see the third paragraph of Jsykes post above. That's why I don't think it is fair. Obviously, to do the story, you had to pick and choose what parts of the report to write about. It's like having a witness testify that you aren't allowed to cross examine.

Lex, you should also re-read your own post "Kicking the doors down" from yesterday and see if there isn't a bit of hypocrisy involved...

"A constitutional republic can't function without an informed populace, so you should feel free to doubt, and publicly cast aspersions on, the patriotism, competence and good will of anyone who tries to cite a reason not already clearly laid out in law why a particular government record shouldn't be public." -Lex Alexander March 9, 2006

Does keeping a promise not mean anything to anyone these days. John stated and I quote, "Here's the answer: We made a commitment to our source not to copy or distribute the actual report."

Without that promise the N&R wouldn't have anything to report concerning this matter. Sure, I'd like to know ALL THE FACTS but the fact is: the source controls the discourse and demanded the report not be distributed.

Does a man's word not mean anything these days or would some of you who oppose the N&R's stance on this issue simply break your promises the first time someone complained?

It is a common practice of journalists to ask for commentary from a news subject after a story has gone to press . . . if a lawsuit is involved, before the subject has even seen the lawsuit. It catches the subject off-guard – and puts them at a disadvantage. The paper is looking for the juicy quote. I have some small experience with that (all of this "RMA" stuff is giving me flashbacks).

"We made a commitment to our source not to copy or distribute a copy of the actual report."

That would be fine if the News & Record had not used the report to craft a very inflammatory article today (with more promised to come) without providing a copy of the report to the subject of the report and asking for his commentary. Instead, you want the former Chief of Police (and his lawyers) to answer your carefully constructed questions without the opportunity to carefully consider his own – or even see the report upon which you based your questions. As a friend of mine likes to say when confronted with the ludicrous, "Are you smoking crack?"

John/Lex, your “source” is obviously someone in or connected to City government and/or the investigation – therefore the ethics, if not the legality, of leaking the report to the N&R comes into question. If your source cannot give his/her name, then your source is not a “whistle-blower” in the responsible/honorable sense, but a coward.

Billy, the report was LEAKED. It was not released by the City – and the excuse was that critical investigations would be placed in jeopardy. If the N&R posted the report or gave it to David Wray, it would be “breaking its word” to someone who broke theirs. And in this case, if the City's official position is that the report was not to be released in order to protect the integrity of internal and federal investigations, then this "source" should NOT control the discourse. Poetic justice would see "the source" revealed (especially if "the source" is an elected official) . . . because "the source" slipped on the slope of public disclosure and took measures - and the law - into his/her own hands.

The last time I looked, Greensboro was still in the United States of America, and in this country we have the right to face our accusers. It’s called due process. How is a man supposed to face his accusers when the accusers are faceless? David Wray, “guilty” or not (of everything or nothing), is being tried by the media before he ever sees a day in criminal or civil Court. And the press "coverage" reminds me of a case down in Randolph County – the one Jerry Bledsoe wrote a book about (that one turned out so well).

Forget your daughter or your Mother, would YOU want to be treated that way?

Journalistically speaking, John/Lex, the N&R is doing the very thing to Chief Wray that he is accused of doing to subordinates. And that IS hypocrisy.

John, it's very late, and I'm not remembering all of your rotarian standards, but isn't journalism first supposed to be fair and unbiased? In this case, the N&R has been neither.

You want David Wray to answer his accusers? Well FINE then, SHOW HIM what he is accused of.

Oh, and (Hello?) if your big thing is open records and public disclosure, then (lame excuses aside) the public has the right to see that report too.

Post it.

Poetic Billy:

Regarding a man's word and leaked information, I'm on hold with Patrick Fitzgerald as we speak.

Mr. Spagnola: Please explain why you think it isn't fair to "pick and choose" what portion of the report to write about. We have to pick and choose portions of large documents about which to write all the time; what makes this particular case so unfair to David Wray? If Eric and Lorraine intentionally ignored exculpatory information in the report, THAT certainly would be unfair. But I know of no reason to think they have.

Roch/jsykes: If it were my call, the whole report would be on the Web. But it wasn't my call. Not posting the whole report was a condition of our getting a copy, albeit not a condition I'm happy about.

Perhaps Eric and/or Lorraine could have gotten the source to change his mind and let us post the whole report. I don't know; that's a question you'll need to address to them. But, faced with the same choice, I would have made the same decision. It's generally better to have some information, as long as we're clear on what we don't yet know, than to have none.

jaycee: I joined the conversation -- or "butted in," as you put it -- to ask Mr. Spagnola a question to make sure I understood his position. JR needs no help from me to defend himself.

To all: I have long taken the position that no government employee should have any expectation of any right to privacy with respect to the performance of his/her professional duties. But that is neither the world we live in nor the law under which we work. As I said above, I think some information is better than none, as long as we're careful to be clear about what we do and don't know. Whatever my grudging acceptance of the circumstances of this case constitutes, it certainly isn't "hypocrisy." I wish we could post the entire report now, and I hope the day comes soon when we can.

When the NYT published the Pentagon Papers, an important historical event, they published what might be illegally-gotten papers in the public interest. It was a nation-changing process on which the NYT had a major role. In different scope and times, I believe that the N&R has the same potential yet I do agree with Billy that if you got the report based on a confidentiality agreement (well-established in 1st Amendment law), then you can't publish it in its entirety. I don't know exactly what agreement you have so,

1. Can you post verbatim excerpts? If so, will you?

2. Whether or not the report has an agenda as Wray's attorney claims might be so, how do we know that you read through that claimed agenda without our reading rebuttal? Are you seeking that rebuttal?

3. Isn't it just darned strange that the man accused (via his attorney) can't see a report that caused his effective firing but you can (yes, I know, he resigned)?

4. If a N&R employee leaked this report with the same confidentiality agreement you agreed to, would you fire that employee? Does this pose an ethical dilemma for you?

Without leaks, the press would rarely have great news to share. Some leaks are intentional; others are designed. Which do you think you got (a leak that was intentional or one that you had to work for) and do you think it's possible that the N&R was used for another purpose in this sad saga?

Sue, those are very good questions.

Lex, my abrasiveness aside, I thank you for your reply and feel somewhat satisfied by your comments.

I still question why the source needed non distribution as a condition of the leak, if there are no identifying factors on the document which cannot be blacked out with a marker or redacted.

Sounds to me like a law enforcement type who is accustomed to being in control. There is no logical distinction, in my mind, between one leak of the document and 1 million page views of the document.

I'm waiting for the GNR to discover where Wray learned his so-called racist management style. I wonder if it was at that bastion of conservative, institutional racism known as UNCG, or those backward programs he attended at Harvard?

Let us know, will ya?

