Look for the Greensboro City Council to discuss firing City Manager Mitchell Johnson tonight. This time around, at-large Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw, District 4 Councilman Mike Barber and District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade could pick up the two votes they need to pull it off.
26 comments:
Now that he has been fired, maybe he will give you some FACTS to support last week's editorial that there was more to the Wray story than we have been told.
One would think that after three investigations, including one by the FBI, there would be some evidence to support your papers position that there is more wrongdoing by the GPD that we don't know about it.
Why not play your cards, then? Show us your hand. Show us what those three investigations and one trial haven't told us.
Newspapers are supposed to deal in facts, or clearly delineated opinion supported by fact. Last weeks editorial had neither.
I get it. Something must have happened because this is the South and because Lorraine Ahearn said so, and a good liberal like her can't be wrong- even when she has reported no facts either.
Can someone provide a link to this editorial I keep hearing about?
I'm hesitant to comment before reading it, but I think it is safe to say that, after all the investigations and trials, records requests and "leaks," if someone is asserting that there is more to the Wray story than we know, it really is time for them to put up or shut up -- especially if said person is a journalist.
-- Roch
Is this the editorial in question: http://www.yesweekly.com/article-5783-was-all-this-fallout-due-to-a-computer-search.html
Our position was that we don't believe all of this fracas was about an unauthorized search of a HUD computer.
I should remind you that Julius Fulmore was investigated many times by many agencies, including the SBI, and nothing ever turned up there except for some association with prostitutes, for which he was suspended and then reinstated.
We're not saying we have anything we're not using in this story, Spags; we're saying we haven't been told the whole truth from the beginning, and that there are whole chapters of this tale that have been left out of the official version.
If that trial cleared up all your questions about this incident... well, you're one up on me. But as a lawyer, you know that trial was about one specific act and not the whole mess.
Also: Is there room in your world for Wray to have been anything but squeaky clean, for Sanders to have acted dishonorably yet not feloniously, for Mitch's firing to be based on anything but his actions regarding Wray?
Any room for nuance in that worldview of yours, Spags?
— Clarey
"Our position was that we don't believe all of this fracas was about an unauthorized search of a HUD computer."
Well, duh. It was also about a black book shown to every prostitute and junkie in the county to target black officers and other assertions made with "ample evidence" that we were promised we would understand when all the investigations were completed and we "knew what they knew."
Well, the investigations have been completed. We know what they knew and it wasn't a hill of beans.
What Sam and I find frustrating is that nearly all of the accusations made (and certainly any that would have justified the actions taken by Mitch Johnson) have been contradicted or come up empty.
Continuing the innuendo and implications with your hypothetical questions is really sleazy. Nuance is one thing, failing to acknowledge the facts because you cannot disprove all other possibilities is intellectually stunted.
Is Brian Clarey a pedophile? It's not clear. We haven't been able to prove he is not. I doubt if he is squeaky clean. Leaving room for nuance, I think you better keep him away from your children.
I just read the editorial. It's not as agregious as I expected from Sam's characterization, but it is still problemeatic and misses the single biggest point relevant to this discussion. It's author ("We, presumably, Brian), wrote:
That to believe that Sanders' acquittal is vindication for Wray, one must believe "that everything — Wray’s and Brady’s resignations, the RMA report, all of the lawsuits and indictments — all stemmed from that Saturday afternoon when Sanders had SBI agent Gary Cullop swipe the hard drive of Fulmore’s laptop."
No. What it came down to, when the numerous other investigations came up empty, when nobody would produce evidence that supported the assertions made against Wray, when the city manager admitted that he did not have even a single shred of evidence for his most scurrilous charges, what it came down to then was this trial. Yes! has it backwards. It's not that the trial was the last hope of vindicating Wray, it was the city manager's and his supporter's last hope of indicting Wray's administration with anything sustainable by the facts.
Roch, you make some good points.
But this trial wasn't about Wray. It was about Sanders and a computer, limited in scope by definition and intent.
I agree that the amount of information made available to us is a joke, and that, left to "fill in the blanks" we have all come up with numerous scenarios, none of them definitive or even provable, and many which defy logic.
You have a problem with the lack of transparency. So do I. You are bothered by the lack of hard facts. Me too. I suspect -- but cannot prove for purposes of publication -- that there is much more to this case than we have been told or allowed to see. Because of yours and Spags' efforts to obtain more documentation, I assume you agree with me here, as well.
But you seem to want to dump the whole thing in Mitch's lap. I don't.
That's not to say I don't have problems with Johnson's lack of transparency -- it's a huge issue, and I believe if he was more forthright back in the beginning rather than indulge in the governmental instinct to close ranks, he might still be city manager today. But other than that, I don't see that he had a lot of options here.
