News-Record.com

You know I'm not going to miss an opportunity to leap onto this bandwagon.

How could the council in good conscience turn away from the opportunity of a public testing of candidates for the city manager's position?

If you consider why the council fired the previous manager, Mitchell Johnson, it would be well-served by a public process. We listed their reasons for firing him last March. Basically, the people who voted against Johnson didn't like his managment style, didn't think he was forthcoming, didn't think he communicated with the council and thought the city needed a clean sweep so that it could move on.

You can get a good sense of a job candidate's abilities in those areas by putting him or her through the sort of public screening the school board did with the candidates for superintendent.

To put it more strongly than Amanda: the members who argue for government transparency should argue for a public hiring process.

I am confounded by the ability of the county commissioners to continue to operate as if they are running a private business. That is doing whatever they please without much transparency.

Gerald Witt outlines the latest political manuever. He elaborates at the Inside Scoop blog. Then Allen Johnson explains the commissioners' "master plan."

Of course, the commissioners aren't running a private business. To me, it's apparent that some of them don't know what they're running or how it is being run. That citizens and the blogosphere are silent as they watch this being played out seems, well, so unlike us, given our interest is arguing about almost anything. After all, tax money is involved, high-ranking officials are being forced to quit, favored people are promoted, and pet projects are funded. Official explanations? Obscure and combative.

At least commenters are wondering what's going on.

Rumors, speculation, questions and insinuations continue to plague the city and its police department.

Inside Scoop attempts to get at some of them.

I'm not surprised that the questions are being asked. I'm not surprised that the people asking them aren't actively attempting to get answers. I'm not even surprised that a City Council member is fueling the uninformed discussion.

But I am surprised that the city hasn't learned the lessons of the past by anticipating the questions and getting answers out to the public, perhaps before they are even asked. A City Council that fired its city manager so that the city could make a fresh start finds itself bogged down in the same old mud.

The solution: Management that says, "Here's what we know. What questions do you have?"

Taft Wireback reported this morning that a series of decisions, missed communications and an inefficient government process by state officials, city officials and developers are going to end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Joe Killian yesterday reported that N.C. A&T Chancellor Stanley Battle, who has resigned effective June 30 -- although he refuses to explain his resignation -- will continue to collect his $273,000 salary while on "research leave" through the rest of the year. Per usual, A&T officials were unavailable for comment.

And, of course, Gerald Witt closely tracks -- as best someone standing on the outside can -- the behavior and decisions being made in the name of county residents by the closed-set of county commissioners. That includes spending more money in the name of cost cutting.

Does government know that we're in a recession? If given the choice, would taxpayers endorse these expenditures? And these are just the expenses that we've been able to find out about. What else is there? Don't you wonder why it continues unabated?

If character is what you do when no one's looking, we have some work to do.

From Brian Ewing's story today about the school board meeting and Northern High School:

About a dozen parents attended the Guilford County Board of Education meeting to note their disappointment with central office officials they felt were mishandling the investigation by not being open and allowing too much media exposure on the issue.

Am I the only one who sees an inherent contradiction between the complaint that the system isn't open and that it permits too much publicity? (By the way, I assure you that the school system would prefer that the media not cover the issue.)

I sympathize with the parents at Northern. It's tough to watch something you like be investigated and then, seemingly, start unraveling. And the only way you find out about it is by reading the newspaper.

The school system has an opportunity to save face and to address the concerns of parents. Meet with them in open. The discussion can be done without violating anyone's rights or endangering an investigation, which, frankly, is desperately needed throughout the school system. Credibility is at stake.

Saturday update: And when I say it is desperately needed, this is what I'm talking about.

If the News & Record stopped writing about the county layoffs and firings, if we stopped questioning who was making the decisions and how they were occurring, would anyone know or care? (Other than those laid off and fired, of course.)

Skip Alston, chairman of the county board of commissioner, seems to believe that the people know all they need to know because he tells them personally. And if you don't talk to Skip? I guess you're out of luck.

"My job is to bring about efficiency, not to explain to you how I act as an elected official," he told Inside Scoop. "I’m bouncing a few things off my constituents, not with the News & Record."

OK.

But some of us remember when Skip did not have the power of the chairman's gavel, when he was a member of the board who asked tough questions in public about how the board itself operated. Back then, he demanded answers from his fellow members and county employees, and he did it in public during televised board meetings. I wonder how that Skip would have graded this Skip's performance.

It makes me smile to think of it.

Gerald Witt at Inside Scoop got Commissioners Chairman Skip Alston to speak candidly but with opacity -- notice how opaque is my favorite word when talking about our elected officials? -- about the shenanigans going on at the county courthouse.

Lot of meat there. I'm just interested right now in Skip's characterization of his friendships.

"I’m more of best friend of the public than a news reporter is," Alston said Tuesday. "I have volunteered as a public service. I have more commitment and accountability to the public than the newspaper does."

The commitment is debatable. The accountability? Not so much. He's elected from a district, not the entire county. Most Guilford County voters can't vote for or against him. I don't consider that accountable. He's scarcely transparent. I don't consider that accountable, either. Does he report his decisions and actions in a timely, open way? Not that I can tell.

He continues:

"I don’t see y'all as the public," Alston said of the News & Record. "I see myself and elected officials as the public. We have been sent here, not you all, to do a job on their behalf, after consultation with them, not after consultation with the press."

Is he consulting with the public as employees are laid off and top managers are fired? How?

Reporters aren't "the public." But we and other journalists -- and I include all stripes here -- represent the public at the meetings and in our reporting about the firings and layoffs in county government.

I'm unclear on how he does.

At Inside Scoop, Amanda Lehmert logs in Council member Trudy Wade's comment about being named in the discrimination lawsuit brought against the city by 39 black police officers.

Worth noting: In case you are keeping score, that is one more person the city will have to pay a private attorney to represent in recent lawsuits. Former City Manager Mitchell Johnson also gets his own attorney.

The "fun" in "funding" never stops.

In his column today, Nicholas D. Kristof bemoans The Daily Me, Negroponte's term for the concept that each of us can now become our own editor, selecting the information that we care about.