Outstanding discussion. Two points I'll add. We made an agreement with a person to get the report. One condition is that we don't copy or distribute the report. We could have declined, but we thought -- and still think -- that there's value in our reading the report and publishing stories about it, even if we couldn't distribute it. The agreement we made is the key in the discussion. It's not in a journalist's DNA to make a promise to a source and then break it. The insistence that we publish the report is actually a request that we break our word. Won't happen.

The bridge we haven't had to cross, but I can see in the distance is a legal one. I'm no lawyer, but the report could contain information about people that, if published, might be considered libelous. Crossing that bridge is a perilous and expensive one and not a journey to be taken lightly.

Sue:
1. I think that violates our agreement.
2. We have and continue to seek rebuttal.
3. Yes.
4. Sorry, I won't get into hypotheticals at this point.
5. We worked for it, of course (as could anyone else). People use the media all the time. You think Locke's news conference wasn't an attempt to use the media? We fight through that, which is one reason you so often see and hear complaints from public officials that we emphasize the wrong things, which really means that we don't focus on what they want us to focus on. The document is what it is, and by their own comments, city officials put some credence in it.

As I said, it's a great discussion. I invite other journalist folks who lurk on the blog to weigh in, too.

Joh, why did you choose to run the story at this time? Could you not hold the story, knowing the furor it would create because of the one-sidedness of it?

What was the compelling reason to run it?

Could this decision not come back to haunt you and the N&R?

Could the decision to run the story now not cause problems in the justice ststem later?

In my opinion all parties involved in this story have shown themselves to be guilty either ethically, morally or legally BUT the accused David Wray. City officials actions in this whole affair were deplorable from the beginning. The N&R reports have all, up to and including this report, been slanted against David Wray. The person who leaked this report did so illegally and whether on his/her own volition or with the tacit consent of higher ups it is still a violation of the law. Bring the whole affair with reports, statements and evidence out in the open or remain silent. One or the other, but do not continue to crucify a man on hearsay in the press while he is being refused the right to face his accuser. In short, this whole affair turns my stomach.

The leak does nothing but show how the N&R and the city are in bed together. Look...go ahead...take a glance. Canada Dry building sold. No more worry about that right? Same lawyers. Same agenda. The N&R would like nothing more than to be the sweet heatrs for the GTRC and the weak left of GSO by finding a KKK member in the police dept. The city needs the same story so Mitch and Linda can continue to run scams. The most important thing to know is the troublemaker came back to do the heavy lifting. John, I will also handle those ever so important steps at Saint James as well. You guys are too busy having secret coffee meetings and kising up to big shots. the report wont be released but Lorraine Ahearn has been reported reading it to people over the phone. The city will not release it...except to the N&R...my goodenss. Not that I think you should give it out. I just think the N&R and the city should not have so many public displays of affection. You are going to make people sick.

" . . . the report could contain information about people, that if published, might be considered libelous".

John, I don't get it. Are you saying that portions of the report are false - and the paper/City knows it? And the City took action on a report that might contain false information?

In order for something to be slander/libel, it must be false AND the person making the statement must know or believe it to be false and communicate/publish it anyway (it's called malice). Truth is an absolute defense. Period. I KNOW this - as the truth was and IS my defense in the story you won't investigate/report down in Asheboro.

If the RMA report is merely acurately and truthfully providing an account of what happened, then that's a report - NOT libel - no matter how many lawyers are jumping up and down. The public paid for the report. The public (and David Wray) should see it. Craft your disclaimers to appease the lawyers and publish the report now that you have it.

I understand the journalist's DNA not wanting to give up a source. But the source gave up the information (many would argue unethically or illegally) and it's out of his/her hands. Allowing the source to dictate the discourse is just wrong - it's crystal clear you are being used. And you seem not to mind.

Your DNA must be very conflicted and twisted right now.

We're still down to a man not being able to face his accusers - and like the cartoon debacle, the newspaper deciding what "We the People" can and cannot see.

We published the story because it's news. That so many of you are here illustrates that. We don't hold news because it might cause a furor. Could it come back to haunt us, Bubba? Got me.

Since January, we've given former Chief Wray many opportunities to talk about what's happening. He's declined, which is within his rights.

Wray has a very good attorneys working for his cause. He doesn't need us to feed him the report, and it's not our job to provide it to him. Your insistence that the report be made public ought to be made to the government that commissioned it and paid for it.

John:

Don't get too full of yourself. I am here, primarily, because until you prove that David Wray is so dumb as to do the heinous things so far reported, I for one will believe that the GNR is the pawn of some special interest group that was not happy with Wray's intention to instill higher standards in the department.

I am not a resident of Greensboro. It's not really my fight. But I find it difficult to believe that Wray could have risen through the ranks of the police department in a diverse and racially charged city like Greensboro to become chief and all the while been a closet racist.

It appears on the surface to me, as I have said from the beginning when Lorraine and Eric's first story told me the chief was a racist in the first several paragraphs, that your reporters are being used to push an agenda.

I hope you are supremely confident in the veracity of Wray's accusers, because a lot of decent, caring, color-blind society embracing people are having a hard time accepting the way this entire episode has gone down.

Lex, see my previous comment on the inability of Mr. Wray to confront his accuser- in this case, a report. There may be parts of the report that he would like to highlight in his own defense or discredit, but without the report he can't.

It is unfair for the paper to characterize the report one way or another, but then not provide the report so it can be questioned. I can't believe this is even debatable. What if President Bush said "the 9/11 commission report completely absolved me of liability, and it is all Bill Clinton's fault" and then refused to allow you (the media) to read the report so he could be questioned about it? You'd be furious. You just wrote about this sort of thing TWO days ago, and here you are contradicting yourself.

Enough said.

...Except for this- John, if some of report could be libelous to other people, couldn't Wray claim the same thing? In other words, how can your news division distinguish between what is libelous and what is truth? That is exactly why it is unfair to Wray. You didn't seem to have a problem characterizing the comments about Wray, nor any concern if they were libelous, yet you are concerned for others? That is a blatant bias against Wray.

Further, if some of the information is potentially false, how can you be sure all of it isn't? Who decides? If it is your staff, then they are no longer merely reporting on the news but instead they are determining what is true instead of letting the public decide. Sorry, John, but your whole position on this is indefensible all the way down the line. I don't care if it's about Wray or Skip Alston, or anyone- it's just poor journalistic ethics.

Mr. Robinson, you still haven't answered the question about someone in city government illegally releasing this information to you.
If it was done illegally, then the N&R is a party to an illegal act. In fact, (if this is detemined to be an illegal act) the N&R is responsible for providing someone with the impetus and pressure for them to break the law. Just like in drug deals, there's a seller and a buyer. If you weren't there providing a ready market for what the employee could illegally obtain, he wouldn't have done it.
Where's the moral responsibility of the N&R to conduct it's investigation in a legal and ethical manner? Do you not have a code of ethics for reporters/journalists? Are you (N&R) so greedy to publish your "news" that you're willing to commit crimes to do it?

