News-Record.com

My frustration with the GC Commishes was, I thought, a GC-specific game. Now we have the Council Circus and we're moving into the second ring. How can seemingly intelligent and civic-minded adults not see what the community sees as a costumed parade that is badly coreographed?

When do we just stand up and say, "STOP IT! You look RIDICULOUS! You're making Greensboro LOOK BAD."

Toss an "h" into choreographed for me, will ya, JR?

First consider the "mob mentality" that seems to overtake elected officials. Then there is the "knowledge is power," factor. When only THEY have the knowledge, THEY have the power. Last night the mayor said, and I'm paraphrasing here, something about it being a representative government and we elected them to do their job. So, we're supposed to step aside and let them do it.

"When do we just stand up and say, "STOP IT..." On election day, which, unfortunately is a year and a half away.

John, this thought has occurred to me about the situation your paper may have put itself in regarding the leak. You know who gave you the info. If it is a city council member, then I think you have a problem Why? Because all of them have denied that they did it. If in fact one of them did do it, then they are blatantly lying to the public, which should be newsworthy in and of itself that an elected official is blatantly lying. Therein is your dilemna- do you report the story that an elected official is telling a complete lie to the public or do you ignore it because it would ruin your non-disclosure deal with that person?

Of course, I could be wrong, and it may not have come from the City Council, but if I'm right - you are going to have to face a whole lot of professional and ethical problems.

Also, will someone finally answer the question of whether Diane Bellamy Smalls is related to interim chief Bellamy?

That's been answered, Sam, I think on Sandy Carmany's blog, but I may be mistaken and I'm not going to spend the time to look. What my understanding is that they are cousins.

The N&R is the root cause of this expenditure of taxpayer funds. The N&R COULD do the citizens of Greensboro a public service and dispel the rumors by identifying the leaker and publishing the report in it's entirety.
But the N&R would rather sell newspapers than serve the citizens of Greensboro.

I think that jw is correct, Sam. That is an interesting ethical quandry that I'll leave to the journalistic ethicists for now. Don't forget that there are many more people than just the 9 council members who have seen the report.

Jaycee, of course, we're not the cause of the expenditure. We didn't make the city council do anything. In fact, council members are proud to tell you that the newspaper doesn't tell them what to do. They have absolutely no obligation to take the course they are taking.

I'll pose you the question that I posed to you earlier on another post: If you think the responsible thing for us to do is release the report in its entirety, wouldn't you think that is the responsible thing for the city, too?

If our stories about the investigation have been irresponsible, I am assuming that leaving the story where the council left it is the responsible position? If so, we just disagree on what the public should know.

By the way, I do like to sell newspapers.

Don't let the city council off the hook that easily, jaycee. No one is making them spend any money - they chose to waste money on this dog and pony show.

If we had to have a polygraph test every time a politician might be lying, we'd need a billion-dollar budget!

I firmly believe that the City Council will/would have released the parts of the report that they could legally release as soon as they could, given the ongoing investigations, etc. This issue is too hot for them to keepit under wraps. However, they have a legal and a moral responsibility to obey state laws and personnel laws, unlike the N&R which will publish any damn thing it wants, even if it's illegally obtained, in order to further the N&R's own agenda.
I fully agree that the info should be released. I'll bet the Council does, too. It's a matter of the Council doing it legally versus the report being illegally leaked to a news source hungry to scoop the world.
The N&R created the atmosphere in which the Council members felt the need to "prove" they were blameless (all except one, apparently). The N&R, in effect, created an atmosphere in which the public doubted the credibility of the Council because the N&R would not belay rumors that the report might have been leaked by a Council member. Even an admission by the N&R that it was NOT a Council member (without identifying who it really was) could have precluded this expensive venture.
The N&R has done no service to our community by it's actions.

Just a few points of clarification, jaycee. The report wasn't "illegally obtained." I hope you're right that the council will release the report when the investigation is complete, but no council member has made such a commitment, and in fact, they have avoided saying any such thing.