The effect of The Daily Me would be to insulate us further in our own hermetically sealed political chambers. One of last year's more fascinating books was Bill Bishop's "The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart." He argues that Americans increasingly are segregating themselves into communities, clubs and churches where they are surrounded by people who think the way they do.

Almost half of Americans now live in counties that vote in landslides either for Democrats or for Republicans, he said. In the 1960s and 1970s, in similarly competitive national elections, only about one-third lived in landslide counties.

"The nation grows more politically segregated -- and the benefit that ought to come with having a variety of opinions is lost to the righteousness that is the special entitlement of homogeneous groups," Mr. Bishop writes.

Guilford became a landslide county in 2008 -- Obama--59%, McCain--40% -- but do we match up to Bishop's description?

There certainly is a lot of righteousness in our civic discussions. But are we too homogenous? Not if you look at our local politics. Not if you read letters to the editor in the paper or in the blogs. (I'll grant you that letter writers seem polarized on the far ends of the spectrum, but that well predates The Daily Me.)

Of course, whether the variety of opinions are listened to is a different matter. I don't know that a lot of listening occurred at the closed City Council meeting to fire the city manager. I don't know that a lot of listening has been occurring at the county commissioners' sessions to cut the budget.

But after all, we're new at this homogeneity business. Perhaps 2008 was an anomaly. In 2004, it was Kerry--50%, Bush--49%. In 2000, it was Bush--51%, Gore--49%.

Why Guilford County residents put up with this sort of behind-closed-door governance is beyond me, particularly when it is being orchestrated by two of the more polarizing elected officials.

Reporter Gerald Witt has been tracking the lack of openness in county decision-making for some time, but they seem to get little traction among Guilford County constituents. Do the ends of cost-cutting justify the means of secrecy and lack of consensus? Has all the attention directed to the operation of the city government blinded us to the heavy-handed operation of the county?

Government officials -- particularly those who come from the business world -- often try to act as if government is private. As the county deals with another round of layoffs, wouldn't it be nice to hear the discussion about the services to be cut?

Who's advising these folks?

Perhaps this is all an ironic celebration of Sunshine Week?

Amanda Lehmert and Sonja Elmquist mention the discussion about a Justice Department investigation into the Greensboro Police Department in today's story about Mitch Johnson's ouster. We had heard about it last week, but couldn't get anyone to go on the record -- nasty thing, that need we have for sources to be accountable for the information they give us.

It was discussed briefly and opaquely in the closed session the City Council had last week. We pursued it again today and didn't get very far...not that that will stop us from moving the ball forward tomorrow. (Amanda is still reporting the story; perhaps she'll break through tonight.) But as to the council members' desire to put this all behind them and "move forward?" Tough to do when they, their employees and the Justice Department will say nothing about yet another investigation into the Police Department.

It means that citizens will speculate and rumors will spread. Not healthy. Not wise. And doesn't help either the city or the police department get out from under that cloud council member Goldie Wells referred to last week.

Friday update: Story.

As I criticized Greensboro City Council last week for its lack of open discussion before dismissing the city's top employee, I will credit it today for releasing the tape of its private discussion.

Government gets messy. That's not necessarily bad; the give-and-take of fair-minded, passionate people working to get to the best solution often involves debate and disagreement.

The tape is an hour long, but it's worth listening to, even if you don't know who the speakers are. The discussion reveals a great deal about what the council members think about the former city manager, each other and how the council works. If I were the mayor, I would plan a retreat around the questions and comments council members raised about their own behavior and their sense of the future direction of the city.

Mitch Johnson comes in at slightly after 56 minutes. Classy, professional behavior for someone who's about to be removed from his job.

We the people do put a lot of faith in the wisdom of our leaders. Or, at least, our leaders seem to think that we do.

Examples:
* The City Council fired the city's top executive last night, without public discussion, and some of the council members seemed to think it was OK not to explain the action.
* A group of county commissioners continues on its road of firing whomever without public discussion or even board discussion, as noted quite well by Doug Clark.
* And, of course, the departure of the chancellor of A&T remains basically unexplained.

In many ways this is a good thing for the news business, with all the controversy being stirred up. So, hooray. But I'm interested in hearing the case that this much secrecy on the part of the county's leadership is in the public interest.

Thursday update: Imagine if the council had discussed the severance package in public Tuesday night.

And lots more detail at Inside Scoop.

I've been asked if we've given up on getting an explanation from A&T Chancellor Stanley Battle for his abrupt announcement of his resignation. Short answer: No.

He has declined to speak with us, despite visits to his home, notes left for him at home and office, requests of the school's PR staff, and, of course, voice mail. We went to the African American Distinguised Service and Achievement Awards ceremony last night specifically in hopes of catching up with him, but he was a no-show.

For some reason, his bosses at the UNC system seem nonchalant about one of its leaders not being any more open and transparent about an issue of great importance to the university. Same with the board of trustees, all of whom have been struck mum. It's a strange way to lead.

We'll keep after it.

Newspaper editorial here.

Tuesday update: Our friend Lex Alexander passes along this job posting for a Special Assistant to the Vice Chancellor for Crisis Communication Management at A&T. The first item listed under primary duties is this: Serve as the primary strategist and spokesperson on issues confronting the university and respond to crisis media inquiries in a timely manner.

Tight deadline, though. It was posted Feb. 23 and the application deadline was Feb. 25. Too late for this crisis.

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Chancellor Stanley F. Battle announced his resignation today due to family and personal reasons, effective June 30. He has shared his decision with UNC President Erskine Bowles.

That is the first paragraph in a news release about Chancellor Battle's resignation. It's also the closest it gets to providing a reason for his resignation after less than two years at the helm.

I appreciate that some things are private and personal. But N.C. A&T is a public university and an important institution in town. The leader of A&T is, de facto, a city leader. When a leader steps down, we're interested in the reason. The PR office there has told us that the chancellor has left the campus and is not going to be available for comments. We're going to pursue it, and I hope it's nothing bad or tragic.

I say all that because we have gotten accused of giving A&T too much "negative" coverage and of drawing coverage out over the course of days trying to get more information. I, in turn, have written about A&T's opacity. But this isn't going to go away.

