News-Record.com

Just because the N&R desperately wants to know something in no way obligates anyone to give you the answers you desire. You have no more right than anyone else to ask questions, and no one has any more obligation to answer to you than they do to any other citizen.
If I were in any public position I'd be darned sure I had the facts straight before I ever talked to the N&R. With the N&R's record of distorting stories, especially where race is a factor, I'd be reluctant to give you any answers until I'd at least informed other government officials of the true facts before they read the N&R version in the newspaper.

I wasn't suggesting that the News & Record get special access. But we are citizens, too, and as public employees stiff us, they are stiffing citizens.

While it's nice for public officials to get all their ducks in a row, as you suggest, that's not the way the law reads nor is it necessarily a service to the people who pay the salaries of the public servants.

Please tell me what "law" says the government has to tell a news agency exactly what it wants to know exactly when it wants to know it. I don't think there is one.
News media are quick to scream "Cover-up!!" when they demand info that's not yet available.
I think a government official has the responsibility to report accurate information. Often it's not available as quickly as the news media would like. Investigations aren't completed in 60 minutes like you see on TV.
An official that lets himself be backed into a corner by the news media and makes a statement that proves to be inaccurate later on not only makes a fool of himself and his agency but he does the public a disservice.
A newspaper that reports info which may be inaccurate makes a fool of itself and does the public a disservice.
I'd rather wait a few days and get solid, verifiable info than see an official piecemeal out info before even he knows fully what's going on.

I didn't say the law gives requires the government to tell a news agency exactly what it wants to know exactly when it wants to know it.

But the law does not require nor, in some case, permit government employees the time to inform "other government officials of the true facts" as you suggest in your first comment.

I agree with everything else you said, jaycee. That's not entirely what the post is about. One person whom I believe had information deferred to someone else who wouldn't comment. It's a common game.

While you might want to make this about the news media, I believe it is about public officials responding to their constituency -- the public. My sense from our conversations on this blog that you don't like getting the run around. I don't know why any citizen or parent of a student at Grimsley would either.

Oh, Mr. Robinson, I know exactly what your post is about. It's about some official having the *audacity* to refuse being bullied by the N&R.
I know you hate to hear this, but the N&R's questionable reporting of the Chief Wray story has made many in our government very, very gunshy about talking to you guys. Do they want to get their "ducks in a row" before they open themselves up to the editorial interpretation that seems to be the hallmark of N&R reporting on racial issues? Darn right they do, and I don't blame them.
No, I don't like getting the run around either. As you well know, I often hold the collective feet of the N&R to the fire in much the same way as you do with the government when you don't get what you want. You often squirm, equivocate, and weasel around answering my questions directly, while you decry those same techniques when used by someone from whom you're trying to get info.
Pot to kettle....hello??

Always comes back to the Wray case, doesn't it.

Here are a couple differences, jaycee. First, the News & Record isn't a public agency. We aren't funded out of tax money. Law don't govern what we must release and when we must release it. All of those things apply to public schools.

Second, I don't say, gee, you'll need to talk to someone else about that. You say I squirm, etc. I say you just don't agree with my answers. That's fine. The point is that they are answers; they aren't, gee, go talk to someone else, who conveniently isn't available.

A point of clarification: You call what we did bullying. As you weren't there, I don't know how you would know. But for the record, we didn't bully anyone. Our reporter on the scene asked questions, which is what we do. I doubt the principal involved felt bullied. All we're asking is he respond to his constituency, which I would say is the public. Yes, I know you don't think he needs to do that right now. We disagree, but as I have asked of you several times, don't assign to us words or actions that didn't happen.

So, for instance, jaycee, we are also interested in more information about the three police officers under investigation for assault. At what point, do you think the city should release information about that case? We've seen what people think when the city withholds information on police-related matters.