The issue is too hot? Council members themselves said yesterday that they haven't taken the time to talk about what to do with the polygraph results because the issue is not that important to them.

Actually, "the public" couldn't care less about the City Council's credibility, as that is an attribute "the public" cannot recall ever having given much thought.

It is ironic that in these days when the news media have mostly become simple public relations extensions of the government a local newspaper would be criticized when it actually fulfills its responsibility as the Fourth Estate.

Good job, John; you guys keep it up! Just because the national media have turned tail and run doesn't mean you must do so.

I just decided to keep my subscription that had been a gift for my grandmother for many years before she died in January.

Jaycee, your opinions on this matter are premised on the notion that release of the report was illegal. I disagree. The state statutes specificallyy state that this kind of information may be released. Ask yourself, if it were truely illegal for the report to have been shared, why isn't there a criminal investigation into the release?

So, Roch101, if I burglarized your business office and distributed illegally obtained personal and confidential fiels of yours that would be OK, because it's just a "release?" How about if I had access to your medical records and chose to "leak" them to the newspaper and they published them? That's OK because it's really just a "release?"
I'm talking about someone on the public payroll, as an elected official or employeee, who has access to personnel material protected under State Law and who illegally distributes that material and causes it to be made public. That's illegal.
Mr. Robinson, as long as you coverup the activities of your source, you can postulate on here the day long about what did or didn't happen in this case. When you start telling the truth and identify your source and release the report in it's entirety then the public will know the answers that you're so gleefully hiding while you churn up dissent in our community.

Jaycee, you called it "illegally obtained." That suggests that we did something illegal to get it. Didn't happen.

And I ask again: If it's your demand that we release the report to the public, why isn't it your demand that the city release the report?

Roch101, how do you know there's NOT a criminal investigation going? I do believe that once the News & Record identifies, or is forced to identify, their source the legal system wil kick in to punish them accordingly for violating State Personnel law.

Mr. Robinson, let me quote from your own newspaper's article this morning by write Eric Swensen, in case you missed it:
"There's an absolute intent to share every morsel of information within (state law)," [Councilman Mike] Barber said. "We've released every bit of information we can release (to this point)."

Even the Greensboro Partnership "gets it":
"We understand the need for limited public information to protect the investigation, but at the appropriate time (we) expect full transparency of what has happened and what will be done about it," said Patrick Danahy, the partnership's chief executive and former Cone Mills official.

And I'll say again, Mr. Robinson, I do want the report released by the city. And I firmly believe they will do that when it is appropriate and legal for them to do so. We were posting at the same time, but even Mike Barber has declared their intention to do exactly that.
When the N&R received a stolen report, didn't that make it a partner in crime with the thief? Sure does in my book, and I'll bet I'm not the only one that sees it that way.
You provided the incentive for someone to give you purloined goods. Without your willingness to take the stolen report, the thief wouldn't have stolen it, now would he? (Or she.)

It may make it that way in your book, but state law doesn't make it illegal.

I note that Mr. Barber says they will release what they can within state law. That's wildly different from releasing the report.

Lawmakers frequently hide behind these loopholes (like "personnel information") in the state's open records laws to deny the public access to legitimate information.

Jaycee's claim that this report was illegally obtained is, at best, shaky. There's no evidence to suggest that the "leaker" doesn't have every right to possess this report. The News & Record clearly is within its legal right to print it - it's a little something called the First Amendment.

And Jaycee, if you really believe that the city council will be up front on this at the "appropriate" time, well, you have far more faith in the integrity of our elected officials than I do.

Speaking of elected officials, Sandy Carmany gets the Bill Clinton Doublespeak Award for her statement in today's paper. "The only people really going crazy over the polygraphs are the media," she said.

Um, Sandy, the News & Record (and many citizens) told you guys that this was a waste of time and money. The only people squawking about this polygraph nonsense are you and the rest of the city council!