I think this story will put you and the reporters in a bad position in future legal proceedings regarding this case.

In addition, you have added fuel to an already raging fire. I hope that wasn't done purposefully on the N&R's fault.

One final question: How do you respond to Ben Holder's statement that "Lorraine Ahearn has been reported reading it (the report) to people over the phone."?

Okay John, this is just getting absurd. The Danish cartoons were news too. "We don't hold news because it might cause a furor." That is EXACTLY what you did with the cartoons.

Your journalistic DNA must be in a knot.

The N&R is asking this man to comment on accusations that you won't let him see! Chief Wray doesn't need very good lawyers to know that exercising his Fifth Amendment right to keep his mouth shut is probably a good idea - as BOTH the City and the N&R are trampling all over his Sixth Amendment due process rights. He has the right to face his accusers.

The right journalistic choice was to tell your source, "We will do everything we can to protect your identity, but once you release this to the press, it is news and it is subject to publication. You cannot dictate what we do with it. And if you want to dictate what we do with it, we'll pass - and continue to bring pressure to bear on the city to release it."

O yeah, like the government listens to me. If they had listened to me six or seven years ago, they might have looked a little closer at the way our "non-profit" hospitals were spending federal money and saved themselves about a billion dollars. The free press is "free" because, in theory, it is the one thing that can bring pressure to bear on government behaving badly when nothing else can.

The government works for us. But we as individuals don't have the clout or the resources to make government/law enforcement officials move (my case against Randolph Hospital administrators is a great example). It IS your MOST IMPORTANT job as a journalist to help us - not wallow in bed with government officials/law enforcement/public servants acting shadily . . . again because you're scared - this time (apparently) of legal action. But you've already slipped down that slope - by accepting the report and writing stories based on it - and sticking your lip out because Chief Wray will not play by your warped rules of engagement. Bubba's absolutely right about your decision putting the N&R and its reporters in the legal hotseat in any future criminal/civil action. And Samuel makes a great point about libel and bias.

You simply cannot blather on about open records and public disclosure, yet withhold this report from the public when you have it.

I'd also like to know more about Lorraine Ahearn reading this thing to people over the phone.

It's not in a journalist's DNA to make a promise to a source and then break it.

The source in this case has placed great trust in you and believes that you will keep your promises, while at the same time betraying the trust of those who gave him access to the report.

I'm always amazed at those who break the law or break promises, but expect everyone else to behave as they should.

If the terrible things you reported about Wray are true, then we are all much better off now that he is gone. But from the beginning of this story, your paper has taken the position that the allegations are true and unfairly shifted the burden of proof to Wray to prove they aren't. You could not get away with introducing a piece of evidence in a court of law, and then denying the accused the right to cross examine his accuser. As I stated above, that is unfair to anyone.

It should not matter that you are a newspaper and not required to abide by the rules of evidence or the Sixth Amendment. You should have given Wray access to the document as a matter of fairness. As I've stated above, I would feel that way about anyone in this situation. I don't know Wray, or Hinson, or anyone else involved except Locke Clifford, who is an excellent lawyer. From the beginning, I have only asked for due process.

It is a terrible thing to unfairly tarnish a person's reputation. If the report is true, then Wray has tarnished his own reputation and he deserves to be scorned. But your coverage has been incredibly one sided and your defense of that seems to be that if it is one sided, it's only because Wray is hiding behind the Fifth Amendment and won't talk. I question how quickly your paper would hide behind the First Amendment when it comes to revealing your sources and the document in question, or how quick you are to demand your First Amendment rights when it comes to open records like Lex was complaining about two days ago. Your position seems to be that there is something noble about advancing your paper's Constitutional Rights, but not Mr. Wray's or anyone elses.

Mr. Spagnola: The "confront his accuser" meme is, of course, derived from rights ascribed in the Constitution to an individual w/r/t the government. But, as you well know, the N&R isn't the government, nor is it an agent of David Wray's attorneys. (So much for the "hypocrisy" of which you accuse me.) It is an independent entity attempting to find and publish as many relevant facts as possible.

As I said above, I do not argue that the circumstances under which Eric and Lorraine obtained and wrote about the report are perfect. I believe, however, that some information is preferable to none and that their article is one piece of a larger puzzle we're trying to complete. I believe it is fair for us to publish such an article so long as that article doesn't ignore any exculpatory information the report might contain. You disagree, as you're entitled to do.

Trying to sort out the questions from the opinions. Nothing we've reported has been shown to be inaccurate. That is, in these most recent stories, we've reported what the investigative report, a report commissioned and accepted by the city, says. I appreciate the desire by many here that we not report on the report until we get "the other side." Won't happen. What the report says is news. I also appreciate those who think we should go back on our word to a source. Won't happen, either.

There are different standards of libel for public figures and non-public figures. David Wray is most likely a public figure. Others in the report aren't. As I said, that is a bridge we haven't crossed so its discussion now is merely theoretical.

We have not committed an illegal act accepting the report.

Maybe Ben will reveal his source for his "report" about Lorraine.

"Nothing we've reported has been shown to be inaccurate."

John:

I do believe Mr. Wray has said through his lawyer that the whites only K&W meals on Thursday are completely innacurate.

"We have not committed an illegal act accepting the report". But did your "source" commit an illegal act by giving it to you? John, when government investigators knock on the N&R's door and ask your reporters who gave them the report, will you give it up then? Or will you-all take your turn in jail?

I guess it's a theoretical question. Did you think about it? The NY Times and Time Magazine also said "Won't happen." But it did. It may take time (in my case it's going on over eight years), but the truth will out.

In other posts, you've boasted that the N&R has very well-paid lawyers. But in the wording of your posts here ("David Wray is most likely a public figure", "I'm no lawyer but . . . ") it does not sound like you clarified these issues BEFORE you published.

Lex, I am sorry, but American journalists are supposed to show everybody else how it's done. It's a question others have asked - is there not a code of ethics? You may have no obligation to honor David Wray's Sixth Amendment rights, but isn't one of the basic tenets of journalism to be unbiased and fair - to honor the spirit, if not the letter of the laws we hold dear? You have admitted you don't like the circumstances under which the report was obtained or the limitations "the source" placed on using it. I suspect you would like it even less if you put yourself in David Wray's shoes.

Like Samuel, I have no idea if Chief Wray is "guilty" or innocent of the things he has been accused of. But this so-called news "coverage" is like watching a pack of wolves rip a fox to shreds. The City - and all of the Chief's accusers (who apparently don't want to suffer the same media scrutiny he has) - and the N&R have all decided the matter for us - and we're supposed to take your word for it.

Mama used to tell me that if you could sign your name to something, you didn't need to be saying/writing it in the first place. It's proven to be very good advice over the years. I tend not to give anonymous sources - or "whistle-blowers" - or accusers of any kind a lot of credence UNLESS they sign their name.

Re: Ben's "source". My response would be, "You first". And what would you do to his "source" if he did?