Thursday update: I'm wondering if the chancellor plans not to talk with the media for the rest of his tenure. And I'm wondering if the UNC system approves of one of its ranking employees declining to speak to the news media, any news media.

Another update: Aggie discussion boards.

While we're talking about the opacity of public institutions today, don't miss this over at the Chalkboard.

Reporter Brian Ewing asked the school system for its dropout numbers yesterday. The public information office said the system didn't have them. In the comments, a school board member said they actually had the numbers, but waited to release them at the request of the state.

By most interpretations of the law, records like that that are collected into a report are public. It doesn't matter when the public body wants to release them. But rather than argue with us about whether they could be released, we were told they weren't in hand, which was flatly contradicted by a school board member.

Again, we're pursuing this with the superintendent, but it's not a good sign.

Friday update: Today's story. Sadly, the superintendent did not return phone calls.

I admit that N.C. A&T's strategy on dealing with the news media -- or at least this newspaper -- baffles me. I understand its aversion to publicity that it deems negative. I appreciate the concept that it has a large population of students with privacy concerns that it needs to watch over.

And I know that there is this perception that the newspaper portrays the school unfairly.

Still, an A&T student was shot and killed a few blocks from campus late last month. No one has been arrested. I'm thinking that students, alums and neighbors are interested in what actions A&T is taking to ensure their safety. After the shooting, this post, from May 1, 2008, about the death of another A&T student began getting comments again.

Yesterday, we attempted to get comments from A&T about safety efforts but didn't get anywhere. Seems that officials need to go through the public affairs office to speak with the media and that process isn't a quick or easy one. We are trying again today.

In the meantime, Greensboro's police chief wants to expand the territory off-campus that campus security can patrol. What does A&T think? No comment.

We get accused of running with a "negative" story two or three days straight. This is one reason for that. To get the full story, it takes two or three days of stories. Does it make sense? Not to me.

Friday update: Today's story. What's the big secret that it took more than 24 hours to say they are collecting information?

I want to echo the sentiments in today's editorial about N.C. A&T's openness.*

In fact, the university appears less open and forthcoming now than before. That's neither useful nor acceptable. As a state institution, A&T ultimately is answerable to the taxpayers, who have every right to know what's going on there, in a timely and straightforward manner.

A&T has always been ultra-sensitive to any publicity in the newspaper. The story on which the editorial is based -- no criminal charges filed as a result of financial missteps at the university -- is actually not bad news. Still, essentially no comment from the university.

I had hoped new Chancellor Stanley Battle would change that.

Perhaps it's still a work in progress.

* I am not part of the editorial board and didn't know this editorial was in the works until I read it in the newspaper this morning.

Mark Binker interviewed Gov. Mike Easley last week and asked about his often frosty relationship with the press. The gov's response is here.

That interested the N&O, which wrote about it in today's edition. (Wish they had linked to the audio so people could hear it for themselves.)

I mention it because it is indicative of how many public officials -- and not just in Raleigh -- view the news media. Easley's comments illustrate a confusion about the role of the press and the role of public servants. That is, Easley has taken a public business issue and is trying to make it personal and private. Doesn't work that way when you're using public money and doing the public's business.

That was quick.

Ten days ago, Jason Hardin wrote this about Skip Alston's election as chairman of the board of commissioners: Alston also said he wants more openness to the media, with more news conferences and a more open atmosphere.

I expressed hope that he'd be good to his word.

Last night, Gerald Witt reported on the commissioners' latest actions:

Alston also announced that he plans to hold closed meetings to scrutinize budgets in each of the county’s 26 departments, a move to circumvent the traditional role of the county manager preparing a budget for the board to alter and approve.

"We’re going to go by line item, and by March, we should have a proper budget," Alston said as he announced that the committees would consist of three commissioners and staff personnel.

"I don’t want the press to be able to put some actions out there before we have had a chance to hear about it," Alston said.

This occurred in the same meeting in which the county manager was apparently forced into retirement. But we're not talking about that because we're "moving forward and not looking back."

This isn't about being nice to the news media. It's about being open to the public -- on paper, at least, the commissioners' boss -- and open about how money is being spent.

I was glad to read that the new chairman of the county commissioners, Skip Alston, is pledging, among other things, to be more open with the news media.

I hope he includes the News & Record in that pledge. He hasn't thought much of us for years, referring to us as an enemy and racist.

Perhaps he would consider returning to his short-lived blog? It was good for the month it lasted.

Gotta love how government serves the people.

The news release announcing this change went out at 4:56 p.m. on Friday. Promptly followed, I'm sure, by DOT officials leaving their offices, calling it a week.

Have questions? Need clarification? Need detail? Call us Monday. Otherwise, good luck!

Chancellor Stanley Battle of A&T gave one heck of an opening day speech today that should have inspired students and faculty, but the community as well. It inspired me.

That story is being written and I'll link to it when it's there. Meanwhile, he referred to newspaper coverage when he came to Greensboro a year ago.

I walked into the middle of a storm. Everything about this university was being questioned... the way we conducted business, the way we handled our business, our business practices... We had had negative news stories published about us in the local paper 16 times --stories that also made the Chronicle of Higher Education and Diverse Issues in Higher Education.

I haven't counted; I'm impressed he did. It sounds bad, but as he readily acknowledges, A&T had issues. I hope that he agrees that they should have been written about. As he notes in his speech, A&T has cleaned them up.

As for his to-do list, he included this paragraph:

We will break free of constricted modes of thinking so we can respond to new challenges and opportunities without limitations and we will aggressively tell our own story. We will not allow ourselves to be defined by others. We will assertively court the media to publicize the positive things that are happening at North Carolina A&T and we will continue to enjoy strong and positive support from our alumni and our various public constituencies by making them active, involved participants in this campus community.

I say hear, hear.

I think.

I hope he means that A&T will be more open with all of its communications. We don't have difficulty getting information about stories that reflect positively on the state university. I have written often about A&T's opacity.