Mr. Robinson, the Council has to work within the law, unlike the N&R. I would expect nothing else from them than they conduct themselves in a lawful manner. YOU have not released the report in it's entirety, so don't take the Council to task when they're forbidden by law from doing it.
Waste, legally possessing restricted information is far different from illegally disseminating that same information. It's restricted by law specifically so it won't be disseminated.
Classification of certain information, usually by the government and sometimes by law, is not an infringement on the First Amendment. If you don't think so, try calling a hospital anonymously and requesting the medical records of a patient.

Well, this information wasn't illegally disseminated - that's the point I'm trying to make. Or one of them, anyway.

I'll be the first to acknowledge I was wrong when someone is charged and convicted of breaking the law in this matter. I won't exactly hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

I guess some folks think, "Lawmakers know best and who are we, the peons, to dare question their authority?" But I believe that government officials should be accountable to the people and that we, the taxpayers, have a right to know how our money is being spent. A radical concept, I know.

And just who are you to determine whether this information was illegally disseminated? That's the job of a court, not a court jester. (Sorry, just couldn't resist the joke.)
We do, indeed, have a right to demand our elected officials be accountable. And that includes demanding that they obey the law in their duties. They've already stated that they law prevents them from disclosing some info, the same law that prevents your employer from disclosing YOUR personnel info. It's the law, and I expect the Council to follow it.
Council members have also stated that they will release what they can given the limits of the law, which is all we can ask.

"...release what they can given the limits of the law.." jaycee, that's the problem. They keep saying they will release information(I promise!) knowing full well they WON'T be able to release much of the information. Why the dodge? Why do they think we can't see that? How stupid do they think we are? Why can't they be honest about it and just say that they won't be able to give over much information, much like the Michael King situation? At LEAST that would be honest. In the meantime, I'm stuck out here wondering what the heck is happening or has happened with the police department.

jw, I'm not sure what your point is. They've said that law restricts what they can release, they didn't say how much, etc. That's the law, they don't have much choice in the matter. I'm not sure how that is being dishonest?

Because they are making promises that they can't keep and they KNOW they can't keep them. I find that to be dishonest. It's a bait and switch.

What promises did they make? The only thing I've read and heard is that they will release what they can under law. I think that's an honest statement. Do you know something else? Spill it...the N&R is the place for leaked information!

"I know you are as tired of hearing me say "Be patient" as I am of saying it, but in the end -- however long it takes -- these findings will be revealed and whatever necessary actions are needed will be taken. That's a promise!" -- Carmany, April 20.

Jaycee,

Sorry for the delay in replying. If you burgalarized my home, that would be a crime. It is against the law. The same if you released my medical records. But those are strawman arguments. Release of this kind of report is permitted by statute. You may not like that it is. You might prefer that the person who shared the report be guilty of something, but your preferences aren't aligning with reality. Let's deal with reality here. The law permits release of this kind of report.

After reading a little more of your comments Jaycee, I find a contradiction.

You want the city to release the report when, you say, it is legal for them to do so. Jaycee, are you expecting the law to change? If releasing the report is illegal now, how would it become legal to release it down the road? What you have just pointed out, although you may not recognize it, is that the law does allow for the release of this report and it it is the desire of the majority of those in possession of it that is keeping it from the public, not the law.

Waste, a clarification. The N&R did not print the report.

Well, they printed more of it than we ever would've gotten from the City Council.

Sorry, jaycee, I don't buy your philosophy of abdicating all authority to our elected officials. I'm glad someone is checking up after them.

As far as any laws being broken, like I said, where are the indictments? Where are the arrests? Where are the convictions? I'll tell you - they don't exist and they never will.

Waste, maybe John will clarify, but my recollection is that they didn't print any of it, only reported on some of what is in it.

Yes, John, Shafer had an ineresting take. So did Victoria Toensing and Michael Barone. I'll link them and hope they are still working

LeakSoup

BlowbackOnThePress

Well the WSJ updated. I'll try again.