The bottom "open government" line is this: RMA report was paid for by the public - and the public needs to see the report. David Wray should see the report so he can answer his accusers. That's how you find the truth - and that is what journalism is supposed to be about.

Anybody who has a copy of the report and is interested in seeing it publicly released in its entirety may post it directly and anonymously to Greensboro101.com (use "post an article" for text or "upload media" for a document file) or contact me at admin@greensboro101.com or (336) 288-2245. Anonymity will be respected.

-- Roch Smith, Jr.

So, Roch101, you're actively soliciting illegally obtained and distributed information?
Isn't that sort of like saying, "Hey, I'll buy your stolen property, too."
Seems that attitude is designed to induce people into breaking the law and violating the oaths or confidentiality agreements they made.
Does ANYBODY in the news industry have a clue what "ethics" or "morals" are?? Not to mention possibly participating in criminal acts in concert with government employees.
Seems like the people/reporters/journalists who are sooooo careful not to participate with the nasty 'ol government in news stories in the interest of "impartiality" are the first to line up and participate with those who seek to harm the government with leaks and illegal disclosures.

Mr. Robinson you claim that the report as you printed it is news as evidenced by all of us here commenting. Just how in the world are you missing what we all are saying? The message is crystal clear phased in every way possible: The news story ON the report is NOT NEWS. The report itself is, or would have been, NEWS. What you are calling news is slanderous, malicious and probably illegal. I surely hope David Wray sues the city of Greensboro, and each and everyone involved in this denigration of his character. Then turns right around and comes after the N&R. You are all surely giving him enough "rope to hang you with".

PS: Maybe the suit will even put our newest Sports Daily out of business and a real newspaper can come to town.

jaycee, please tell me what laws would be broken should the information under discussion be posted on the internet. Specifically, you said it would be "illegally obtained and distributed" if posted. What law are you referencing?

John, there are different standards for "public figures" and private figures when it comes to libel. But that does not mean that "public figures" have no right to sue. Ask Tom Cruise or any number of Hollywood types that have successfully sued.

Nonetheless, you are correct in that you only reported what the report stated, but the same could be said about anything in writing. If a report came out tomorrow that the earth was flat and you reported that the report said the earth was flat, that doesn't make it so. Further, as a reporter you would probably want to question the source as to why they believed the earth was flat and then ask opponents their opinion.

You are using the Dan Rather defense- we reported what the documents said, forget the fact that they may have been forged. Same thing.

Beyond those technicalities, I don't know how you can say it was fair in any sense to not allow the document to be examined by Mr. Wray before you printed the story. At least CBS released the phony documents so they could be analyzed.

Standing back as a news reader- ask yourself this question: If you only read the News and Record on the Wray matter from the beginning, would you believe that Wray is probably a racist and guilty of the things he is accused of?

I think you know the answer to that question, and because of that you should consider if you are truly unbiased participants. You have basically said "we'll give you all the bad stuff and then let you decide". Of course, we could give you the Defendant's side, but he's hiding behind his Constitutional Rights. I suspect if there ever is any litigation involving the N&R (although as a lawyer, I don't believe your paper has any liability), you would also issue a number of "no comments" because your paper "does not comment on ongoing litigation." Fair for you, but not for Wray.

Mr. Spagnla, reading that you are a lawyer, perhaps you can address the question I posed to jaycee, would posting the report on the internet be illegal?

Lex, forget about law and journalistic ethics for a moment. Your position clearly entails shifting values depending on the parties involved. The Constitution embodies the values of the people of this country and we should all try to live by them regardless of whether we are required to in any given situation. You are essentially saying "I don't have to be morally outraged at the way Wray is being treated because I'm not in his situation, and I might not be as morally outraged about being denied open records if I wasn't a reporter."

It seems that your values are based solely upon your present status (a form of hedonism) rather than what is right and wrong.

What Samuel said.

Roch, your offer to publish the report is admirable, but in this case you may be throwing your hat in a ring you don't want to be in. I don't think you'll be breaking any laws if you publish something that lands on your doorstep (provided you know it's the real thing - and how do you confirm that unless you know who the source is?). But the same question I have asked of JR applies to you if you accept and publish the report while promising anonymity: "What will you do when federal investigators knock on your door and demand to know who your source is?". Because if I was a lawyer representing David Wray (especially in a civil suit), I would be DEMANDING that they knock on your door and find out. Do you really want to be road-kill on the way to his due process?

I'm jumping up and down on this thread because (as was the case in the cartoon/First Amendment issue) I've walked down the road of being unfairly deprived of livelihood and property . . . thrown out like trash by people who ignored ethics & common courtesy & due process (not to mention THE TRUTH) . . . people who hid behind privacy & confidentiality laws that are supposed to protect us all - but in reality DO NOT. Over the last decade, the excuse of protecting people's "privacy" has fostered more than a few cover-ups (especially in "non-profit" medicine). I've gotten the equivalent of a back-yard dog law degree on slander/libel/perjury and I can tell you that the spirit of the law doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades when the letter of the law is not enforced. On that (important) point, our champion of open government, the N&R, has ignored my "local" story (at the same time publishing front-page headlines acknowledging that "Lying In Court Is Almost Risk Free"), even as it salivates over this one.

Since you asked (Lex), that's hypocrisy too. I staged two public protests in front of Randolph Hospital in 2004 - in an attempt to draw public attention to my plight - and redress grievances with the government (that pesky First Amendment thing). The N&R did not show up. I've written countless letters to my elected representatives (the latest of which are posted on my website). No response. The N&R sees fit not to pursue the story at this time.

Yet John would have us all believe it's so easy to do.

Publishing the RMA report as it was written - telling the public what it said - is reporting the news. With appropriate disclaimers, it's also telling the truth about the content of the report - and that is an absolute defense in any civil action against the paper alleding "libel".

On the other hand, if there are allegations in the report (about anybody) that are false (as JR has suggested), then that seems to me to be a problem for the City/RMA (or David Wray for that matter) - and THAT is something that very much deserves public scrutiny. It's 2006 in Greensboro, N.C., not 1692 in Salem Village.

The City of Greensboro, which took action based on the RMA report, now spinelessly refuses to release it to the public - or provide a copy to David Wray (if the allegations are true, the least of the former Chief's worries is answering the N&R's questions). But I guess the vote on that was not unanimous. Because someone in City government/the investigation decided to have the cake and eat it too - and I cannot decide if they are trying to hurt David Wray at this point, or help him.

"Maybe Ben will reveal his source for his 'report' about Lorraine."

Maybe we should ask Lorraine about Ben's report directly. Perhaps Roch will post her response.

I thought the Star Chamber , with all its excesses and arbitrary powers , had been abolished in the 17th century. It seems to have been resurected. The N & R and the Kings Council are working together in an effort to further destroy David Wray's reputation and his career

John, your problem is not so much refusing to release the RMA report but now that you have possession you look foolish by swallowing it lock, stock and barrel.

