News-Record.com

Netscape v Microsoft.

In the olden days when there were browser wars, every time a new release of a browser came upon us, someone would point to a browser flaw and show how to exploit it. They'd put it online and we geeks would all smirk.

Microsoft used to threaten to sue the reporters. Netscape used to offer rewards to anyone who could expose a flaw.

Greensboro thinks like Microsoft did. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now. Sure, MSFT stock is desirable but Google is the search engine we all use and I prefer my Google stock returns. Besides, "Google" became a verb. I wonder what verb "Greensboro" will become unless we as a city carefully and legally open our death grip on public information.

"Keeping information secret isn't normally the best path to restoring public trust and confidence."

I agree. So I suppose you will be publishing your copy of the RMA report in full on this site any day now.

The reason for problems at the GPD dates back to the slanted article written by L. Ahearn. Every article tried to paint Hinson as a victim of racism when that wasn't the case. Years later the media always starts or ends an article on him with a reminder about the tracker on his vehicle. City government is a wreck, yet no one does any serious investigative reporting and if they do, its a one time article. Pick an issue and keep it in the public eye until its corrected.

How you guys twist the issue of city's lack of information into an issue with the newspaper suggests, well, a lack of focus, at the very least.

So, Mr. Robinson, you think it's appropriate for the N&R to implore the City Council to violate the law? Wouldn't that make you an aider and abettor to a law violation?
I'd rather see my city government abide by the law than bend to the pressure of a newspaper and break it.

The law allows the city to release information it deems necessary to the public trust. Besides, a Superior Court judge's ruling in a different case in Durham has no sway on how the city of Greensboro should interpret the law.

The city has had more than six months to investigate this incident and determine what should happen, if anything, with these officers. You're a former officer. How much time should the public expect this to take?

I beg to differ thanta Superior Court ruling on a similar case in one District shouldn't affect decisions in another District. I think any government entity should pay close attention to judicial precedents regarding employee personnel issues.
I believe it has already been decided what should happen to these officers. The DA decided there was not enough evidence to establish that a crime occurred. I don't believe GPD is required to disclose the details of their internal discipline actions to the N&R or anybody else. Pinning on a badge does not require one to give up one's rights. The City has a responsibility to treat it's employees legally and in accordance with personnel laws, no matter how loudly the Editor of the local newspaper demands they do otherwise.

OK, we disagree. (I can't imagine the chaos in which the scenario that every Superior Court ruling is followed by all others in the state, but that's your thing, not mine.) I might remind you that the lack of evidence of a crime is not the same as whether the officers behaved the way their employers want them to behave.

You write as if I am the only one interested in this case when, in fact, that is hardly true. Our story quotes several city council members who believe their constituents have the right to know.

My question to you remains: It has been more than six months. The case is still apparently unsettled as the chief says he will report the outcome of his investigation to the city manager. So, how long should the citizens expect that such an investigation should take?

I still believe it's the responsibility of government entities to keep current on legal decisions which affect, or may affect sooner or later, their actions. Therefore I believe it's good business for other agencies to pay attention to the case in Durham involving police officers and personnel issues. By doing so they keep "ahead of the curve" and prevent lawsuits later. It's just good legal sense.
As far as the time factor in internal investigations, your guess is as good as mine. If it takes a while, well, it just takes a while. For outsiders to try and dictate the operations of a highly technical and specialized investigation is just plain stupid. Should a car salesman try and tell a brain surgeon how quickly a tumor operation should proceed? Many factors are at play in an internal investigation; most of them are beyond your knowledge or experience. My personal belief is that Chief Bellamy and GPD will release what they can when they can. If they say it ain't ready, then it ain't ready. But that's just me, we usually disagree on this subject. :)

For fun, let's consider this: If a judge in, say, Asheville, ruled the other way, that a public employee's personnel record was open for public perusal, would the city say, hey, because that judge ruled that way, we now believe all records are open?

If you think the answer to that is yes, then we really disagree. I believe the city would not change its policy. They only did it now because they want things to be more restrictive.

As for the six months, I really was just asking your opinion. They know all the players in the incident. They all work for the city. What other evidence could they possibly be waiting on?

Got an interesting comment from a Greensboro .
police officer

1) If the women officer was assaulted / inappropriately groped the three officers should be fired.

2) If the women officer made a false accusation she should be fired.

3) If the group was involved in consensual sex( on duty/in a police vehicle ) they should all be fired

This is not that complicated.

I think the City (and other cities) would look at any court ruling on employee personnel records and see what effect it might have on them. Good legal sense says to err on the side that protects the employees and thus protects the city against lawsuits and claims.
You act as if police officers have no civil or employee rights and should be denied due process simply because the local newspaper is "curious" and demands the employee's rights be violated to satisfy that curiosity. I'm happy the City is obeying the law as they see it and protecting the rights of a group that's constantly under attack from an overzealous news media. If the tables were turned, you'd be happy your employer were protecting you and obeying the law.

Also, Mr. Robinson, can you specify just what personnel records of internal investigation and/or punishment you think the news media has a "right" to see and from what authority that right derives?

John, the City has contradicted themselves so many ways on legal issues that it will be hard to watch them argue for one interpretation of the law over the other.

I expect our case to have the RMA and Black Book released among other matters will be heard in the next month or two after discovery is complete. The position of the City on public records seems to be that nothing is a public record until proven otherwise, which is exactly backwards.

In any case, the RMA is not a personnel record and I am confident that a Superior Court judge will agree when we go to Court.

The City even claimed that the "black book" was a personnel record while at the same time claiming it was a criminal investigative tool. In order to be a criminal investigative tool the investigation must be legitimate. So despite all of the noise from Mitch Johnson about the "black book" being used to target black officers, the City was forced to admit that it was in fact a legitimate tool. Of course, this position makes Mitch Johnson look like a fool- but in my case as in the one by black officers against the City, the City has no choice but to admit it was legitimate. Otherwise, they have no basis to refuse to release it in my case (the personnel records argument will get shot down in a flash) and they would be admitting liability in the other case.

Is there really any question that Mitch Johnson's complete mishandling of these matters has caused all of these problems? Any fool can see that he has caused the City to take completely inconsistent positions in Court than they have been taking publicly.

I think if an officer gets suspended WITH pay, then the citizenry has the right to a real- time, day-to-day, update on his status and what exactly is going on. If he is suspended WITHOUT pay, then they can jack around until the cows come home.

Jaycee, I think that public servants are different from a private company's employees, personally. More transparency comes with being paid with public funds. I think police officers should be held to the highest standards of behavior, too.

I don't know, though, that any court opinion supports that.

So, if a police officer is on paid leave for behavior being investigated, I want to know about it. When he goes off it and why. It's pretty simple.

And while you continue to make this appear as if it is only the prying eyes of a snoopy newspaper interested in this, you're dead wrong about that.

I agree with JR here. The city's "acquiescence" to the Superior Court judge's ruling is one of convenience that supports their misguided and contemptuous propensity towards secrecy. More demanding rulings of the state Supreme Court are ignored, when it comes to releasing the RMA report, for example.

The city administration is not guided by a respect for judicial opinion, it is guided by its own self-serving desire to limit, to the greatest extent possible, any scrutiny of its actions. When they find an excuse to buttress that desire, they use it, but it's not some newfound respect for the law. Were that not so, they would be saying, "Court decisions compel us to release the RMA report."