LeakSoup

jw, you're exactly right. They will release it when they can. Good point.
Roch, improper release of personnel info is protected by state statute, not permitted. Our city officials who have LEGALLY seen this report indicate that there is protected personnel information contained therein. Since we haven't seen it, we must rely on them to make that determination. It's why they are there representing us.
Roch, I didn't mean when it is "legal" for the Council to release the report, I mean them releasing what parts of the report it is "legal" for them to release. The legality issues pertain to the personnel info in the report, which is protected by law (same as your medical records), not the release itself. Sorry if you got the wrong impression from what I said.
We give our elected representative certain duties and responsibilities. They have this report, they can decide when to release it. If we don't agree with that, we can elect those that will do something else next time.

Jaycee, the laws that apply to medical records are not "the same" as the laws that apply to public employee personnel records. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the City considers this a personnel record and even evidence to the contrary. Additionally, case law says that just because something gets put in a personnel record doesn't mean it has automatic immunity from public disclosure.

I appreciate you taking your time to try to clarify what you meant about when the council might release the report, but your argument, with all due respect, falls short.

Your argument is that there may be legally protected information in the report and therefore, it can only be legally released later. That doesn't explain why the portions that can be legally released later cannot be legally released now, does it? The expectation that the report may be eventually released doesn't pretend to rely on a change of law to accomplish that. What it does admit is that the report can be legally released -- the "later" is spurious. If it can be released later, it can be released now. "Later" does not create some extra legality that does not exist now.

I'm sorry, Roch, you're missing my point, and I hope I haven't just muddied the waters.
The Council has said 2 things about this report:
1) It will be released when they're ready to release it. The date of release is not a legal issue.
2) There are parts that they believe cannot be released under the legal restrictions concerning personnel information. The timing doesn't matter on this, if the info is restricted under law, that's that.

I'm personally against the Council releasing the report until they feel the investigations, etc., are concluded and it's release would not hamper getting to the bottom of things. This ain't TV, things aren't tied up all neat and tidy in 60 minutes including commercial breaks.
The News & Record situation is separate from my feelings on the Council's handling of it. The N&R appears to be using their purloined copy to dictate what our community should believe in this situation. They do this by the simple fact that, "We've got it and you don't." Selectively using tidbits from the report as the basis for news article puts them in a position of power. They're pulling puppet strings on everybody involved or interested. Did you ever know someone in high school that did silly, juvenile things like that? Sure, we all did. Now the N&R is doing that to us.
The only way to defuse the power-hold the N&R has used to dictate the beliefs of our community in this matter is for them to release the entire report. It's like defusing a bomb. But the N&R would never do that, it would hurt their profit margin.

Jaycee, let me make sure I understand you. You respect the council's decision not to release the report because of its interpretation that the law restricts it. However, because we have it, you think we should release it so that you can read it.

If that's accurate, is it fair to conclude that you disagree with the city's contention that the report should be withheld -- either by us or the city itself -- because it includes personnel information or is part of an ongoing investigation?

Jaycee,

You've got it all backwards. The N&R is a privately owned company. They are not subject to public records law whereas the city council, who's secrecy you defend, is. Your trying to make an argument based on beliefs that ignores where and to whom the law applies.

You are still making the same argument, that the report may be publicly released later, but not now simply because the council doesn't want to release it now. That's not the way open government works and the legislature recognized that when they wrote the state's public records laws.

I'm sure your opinions are sincere, but they imagine legal powers that don't exist and ignore powers that do exist. If a record is subject to public discolsure, the party in posession of it cannot simply claim that they'll release it when they feel like it. That's just not what the law provides.

For clarification, I should specify that, in the last paragraph of my previous comment, the public records laws apply to governmental entities in possesion of public documents, not to other entities or individuals.

No, Mr. Robinson, I don't think the law restricts the release of the report by the Council, but the Council contends that the law restricts the release of some personnel info the Council says is contained in the report. That's fine, I expect them to follow the law. The Council is free to release it any time they want, that's not a legal issue, as I see it. From their statements they plan on releasing it when they feel it's appropriate given the investigations that are currently underway.
The N&R is under no legal obligation to withhold anything in the report since you obtained it unofficially, in a transaction that was very likely illegal. You're free to release any and everything you desire, whenever you want. Why would you worry about breaking any other laws regarding this?

