News-Record.com

Have you contacted city council members to see what explaination Miles gave them?

Big RED flag Margaret!
I'm assuming you're going to city council next.
The normally vocal Carmany is hiding on this one (reference November elections).
What can we expect from this point?

And yes, I am one who can't get enough of your work.

Roch, Tony ... First off, hi.

I'm not really sure what I would ask the City Council. There are two things I need Walt Jones to tell me: 1) What was the subject of the meeting he said he had with Linda Miles and Joe Williams, and 2) What led him to the conclusion that Miles had ulterior motives.

He won't answer either of those questions.

Hi Margaret,

And you have questions of Miles, that she won't answer. City council is the peoples' representative. If a staff member won't respond to public inquiry, the responsibility for answers falls to city council -- hold their feet to the fire. You can ask them about the reported actions of a staff member who refuses to comment and what explaination Miles offered or you can fold with "the two people I asked about it wouldn't talk to me".

Miles said she couldn't comment due to pending litigation.

But the larger issue, Roch, is this: I can push and push and push (which believe me I am not shy about doing) and end up with what?? That's not a rhetorical question. What would I end up with?? I don't know what I would get for my time investment. I make these strategic decisions all the time as a reporter. Sometimes you push. Sometimes you let go.

Margaret,

If I knew what you'd end up with, I wouldn't be encouraging the N&R to investigate and report -- I'd know already. A document surfaces that claims a the city attorney was seeking dirt on the police chief and district attorney. A curious reporter might wonder why the city attorney was asking for dirt. A curious reporter might reject the "pending litigation" excuse (the subjects of Miles' alleged comments were Wray and Albright -- what pending litigation prevents the city attorney from discussing her alleged comments about them?) and contact other sources who might have talked to Miles about this -- those sources being, specifically, representatives of the public.

A cone of silence has descended on city hall. Our local government has become secretive and closed to public scrutiny. It doesn't help that our local daily is a pussy cat when told "no comment."

Margaret,
I hope you do not choose to attend the "Let Go" class that David Hoggard is teaching.
A man's life has been altered forever, and with today's available information, it appears he was ambushed.
This is not a "let go."
This is a "push" until you turn red in the face.
Just one opinion Margaret.
I trust your judgment (assuming that judgment is yours).
Thanks for all you do Margaret.

Couldn't Mr. Jones get special dispensation from the High Point DA to talk about the letter? Could the City Councill likewise, authorize Ms. Miles to address the letter?

First off, it's good we're discussing this. I'm glad we can talk about it without getting up in each others' grills.

Roch, you said: "A document surfaces that claims the city attorney was seeking dirt on the police chief and district attorney." Yes. But the author of the document won't say what led him to this conclusion. In fact he won't provide any context at all. So all the information we have is contained in that once sentence - an accusation not backed up with evidence. That is the red flag, actually.

Tony, no one influenced my decision. In fact, I'm not sure the editors even knew I was looking into it (unless they read it on a blog). It was my decision, and I'm willing to take the heat for it.

Miles cannot trot the "pending litigation" claim out in regards to why the Jones' letter seemed to indicate that she, Miles, was looking for dirt on Albright.

The only "Let Go" I see on the horizon is the city letting go of a big pile of cash to pay for their incompetence.

"an accusation not backed up with evidence."

Margaret, I'm not getting all up in your grill, but for Pete's sake, there is a document. Because two sources won't deliver more evidence to you you assume it doesn't exist? Or what, you assume that you are incapable of uncovering it? It's not worth your time to find out for certain if and why the city attorney was wanting dirt on the police chief and DA? Seriously, what is you reason for quitting?

People wonder why Greensboro can't "get over" things? It's because people hide what should be public information, officials pride themselves in being non-responsive and the N&R shrugs when told to go away instead of feretting out the truth.

You know I'm not a N&R basher, I've been quite the cheerleader when warranted, but the N&R reporters seem to have as much instinct for news as a peanut. Their will be no heat for your decision, Margaret, just a head shake and a mumbled, "Typical."

Roch, I'm sorry you feel that way. You obviously feel passionately about this. I suspected this would happen if I looked into the letter - "this" being accusations of one-sided reporting and/or being a half-ass reporter. To be honest, that's something all reporters hear. I respect what you do for the community, Roch, and I mean that seriously. But on this subject we just disagree for now.

I reject your peanut metaphor. That's unfair to my colleagues, who do exceptional work for the paper. Say about me what you will, but it's not cool to lump everyone here into that category.

