City must look into files claim
Today's No. 2 editorial.
City leaders appeared to give explosive allegations the brush-off last year, and their explanations now are puzzling at best.
Trust requires a much better effort.
Ministers Cardes Brown, Gregory Headen and Nelson Johnson made a startling assertion to then-Mayor Keith Holliday and City Manager Mitchell Johnson in October: They said a police officer told them approximately 50 boxes of files related to the 1979 Klan-Nazi shootings were thrown out in 2004 or 2005 after records were requested by the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
The files included "information on surveillance of members and/or persons thought to be members of the Communist Workers Party,"the ministers said. Nelson Johnson was a CWP member involved in the clash between his group and Klansmen and Nazis.
If the Greensboro Police Department purposely disposed of materials that might have aided the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's work, the act was inexcusable. But did it?
The city isn't aware of such files, spokeswoman Pat Boswell said.
It would be amazing if there had been 50 boxes of previously unknown records related to that tumultuous episode after two state trials, a federal civil rights trial and other reviews.
But, because of the volatility of this subject in Greensboro, the suggestion should have been checked out. Instead, it was labeled an "unverified rumor,"according to Boswell's statement. Opening an investigation "could result in significant financial liability ... through potential litigation.”
Faced with that attitude, Brown, Headen and Nelson Johnson made their complaint public. The city now appears to be hiding suspicious behavior or letting an unfounded but damaging accusation go unanswered.
If someone called police with a tip about a dead body, they'd check it out rather than say they can't investigate unverified rumors. This is the same thing. The city's credibility depends on finding out whether this is a dead body or a dead end
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Great perspective. There is a culture in city government that works to thwart any effort to expose unpleasantness. That must change.
I'm tempted to write that the former mayor and city manager were derelict in their duties by apparently turning a blind eye to this information, but that would be an assumption at this point. The city said yesterday that this matter has been referred to the DA. Does the N&R know when this happened? Was it soon after the ministers met with the former mayor and city manager or was it in the past day or two when it became apparent the ministers were going public?
Posted on February 28, 2008 8:32 AM
That's a good question. My question, which I'm planning to explore at my blog, is what there's to talk about with the DA. Why would disposal of records that old be a possible criminal matter unless there was some specific legal order to keep those records? And, because the city says it doesn't know anything about these records, there couldn't have been such an order.
Posted on February 28, 2008 9:14 AM
I have placed a call to Mr. Henderson, so perhaps I can find out some answers.
Posted on February 28, 2008 9:19 AM
Isn't it odd that the city calls the accusation an "unverified rumor" yet the local paper uses "explosive allegations" and "startling assertion" in it's description.
Just pointing out the stark contrast.
Posted on February 28, 2008 9:37 AM
I still want to know if the reason the city isn't "aware" of such documents is because the requester didn't CLEARLY identify each document by it's true name - you know, like the stunt they pulled on Margaret Banks?
Seems to me that our illustrious former Mayor and our incredibly adept current city "Manager" were made well aware of them last year.
Others are calling this little stunt a smoke screen......I wonder.
Posted on February 28, 2008 4:37 PM