So, Roch, your contention is that every single government agency should publish every investigative, personnel, and policy record the exact second it's received by them because they have some obligation to do so? What if they pause 10 minutes in releasing something after they get it? Have they raised your ire because they waited too long? What if they pause 10 hours? Is that too long? What if they pause 10 days? Too long? 10 months?
Please show me a "public record law" that forces government to release info the exact second it's received.
Who should best decide what's a necessary time period-- The people who commissioned the report and have the responsibility to thoroughly review and investigate and take action based on the report, or the loud-mouthed, concerned, but ignorant citizen demanding "open government?"
We elect public officials to do our business, let them do it.
The N&R unofficially (and possibly illegally) obtained a copy and we are trying this case in the newspaper. Unfortunately, we're handicapped by the fact that only the N&R knows what's in the report.
If the N&R wants to try this case in the newspaper, it should let all of us see the report. They we can all speak with the same set of facts.

No, Jaycee. You are misstating my position in order to make it something that fits the argument you would prefer to make. Your time-frame examples are irrelevant by this simple condition: public agencies should release public records when they are requested.

As for when such a request can be appropriately made, such requests should indeed be made when those who your contemptuously describe as "loud-mouthed concerned, but ignorant citizen[s] demanding 'open government'" want to know what their government is up to.

Again, I'll reiterate, although it seems hopeless at this point, you misdirect your calls for who should release this report. The News & Record has no legal obligation to reveal anything. Our government does. That you keep attempting to turn these responsibilities on their head is very strange.
Your objection to the release of the report by the entity that has an obligation to do so because you say the information may have legitimate secretive purposes is betrayed as disingenuous when the need to protect secrets vanishes in your call for the N&R to release the report. The city council should not release the report because it contains secret information, you say. The News & Record should release the report so that we can all speak from the same set of facts, you say. Huh? All you really are defending is the rather scary notion that our city government should be allowed to withhold information at its sole discretion. Have you really thought this through?

Roch, apparently I'm not stating my point clearly, and I apologize for that. Let me see if I can make it more clearly.
First, I did not mean that statement as contemptuous. By "ignorant" I meant persons that do not know or understand the situation behind releasing any controversial information upon which the Council must base an on-going investigation.
The RMA report was not the final step in this story, it was the starting point for more action.
Do you mean that any time, one second after the Council receives something or 1 year after, any citizen should be able to demand release of confidential information and immediately get it, regardless of the damage that might pose to them getting to the bottom of potential scandals? I hope you don't mean that.
Secondly, I DID NOT say that the Council should delay release of the report because of the legally protected personnel information. I merely support that they cannot, by law, release some of the information, no matter when they decide to release the report. There is no law that regulates when they may release the report, I think we know that.
The N&R is playing us by dribbling out the parts of the report they want to feed us to support their position. It is disengenuous for them to do this; if they want to inform the public they should release the entire report. As it stands now, we're only getting what the N&R wants us to see, that's unfair in this discussion, as the N&R is under no legal obligation not to disclose it all. If they want to expose something, let them expose it all, not lift the sheet partially and let us get only a glimpse.
The Council states that they are not releasing the report because of ongoing investigations, and I believe that is an appropriate and prudent thing to do. Do you want them to get to the bottom of this? Well, I do, and if they released the info sooner than appropriate then they may jeopardize that.

It's appropriate and prudent for the council not to release the report because of ongoing investigations, but it OK for us to release the report? I don't understand the difference.

Please cite the statute you are referring to when you say we illegally obtained the report, otherwise please stop accusing us of committing some crime that I'm advised doesn't exist.