But A&T squeezes information that doesn't reflect positively tighter than the leash around John Edward's neck right now. I hope that Chancellor Battle's speech is a statement that that is in the past. After all, when a fire breaks out, you stop what you're doing and pour water on it. You don't wait until you're good and ready to find the hose.

As a state-funded university, A&T is accountable to its students and faculty, and to taxpayers and the public. When bad news comes, A&T's M.O. -- as with any tax-supported institution -- should be transparency.

I know that Chancellor Battle wants the university to define itself rather than, say, the newspaper. But I'll take a stab anyway. A good start would be a place that is supportive of intellectual freedom, the open inquiry of ideas, and following information wherever it takes you.

(Thanks to Brian for the tip.)

Because I have been critical of how the city has handled the case of the three police officers accused of assault, I will give credit where credit is due. As promised, the city notified the media of its action in the case.

Two of the three Greensboro police officers accused of sexual assault by a female officer were fired today, according to City Manager Mitchell Johnson.

Hold on just a minute update: Saturday's story.

From page 471 of the police report:

After significant accomplishments by the Department or major crimes, regardless of the hour of day or day of week, the PIO should prepare a news release for the media and the Department. News media agencies should not be expected to jump through hoops for basic public information. When there are unpleasant events or complaints, which will occur in any agency, the Department should put the facts on the table in a timely manner. When there are accomplishments as evidenced by the Study Team in Greensboro, the CIty and Department needs to put those accomplishments on the table.

About time.

We have had problems getting basic information about crime from the police department. I'm talking basic public information. We have spoken with city officials about the issue, but progress has been limited. We know that police officers often perform heroic acts. We have asked to be alerted when this occurs. Again, progress has been limited. And I have written many times, most recently here, about the difficulty getting information about "unpleasant events or complaints."

More openness would go a long way toward dealing with the public perceptions of the department.

Here are two of the preceding paragraphs relating to public information:

Sixteenth, the City should provide funding for a full-time public information officer (PIO). Members throughout the ranks noted that the Department does not do a good job at announcing events or activities within the Department. In reading daily news accounts, it is apparent that there are opportunities for improvement. News media agencies should not be required to find someone to make a statement on crimes, complaints, status of incidents, or the many positives in police departments.

The Department has a written directive on News Media Relations. The directive, Number 20.3, states that "the Executive Officer to the Chief of Police shall serve as the Public Information Officer for the Department. The PIO shall serve as the primary media contact during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 0800 to 1700 hours." Modern news media requirements are not a 9-5 job. With the current duties and demands it is virtually impossible for the executive officer to the chief of police to serve effectively as the PIO for the Department.

Update: Related action last night.

In December, three Greensboro police officers were suspended with pay after being accused of assault. We sued the city to force the release of more information that we believed was public information. The City Council then agreed to release as much information as possible about the case, and we dropped the suit.

Months and months later, the case is still unresolved, except that the officers haven't been charged with anything and the DA has said he does not have enough evidence to prosecute anyone.

Fine.

So what happens when we ask whether the officers are still on administrative leave? The city tells us they don't have to tell us. They refer to this ruling by a Superior County judge in another county in another case, a ruling that is not binding on the city. We're writing about this tomorrow.

Aside from the issue of why this case has dragged on for more than six months without apparent resolution, there's another point: the city's tendency toward opacity over transparency.

I understand that city lawyers are trying to protect employee rights. But the city of Greensboro is not a private business. Its employees work, in effect, for the taxpaying citizens of Greensboro.

When is someone at City Hall is going to start thinking more expansively and openly about what the public should know? Keeping information secret isn't normally the best path to restoring public trust and confidence.

After all these years, I am still surprised when readers tell us they don't want to know when elected officials say silly or offensive things. I always want to know when the people elected to represent me say or do something that I might find embarrassing...or wise, for that matter.

For the record:
* The meeting he covered did result in a "real" news story that we published a day earlier.
* Gerald did not park in my parking space. I don't have a reserved space.

Yesterday Ryan Seals wrote a story about the lack of information from A&T officials on yet another embezzlement case at the university.

I have written several times about A&T's institutional silence on issues in which public accountability should be the first option.

Later in the day, Velma Speight-Buford, chairwoman of the board of trustees, called to express her disappointment that we published the story on the day the General Assembly was meeting on the A&T campus, a complaint I am sympathetic to. She said that the bank slipped up on the job in the embezzlement case.

Still, had someone in the administration been more forthcoming earlier, the story would have carried a different message when the legislators came to town...and the public would have had a better explanation about how public money was allegedly mishandled.

It intrigues me that public agencies -- A&T isn't the only one -- routinely resist explaining themselves to their bosses (you and me). If that position ever helps with the public perception, I would like to hear about it.

District Attorney Doug Henderson released a statement late Friday saying he wasn't going to recommend charges against the officers accused of sexually assaulting another officer. With the ongoing Wray case, the accusation of destruction of police records, the Kohanowich case, this has been a rough patch for the department.

My thought: Is no one advising the city on how to restore eroding public confidence in the integrity of the department and how it is run? Is everyone tone-deaf to how this is all playing out among the citizens?

Imagine this scenario: Chief Bellamy and City Manager Johnson are at a podium Friday afternoon. The mayor is standing with them. The chief steps to the microphone.

Good afternoon, everyone. As you know, the District Attorney released his statement that he will not recommend criminal charges against three officers. We respect his decision, but that does not end the case. This has been an embarrassment to the city and to the department where the vast majority of our officers are hard-working, standup men and women who put their lives on the line every single day. We demand the highest standards of behavior and integrity from our officers. We must. The citizens of Greensboro expect it. I expect it. We obviously have not seen it in this case.

Mitch is passing around a document outlining everything we know about what happened in this case. It will be embarrassing to the officers involved. That's too bad, but it is a necessary step. We are not above the law. We must be squeaky clean. After that, I will talk about actions taken as it pertains to the officers in this case, and then I will outline what we are going to do moving forward to clean up the image of the department. I will answer any question you have to the best of my knowledge, but please hold them until I'm finished.

Next imagine this alternate scenario: The District Attorney releases his decision late Friday afternoon, which is the traditional time to release bad news. He is unavailable for comment. The police chief is unavailable for comment. The city manager is unavailable for comment. The mayor? MIA.