Tell me, how would you have handled Wray in the days following his resignation?
"there are whole chapters of this tale that have been left out of the official version."
Then give us the unofficial version, Brian, preferably with some facts.
Otherwise this is simply only more of the "if you knew what I know" spin that has been coming from the City, Mitch Johnson, and some media outlets for the past three years. For some reason, none of these are willing to go on the record and tell anyone what they supposedly know that nobody else does.
I can't — and won't — print unsubstantiated information. It's against the rules... for those of us who play by the rules.
Do you feel that you have gotten all the information you need to make an informed decision regarding this case?
Quickly, then I have to get to work (maybe more in depth over a beer or two).
If I seem to want to dump everything in Mitch's lap, I need to correct that impression. No doubt, the greatest focus has been on him because he works for us and was in a position where the public could demand some accountability. There is indeed plenty of blame to go around. Reporters who weren't careful, incurious editors who let their reporters go off the rails; Longmire from RMA whose standards of evidence should keep anybody from hiring him in a professional capacity again; the City attorneys who were careless in forming their conclusions; and the former City Council and mayor whose lack of intellectual heft allowed them to be hoodwinked and who stood in the way of public access to information with lame excuse after lame excuse -- an irony when, if information had been shared earlier, its inaccuracy and doubt might have been exposed before people staked their reputations to it.
And yes, Sanders and Brady made some poor decisions too. Had they known they would be scrutinized for the slightest transgression or the mildest affront, they might have behaved differently. Their missteps, however, do not come close to justifying the tumult that resulted from the trumped-up charges made by the City and regurgitated by some in the media.
Nor will I publish on my blog that Brian is a pedophile. It is unsubstantiated and against my rules. For now, I am withholding judgment until I have all the information I need to make an informed decision about his predilections.
Roch, the problem is that no parties in this controversy have really invited any independent observers to look at all the information and let the chips fall where they may.
The truth rarely comes out in one side's account. Cross-referencing accounts from several sides is what's required. And people on all sides of this fiasco appear to have a vested interest in keeping that from happening.
You can quote from the RMA report, but no one who drafted it will comment. You can quote from administrative investigation files and memos, but few of the principals have wanted to comment because they've been defendants in lawsuits. If you build up too much of a rapport with one side, the other side will freeze you out.
David Wray and his circle have put out their side of the story through the Rhino and the Troublemaker, but have not responded to media requests from other outlets. There seems to be an expectation that other media outlets follow suit by quoting Bledsoe and the Troublemaker as gospel, but our job is to vet it independently. Those efforts have not been welcomed.
On the other side of the ledger, the city administration has been quite happy to tell its side of the story, but appears to have stonewalled on requests for information that place it in an unfavorable light.
I have had some problems getting information from Mitch & city government — it's typically a reflexive posture by government, and waging a battle comes with the territory — but on the whole they have been forthcoming and responsive to me. I can't say the same thing for Wray or his circle.
You may not feel that Mitch or the city administration has been responsive to you, but that's symptomatic of the selective way that sources have chosen outlets for information in this fiasco.
Everyone wants to control the flow of information, but no one has been willing to put all the information out there and allow independent observers to draw their own conclusions. That's a big problem, and lots of people share in the blame. I'll even admit some complicity as a journalist getting too comfortable with sources that have been helpful, but again I'm not the only one.
By your standards of substantiation, virtually nothing could be published about this. In the absence of mea culpas, the best that can be done is to take information that is clearly on record from either authenticated documents or personal statement, check it with all involved parties, and put it in context. I haven't seen that level of intellectual honesty from any of Wray's defenders who are chronicling this story.
"Roch, the problem is that no parties in this controversy have really invited any independent observers to look at all the information and let the chips fall where they may."
What information, Jordan?
You operate under the assumption that there is more information out there that hasn't been reported or investigated. Where is it? Who has it? On what basis do you even make that claim?
You seem to be essentially saying that unless David Wray gives you an interview, he must be hiding something.
Evidence, Jordan, evidence.
"I haven't seen that level of intellectual honesty from any of Wray's defenders who are chronicling this story."
That is rich. The people who have no evidence to support their claims are intellectually honest; those who defend Wray citing the lack of evidence are not.
What kind of world are we living in where such warped logical reasoning can gain traction?
Jordan, you are the one who is not being intellectually honest with your inability to admit that you and some of your like minded friends got the story wrong.
For such liberal folks, I am surprised that you still apparently believe that the burden of proof is on the accused, and that anyone who questions the lack of evidence against the accused and puts the burden on the accuser- where it belongs- is being intellectually dishonest.
I bet no one's going to concede this argument, Spag, but again I go back to three elements of responsible reporting: 1) quote from authenticated documents and attributed statements, 2) check and cross-reference with all other involved parties, and 3) put contradictory information in context.