Mr. Robinson, I have opinined that you MAY have illegally obtained the report. That will be determined when it's decided if the leaker, once the identity is known, violated state law regarding unauthorized/illegal dissemination of personnel information.
The Council cannot release portions of the report, and they've said they will release it when they feel they can do so without jeopardizing ongoing investigations.
The N&R, on the other hand, is using this and the surrounding controversies for commercial gain. You appear to have deliberately withheld the entire report so you can pump up the interest by dribbling out parts of it. You are under no legal obligation to withhold any of it, so why not release it and dispel the rumors and controvesy surrounding it? Many citizens want to know and don't want to wait for the Council. Since you're goal in obtaining the report (possible illegally) was to expose it, why not expose it in it's entirety? What's stopping you?

NC General Statute 160A‑168. Privacy of employee personnel records.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 132‑6 or any other general law or local act concerning access to public records, personnel files of employees, former employees, or applicants for employment maintained by a city are subject to inspection and may be disclosed only as provided by this section. For purposes of this section, an employee's personnel file consists of any information in any form gathered by the city with respect to that employee and, by way of illustration but not limitation, relating to his application, selection or nonselection, performance, promotions, demotions, transfers, suspension and other disciplinary actions, evaluation forms, leave, salary, and termination of employment. As used in this section, "employee" includes former employees of the city.

(b) The following information with respect to each city employee is a matter of public record: name; age; date of original employment or appointment to the service; current position title; current salary; date and amount of the most recent increase or decrease in salary; date of the most recent promotion, demotion, transfer, suspension, separation, or other change in position classification; and the office to which the employee is currently assigned. The city council shall determine in what form and by whom this information will be maintained. Any person may have access to this information for the purpose of inspection, examination, and copying, during regular business hours, subject only to such rules and regulations for the safekeeping of public records as the city council may have adopted. Any person denied access to this information may apply to the appropriate division of the General Court of Justice for an order compelling disclosure, and the court shall have jurisdiction to issue such orders.

(c) All information contained in a city employee's personnel file, other than the information made public by subsection (b) of this section, is confidential and shall be open to inspection only in the following instances:

(1) The employee or his duly authorized agent may examine all portions of his personnel file except (i) letters of reference solicited prior to employment, and (ii) information concerning a medical disability, mental or physical, that a prudent physician would not divulge to his patient.

(2) A licensed physician designated in writing by the employee may examine the employee's medical record.

(3) A city employee having supervisory authority over the employee may examine all material in the employee's personnel file.

(4) By order of a court of competent jurisdiction, any person may examine such portion of an employee's personnel file as may be ordered by the court.

(5) An official of an agency of the State or federal government, or any political subdivision of the State, may inspect any portion of a personnel file when such inspection is deemed by the official having custody of such records to be inspected to be necessary and essential to the pursuance of a proper function of the inspecting agency, but no information shall be divulged for the purpose of assisting in a criminal prosecution (of the employee), or for the purpose of assisting in an investigation of (the employee's) tax liability. However, the official having custody of such records may release the name, address, and telephone number from a personnel file for the purpose of assisting in a criminal investigation.

(6) An employee may sign a written release, to be placed with his personnel file, that permits the person with custody of the file to provide, either in person, by telephone, or by mail, information specified in the release to prospective employers, educational institutions, or other persons specified in the release.

(7) The city manager, with concurrence of the council, or, in cities not having a manager, the council may inform any person of the employment or nonemployment, promotion, demotion, suspension or other disciplinary action, reinstatement, transfer, or termination of a city employee and the reasons for that personnel action. Before releasing the information, the manager or council shall determine in writing that the release is essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration of city services or to maintaining the level and quality of city services. This written determination shall be retained in the office of the manager or the city clerk, and is a record available for public inspection and shall become part of the employee's personnel file.

(c1) Even if considered part of an employee's personnel file, the following information need not be disclosed to an employee nor to any other person:

(1) Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment, employment, or promotion in the city's service, when disclosure would compromise the objectivity or the fairness of the testing or examination process.

(2) Investigative reports or memoranda and other information concerning the investigation of possible criminal actions of an employee, until the investigation is completed and no criminal action taken, or until the criminal action is concluded.

(3) Information that might identify an undercover law enforcement officer or a law enforcement informer.