The truth of the 75 pages and those malcontents who heavily contributed to it should be scrutinized by a team of your staff writers , who are objective and Lorraine isn't one who fits that bill. Locke Clifford is correct. This contractor ( accurate description )was given an advance game plan and delivered the desired results.

Lex Alexander's claim that if in-charge he would have distributed the entire document is about as transparently insincere and phony as his claim of being a Republican.

John you may call this an interesting discussion but on debating points you have been skunked.

I don't consider it a debate, Dummy. May I call you that without giving offense? We made our decision and folks are parsing it. That's fine. But I'm not trying to debate anyone. I think I understand all the arguments here.

Let me see if I can sum up the major points so far:

1. We shouldn't have accepted the report because it is supposedly ill-gotten.
2. We shouldn't have made a deal to get the report that prevented us from distributing it to everyone.
3. We are morally bankrupt because we accepted a report we shouldn't have.
4. We shouldn't have written about the report because it is supposedly one-sided.
5. We should break our word to our source because the source supposedly had broken his/her word by giving it to us.
6. We've been used by some unnamed person or persons because we reported on this city-commissioned report that cost taxpayers $70,000 and that City Council members have put credence in.
7. And, even though it's supposedly ill-gotten, you want to read the report yourselves.

What'd I miss?

I'm not answering for dummychaser, Mr. Robinson, but it seems to me that what you're missing is the moral consciousness to conduct your business in an ethical, impartial, legal, and publicly responsible manner.

You didn't miss anything, JR. I'd have done the same thing. It's news. The public has an interest in the story. The city is slow in releasing information. The story sells papers.

It would have been better if you could have received the original report with no strings attached. However, you did what you had to do. It's an easy call. As you and others have noted, somes news is better than no news. Also, I suspect, if you had declined to publish, you'd be accused of aiding in some kind of cover-up. Pick your poison.

Additionally, as you note, it's not like you haven't given Wray multiple opportunities to present his side. I bet you'd give him as many inches as he wants for his explanation.

PS - You're still wrong about the cartoons.

David, I believe that Wray is under his attorney's orders to keep quiet at this point. His previous statements on the matter are all that we can expect to hear for now. I imagine he will do any further talking on this topic in a court of law.

John, I am still concerned about the story relating the possibility of Lorraine discussing the report over the phone. If such a thing took place, and the conversation was not with someone like you, or the source, do you not think this aspect needs to be checked out by you?

If I received a "confidential" report that John Robinson was a child molester, and I gave it to the N&R on the condition that they not let John Robinson read the report or otherwise release the report, do you think that the N&R (or any other newspaper- to take the personal bias of a N&R employee out of the equation) would run the story "Report Reveals Details of Editor's Child Molestation"? How would you feel about that John? Do you still think that would be fair?

So there is no confusion, I am not saying JR is a child molester, I'm just trying to make a point about how damaging the mere accusation of a crime can be. So nobody out there should start any rumours. You can never be too careful, at least those of us who don't work at the N&R.

John, achtung!!!

("Nothing we've reported has been shown to be inaccurate."

John:

I do believe Mr. Wray has said through his lawyer that the whites only K&W meals on Thursday are completely innacurate.)

And???

You were pumped about this thread earlier in the day John. Now you just sound annoyed.

1. "Supposedly ill-gotten". You have lawyers, you have not clarified this yet?
2. Bingo.
3. "Morally bankrupt" is a melodramatic characterization of the questions raised on journalistic ethics (which David Boyd tells us is actually more a function of how many papers you can sell - something some of us suspected all along). Did somebody here hit a nerve? The issue is not that you accepted the report, but that you accepted it on "the source's" terms - thereby denying David Wray a fair chance to see what he's responding to - and the public the chance to scrutinize it from all angles.
4. The public that paid for the report hasn't seen the report, so how can we know if it's "one-sided" or not? The coverage so far certainly seems that way.
5. Well, I guess you can't go back on your word - that would make you no better than your source.
6. The "un-named person(s)" usually get named in the end. As for agendas in this mess, there appear to be more than one. Your "source" may have helped Chief Wray legally - even when that probably wasn't the intent.
7. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's out. How the genie popped the top might be a legal issue for the paper and its "source" down the road - but the public wants to see the genie's navel, not hear your description.

Here's another point about the legality of releasing the report (which presumably contains confidential personnel information). The concepts of "open government" and "accountability" are in direct contradiction to many of the "privacy" and "confidentiality" laws that are now in place - many of them drafted as short-sighted, knee-jerk reactions to one problem or another (or one lawsuit or another). Many of those laws do not ultimately protect the public (or even the individual), but in fact perpetuate the problem of bad personnel moving on to be bad personnel somewhere else . . . or bad managers strong-arming employees (in this "right to work" state - that's easy) . . . and/or fostering cover-ups. The law (which often is not necessarily about doing the right or moral or ethical thing) is the new "religion" in America and everybody is afraid of its priests (the lawyers).

I don't have any problem with you accepting the report (the people conducting the criminal investigation might have a different opinion and you can make your case to them if and when they knock on your door). But as a journalist, you might have snapped that DNA to attention and fought a little harder for full disclosure - and fairness to the subject of the investigation/story.

By the way, if you were the one in hot water - with a criminal investigation pending (Sam's point is well-taken), your lawyers would have you on a very short leash & muzzle (even though they work for you). You would not be giving interviews - especially under the N&R's terms of engagement. Silence is a pesky constitutional right that journalists must often find their way around. But it does NOT automatically imply guilt. In this case, you should be questioning the City's silence - about the way this whole mess became a mess (that's probably the real story) - and about the report itself.

I do want to see the report because (as with the Danish cartoons), I want to know what all the fuss is about. I want to see what tax dollars paid for and I want to know the truth. The only way to know the truth is to scrutinize the report/actual evidence - those who wrote it - those who are featured in it - and those who made decisions based upon it.

You've made it crystal clear I'm not going to get what I want from the N&R any time soon.

Mr. Spagnola: I wrote what I wrote about the relationship between a people and their government. You're attempting to suggest that the terms of that relationship should be applied to every other relationship. I'll be willing to consider that argument when the N&R obtains powers of taxation and subpoena.

Came from a council member, eh? How about that. Nice twist.

Sandy Carmany:

"It's fairly certain that a councilmember deliberately broke confidentiality protocol and gave that report to the newspaper."

I'm back on the line with Patrick Fitzgerald...

No, I'm not suggesting that the "terms" are the same. I made that quite clear a few posts ago that you are not bound by "rules of evidence" and the Sixth Amendment. I am suggesting that your apparent moral outrage should be the same. What about the relationship between the people and a free press? What about the duty of the free press?

