News-Record.com

I tried to tell 'em this has been a problem for 30+ years in Greensboro (I was a victim of gang violence on the campus of Dudley High School in 1970.) but no Billy's just a crazy old poet seeking attention.

No that rich white people are realizing they can be gunned down while having dinner at their favorite restaurant we "suddenly" have a gang and murder problem.

Maybe some of the gangsters will shoot down several of our City Council members so that someone will actually do something about the problem. After all, even rich white people don't like being prisoners in their own homes.

And for those who may not know, even before our recent "rash" of murders Greensboro's murder and violent crime rates were double the national average as reported by the FBI.

Let's just hope the City Council is sincere in their quest to stem this latest rash of violence and this meeting is not just a political move. Homicide is the most difficult crime to predict and prevent ,however, the latest homicides appear to be happening on the weekends around nightclub type facilities and where large numbers of people congregate or where drug dealing is prevalent. The Police Department must focus its efforts on illegal guns, curbing domestic violence, street drugs sales, gangs and more aggressive enforcement of the alcohol laws especially late at night.

This will require additional manpower and resources and City Council must be willing to provide them. There must also be some long term intervention strategies that focus on poverty and other social ills that are plaguing this community. Police must also be willing to redeploy resources. There are always cops on the highway writing speeding tickets. This may not be the best use of resources at the present time.

Billy, There was an armed robbery by a couple of shotgun toting teens at the North Elm Street Village Harris Teeter this morning.

This store is sandwiched in between the high dollar neighborhoods off North Elm around Buffalo Lake and the high end stuff at Lake Jennette.

The only thing that keeps this incident from being added to the killings list is no one got shot, but it's a sign of crime moving into the affluent parts of town.

Oh, one more thing. Harris Teeter used to have armed off duty police working security. When the Hinson police/2Tyght security or whatever their name was and the Hinson double dipping security/day job hit the Rhino H&T changed over to a private security firm, that, IMO, does not provide the same visual deterrence to crime as uniformed, armed police do.

"There are always cops on the highway writing speeding tickets. This may not be the best use of resources at the present time."

That is revenue collecting which is a very important job.

"Maybe some of the gangsters will shoot down several of our City Council members so that someone will actually do something about the problem."

Statements of this nature are not beneficial to Greensboro's success. Everyone agrees that crime is a problem right? Lets allow the council to have the meeting and see what the Chief has to say.

Ryan

Ryan, I agree with you. The emergency meeting signals that the council is taking this issue seriously. This could be a turning point.

Several of us have blogged on this. Billy is right to make one point however that everyone seems to be missing in their effort to jump on the band wagon: crime, violent crime, is not new to Greensboro. David Wray in his first full year as chief (2004) and with his newly implemented rotating shifts where experienced officers were on duty at night when the violent crimes generally occur actually saw a homicide rate of an unprecedented 15! Then M. Johnson moved in and backed the moonlighting policeman who where being impacted by the rotating shifts and the crime rate went back up.

Now the gangs are growing and the crimes are coming out of the ghetto and as Billy said suddenly the rich White folks notice. Oh well, I guess what ever it takes we should be grateful for. I am not putting the city council or anyone else down, I just like to introduce a bit of historical perspective when possible before the Henny Penny's out there continue with their litany of , "The sky is falling." or far worse, "Gee how great these guys are to come in an save us from the NEW bogey man." BB

In this case, following the spirit of the law isn't good enough. All it does is establish a precedent that makes this new council think they can do whatever they want whenever they want, as long as they "mean well." Is there anything in the law about WHY the city council can hold an emergency meeting? Under what circumstances? Are they allowed to hold an emergency meeting only if they plan to take some action? Or can they really, LEGALLY hold an "emergency" meeting to hear a staff report??

Well, my job is to monitor them and keep that from happening. If this situation emboldens them to ignore open meetings law in the future, then I will step in and raise holy ... You get the picture.

When I was covering schools in a different county, one board of education held a hastily-called meeting - hastily-called so the media wouldn't have time to get there. That is a clear violation of the letter of the law AND the spirit of the law. They were giving the superintendent a raise, and hoping to slip it through unnoticed. That was '97 or '98, before we received meeting notices via e-mail. A fax came over at 6:30 p.m., about 30 minutes before the meeting started. I just happened to be in the office to see it come in.

Anyway, today's City Council meeting doesn't strike me as one of those times where they're trying to hide from us. They have sent multiple press releases via fax and the Internet. Council members called me yesterday morning just moments after they decided to hold the meeting. And they moved the meeting to the council chambers so it can be televised.

I'll judge the next situation - if there ever is one again - on its own merits, not because they've conned me into believing they know what is best for me.

Margaret, I'm unclear as to how Council violated the law? The way that the law is written, it appears that an "emergency meeting" is an exception to the 48-hour notice rule. The section of the law which details the 48-hour notice rule begins with these words: "For any other meeting, except an emergency meeting..."

There are separate instructions about public notice for emergency meetings:

''For an emergency meeting, the public body shall cause notice of the meeting to be given to each local newspaper, local wire service, local radio station, and local television station that has filed a written request, which includes the newspaper's, wire service's, or station's telephone number, for emergency notice with the clerk or secretary of the public body or with some other person designated by the public body. This notice shall be given either by telephone or by the same method used to notify the members of the public body and shall be given immediately after notice has been given to those members."

You commented above, "Council members called me yesterday morning just moments after they decided to hold the meeting."

So it seems that they did follow the law for an "emergency meeting," which is defined in the law as "one called because of generally unexpected circumstances that require immediate consideration by the public body. Only business connected with the emergency may be considered at a meeting to which notice is given pursuant to this paragraph." Today's meeting certainly fit that definition.

I am looking at G.S. 143‑318.12. "Public notice of official meetings." I'm neither a legal expert nor a journalist, so if I'm missing something relevant, please point it out. Are you certain the law was violated?

Hey, Cara Michele. It looks as though you are exactly right - the rules for emergency meetings don't require 48 hours notice.

On Monday morning, Councilman Mike Barber and Mayor Yvonne Johnson called me, and said something to this effect: "Look, we know this violates the 48 hour rule, but this is something we feel we must do." I have a pocket-size copy of the public meeting laws at my desk, and I quickly consulted it and saw that they were right. BUT it either doesn't contain the part about emergency meetings, or I just read past it (I'm at home now and don't have it with me). I should have read the full law.

So yesterday's meeting followed the LETTER of the law as well as the spirit. Thanks for keeping me honest, Cara Michele.

It didn't make sense to me that the law would force a City Council to wait 48 hours to hold a meeting in an emergency situation (what if there were a natural disaster, for example?), so I was one of several people who went back and looked up the law. So now we know, but maybe somebody should tell the mayor and Council! ;)

Peace,
CM