The memo, the black book and the city manager
City Manager Mitch Johnson released a statement today responding to our story this morning. It is disappointing.
Johnson's response seems to begin with blaming the newspaper.
His memo bullets nine points that he calls facts. I won't address any but the first, which is: The News and Record request did not match the document in question.
In her request, reporter Margaret Banks gave as many specifics as she could about a memo we had never seen. Had we known more, we would have included them. Specifically, the request asked for: "The two-page memo Tom Fox and Scott Sanders wrote summarizing the rationale behind the 'black book.'"
The city's initial response was: "We have researched and are not aware of the existence of the alleged two-page memo summarizing the rationale behind the black book.'
The memo itself, which the city has found but not released, provides a clear description of the rationale for creating the black book.
I will grant you that the request wasn't technically precise. But if the city staff were interested in transparency and were aware of the council's repeated interest in the black book, I would think that the legal team might have put two and two together. In fact, at least two people who aren't city employees -- Ben Holder and John Hammer -- had no trouble identifying the document we were requesting.
We ain't perfect, but this hot potato isn't ours.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Don't you see it JR ? Your request was delegated to the "new" legal staff under the direction of Linda Miles. The new staffers were just trying to excell and do a good job to please their superiors, Miles and Johnson. When their supreme efforts were waived on by them, the next generation of the People's legal department was born. Nothing like self preservation...? I'll bet Miles and Johnson can't wait for grandchildren ?
Posted on February 8, 2008 5:17 PM
You see, John? You and I can agree on some things.
The parsing of the request made by your paper is fine in a legal proceeding when you are trying to make things difficult for the other side, e.g., "they asked specifically for A, and we don't have A". But this wasn't a legal action, it was a citizen request where it was quite obvious as you point out what was being requested.
Too much lawyering, not enough transparency. Why the City thought it was even necessary to give a lawyerly response to this request shows that they are in full defense mode. The question is "why?"
Posted on February 8, 2008 7:05 PM
JR,
Thanks for the link
Posted on February 9, 2008 10:04 AM
I recommend that readers link to Ben Holder (The Troublemaker) and read the letter written yesterday by Kenneth Keller, attorney, to members of City Council.
Posted on February 9, 2008 10:56 AM
What a surprisingly defensive response from the news editor of the paper. There was no attempt in Mitch's statement to put blame on the paper for not describing the memo correctly. There was only an attempt to explain that among thousands of documents in this case, it is hard to find one without a good description. If I were trying to find the memo Margaret described, I would first have gone through every memo and sorted them by the ones from Sanders and Fox. Then I would have looked at the content. That would automatically have eliminated one from Sanders to Brady. You guys need to get a thicker skin and start showing a little balance. And Mr. Spagnola should realize that after two years of every word released by the city being ripped apart, the staff will become more and more cautious in what is said.
Posted on February 9, 2008 6:18 PM
Thanks, City. As someone who daily gets his fair share of hate mail, I've always thought I have pretty thick skin.
I apologize if I misinterpreted the spin on the manager's explanation. I don't know that I intended to act defensively...only that the explanation -- we didn't know that this was what you wanted -- didn't seem to hold up, to me. If the city staff actually wanted to help the newspaper -- a citizen -- with its public records request, the city staff might have clarified what we were looking for.
"Well, we don't have a document by those two gentlemen, but we do have this. Is that what you're talking about?"
The point -- and the point made in the editorial today -- is that the city's MO seems to be to narrowly, narrowly define what can be public...rather than to consider what should be public.
Posted on February 9, 2008 7:41 PM
I have been a resident of Greensboro for many years - 44 to be exact. I am not proud of our current City Manager and wish both he and Linda Miles were excused, immediately. Ed Kitchen did a wonderful job as our City Manager. Surely, there is a way to find someone of that caliber to fill the position.
As far as the City Council goes, at least this council - under Yvonne Johnson's leadership - is trying to do something to get at the facts. We did not see that under our former mayor.
The "race card" seems to be a very prevalent card to pull in many circumstances, related to Greensboro, as important issues are brought
to the forefront. Can we not step above that, and deal with the real issues. Truth, honesty and justice with a fair amount of rational and correct research are where we need to be.
I would love to see our city government in a much more positive and proactive position. Can this happen? I now believe there may be a chance. The "cards" are on the table. Let's play them fairly!
Posted on February 10, 2008 9:17 AM