(4) Notes, preliminary drafts and internal communications concerning an employee. In the event such materials are used for any official personnel decision, then the employee or his duly authorized agent shall have a right to inspect such materials.

(c2) The city council may permit access, subject to limitations they may impose, to selected personnel files by a professional representative of a training, research, or academic institution if that person certifies that he will not release information identifying the employees whose files are opened and that the information will be used solely for statistical, research, or teaching purposes. This certification shall be retained by the city as long as each personnel file examined is retained.

(d) The city council of a city that maintains personnel files containing information other than the information mentioned in subsection (b) of this section shall establish procedures whereby an employee who objects to material in his file on grounds that it is inaccurate or misleading may seek to have the material removed from the file or may place in the file a statement relating to the material.

(e) A public official or employee who knowingly, willfully, and with malice permits any person to have access to information contained in a personnel file, except as is permitted by this section, is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and upon conviction shall only be fined an amount not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00).

(f) Any person, not specifically authorized by this section to have access to a personnel file designated as confidential, who shall knowingly and willfully examine in its official filing place, remove or copy any portion of a confidential personnel file shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and upon conviction shall only be fined in the discretion of the court but not in excess of five hundred dollars ($500.00). (1975, c. 701, s. 2; 1981, c. 926, ss. 1‑4; 1993, c. 539, ss. 1084, 1085; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Here's a document titled "An Overview of Protected and Public Information in North Carolina"

http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pg/pgspr02/article3.pdf

IF the person who obtained the report for you committed a misdmeanor in doing so, and IF you had prior knowledge/agreement/inducement, then you MIGHT be charged with conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor. See section (b) below.

NC General Statute 14‑2.4. Punishment for conspiracy to commit a felony.
(a) not posted
(b) Unless a different classification is expressly stated, a person who is convicted of a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is guilty of a misdemeanor that is one class lower than the misdemeanor he or she conspired to commit, except that a conspiracy to commit a Class 3 misdemeanor is a Class 3 misdemeanor. (1983, c. 451, s. 1; 1993, c. 538, s. 5; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 22, s. 12, c. 24, s. 14(b).)

So you aren't worried about us jeopardizing ongoing investigations?

It's more that I don't think YOU care whether you jeopardize ongoing investigations or not.
But I understand why you won't publish--you'd kill one of the most lucrative stories you've had in a while. If you publish the truth, you'll no longer be able to dole out classified info piecemeal and insure repeat buyers for your paper.

Jaycee, I've asked you to adress the apparent contradiction too. In your latest "answer" you avoid the question by deflecting. I'll try one more time:

You defend the city's refusal to release the report by saying that it would jeopardize an investigation. You call on the N&R to release the report in its entirety. If releasing the report would jeopardize an investivation why is it okay, in your opinion, for the N&R to release it?

I support the Council's decision on the timing of their report, I understand their reasoning. Would I like to review the report? Damn right. Can the N&R make that happen? Damn right.
Since the N&R is under no obligation to withhold anything, and the only promise they've made is to refrain from identifying the leaker, why are they withholding the report? Profit, that's why; they want to piecemeal it out and sell papers.
The bottom line is that while it's not proper for the Council to release the report (according to what they tell use) it would be entirely proper for the N&R to release it. So why don't they?

So, it appears fair to say that your argument that releasing the report would jeopardize an investigation is bogus.

Roch, you're not listening.
The Council has said that early release would jeopardize investigations. Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that.
But I also know that the N&R doesn't give a hoot about that, and they have the ability to release the report anytime they darned well please, like NOW if they wanted. So why won't they?
The N&R is handling this report like a snotty 10-year old who owns the only football in the neighborhood. You can only play when he wants, you have to play by his rules, and you have to kiss his patootie to get him to even give you a glimpse of the ball.
The reason the N&R won't release the report has nothing to do with jeopardizing investigations, protecting sources, etc. They just want to hold this over our heads and make us beg for it so they can sell more papers, generate more interest in their stories, etc. Their interest is not in serving the community, exposing "...the operation of the police force that the public needed to know" or anything else...it's about money in their pockets.