Which do you think serves the public better? Unfortunately, the second one is the one that happened.

Afternoon update: Photographer Joe Rodriguez reminds me that city officials were dealing with a crisis themselves with the aftermath of the tornado, which could address why they were unavailable for comment. We're trying again today.

Sunday update: Today's story here. Can you imagine, five months of paid suspension and an administrative investigation is still ongoing? How tough can it be to crack this case?

Possibly contrary to expectations, I applaud the Greensboro Police Department's news release about the arrest of 78-year-old Alexander Kohanowich.

(Our coverage of the arrest is here and here.)

For a department that is hardly forthcoming with information about its operations and motivations, this news release is revealing and, generally speaking, helpful. It could have been more helpful by explaining what "shoving" meant to Officer Prescod, by explaining what "placed Mr. Kohanowich on the ground" meant to the officer, and by identifying the other police officer involved, but I'll take openness even if the door is not wide open.

I hope the department's motivation in releasing information is not found in this sentence from the release: In several significant respects, the published account which has led to criticism of the Greensboro Police Department -- is not supported by witness interviews. I hope the department simply wanted to be as transparent as possible to the citizens it serves and protects.

Now, how about some information on the other high profile assault case that's been pending since December?

I've always been interested in the inherent conflict between politics and good government. Allen Johnson's interview with political handler Bill Burckley is the latest illustration that good politics doesn't beget good government. Burckley says about blogs:

I enjoy reading them but my advice to any potential candidate is don't ever blog.... People get sloppy when they blog.

The inference I draw is that constituents might be told something that is impolitic. If government is of the people, then shouldn't government and its policy makers be more transparent? Shouldn't they be proud of their actions and decisions and deliberations rather than veiled and quiet? Shouldn't they let their opinions and leanings be known so that constituents can give them feedback and vet their ideas?

Is it harder to get elected when voters know what you really think? I'm not so sure. Granted, it may be harder when political handlers twist what you say, but I'm not ready to restrict freedom of speech. But running government -- and politics -- is a rough business. You aren't going to make everyone happy, ever. So why not say openly what you are thinking?

From an important post by Jeff Jarvis: Why should we be asking for information about and from our government? The government should have to ask to keep things from us. Government information -- every act of government on our behalf -- should be free by default. We must insist on an aggressive ethic of openness. The exceptions should be rare: the personal business of citizens, national security, ongoing criminal investigations and court cases (while they are ongoing), and little else.

Imagine the possibilities.

Jarvis also writes about blogging.

Government officials and agencies should blog. This ethic of openness should go beyond official documents and files. Openness should be part of the work habit of government officials and conversation with constituents should be an ethic of government. The open blog is merely a tool and a symbol for this -- and a more efficient tool, I'll add, than individual letters and phone calls.

We had one city council member who blogged. She was defeated by a candidate handled by Burckley. Now we have no council member or city government official who actively blog. Many of us are awaiting the transparency pledged by candidates during last fall's election campaign to take root. With a few exceptions, closed meetings still seem to be the rule.

That may be good politics, but it's not good government.

Update: Ed's take.

A Greensboro City Council member is irritated that the city manager released a copy of his 10-page plan to fix some issues in the city operation to the public at the same time he gave it to the council. It is understandable; business people are used to conducting their business in private.

But the city isn't a private business. Far from it.

At a time when transparency in city operations is critical, strictly adhering to the requirements of state public records law is vital, to say nothing of politically astute.

Everyone seems to be interested in open government...unless it is information you think shouldn't be made public.

Here's a chance to learn what's what with open government. On March 20, the Sunshine Center of the North Carolina Open Government Coalition is holding a seminar at Elon College that will feature information on where state candidates stand on open government; a preview a new publication by the Attorney General’s office and the N.C. Press Association on open government; and an overview of the successes and failures of open government during the last year.

Here's who they say should attend: Citizens, journalists, government employees, librarians, lawyers, historians, public officials, anyone and everyone. Notice who they listed first?

Here's the registration form.

Is the city handling the Klan-Nazi shooting records "case" in the way that best serves the public?

It has taken on the typical drip-drip-drip cadence that stories like this take:
* denial
* hmmm, we'll investigate
* give us time to investigate

Meanwhile, bits and pieces of information leak out nearly every day. Some of them are disputed.

And the public -- divided on the import of the story -- is left to wait and wonder. Again. Some, of course, come to their own conclusions based on the little verifiable information out there.

My unsolicited counsel: There is still time to get in front of this story, show you're in charge and interested in rooting out the truth.

Here's what I'm thinking:

1) Someone from the city administration goes to the police chief and demands some answers by midday.
2) The chief goes to Officer Fulmore and Lt. McMinn and asks the sort of impertinent yes and no questions that police officers know how to ask...at least they do on Law and Order.
3) The chief reports back to his boss, the city manager, and to the mayor what he has discovered.
4) The city goes public and explains what did or did not happen by the end of the day.

I'm thinking it would move the story arc close to its conclusion and it would serve the public. What am I missing?

You have to hand it to a city council member who knows how to mix sarcasm, humor and imagery all in one quote. Thank you, Mike Barber.

As the keeper of the Debatables blog, I had run out of ideas to generate discussion about the Klan-Nazi files story. I closed comments on the story yesterday because of unsupported accusations being tossed around about police officers. (Don't go looking; I deleted them as they were posted.) Today's story about the city council welcoming the FBI was promising, but would the conversation go straight into the libel gutter, too?

Mike Barber's intergalactic legal network rides to the rescue. Colleague Mike Fuchs suggested that we see if any commenters have a sense of humor and pose the question: Should the intergalactic legal network investigate the police department, too?

The discussion began with promise, but then reverted back to the same old, same old. When a council member riffs with more humor and bite than commenters out here, that's, that's, well, that's unheard of.

A frequent correspondent sent me an e-mail this morning:

I had an epiphany whilst reading John Blust's letter on your editorial page this morning: The coverage you provide about the actions and antics of Greensboro and our county governments is worth far more than cost of my subscription. Too, I also have something in which to wrap fish when needed!

