Polygraph update
The city plans to spend around $5,000 on polygraph exams for eight City Council members who have volunteered to take them to answer questions about who leaked an investigative report on the police department to the News & Record.
The new estimate from Raleigh-based Risk Management Associates is higher than the initial estimate of around $4,000, City Manager Mitchell Johnson said Monday, because it includes what he describes as a "pre-interview." The pre-interview is designed to get a feel for how people react to questions when they're not on the polygraph machine, Johnson said.
Johnson expects to sign an agreement with RMA this week. He's not sure when the polygraphs will take place - he expects the consultants to contact council members individually to set up times for their exams.
Council members have said they plan to pay for the polygraphs from their travel budget. Every council member except Dianne Bellamy-Small has said they will take the exam.
Previous News & Record coverage of the police investigation and the leak probe can be found here.
Update (4/25): Mitchell Johnson said Tuesday that work is underway to schedule council members for their "pre-interviews" this week, with hopes of doing the actual polygraph exams next week.
Comments (10)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The bloggers at the Green Bean talking to our Congressman Brad Miller are really surprised that $5K of our money is being spent on something this unnecessary. I don't speak for everyone here but there's consensus that it's simply embarrassing.
Comment: how is this in the public interest? If they are clearing their own names and that's their interest, they can pay for it themselves.
This is embarrassing for Greensboro, and we would think, for the Council members as well.
Posted on April 24, 2006 7:54 PM
Eric,
Was there a meeting at which this was decided? Where city council members in attendance? How many? Was a vote taken?
Posted on April 24, 2006 10:37 PM
Five words.
"What a waste of money."
If they really have $5000 that's burning a hole in their pockets, I have a few projects for the community that I need funded.
As a citizen, I am displeased that I have to pay for someone else's lie detector exam. Pay for it out of your own pocket if you're trying to absolve yourself.
Posted on April 25, 2006 1:32 AM
Roch,
There hasn't been a vote taken on a contract, though the council did vote 8-1 for voluntary polygraphs at their meeting last week and said they would pay for the tests through their travel budgets. The cost estimate has gone up about $1,000 from the initial estimate provided last week.
I don't know if the council will come back and vote on the contract, and this contract may be small enough (in dollar amount) that council approval isn't needed. If you're interested, I can put a call in this afternoon and check that.
Posted on April 25, 2006 11:08 AM
Eric, yes, you see where I was going. I'm wondering if City council is going to vote on this expenditure.
I'm also still not clear at who was at this meeting. Was it city council members? Enough to have triggered the notification of meeting requirements?
Something else you may be able to help me with, Eric. Was information from the RMA report provided to the GPD, SBI or district attorney?
Posted on April 25, 2006 2:05 PM
Roch,
I have a call into the city to check on whether this contract for the polygraphs requires a council vote.
I'm not clear on what meeting you're referring to in your last post. Eight council members said last week that they wanted to take polygraph exams (and voted that way); Mitchell Johnson then asked RMA for a cost estimate, which he received yesterday (Monday, 4/24).
Posted on April 25, 2006 2:18 PM
My bad, Eric. I thought the new amount was discussed at a meeting.
Regarding my third question, I think I need to be more specific. Do you know if the City provided information from the RMA report to the SBI, GPD or district attorney?
Posted on April 25, 2006 2:25 PM
Roch,
You're correct. The new amount wasn't discussed at a meeting - Johnson was just following the direction council gave him last week.
Johnson told me that formal council approval isn't required for "professional services" contracts, which includes the polygraph exams.
As for who's received information from the RMA report, I asked Eric Townsend, who's been one of the lead reporters on the police investigation.
Of the groups you mentioned, Townsend noted that we've previously reported that a copy of the RMA report has been provided to acting Chief Tim Bellamy. We don't know if a copy of the report has been provided to the SBI or the DA's office.
Posted on April 25, 2006 2:49 PM
Check your email.
Posted on April 25, 2006 3:03 PM
What was in that email, Roch? Inquiring minds...
Posted on April 25, 2006 6:38 PM