Jayce, I'm listening. You're not answering. You've put contradictory arguments on the table and refuse to reconcile them. Your speculation about one party or another's motives is not an anwer to why YOU claimed that release of the report by council would jeopardize an investigation but disregard that notion when YOU call for the N&R to release the report.

Your speculation about why the N&R won't release the report is a non-answer. I'm asking YOU to address YOUR seeming self-contradition: release of the report harmful to an investigation or not? Yes or no?

Yes, I answered that already. Read my posts.
"The Council has said that early release would jeopardize investigations. Yes, I wholeheartedly believe that. "
My belief in that has nothing to do with the N&R and it's purloined copy and their ability to release it in it's entirety with no repercussions. The only legal problem I can determine is with the N&R's receipt of the report, not releasing it.

Okay, Jaycee. Thanks. I see where you are coming from now: you maintain that release of the report by council would jeopardize an investigation. Release of the report by the N&R would have no such repercussions. One can only conclude then that it is not the information in the report that would jeopardize an investigation (or the N&R's release of same would not be innocuous). Apparently the distinction is somehow made in who does the releasing, although I still don't see how.

jaycee, if you honestly think that we're selling a lot of papers because of the police report, you don't know much about what moves newspaper sales.

No, Roch, you still don't get it, even though I've said the same thing about 5 times and you've tried to twist it into something else each time.
Here it is again. Would it help if I put it in ALL CAPS?
I understand and appreciate the Council's position that releasing information at this time would jeopardize ongoing investigations. It is, indeed, the info in the report that would do this. I support the Council on this.
I also support that the N&R has no such restrictions, and can release the entire report TODAY if it wants to. I wish the N&R would do this.
Mr. Robinson stated that the N&R obtained the report because it exposed information about "...the operation of the police force that the public needed to know" . Well, we're the public, so where's the information you promised?? If it was important enough to have someone steal it, why wasn't it printed the very next day for all to see? What does the N&R know and when did they know it? Is there information in the RMA report that implicates N&R reporters in criminal or intelligence activites? What is the N&R trying to hide now?
To date, the N&R has given no reason as to why they refuse to publish the info they went so far out on a limb to get. They only thing the refuse to do is identify their source, which is understandable.
Mr. Robinson, I'll admit I don't know your sales business, but I know you have to maintain interest in order to maintain sales. This is a story that helps readers maintain interest. Of course, you're also the only newspaper in town, so we're sort of stuck with you.

Jaycee, we've said that we promised not to distribute the report in addition to not identifying the source.

So where is the information, you ask? We've reported it in several stories, as you well know.

Finally, "to have someone steal it"? Not sure who you are suggesting had someone steal it.

Okay, Jaycee. The bottom line is you still are saying that the information in the report, if released by the council would jeopardize an investigation and that you wish the report would be released today (but only by the N&R).

I'm going to leave it at that. I think your contortions speak for themselves.

Mr. Robinson, I characterize it as "stolen" since it was taken and disseminated without legal authorization, and possible illegally. If there was not a receiver of the stolen property, there would be no theft, right? Does a burglar steal something he can't use or sell? Of course not. How does a thief choose what to steal? He chooses things for which he knows there is a receiver, someone to make it worth his while to steal it in the first place. If the person who took the report had no place to market it, would he have taken it?
Roch, I just pulled out my Pocket Constitution and reread it...I didn't find anything preventing me from having separate thoughts on separate issues. My concern in not the investigations, since I'm not involved in them. I desire for the Council to obey the law. Whether they release it today or next year is moot to me. My concern is not so much the issue but the principles, so I support the Council.
The N&R is a separate issue. Likewise, I support that they can release what they want when they want to. I'm frustrated that the N&R says the have dyn-o-mite secret info, but then refuse to let us in on the secret.
Mr. Robinson, if the N&R has made statements that they agreed not to distribute the report, I stand in error. My apologies, I thought your only agreement was to hide the identity of the source.