Thanks for all you do to make my life in Guilford County so entertaining.

People are suggesting that we should not have published a story about the claims of the ministers that files related to the Klan-Nazi shootings were destroyed.

These complaints come up every time we write about the tragic 1979 event. The idea is that we're continuing to open up a wound in the city's history that would heal and be consigned to the archives if we would just leave it alone. But if you read some of the comments you might conclude that people actually enjoy examining it in detail.

In any case, three prominent activist ministers hold a news conference to claim that police trashed boxes and boxes of files pertaining to an event that got worldwide attention when it occurred. They had already met with the mayor (at the time) and the city manager to ask the city to look into it. The police department is now talking with the DA's office to determine if any laws were broken.

By any definition, this is news. (Best I can tell, the four local television news teams agreed.) If it turns out that the ministers were wrong and that the files are safely gathering dust in a secure location, we'll report that, too.

It isn't part of a journalist's wiring to think "let's ignore this news because we don't like the messengers or because it's upsetting." Some commenters suggest that no one cares about it. But given the number of comments here, here, here, here and here, it seems as if there is a great deal of interest in it.

I know that there is some sentiment that contentiousness on elected boards, councils and commissions is a negative and reflects poorly on the governmental agency. Some of the recent boards of county commissioners are examples of this.

But civil disagreement that results in a deeper examination of contentious issues often results in better government.

I've got no more insight in what occurred behind these closed doors than anyone else, but I'm not displeased to see a group of council members struggling with an issue that needs to be addressed and resolved. And while we may get painted with the negative brush for writing about the disagreements, the key is that they are discussing the public's business in public.

Margaret Banks at Scoop articulates what I've said several times recently.

This isn't a case of the media vs. the government, which is often how civic officials attempt to portray it. We are not the story. Margaret is not the story. This is a case of the public demanding to know what its government -- and its money -- is doing. Period.

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.

With Terry Grier outta here, I remember a joke he told before a speech at a Rotary meeting: "What's the difference between a dead possum on the road and a dead school superintendent on the road?" he asked, and paused. "There are skid marks in front of the possum."

It got a lot of laughs. I went up to him after the meeting and thanked him for being in Guilford County. I said that as long as he was here, I wouldn't be the most hated man in town. He laughed. (I'm pretty sure it was no contest.)

The San Diego school board frustrated us on this end. The board met, deliberated and adjourned several times over the past few weeks without taking any action. We had no sources among board members, for obvious reasons, and apparently neither did the San Diego paper. (Its Web site has nothing about the new superintendent yet.)

Reporter Amanda Lehmert, new to the paper and filling in for our schools reporter Morgan Josey Glover while she is on maternity leave, dogged that board night after night. running down countless leads and rumors. "No, nothing yet," she told editors about 1,000 times. Sometimes more colorfully. I know she's happy he's going. It's nothing personal; she can move onto a new story that will be happening here, not 2,473 miles away.

As long as I've been here, superintendents have left with a sizable -- though I'd bet still a minority -- population of people happy to see them go. I'm not one of them. The man made news.

Sunday update: The Chalkboard is looking to help in the search for a replacement.

What kind of leader do you want at the helm of the Guilford County school system? Do we hire from within, or recruit someone new? What should the new superintendent's top priorities be?

Leave comments there.

Inside Scooper Margaret Banks asked me to post a note about the Linda Miles letter. (I'm near a computer; she ain't.) We aren't entirely sure what it means, but as we pursue her contract, we'll figure it out. Meanwhile, here's the Yes! take. Remember: links don't imply endorsement.

My newspaper column

Related posts.

We didn't want to end 2007 sparring with the City of Greensboro in Superior Court over what we considered public information.

But we were prepared to do just that on Thursday when we filed a lawsuit against the city and Police Chief Tim Bellamy seeking more information about an alleged assault involving three on-duty police officers.

Fortunately, on Thursday night, Greensboro City Council unanimously agreed to release more information about the case, and, as a result, we expect to drop the lawsuit this week.

No newspaper editor I know enjoys suing the government. We know too well the time and resources it takes to go to court. We don't relish being a factor in the expenditure of tax money.

Margaret Banks is continuing to pursue the City Council's reasoning behind releasing more information on the investigation of the police assault allegations. Along the way, a couple council members have offered unsolicited opinions about the status of our lawsuit.

Goldie Wells requested we drop it. Robbie Perkins suggested we pursue it and let the courts decide once and for all what is protected personnel information. (He also said we were making too big of a deal out of it and wasting people's time.)

I wouldn't suggest our lawsuit had anything to do with the council's decision. I prefer to think that the members decided to do the right thing for the right reasons.

For the record, we'll make a decision later on, but I'm inclined to drop the suit. We got the information we were seeking.

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.

Wouldn't it be helpful if one of these Greensboro City Council members interested in transparency had an active blog? I wonder what that would be like.

If you were the city of Greensboro and you were conducting a criminal investigation of some police officers, which would you fear more:
* Making the mistakes of the Duke lacrosse case in which students were falsely accused in a rush to judgment?
* Making the mistakes of the Wray resignation in which information was tightly protected and decisions were made behind closed doors?

Neither strategy was successful. In the Duke case, the university, the DA, the police and the media were splattered with shame and embarrassment. Lawsuits are pending. In the Wray case, new council members won after campaigning on platforms of transparency because of the previous council's secrecy. Lawsuits are pending.

The city seems more afraid of Duke model. But the Duke case and the current assault investigation are not similar. The accused officers are public employees; the Duke students were not. Releasing the information called for by state law -- time, location and nature of the incident -- will not bring the city remotely close to what happened in Durham. It would, however, put the city on par with what it provides in other criminal investigations.

I appreciate the city's desire to protect its employees. But the names of the officers have already been released. Because few other details have, the officers are under a cloud of uncertainty and suspicion. Releasing more information would help disperse some of that. If there are reasons that more information would further hurt the officers, the city hasn't provided them.

Obviously, our position is clear. As in the Wray case, the city's credibility -- and the council's credibility -- is at stake. Again.