I'm not saying that anyone is hiding anything by not agreeing to talk to me, but they shouldn't complain about fairness if they forfeit that opportunity. And yes, openness and transparency garners respect.
The information that is out there is all the memos that were selectively leaked to the Rhino and the Troublemaker, and all the in-depth interviews granted by David Wray to Jerry Bledsoe. No responsible reporter retails that without independently vetting. Granted, no private individual has any obligation to talk to the media or pass along documents, but if Wray & company opt to freeze out disfavored outlets, whose fault is it that the story is incomplete?
And what would it have hurt for those who want to vindicate Wray to call up Julius Fulmore, Brian James or James Hinson before publishing unflattering characterizations? What would it have hurt to sit down with Mitch Johnson and listen to his side with an open mind, as people like David Hoggard and Ryan Shell have done?
I've been to Randall Brady's trailer and I placed a business card on the hood of his truck because he told me he didn't want to pass on a cold to me. Is there something more I should do to get his side of the story?
Your focus is on the accused, not the accuser Jordan. That is what I don't understand.
Tell me what part of Mitch Johnson's "side of the story" that he gave to you can reconcile his public statements about the "black book" with his answers under oath?
What does anything that anyone else MIGHT say have to do with that? What is David Wray or anyone else supposed to say in response to that besides "I told you so"?
To paraphrase your own words, no responsible reporter throws out innuendo of more sinister yet unreported dealings without having evidence to back it up.
One more thing Jordan.
Let me ask you this. If Mitch Johnson admits that he has no evidence to support his accusation of an improper use of the "black book", shouldn't you be far more interested in what motivated Johnson to fire Wray than what Wray has to say about it?
Isn't that the real story, why David Wray had to go and why was the story about the black book used to justify it?
It seems to me that Bledsoe has been asking that question in his series, while you are focusing on the wrong thing.
Who wanted David Wray gone and why? Why did Johnson accuse him or the police department under his watch of things that he had no evidence to substantiate? Did Johnson have an ulterior motive? Was Johnson manipulated by others to get rid of Wray? If so, why?
Instead you seem to cling to the idea that surely Mitch Johnson was justified even when by his own admission, he had nothing to back it up.
I'm pretty much with Sam on this, Jordan.
Here is my bottom line: What can be documented as factually accurate tells a story. I didn't need to sit down with Mitch to get his side of the story, I asked him for all the documentation that would explain his side of the story.
I'll believe the known facts as sustained by the available documentation and record, thank you. It is good that you have a reporter's skepticism, Greensboro needs more of that, but I cannot align with what you seem to be implying which is, as I understand it, that we shouldn't put too much stock in the facts we can document because there may be other stuff out there. That implies a hard to accept premise, that all the people having been challenged to back up their claims, N&R reporters and editors, police officers, city council people past and present, city staff and the city manager, all with their reputations on the line are, are.. are what? Biding their time, getting fired, being discredited and ridiculed so that they can... so they can.. so they can what? So they can wait until some bloggers say that they think they know a few things at which time they can rise from the ashes with a grand "A-ha!" just to make us look uninformed? Yeah, that must be it.
I'll go with the knowable facts at hand for now. Among other things, they tell us this undisputed story: Johnson (and others) made assertions that there was ample evidence that a "black book" was used to racially target police officers. Not a single shred of evidence has been produced to support that and the City and city manager have legally sworn that they have no evidence to support that claim. We don't need people's "sides" on this -- it's empirically true.
Remember, we were told there was "ample" evidence. That it would be produced after the investigations were completed (as they now are). That the book was shown to criminals across the county. Three years later, what buttresses those claims? Nada. Zilch. Zero. We do however have documentation of a legitimate use of the book and a sworn affidavit from the City and attested to by the manager that they have no record INDICATING misuse -- it's not that they cannot produce something that would meet the evidenciary standards of a court of law, but that they don't have anything at all that even INDICATES misuse. We are venturing into a stoned dorm room discussion of epistemology if we cannot say that with this evidence at hand, we still don't really know anything.
Roch, there is more information out there. It may end up illuminating the controversy, it may muddy it further or it may be utterly boring.
You're seeking information in a lawsuit; I would like to see it too. Julius Fulmore would like to see transcripts of recordings made by Scott Sanders; so would I. Members of city council such as Sandra Anderson Groat are interested in seeing more information, and may vote to release it tomorrow; I encourage them to do so.
You feel very certain that Mitchell Johnson said at the outset that the "black book" was used to racially target black officers. He says now that he didn't know its purpose and could not get a reasonable explanation for it — an assertion backed by Tom Phillips, to name at least one person.
Mitchell Johnson says that he believes Wray lied to him and that he lost trust in the police chief. The fact is North Carolina is a fire-at-will state. If you want to change this law to protect employees' rights, I would probably join your cause, but Wray is hardly alone in falling out with his boss.
