Fighting City Hall
Update: City Council votes to release some information. And I thank them.
We sued the city of Greensboro today seeking more information on the investigation of three police officers suspended with pay last week.*
We believe that state law considers the information public. We believe that the citizens of Greensboro deserve to know what their employees are doing. And we believe that releasing the information is a critical step to begin rebuilding public trust in City Hall and the police department.
I've said before that I appreciate the need to protect employees. I still do. But the city hasn't made the case that releasing more information will hurt the officers. Not releasing more information further forestalls the city council's oft-stated desires to put police department troubles behind it.
This will be an interesting test of the new council, which meets in a few hours to hear more about the investigation. Many of the council members campaigned on a platform of openness. Several pointedly said the city and police department had some credibility gaps. Will the council follow through with campaign promises or will it take the escape hatch of saying that it has released "all the law allows?"
Here are their most recent comments about releasing the info. Just to refresh your memory, in October, we published a Q&A with the candidates. These are some excerpts from their answers on how to heal rifts in the community caused by the ongoing controversy surrounding former Police chief David Wray's resignation. They seem to be relevant in this case, too.
Yvonne Johnson: To rebuild trust, the city should release information so citizens can make informed judgments about the city's actions.
Mary Rakestraw: There has been a lack of full disclosure, and recent attempts at providing bits and pieces should be replaced with truthfulness. If the public has the duty to pay taxes, it should be treated with respect and be able to handle the truth, good or bad.
Trudy Wade: The dissemination of information for public scrutiny is essential in restoring the public trust.
Robbie Perkins: The lesson learned is that the city must release information in a timely manner and dramatically improve its communication with the media and its citizens. In this situation, "business as usual" is not enough to heal our city. We need extra effort and full communication -- now.
Zach Matheny: It appears that one of the biggest sources of tension over this controversy is that the public doesn't think the city is providing them with all the information it should, and this notion breeds suspicion regarding our leaders at all levels. We need to be honest and forthcoming so that every citizen can form their own opinion on the events that occurred. We may even take affirmative steps to educate citizens as to what happened (e.g., neighborhood meetings). If there were mistakes made, we do our best to rectify them and make sure they are not repeated. Otherwise, I would hope we could move forward. Either way, by offering full disclosure, we would only be discussing something that happened in the past, rather than a continuing stigma of suspicion and frustration due to our inaction.
Goldie Wells: I think the rifts in the community created by the police controversy can only be healed by having the truth revealed and having discussions that will allow the citizens to vent and then make a decision to move on. There are some citizens who will always believe what they have heard and read from the unreliable sources no matter what the true facts are. But I believe we have citizens who will accept the truth and realize that we have to focus our attention on restoring trust in the Greensboro Police Department and city government. Then we can move on to the more important issues.
Sandra Anderson Groat: The public perceives elected officials as having secrets and hiding information. They are suspicious of the elected officials and of the state of public safety in our community. Restoring trust comes with openness and availability of the elected officials.
* We waited until today because courts were closed Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Comments (15)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
John,
Has the N&R switched lawyers? Or is Alan Duncan, who also represents the city, now suing himself?
Posted on December 27, 2007 1:30 PM
We are using another firm.
Posted on December 27, 2007 1:38 PM
I think you're barking up the wrong tree, Mr. Robinson. Until such time as the detectives determine that it appears a criminal act has occurred and file the requisite crime reports it's still an internal personnel matter and not subject to public disclosure. Once official reports have been filed, as in any crime report, you'll have access to it.
Just my $.02.
Posted on December 27, 2007 2:29 PM
Well, it's going to be another normal day at City Hall.
I am glad you made quotes of the council member's statements during the campaign, about transparency. You think they got the message with this lawsuit? Or do we do the
"recall" thing?
I hope that Mayor Johnson, City Council members, and City Manager Johnson, realizes that we (the citizens) MEAN BUSINESS! We want to know, as it is our right to know!
I realize that it's more of a criminial investigation, and that's why the hush-hush. But, weren't there some violations of protocol/policies and procedures/etc., as well?
I guess we'll find out, won't we.
Posted on December 27, 2007 2:48 PM
John,
Do you still think that not covering the Blair Carr DUI story was wise? Particularly, since her actions in the Wray report will probably end up in court. With such a flagrant breathalizer result, most people will think of an impairment problem and greatly affect her credibility. Don't you agree?
Posted on December 27, 2007 3:02 PM
Wayne, so that this thread can remain on course, I've responded to your question at the post entitled "today's edition" where we started this discussion.
Posted on December 27, 2007 3:11 PM
John, congrats on filing the motion. Just for some b. g. info, did the N&R ever sue the city before for release of info?
Posted on December 27, 2007 4:58 PM
Good for you, John. I may be right behind you if they continue to play the "personnel records" shell game. For some reason, they treat that like a catch all when courts have clearly stated otherwise.
Posted on December 27, 2007 5:29 PM
Just so we can keep all the lawyers straight, what firm are you using, John?
Here's hoping that you don't have any drunks representing you . . . not that it would be relevant or anything.
Posted on December 27, 2007 8:58 PM
SKS, we haven't sued the city for records that I can recall recently. We did sue the county a few years back to get salary information.
Posted on December 28, 2007 7:45 AM
Congratulations on sinking to a new low for your paper. It appears that most of your articles involving the Police have been with their cooperation. Good luck on doing those "in depth" articles now. I would bet that there are a whole bunch of people at the PD that want nothing else to do with you.
Posted on December 28, 2007 9:58 AM
Funny how just about all the city council said the city needs to release more information to the public, but very little information is released. Just another case of the City Council trying to pull the wool over the publics eyes, again. They say one thing and do another. Congradulations to Turdy Wade and Mary Rakestraw for standing for what is right and not engaging in the Mayors and City Council's silly games. And Dianne Bellamy-Small is correct in part of her statement: you (Bellamy-Small) don't know what the heck you are doing. And neither do the people in Bellamy-Small's district, for voting her to another term.
Posted on December 28, 2007 10:32 AM
Capt. Hastings statement was very tightly worded as to possibly be misleading of the facts of the case.
One, in what exact area of Four Seasons Mall did the victim "encounter" the three officers? Was it the Fifth Season Club?
Two, did the victim have a chance encounter with the three officers or did she call them to meet her?
Three, was the victim unable to drive her vehicle and asked the three officers to drive her home?
Four, did one of the three officers drive her vehicle with the victim's friend, while the victim rode with on-duty officers in a police van?
Five, why did the victim report an alledged sexual assault crime to Internal Affairs? Was it her intention that it not become public, but the officers would be administratively punished, rather than criminally?
Posted on December 28, 2007 11:33 AM
I would like someone to ask if the officers involved have been ordered not to talk to press.
Posted on December 31, 2007 10:11 AM
Stormy, it's quite possible the "victim" merely made an IA complaint because she was mad at the officer/s involved. She may have had no intention of filing any kind of a criminal complaint. Surely the "victim" officer would know how to report an actual crime or go to the Magistrate for warrant issuance. No one has yet alleged that any crime occurred; the GPD is merely looking into the incident to determine IF any crime may have occurred.
Too many jumps to conclusions in yet another tempest in a teapot stirred up by the N&R.
Posted on December 31, 2007 10:13 AM