Update: City Manager Mitch Johnson writes an OpEd piece for tomorrow's paper explaining the city's position. (Link fixed.)

Update II: More discussion here.

Update III: Meanwhile -- it's time to get a scorecard out -- another officer is suspended.

Update IV: Not making this up. Council decides to think about it for a week.

Here we go again, again. Official doesn't want to answer question -- answer he apparently knows or certainly should know -- so he defers to someone else, who doesn't return calls.

With the turmoil in the schools -- big fights at Page, Grimsley and Southern this year; teacher breakdowns at others -- you might think that openness and transparency would be the rule, especially to help parents and citizens concerned about the learning environment and what is being done to address the problems.

Less than 24 hours ago, WFU Coach Jim Grobe was on the Two Guys Named Chris radio show. Chris Kelly asked him about offers he may have gotten to coach elsewhere.

"So far nothing's hit me over the head and told me I should be leaving," Grobe told them.

Twelve hours later, reports came out that Grobe had agreed to coach at the University of Arkansas.

Was he telling the truth Wednesday morning -- he apparently interviewed in Fayetteville, Ark., Tuesday -- or is it possible that sometime in those 12 hours he had suddenly gotten so interested in the Razorbacks that they produced a contract, notified everyone who needed to be told, and signed him?

We've gotten used to and even accepted politicians, entertainers and, I guess, coaches shading, spinning and neglecting the truth. I have written about Bob Dylan and his wonderfully open statement: "The press? I figured you lie to it."

The problem is that they aren't only lying to the press; they're lying to everyone who reads or views the report. I can't understand the upside. I can understand someone changing his mind; I do it with some regularity as I'm presented with more information or have the chance to think through an issue.

Perhaps all the speculation will be wrong, and Grobe will announce he's staying today. The spin will be interesting. But I am always surprised that there isn't more negative reaction to the outright falsehoods coming from the mouths of public figures.

Update: We're now hearing he is not going.

Related: Rob Daniels speculated yesterday morning about Grobe rumors at SportsExtra, as did the guys at Radio Free Sports.

I've written often about A&T's seeming institutional inability to be forthcoming about some of its decisions that spark controversy.

Here we go again.

The chancellor releases a vague announcement. The football coach refers questions to a vice chancellor who doesn't return calls. Eventually they will take aim at the messenger.

Unfortunately, it's not uncommon for tax-supported agencies to think that they are private businesses. When you use public funds, you have a responsibility to be open. When you have a large constituency of students, alumni, employees and citizens interested in the health of the institution, you have an obligation to explain your actions.

Update: More good discussion brewing at Debatables.

At the end of the Greensboro City Council meeting last night, City Manager Mitch Johnson announced that all public information requests of the city will be posted online so that the public will be aware of the city's efforts to fulfill them.

The precipitating cause was a request -- an alarming request, Mayor Holliday called it -- that will fill "boxes and boxes" of documents. It's apparently such a large request that it requires the city to move some one from the library staff part-time to help fill it.

The actual request wasn't mentioned at the meeting, but I'm guessing it was Samuel's.

Welcome to the world of citizen publishing. Anyone can request most of the paperwork and computer work produced by local government. The request doesn't have to be pretty or organized or narrow. It doesn't need to be brought by an attorney or a traditional news organization. And, actually, the person making the request doesn't need to be a citizen publisher. They only need to be a citizen, but I believe that as more citizens use the Web for their own purposes, the number of such oversight requests will multiply.

Consequently, staffing up to respond to more inquiries from the public is a good idea.

Mayor Holliday said the city is trying to be transparent. "The public needs to hear where we are these days. I want to make sure there is no doubt in anyone's mind of our intention to cooperate based on the law, but understanding the task at hand, the monumental task...."

I admit to the cynical thought that this isn't transparency so much as it is an attempt to discourage such requests, but I will take the city's action at face value.

But the action doesn't go far enough, if you ask me. Don't stop at the request. Put all the documentation online, too, so everyone can see it. That's transparency.

Listen to the council meeting here. The mayor begins the discussion at about the 6:18 mark.

Could Greensboro citizens have gotten potable water from Randleman Reservoir by now to serve us during this drought? Experts say no, but newly elected City Council member Trudy Wade campaigned that city incompetence is the reason we're not drawing Randleman water from our taps.

Allen Johnson dissects her campaign talk and matches it with facts and political reality.

Defeated incumbent Sandy Carmany wishes that Allen had written his column before last week's election. (Taft Wireback did write an article last month about why water wasn't coming from Randleman Reservoir.)

But imagine this unfolding another way, a way that portends the future:

On her blog, Trudy Wade posts her position on the use of Randleman water. Sandy responds with her own position. Allen Williams of the city water department explains the technical process of getting water from a clean lake into homes. Tom Phillips, the city's elected representative on the water authority, explains the political process on getting all the government bodies to agree on the use of the water. Arnold Koonce tells us about High Point's position. Others -- regular people like you and I -- read, ask questions, offer suggestions and learn from following the discussion of experts with information.

Allen's column did some of this, but it is restrained by the one-to-many delivery form which is delivered fresh once a day. Imagine this discussion done in real time in public.

We aren't there, of course. It would require more people to be online, more people with the direct knowledge to graduate from lurkers to contributors. And finally, either fewer trolls or participants with thick skins. (I first thought that it would require candidates who were seeking the best, correct solutions, but they are the least necessary. It is enough that citizens are informed. Presumably they would see through candidates who aren't acting in their best interests.)

Aside from the information citizens would get, but they also would be able to get to know the candidates in a way they couldn't in the newspaper or in television sound bites. You could see how candidates communicate, how they express themselves, whether they deal with the facts, and how open they are to other opinions.

Coincidentally, Dan Gillmor writes a column in the Boston Globe with a similar approach to political debates.

A debate that would unfold online over the course of days, or even weeks and months. Imagine that one candidate takes a position and poses a question. The opponent would answer with a written response of some predetermined length, but with the help of staff, experts, and the general public. Then the first candidate, again with the help of anyone who wants to join the process, would dissect the response and reply with (we'd hope) a truly nuanced update. Continue this process at length -- and repeat it with many other topics.