Mr. Robinson, please cite a law that specifies a time frame in which information must be released. I'm not familiar with one.
"Bullying" can be direct or implied; how can you possibly know what the principal "felt?" Don't assign "feelings" for someone when you have no way of knowing what he felt.
Many folks feel pressured or "bullied" when under fire from a news reporter. Given the track record of the N&R in fueling public controversy hinging on semantics and interpretations in racially charged news stories I'd sure feel "under the gun" in the same situation.
I'm think the School Board or the principal will respond when they feel they have accurate info to disseminate. Would you rather report accurate info, or inaccurate info that leads to misunderstanding, requires retractions or corrections, and muddies the waters?
I often feel that immediate "knee-jerk" reporting of partial facts, innuendo, rumors, and incomplete info serves only to fuel the fire of controversy and sell newspapers.
I feel the news media better serves the public with accurate info, even if it takes a bit longer to develop.
I often think the news media, when faced with the question, "Do we report what we have now even though it might be inaccurate, or do we wait until we have the full story?" chooses the former for business and circulation considerations.
What say you? :)

Mr. Robinson, as far as internal police personnel issues, I feel the GPD will release what it can when it can while taking into consideration legal and personnel restrictions.
Just because the N&R desperately wants information to sell newspapers does not obligate the government to violate the law and give it to them.
Patience, man, patience!

I agree. Let's not assign "feelings" for someone when you have no way of knowing how he felt. As I read this, you assigned the feelings.

You continue to refer to the Grimsley situation as having a racial angle, in this latest comment referring to it as racially charged. What is the race angle?

I agree that we want accurate information. I can't agree that we should be willing to wait until the public officials involved should be allowed to wait to "respond when they feel they have accurate info to disseminate," as you say. Too many times that means they don't respond in public at all. That is the course the city council and city government took with the Wray case....until the city council felt pressure from the public to release more information, 18 months after the chief resigned.

As for the time element, the NC statutes pertaining to public records NC 132-1 makes references to availability.

You seem to be referring to "records" rather than a request for comments by a government official. I'd submit those are two separate and distinct situations. Has the N&R requested comments and information, or records in this incident?
I find nothing that requires "comments" by a public official to be furnished to anyone.
Also:
GS 132-1 does not address timeliness.
GS 132-6.2 (e) states, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a public agency to respond to a request for a copy of a public record by creating or compiling a record that does not exist."
I'd submit that if an investigation has not been completed then the record does not yet exist.

Which incident? The police incident, yes. As the story states, we asked for records. As for the school story referred to in the original post, no. Of course, the original post was about being passed around to people who weren't reachable.

I've never said that the law requires any public official to speak to the citizenry. My position is that accountability to the public is assumed if you are being paid by tax dollars.

Our request isn't for something that doesn't exist. Check out GS 132-1.4 (c). That's what we've asked for.

As for the time issue: GS 132-6 states "Every custodian of public records shall permit any record in the custodian's custody to be inspected and examined at reasonable times and under reasonable supervision by any person,..."

The term "reasonable" is always debated, but usually means within normal business hours. It doesn't say anything about waiting until government officials have completed this investigation or gathered all the information they'd like or have notified everyone they want to notify first.

Jaycee, I'm a citizen. I have a daughter in the schools. Do I want to know what's being done to end the violence? Darn right! Mr. Robinson, please keep pushing to find out what they're going to do. I pay taxes and I want to know. And if they keep trying to hide the ball, please keep telling us about that too. Thank you!

Mr. Robinson, the "reasonable" reference refers to when you pick up or examine the records, not the time frame in which a government official is required to respond or furnish them.
"Concerned Citizen" I agree with you 100%. But do you want rumor, innuendo, partial incorrect info, or do you want facts? Do you want what really happened, or do you want racial furor stirred up by the media which distorts the actual event?
Do you have any evidence that anyone is hiding anything? Do you think the government can know absolutely every single fact, predict what questions the media will ask and have each and every answer, and never make a mistake 15 minutes after something occurs? We live in a real world, this is not a TV show.
I want facts, not some reporter's version of the facts as seen through a liberal racial bias and shaped to further the agenda of the media.