It would be one thing if the N&R came out and said "we are a propaganda item for the Left Wing in America. We make no attempt to hide that. We will print only stories favorable to us and damaging to them". But you don't. You claim to be objective. I would understand your position a little more if you were a commentary/opinion magazine like "The Nation" of "National Review" that are clearly aligned with one side of the political spectrum. It's all about who's ox is being gored, and that will be my last comment on this subject.

Mr. Spagnola: Again, when I look at the vast differences between the people/government relationship and the people/free press relationship, I fail to see the logic of your point. I'm not sure whether we're misunderstanding one another or simply have arrived at a point at which we must agree to disagree.

John - I think you are being petulant in not giving me the questions including the quotes from the RMA report as we agreed on Friday. Did you think that I was agreeing to accept such quetions as a substitute for the entire report? I came to your office in good faith to get the report. After you refused and only then did I start thinking about the press conference. I made the decision about 3PM and called Lorraine Ahearn immediately along with Channels 2, 8 & 12. and waiting in my office for Lorraine to bring the questions as we agreed on Friday. If I offended you Eric or Lorraine, I apologize. Please understand that Ken Keller and I are strangers to the "news by leak" game, and I am learning as I go. I appreciate the necessity of protecting the source of a leaked government document. But you have extended the protection rule in a way that I think is unjustified. I would like to hear your rationale for letting the "leaker" become the censor who gets to decide whether the leaked government document may or may not be published. Please reconsider sending the questions and please respond to this inquiry.

Ahhhhhhh . . . the plot thickens. I do not envy you dealing with this particular contingent of the "free press", Mr. Clifford.

One of the biggest problems I've found with the law (not to mention the press) in matters of this nature is that everybody has different definitions for good and bad faith. And "ethics" requires a dictionary for a lot of people in the government & non-profit sectors.

Sandy's post was self-serving political double and triple speak. My question to her is, "Are you going to ask for an investigation of the leak?"

Or will that little tidbit be quietly swept under the rug because the leak - as well as the N&R's selective publication of what is in the RMA report serve the City's purposes of "vindication"?

The source is not a censor in this case. If we had not agreed to the person's terms in order to get the report, *no one* would have seen it. Is it better to have refused the terms and not seen the report? As much as the terms sucked, we accepted it because the alternative would be worse.

As for the FBI knocking on our door, wanting to know our source? Well, journalists have gone to jail before to protect sources. When we make a promise, we do everything in our power to keep it.

And as hard as it is to believe, we really don't have an agenda when writing articles and headlines and designing pages -- we simply don't have the time to have an agenda. I would love for people to know what goes on here during the day -- limited time, late deadlines, and Murphy's law -- if they did, I think they would be as amazed as I am some days that the paper even gets out at all!

Mel:

Puhlease!

Journalists do not become devoid of bias through overexertion. I have been to enough j conferences in my time to see bias in full view, especially after hours when tongues being to loosen up.

Get over yourself.

Mr. Fitzgerald wants to know if Lorraine and Eric will go to jail rather than reveal which council member leaked the report?

Mel, is it your position that an illegally and unethically obtained report is better than letting the system run it's course to full and legal public disclosure?
You put yourself in the same position as someone buying property he knows is stolen and then blaming the thief. Without the buyer, the thief has no market. Without the N&R, this "leaker" has no market for his purloined goods.
You are a party (principal, acting in concert, co-conspirator) to any illegal or unethical actions on the part of the "leaker."
Is this how the N&R shows the community how upstanding it is?

Mel, the POINT is you've seen the report. WE haven't. David Wray hasn't - and he's the one who has lost his job over it - and is looking down the barrel of a criminal investigation - and is being indiscriminately shiskabobbed by the privileged media . . . while his former employers and accusers (who work for us) all hide behind their privacy rights. If you were he (or his lawyers) you would be jumping up and down at the lunacy of it all.

In this case, YES, it might have been better to wait until the report was officially released by the City Council (I'm increasingly wondering if they decided, by "constructive quorum", to "leak" it as a means to try and sidestep the pesky legal issues of privacy and libel). I thought the N&R was going to go slow and steady on this story - since the issues at hand are so inflammatory.

Fast journalism is not good journalism.

The "source" in this case IS most certainly a censor - where does this person get off deciding to "release" the report but not really - making the decision for everybody (including you).

Again, I pose the question, is the City Council going to investigate the source of the leak? For if that's the case, somebody at the N&R might get the Monopoly card on this one and go directly to jail.

Every profession has its hassles. And due respect, I'm a doctor. I know all about not having enough hours in the day. I also know a whole lot more than ANY of you guys do about being given a job to do and having no one at your back when you do it . . . about going to the mat in order to fulfill a moral obligation . . . and getting skewered for it.

From the position you took on the Danish cartoons to this latest "unfair and very biased" farce, the mental gymnastics the N&R goes through to do exactly the wrong thing never ceases to amaze me.

Oh, and Lex, the differences between the people/government and people/free press relationship are far from "vast" these days. If that were the least bit true, my story would have been front page news in Asheboro's Courier Tribune and the N&R three years ago: "Randolph Hospital Administrators Lie Under Oath to Defraud Doctor in Public Service (And That's Just the Top of the Iceberg)". Instead, your headline on February 24, 2006 was, "Lying In Court Almost Risk-Free".

Yes indeed. WHERE is the newspaper when a citizen wronged says the law is clear that perjury & contempt should be FULL of risk, and that citizen demands "justice"? I've ditched all the lawyers and signed my name and I am NOT hiding behind privacy rights, or asking for "protection" by journalists. Talk to me some more about open government, accountability and ethics.

Could it be that the N&R is "cherry-picking" the facts of the report in order to support their anti-Wray position?
Could it be that RMA was hired to find only the facts which supported the City Council's anti-Wray position?
What is it that the leaker or the N&R does not want the public to see?? What are you hiding? Why do you insist on sheltering the facts from the public you're supposed to be serving in a fair and impartial manner?
If you publish the report in it's entirety then the public will be able to judge for itself.

Until then, the N&R view is suspect at best.

Just for context, remember that the N&R people aren't the only ones to have seen this report, nor did they force out David Wray: The City Council and staff saw this report, and others, and made the decisions on which the paper reports.

That said, you know where I stand on releasing more info:
http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/2006/01/tell_us_more_ab.html

Locke, I'll continue our Friday discussion off line.

jaycee asks: "Mel, is it your position that an illegally and unethically obtained report is better than letting the system run it's course to full and legal public disclosure?"

While I do not speak for Mel, I would submit the following:

-- As I pointed out in comments on the previous post on this blog, it ain't against the law for the N&R to receive documents such as this one. The UK has an Official Secrets Act, but the U.S. has no parallel, at least for now, at either the federal or state/local levels.

-- It ain't necessarily against the law to release a document such as this. Without knowing the source and the circumstances of the release, I can't say one way or the other in this particular case. But I can say that not all such releases necessarily violate state law.