He recommends it be moderated, and he's probably right.

I doubt enough Greensboro citizens use online this way for this to take off yet. Greensboro public decisionmakers may not be ready for this yet. We certainly missed an opportunity during this municipal election season.

Still, there's nothing preventing us, the newspaper, from taking an issue, recruiting knowledgeable participants to actively contribute, and building an informed discussion that would help make good public policy.

What do you think? You must believe that this, or something like it, is the future. Let's get ahead of the curve.

Do you think that Sandy's blog is one reason she didn't win?

A reader asked me that, fearing that rather than helping her, the council member's openness and accessibility essentially painted a target on her back.

My answer: No.

Her blog demonstrated to that she is reasonable, kind and cares deeply about Greensboro. It says that she was trying to navigate her role as a politician responsible to the public and a city official bound by commitments to confidentiality on some matters.

You might read her opinions on public matters, decide you disagree and vote for her opponent, but that's the result of her opinions, not her blog. I believe that the blog helps people get a sense of who Sandy is and enable them to connect with her.

Her accessibility did open her to disparagement from some bloggers, who took shots at her far and away more often than the other council members. But I can't imagine it cost her many votes.

In any case, who knows how many people in her district routinely read her blog -- and the others -- and who voted? (Only slightly more than 3,500 people voted in the district.)

I think the biggest contributor to her defeat was that she didn't get the Simkins PAC endorsement.

Other thoughts: Sandy's, David Wharton's, Cara Michele's and Samuel Spagnola's.

Update: I've just read her 10 Plus interview for the Sunday paper. She addresses several of the points above and in the comments.

Margaret Banks wrote today of newly elected city council members Mike Barber, Trudy Wade and Mary Rakestraw: The three leaders -- along with Councilwoman Sandra Anderson Groat, who was re-elected Tuesday -- ran on platforms of increasing transparency in city government. They argued City Hall should bring controversial issues into the open, even if it means not portraying a unified front for the TV cameras.

Regardless of what you think of Sandy Carmany's politics, she is an impressively transparent and accessible council member. She loses her council seat -- let's pray not her blogging voice -- next month.

So, now, with their vows of transparency, who among the new council will start blogging the talk?

When Greensboro police charge you with violating the law, that record is public information. When Greensboro city cites you for violating its water restriction ordinance, that record is private.

Until last night. Greensboro City Council voted to open its books on water scofflaws. But this government transparency was harder than it should have been. Releasing the names of those who violated the water restrictions passed 5-4, with opposing council member Tom Phillips wondering if public stoning was next. (Who knew he was such a molly-coddling liberal?)

The issue came up when we, Yes! Weekly and NPR independently requested the records of those cited. The city initially took the stance that the information wasn't public because it was part of the person's water bill, which was exempted from public records law some years ago. The requests then came before the council.

I was surprised when we were denied the records last month. I had assumed the city -- struggling with its worse drought in years -- would have wanted to take every step possible to discourage people from wasting water. Letting the scofflaws' names be published -- a form of public shaming, yes -- is one way. The people cited had been warned once about their water usage....and the chance of them avoiding detection several times before being caught twice (warned once, cited on the second offense) was likely.

We haven't decided if we are going to publish the list of names. But as members of the public, we certainly want to decide for ourselves.

Thanks to Mike Barber, Sandy Carmany, Sandra Anderson Groat, Keith Holliday and Yvonne Johnson for their votes for openness.

Update: We got the list. Here is a brief story. The actual list is coming here.

I'm on a panel this afternoon speaking to the 2007 Conference on Public Administration in Chapel Hill. Here's the first sentence of the description of the topic: Saber-tooth tigers, oil, polar ice caps, and newspaper control of news -- all may be gone soon, if not forgotten. So how does a government handle overwhelming demands for information and participation on the new frontier of journalism?

Well. They got the verb tense wrong. "Newspaper control of news" is long gone.TV saw to that years ago. And you can make a strong argument that it never was. But that's another post.

Here is the list of questions the moderator is going to use to spark discussion, although I have no expectation that we'll need more than No. 2 to do that.

1. We have recently seen high profile conflicts between media and politicians/bureaucrats here in North Carolina. Many of these conflicts center around interpretations of the Public Records Laws. Where do you see these laws and their interpretations going in the future?

2. The blogging world has been referred to as the "fifth estate." This implies a certain level of importance in the balance of government branches and citizens. Do you think blogging has such a substantial role, and if so, is it a healthy or unhealthy influence?

3. Bloggers are sometimes accused of being less subject to laws and ethical restrictions than mainstream media, primarily because they do not have assets at risk. Please comment on this perception.

4. What suggestions would you offer government officials for dealing with inaccurate blog postings?

5. There is some pressure for professional government employees to create and maintain blogs. It may be hoped that this would shorten the time lag in government response to the people on issues. Given that the time lag is often the product of a need to review records laws, etc., what advice would you give to appointed government officials regarding this suggestion?

6. Most newspapers and television stations (according to recent reports have added blogs to their repertoire, including The News & Record. How do you see this merger affecting news coverage?

7. What are the implications, professionally and ethically, of government employees posting information to blogs? Given the ability to make such postings anonymous, an option generally not available in letters to the editor, what impacts might their ability to share inside information have? Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

8. How do you see the speed and anonymity of web-based news ultimately affecting the democratic process?

Most of these questions are the wrong ones, it seems to me, coming at the topic from the wrong angle. As the world of news and information moves from the one-to-many model of mass communication to the two-way model of the Web, then hand-wringing about whether that move is good is irrelevant. It simply is.

I wrote about my initial talking points here. Now that I have the questions, anything else I should add?

The need for greater transparency in government will be a key addition. What I've learned is that when people aren't given full and complete information, they often fill in the blanks on their own, creating a version of reality based on some facts, some assumptions and some biases. It has little to do with "new forms of media," which is the title of the panel. People have always done that. The difference now is that the people have a voice of their own on the Web. As with everything else, some of the voices will be cranky, mean-spirited and off-point. Others will be relevant, insightful and helpful. It is what it is.

What else?