Yes, I'm aware of that. That's an important issue in our experience because government officials can say, yes, you can have that information. It will be ready in two weeks. Hardly reasonable.

Jaycee, you throw up all these strawmen. Rumor? Innuendo? Partial incorrect info? No one is suggesting any of those things should or would be published except you.

And why do you keep tossing race as an issue into this?

Mr. Robinson wrote:
"Check out GS 132-1.4 (c). That's what we've asked for."

That statute refers to police reports. Is it your assertion that the N&R requested public info from GPD and GPD refused to furnish it even though required to by statute?
If so, you have a serious grievance.
If not, you're barking up the wrong tree with your complaint.

Umm..Mr. Robinson, are you familiar with the incident? Black students, black issues, black gang involvement, black neighborhood disputes....

From your own article:

"community leaders"--buzzword phrase for black leaders in Greensboro.
"many of the students involved come out of poverty." Another buzzword phrase for low-income minorities.
"Better jobs are needed to fight poverty; More role models are needed; More recreation facilities and programs are needed." More covert references to low-income minorities.
All of the pictures in all of the media, newspaper and TV, show black students.

And you have no idea if there is a racial component to this??
Of all the media in our community I hear more people questioning the racial bias of the N&R, based largely on it's coverage of the bogus race issue involving Chief Wray; the continued backing of the Money Pit on Elm St., aka Civil Rights Museum; and the liberal sway of many columnists.
In my opinion, the coverage of many of these, mostly the Chief Wray issue, was rife with race-baiting and distorted information about racial aspects of the situation. Many in our community feel the same way.
Strawmen? I think not.

Um, the chief said that a criminal investigation is taking place, so yes, we did ask for that information. We do believe we have a serious grievance. Sorry if that wasn't clear in these discussions.

As to the race issue, one last comment: We're criticized about the Wray case for inserting race into a story where some say it didn't belong. Now we're criticized for not inserting race into a story where some people see it. Which should it be?

JR, if you are seeking info about the incident involving Sgt. Wallace and the two other officers go to: http://thetroublemaker.blogspot.com

"Do you want rumor, innuendo, partial incorrect info, or do you want facts?" I want facts. Why won't the school system provide them? If you don't trust Mr. Robinson to report the facts the schools provide that's your own issue. Mr. Robinson's point is that the schools should not try to hide, downplay or otherwise obfuscate regarding violent incidents at our schools. But they do. Ask any teacher.

In fact, the N&R was probably a little bit embarrassed when they reported the watered down versions the school system provided only to discover later what really happened. (The incident at Southwest comes immediately to mind.)

So whatever issues you have with the paper or the media or Mr. Robinson, put that aside for a minute and you'll see that at least on this issue Mr. Robinson has a valid point. Our public servants fail to serve when they hide important information about our public institutions. And when the information being hidden might lead me to underestimate the violence to which my little girl is exposed, then I get damn mad.

I won't speak for jaycee, Fred, but I think that's the kind of rumor, innuendo and partial information he's talking about.

Citizen, thanks for your support.

JR,

I am correct. You are a fool. How is the sale of the Canada Dry Building coming?

I can add a few thoughts to this discussion. I am the reporter who called the principal.

I had questions chiefly based on a phone message he had left for parents the day of the fight that stated: "We intend to work with community leaders and groups to address community relations and issues that have found their way to the Grimsley campus."

My question was exactly what that meant. Which leaders, what groups, exactly what was planned?

As the story reported, the principal wasn't sure, and the person he referred questions to didn't return calls.

Judging from feedback I have received this week, this an a subject that is of intense interest among parents. I have received a number of calls from parents concerned about the issue and interested to see what the school district is planning to do to address it.

Of course reporters don't - and shouldn't - have any special access. But the fact is that most people don't have the time to pursue answers to those questions.

We do have that time, because it's our job. And that's why people pay for our product, because they believe paying for it is a better investment of their resources than spending the time to track down the answers themselves.

So the fact is that we we have trouble getting information, that means that a lot of regular people are having trouble getting information.