Mmm. Peanuts.

The thing is, Margaret, when you report, it's usually pretty damn interesting and thorough, add to that that I find you very likeable and it's tough to be adamant when it counters you. Nonetheless, I see you backing down from something important without knowing for sure what you might have turned up with a little more tenacity and that's discouraging.

I can understand Jones not wanting to comment on something that occurred while he was a private citizen. He has no obligation to volunteer that information.
Linda Miles, however, is a public official and the conversation in question occurred while she was performing duties paid for with our taxes and her actions are accountable to us, the citizens.
If she thought it perfectly all right to forcibly sequester Chief Wray in a room for hours and force him to answer questions posed by the RMA investigators how can she refuse to divulge the nature of a conversation she had with a citizen as part of her own public duties?
Can she show or prove that the conversation with Jones is a pertinent fact in question in a pending legal proceeding? Has a lawsuit been filed or charges made in a criminal matter at which this conversation is relevant?
If she refuses to answer can a request be made to the City Council to force her to reveal what she did in an official capacity and in a situation that did not involve personnel matters or a lawyer-client privilege?
Citizens are not answerable to Miles, she's a public servant and is answerable to us.

I sure hate i'm being annexed. I've enjoyed the free Greensboro Governmental Circus for 43 years. Guess I'll have to pay up.

Let me say a few words in defense of my noble successor, given the perspective my two-year hiatus from the paper has afforded me.

Often during my time as the N&R's city hall reporter, I would be presented with an allegation or information that would be very newsworthy if it were able to be verified. X is going on hinky in this department. Y said this in a closed session, etc. When we can, bits of info like that can turn into great stories. But there were lots of great stories I didn't get to write because we couldn't confirm the allegation.

There's only so far that we can go if the information can't be verified, either because people stonewall us, deny the accusation, or because the information is not available under the state Public Records law. Does the city overuse the "attorney/client" privilege when it comes to communicating with the press and releasing records? Of course. Is there much the N&R could do in this case? No.

If Mr. Jones, for whatever reason, declines to repeat his accusation or expand on what he witnessed from Mrs. Miles, then the only information is in the letter, which doesn't go into specifics. Let's pretend that Miles would comment. Wouldn't she likely dispute Jones' characterization of her looking for "dirt" on government officials? Only the people who were there in the room could say what happened. At most, the letter gives a reporter something to keep an eye on and ask questions about while the investigation develops.

Roch, I'd only ask that the situation be turned around on you. Let's say someone writes a letter accusing you of improprieties in your business. The paper gets a hold of it, asks the accuser to clarify, but that person declines to elaborate. The paper asks for your comment and you either decline to talk or deny the accusation. There's no other way for the paper to know whether the accusation is true or not. Should the paper still run a story about it?

It's not about whether our news judgment rivals that of a legume. It's about what we're able to verify and what has to be left unanswered for the time being.

Matt wrote: "There's only so far that we can go if the information can't be verified."

Of course, the question is, where does one define "so far?"

Matt answers with: "Is there much the N&R could do in this case? No."

And thus illustrates the mediocricy of the N&R's investigative interest. Thus, "So far," in this case, is talking to two people and quiting.

To respond to your anology, Matt, if I were a reporter investigating Roch for shadey business dealings and Roch wasn't talking, I'd go to Roch's employers. You would apparently suppose and speculate that there was no reason to continue.

In short, Matt, it's not about setting the bar for quality reporting, it's about not putting in the effort to try to reach that bar -- about assuming that the facts cannot be determined without even trying (much).

The advantage of invoking a response "for the record" from Miles (or Roch!) is that it IS on the record, and if found to be untruthful later on it can be used to impeach the speaker.
Pin them down, force them to comment, remind them that they have a responsibility to the citizens because they're not private employees, they're answerable to us.
After all, isn't that just what Mitch Johnson, Linda Miles, and Lorraine Ahearn did to Chief Wray? They took out of context quotes and used them as a basis to call him a liar later on. Why is the N&R/Ahearn willing to do this with Chief Wray but NOT with Linda Miles? There's not any favoritism going on at the good 'ol N&R, is there??

Someone should've told Miles that its a waste of time to look for dirt on Stewart Albright. I've known him all his life and there never was a straighter arrow. I recall when his friends and brothers tried to roast him at his wedding rehearsal dinner. The most damning thing anyone could say was that when he was a teenager he inadvertently spread grass seed in the natural area.

http://thetroublemaker.blogspot.com/2007/10/n-margaret-banks.html