That Mitch lost trust in David Wray seems like a much more reasonable explanation for his actions — often the most boring explanation turns out to be the true one — than the numerous theories that have been floated such as, Wray's investigation of Project Homestead threatened Mitch, the Simkins PAC orchestrated Wray's removal, Mitch was jealous of Wray because they had the same girlfriend — all of which fall apart under scrutiny.
It seems to me that you're taking a narrow collection of facts and fashioning a grand scheme set in motion by bad people with sinister motives. If I'm going to believe that David Wray was hounded out of office because of hidden and unseemly agendas, then I need him to sit down and make the case to me, eye to eye, so I can guage his honesty for myself.
"You feel very certain that Mitchell Johnson said at the outset that the "black book" was used to racially target black officers."
Did he?
"He says now that he didn't know its purpose and could not get a reasonable explanation for it"
What does the record say about its creation and use? Doe this jibe with Johnson's characterization as you describe it?
"an assertion backed by Tom Phillips,"
Can you point me to where Tom makes that assertion? Is it supported by any contemporaneous documentation?
"to name at least one person."
Oh, I get it! The implication being that there really is a phalanx of people waiting to bring forth the truth, probably at the 2039 Truth and Reconciliation meeting. I can hardly wait.
"It seems to me that you're taking a narrow collection of facts and fashioning a grand scheme set in motion by bad people with sinister motives."
Now you are trying my patience and, although I'm tempted to call you a moron, I won't. Where have I said or even remotely indicated that I think there was a grand scheme set in motion by people with sinister motives? Don't ignore this, Jordan. Show me or acknowledge you misrepresented my position.
I agree that Johnson could fire Wray at will. What is objectionable is that he, the N&R, the previous mayor and some city council members led us to believe that the reasons for the firing were these trumped up and unsubstantiated assertions of racial discrimination. That is bothersome on a number of levels including a lack of competence in the press, a lack of intellectual rigor among our elected representatives and a lack of veracity by the manager. If there was any kind of scheme, it was the confederacy of mendacity that followed, when nobody had the fortitude to adjust to the facts as they were revealed.
Most troubling however, is the unintended consequences of the backslide on race relations. We were making good progress; if not changing some minds, at least marginalizing some of the last vestiges of racial suspicion in our community. Now, these charges of racism being unfounded has inspired anew dormant racial tensions. It is also going to handicap action on the next legitimate issue of racial concern. Well done, schmucks!
Oh yeah, it has also, deservedly so, strengthened and added to the legitimacy of your weekly competitor.
Roch: Tom Phillips' comment will be published in the March 11 issue of YES! Weekly. I say "to name at least one person" because I don't have the time to go track down every person who may have heard Mitch say at the outset that he didn't know the purpose or use of the "black book," but I suspect there are others. I generally put information out as soon as I have it instead of holding "cards" in reserve.
I'm sorry, Roch, I didn't mean to misrepresent your position. If you say you don't see a grand scheme set in motion by people with sinister motives, then I take your word for it.
You wrote this:
"I'll go with the knowable facts at hand for now. Among other things, they tell us this undisputed story: Johnson (and others) made assertions that there was ample evidence that a "black book" was used to racially target police officers. Not a single shred of evidence has been produced to support that and the City and city manager have legally sworn that they have no evidence to support that claim."
And since you don't buy Mitch's explanation for his personnel actions with regard to David Wray, I figured you must believe there was another motive.
Looking forward to it, Jordan. I'm sure, you know, for balance, you'll include an examination of Johnson's public statements about the book.
I am also waiting for you to back up your claim that I am "fashioning a grand scheme set in motion by bad people with sinister motives," which I know you will do because you are an honorable man.
You'll take my word for it? Don't be a pussy, Jordan. You made an assertion about my perspective. I don't need you to "take my word for it" that I think differently than you said I do. You should man up and admit that your assertion was simply unfounded to begin with.
"And since you don't buy Mitch's explanation for his personnel actions with regard to David Wray, I figured you must believe there was another motive."
That is laughably intellectually dishonest. Let me step you through it, since it looks like that is necessary. I specifically and exclusively was addressing the initial characterizations of the black book and the subsequent lack of any evidence to support those claims -- facts you seem incapable of addressing head on. I was not, as you misrepresent, addressing the broad topic of Mitch's explanations for the personnel actions he took.
I also did not, as you erroneously conclude, imply anything about anybody's motives -- your assumption that I was misses what I actually do believe: Good intentions confounded by incompetence and errors compounded by hubris. Sound familiar?
My assertion was simply unfounded to begin with. It's not a big deal for me to say it. This is a conversation, not a master's thesis.
Post a Comment