-- The phrasing of the question implies that in the normal course of events, the full report would be publicly, legally released. After 22 years of doing this, I can assure you that such an outcome is by no means normal, let alone inevitable. As I said earlier, and as Mel pointed out, our choices were to publish some newsworthy information under some restrictions, or publish nothing at all. Information in the report was germane to actions by the city manager and the city council, so it was newsworthy. As long as we make clear the restrictions we're operating under, we've done nothing unethical.

And I've said this before but apparently it bears repeating: The N&R didn't choose, from among many options, some of them more attractive, to deliberately withhold the full report. Not distributing it was a condition of getting a copy about which to write. No one at the N&R (that I know of) is arguing that this is the best of all possible arrangements, so please feed that particular straw man to the horses.

Also, some commenters here appear to be presuming that Lorraine and/or Eric have intentionally withheld information in the report that might reflect favorably on David Wray. Raising the possibility that that could happen is only due diligence when the N&R is asking you to trust us as we have in this case. But a little of what has been written here goes well beyond that.

Lex, do you honestly believe that in such a public and emotionally (read:racial) issue such as this the City Council will NOT eventually release the reports? We know they will, and so do you.
You are not the legal authority in this case, thank goodness. Whether the unauthorized release of this report by a city employee or elected official is illegal or not will be decided by someone far above you on the food chain. By being a witting accomplice to this release the N&R opens itself to legal ramifications far beyond "source protection." This could involved US Code Title 42 1983 violations of civil rights if this was done by a public employee to deny Chief Wray his civil rights or privileges.
I wouldn't want to be in the N&R shoes down the road when this blows up.

jaycee, I'm saying that based on my professional experience, it is far from certain. I would like to think the council would release it, but I have we have no guarantee at this point. That fact is another argument for our having published what we did, incomplete though it might be in some people's eyes.

And while I've never claimed to be a lawyer, I've consulted with lawyers on open-records issues enough to be confident of what I said above.

Moreover, yeah, it's possible that David Wray's civil rights were violated. If they were, however, the city, not the N&R, did the violating.

Lex, To your last paragraph: You ALL had just better keep your fingers crossed that this is in fact true. If you will notice the attorney's commenting on this subject do not agree with you or your lawyers. The N&R is just giving David Wray more and more ammunition to use in his suit against you. He will go away from this whole thing a very wealthy man as well as a vindicated victim of biased actions and reporting.

Ed, I am not at all sympathetic to the N&R's "cause", because I believe that they have extended the notion of protecting a source (in this case probably one of the Council members/City employees that made the decision to lock the Chief out of his office - looking for a little vindication) to the point of censorship. Then there is the little issue of it being a legally precarious position. I realize that others have seen the RMA report. But again, those "others" work for us - or were paid by us. The document the N&R agreed not to show the public is a document that the public paid for. It's fine to protect "the source" - as much or as little as the N&R wants to. What is not fine is agreeing to the source's terms in order to get the information. It's not the N&R's job to vindicate the City's actions. That's just a little too cozy to one side of the story for my taste.

It's not about DNA, but about journalists selling their soul for a fast story rather than a good/fair one. I've got to admire Locke Clifford for being the kind of client advocate who would post on these blogs and give JR a taste of his own medicine. Now JR wants to continue the discussion "off-line".

I'm not at all sympathetic to City leaders. If I'm reading this thing right, I expect David Wray was given a job to do by the City. The job apparently was to "clean up" the Police Department, so it's pretty clear that someone else within City government/management thought something was wrong. If there was corruption (and I'm still not clear on this point), then the Chief deserved support and someone at his back - because when you confront corruption/greed you are going to torque people off, and they are going to do anything they can to discredit/destroy you (because, HEY, they're corrupt). One of easiest ways to do that (especially in Greensboro) is to call someone a racist.

By all accounts, Chief Wray had an exemplary record before he took this job - so I (like many others apparently) am having a very hard time believing the man had these issues and no one ever had a clue. I'm having an equally hard time believing everyone else in this mess is completely innocent - including the City Managers/leaders that had the responsiblity of oversight (a job at which they resoundingly failed). The Chief/City leaders saw or suspected things in the Department they did not like, and the Chief was given the power to do as he thought best. Whether or not that was a good idea - and whether or not he went too far remains to be seen (because the public has not seen the RMA report - or been able to scrutinize anything about it - be it the principal players, or who put it together, or who made the decisions). As many have said here, if the man did wrong, he deserves to take his medicine. But our system of "justice" (whatever that means) demands due process - and the opportunity to defend oneself.

Our system of journalism is supposed to be the check that balances - and that does not appear to be going on here.

If everybody else in this sad saga is so "innocent", why aren't they stepping forward to demand that everything (including personnel records) be released? All it takes is a signature on a form.

In this "right to work" state, David Wray was out of luck. You can be fired if your nose is blue or if you "rub someone wrong" - it does not matter if you are right or wrong (and it should). The Chief obviously rubbed some people wrong. But was it for the right reasons? In the medical arena, the peer review process (because it is shielded from any kind of legal scrutiny) can be warped and misconstrued in ways that shoot the messenger and actually cover-up the badness. Perhaps I am looking at this differently because I have been called a liar when I did not lie. The real liars (on the non-profit payrolls) are still employed with very fat paychecks, and the leaders of the City of Asheboro (fully appraised of what happened) are looking in the other direction. I wonder if that is what happened here.

My biggest question at this point is, WHERE was the City BEFORE this became a mess? Where was the oversight? Where were the checks and balances? To give the Chief absolute power and discretion, which sounds like what happened, was wrong (I have some experience with that in terms of two Randolph Hospital adminsitrators who were given what amounted to absolute power over my life in Asheboro). But to make David Wray a scapegoat now (as everyone else sits on the fence or ducks) is also wrong. There is more that smells wayfoul here than a "bad" Chief of Police.

John, Lex, Mel, to try and convict David Wray in the media - based on something you've seen but the public can't - something you won't even let David Wray see - before the investigations are complete - before the lawsuits get filed (not that lawsuits will help find the truth anyway - because all the principals can hide behind privacy/confidentiality laws, and lying in court is not punished - or even newsworthy), is also wrong. David Wray could be the nastiest, most evil guy in the world and it would still be wrong.

Take that straw and feed it your horses - if you can find them. They're out of the barn.

As one of the journalistic types "lurking" on this blog, I just wanted to share an observation. In my experiences dealing with sources who want to provide documents that haven't yet become public, most do so only after much thought and with a heavy heart. An individual who takes such a personal risk isn't usually happy to do it, but feels strongly compelled to make sure someone outside of government has the ability to scrutinize the contents. I think it's unfair to speculate to this individual's motives for providing a copy only to the paper or why the person asked that the full report not be posted on the Web. And as with most papers, the decision to print -- or not to print -- portions of such information also is not taken lightly. I commend JR for explaining the paper's position; Some editors at other papers may not have chosen to do so. It's good to question the process, certainly. In Florida, the public records laws provide so much more access; A report like this would become public once an inquiry or investigation was no longer "ongoing" and could be considered completed. As a relative newcomer to NC, I understand your frustration with not having the same kind of access here. All the more reason for the N&R to accept the report, and share what it could with readers while respecting the terms under which it was received.

Mary, just for the record, I haven't seen the report, nor do I know who gave it to us. If it turns out that my colleagues have mischaracterized the contents of the report, I certainly won't defend them. But I'd be surprised if that happened.

You ask where the city was BEFORE this became a mess. That's a good question. Personnel-issue confidentiality is one of the problems underlying my previously stated position that no government employee should expect confidentiality with respect to job performance. What did David Wray's supervisors know, and when (to coin a phrase) did they know it? Under current law, we have no easy way to find out ... not that Eric and Lorraine aren't still trying, to the best of my knowledge.

Annette, with due respect, I am one of those people who has "gone public" with my own story (one of government/public service gone horribly wrong), only to have "journalistic types" (like JR), who do not appreciate the ordeal, the "heavy heart", or the "personal risk" essentially spit in my face. I was a whistle-blower before blowing was cool. I signed my name (it got me sued). And I've heard every pathetic excuse in the world from the journalists who don't care (to his credit, Lex has expressed interest in some of our off-line go-rounds, but Lex does not make the decisions). I wonder if Allen Johnson would care more if I were a black girl taking on the good-ole-boys? Would it make the pod-cast then? And I'm angry that I even had the thought - because it is so not in my nature to think that way.

On a very basic burned-employee level, I understand David Wray's predicament because I have been a player in a sick/warped version of the same thing - "honorable" community leaders recruting you, giving you a job ("clean up the mess"), telling you they will have your back, then throwing you out like garbage. It remains to be seen how much egg will be on Greensboro city leaders in David Wray's case. But down in Asheboro, well-respected community leaders have been proven to have been very much in the wrong (if JR & company would care to LOOK at the evidence I've offered to the Randolph County District Attorney). No one has held them accountable . . . including and especially the "free press" at Asheboro's Courier Tribune. When you delve into all of the connections and conflicted interests that factor into the status quo down here, it's like watching "Deliverance".

JR has jumped up and down about the cost to the taxpayer of the RMA report. Be outraged!!! Okay. I am. But in my case, we're talking about much more than $70,000 being poured down the drain. Ironically, it was reported today that a former Bush aide admitted to fraudulently returning about $5000 in Target merchandise. I'm wondering how can this man be held to national scrutiny over $5000 defrauded from a private company, and I'm still screaming in the dark about exponentially larger sums defrauded in "non-profit" and government-funded healthcare scams? How does Martha Stewart go to jail for lying about something that might not have even been a crime, and these guys WALK? It is a FACT that Country Club & Chamber of Commerce buds (with their "constructive quorums") - as well as "cooperative relationships" (with bigger guns like Moses Cone) rule in Asheboro.

It looks like the same rules apply in Greensboro.

So no, I don't respect under-handed, self-serving tactics from "sources" in community government who won't go on record in cases like this. Because the agenda does appear to be about vindication, not finding the truth.

I don't know if I should be empathizing so much with Chief Wray (what if the accusations are true?) . . . or if he deserved to be thrown out of his office (because I haven't seen the RMA report), but I know full well I didn't. So I tend to look very skeptically at these N&R news stories and unscrutinized commissioned reports that conveniently blame one man for all of a police department's ills. I've got "news" for you. The one agenda of a consultant is to make money - and to provide a report that will make the client happy - so they will consulted some more. But (hello?) it takes a village (a "team") to produce a screw-up of this magnitude (with a good portion of the village looking the other way).

Florida is not NC when it comes to public records - that's for sure. But JR keeps telling us the N&R's focus is "local". He also keeps asking us what we want (and we all scream, "public accountability"!!!). The N&R has published stories that tap-dance all around mine (the bloated salaries of non-profit executives, healthcare fraud and abuse, open government, perjury) but still don't hit the mark. And my story is very "local". I was born in Greensboro (at Cone), my Father was born & raised there, my grandparents lived and died there, my Mother was educated at UNC-G, and so was I. There just aren't any excuses anymore and that is why I am on these blogs signing my own name (do you appreciate the "risk" a practicing physician takes by doing that?). Again, I sympathize with David Wray because I have worn his shoes . . . your world suddenly turned upside down . . . swatting in the dark at rumor and innuendo . . . lawyers dictating your every thought and move (even invading your dreams) . . . not given the opportunity (in my case, by the Randolph Hospital Board of Directors) to look those who've made negative, life-changing judgements about you in the eye. In my case, NO ONE is even trying to argue anymore that what hospital administrators did wasn't fair or just or ethical or right . . . or VERY expensive to the taxpayer. I intervened to save I child's life. I reported it to peer review. Two weeks later I'm out of a job. A year later I'm sued for telling the Feds who paid for my medical education what happened. The guys who did it GOT RAISES! Nobody can say that I am not telling the truth about the perjury and contempt and fraud (the black and white of discovery responses preclude that). They're all taking the Fifth (or boldly stepping into the future by pretending it did not happen).

And the newspapers are so not there.

I expect that the reason the other players in this Greensboro Police department mess have not signed releases is all about money - how much do they think they can get if they sue (over one "right" or the other). For if you sign a release that option is out the window. But these folks with dollar signs in their eyes can take it from me . . . the reason I filed a criminal complaint with Garland Yate's office in Asheboro is because the civil court system is a joke. Alas, it appears the criminal justice system is too. For if it were, state and federal investigators would have been looking at my evidence long ago - and someone would at least be doing community service by mopping floors at the jail.

David Wray deserves due process. We deserve open government and an impartial press. I'm not seeing it. Anywhere.

(yawn)

As for the push for open government, you may be interested in checking out www.sunshineweek.com and www.fsne.org (all about the media in Florida fighting to keep many government records and meetings "in the sunshine").

Annette, I've heard about "sunshine week". For there is a push in Florida/other states to open the medical peer review process to closer scrutiny. Not holding my breath on that one.

This David Wray mess smacks of the same kind of thing - people (including city leaders) who say they want open government and "accountability", and then shutting all the doors and windows and hiding behind privacy laws as they chat up the lawyers and stage press conferences. It's a farce.

The N&R would like us all to think that "the source" acted in a noble fashion by giving the paper access to the RMA report. But the nobility of the action was lost in the limitations that were set by "the source". Releasing the report without limitations would have been noble. But setting the limitations reeks of an agenda.

John,

Is the News & Record exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. I am sure you have used it before.

Is that a serious question, DC? If so, the FOIA applies to government agencies, not private businesses.

Seems to me that the only real objections to the N&R publishing this information comes from a handful of off-kilter malcontents with an axe to grind.

I'm impressed, Chris, that you'd read through all these comments!