Sal Leone: "I ask for stuff I don't need"

Just in case Greensboro city staffers are already over their case of the Mondays (or are excited about a Tuesday off from city council meetings) here's a gem from Sal Leone that might make their head spin.


This didn't fit into our District 5 city council election article coming out tomorrow for a few reasons (namely because of space), but it still merits publication.

In his candidate interview last week, Leone brought up the issue of public-information requests and said: "I ask for stuff I don't need just to keep them working."

Leone, who will face Tony Wilkins and Alex Seymour in the Oct. 8 primary race, added that he did it to keep people guessing about what he was up to on his campaign.

On Aug. 2, we reported that Leone had 13 open information requests with the city. For example, here's an excerpt from a staff report about open public-information requests:

The list is included in the city's weekly "Items For Your Information" report in part because the city struggles to keep up with the massive amount and size of requests from people (myself included). 

Leone ran at-large for Greensboro City Council in 2011. Read more about Leone's candid candidacy, Seymour and Wilkins in tomorrow's YES! Weekly.

City responds to questions about public records, noise callers

The city of Greensboro and YES! Weekly have been going back and forth about public records for a while now, discussing what qualifies a public information especially in the wake of our cover story about police surveillance of activists. We've been going back and forth about whether the names of people filing noise complaints is public record. Who cares? We think it's worth knowing if all the calls complaining about Greene Street club are coming from just one or two people. Plus if it's public record, the city would be required to release it.

To try and sort things out, our news editor Jordan Green and Greensboro/Guilford County reporter Eric Ginsburg sat down with City Attorney Mujeeb Shah-Khan, Police Attorney Jim Clark and City spokesperson Donnie Turlington on June 10. One of the topics for discussion: Why did the police department release the name of a 911 caller to us in the Sebastian Village case but not the names of people who called about Greene Street, even though both were noise complaints?

After reviewing the state's general statutes governing public records (available here, specifically C and D), we reached some areas of agreement. North Carolina Press Association lawyer Amanda Martin told YES! Weekly that the names are a matter of public record according to the statutes, but after careful review of the ordinance with Clark and Shah-Khan, I am pretty confident that they're accurately interpreting the statute. 

While the names of the callers don't have to be released, it will become public record in this case once it is given to Greene Street's lawyer as part of the discovery for pending litigation between the city and the club over the noise ordinance. Until then, the city's hands are tied. YES! Weekly requested a copy and the city agreed to release it unless the court issues a protective order (which seems unlikely). 

We also agreed that the statute specifically protects the identity of "complaining witnesses" using 911, and that if a complaint came to the city through another avenue (as they sometimes did prior to the noise debate last year) it is public record. The city is currently reviewing our request to see if complaints came in outside of the 911 system. 

As for the discrepancy in when the city provided a caller's name: At the time, Shah-Khan said sometimes "the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing," but after Clark went back and reviewed what happened, he provided a more detailed explanation on Monday. Below is the full text of his response, and the emphasis is mine. 

"I have looked at the matter, and what I found is that Susan Danielsen released the name mistakenly.  At the time of your earlier PIRT request for 911 information coming from noise complaints, Susan reached the same conclusion that you did – that G.S. 132-1.4 did not apply to reported civil violations.  Since this was a new situation, and Susan believed that she was very clear about her understanding of the statute, she released the information in good faith.  The legal question of applicability of G.S. 132-1.4 as it related to noise calls was not settled, as it had not been addressed by an interpretation from any attorney in the City Attorney’s Office.  Susan understandably viewed the disclosure as a simple, routine matter.  However, as we discussed, the applicability of G.S. 132-1.4 needed to be considered, which required a legal interpretation.  Susan acted in good faith to comply with the City’s procedures for routine release.

Since then, of course, the City Attorney’s Office has researched the matter and given its advice, which as you know is that 911 caller identities are confidential for the reasons we explained during our meeting about a week ago.  With this in mind, we believe the earlier mistaken disclosure was inadvertent, and we also think that it is very unlikely to have negative consequences for the parties involved or the caller.

Thank you for meeting with us and giving us a fair opportunity to explain our reasons and analysis for why the information must be withheld.  Frankly, we’re quite often frustrated ourselves, when it comes to the application of State laws concerning confidentiality.  We frequently run into times where more information available to the public would help put to rest fears concerning the lack of openness in GPD or government operations in general.  However, to the extent such disclosure conflicts with State laws, we are bound to follow the law as best we understand it. 

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know!  Hope you had a great weekend.

Best regards, Jim"

As soon as the the results of our inquiry about noise complaints about Greene Street outside of 911 calls  and the names made available in the discovery are public, we will publish them. Stay posted.

Charles Cherry has more choice words for mayor, city manager

Former Greensboro police captain Charles Cherry has developed a reputation amongst Greensboro City Council members for his choice words at council meetings to such an extent that they considered limiting speech and the public comment period at their meetings last summer. Mayor Robbie Perkins, a frequent target of Cherry's criticism, explained his thoughts about speakers like Cherry again this April:

"Frankly, the concern I have is that they are taking away from folks that really need our help," he said. "Some may want to come in and don’t because they don’t want to be in middle of acrimonious discussion." 

Today, the saga continues. In a dual complaint/public-information request to the city, Cherry wrote to "Deadbeat, Non Taxpaying, Looking for Preferential Treatment Mayor Perkins and the other eight members of city council." Cherry criticized Perkins' bankruptcy and non-payment of taxes, going on to call City Manager Denise Turner Roth "a corrupt stupid liar."

Cherry has repeatedly argued that the city refuses to investigate his complaints about police misconduct. Roth contends that the city has answered his requests and staff recommends that council not address Cherry directly because of his pending lawsuit against the city. 

There is another gem in Cherry's complaint, too:

"Robbie, never forget, I am strengthened by the Mighty God in Heaven. Greensboro, observe the power of a God-fearing man, as I mentally dominate, control and force this corrupt deadbeat mayor to do his job." 

He ends the letter by requesting the name, dates, result and amount of money spent on each pending or current lawsuit involving the Greensboro Police Department since January 1, 2010, including outside lawyer fees or estimated cost of staff time based on salary. YES! Weekly asked the city to release the results of Cherry's public-information request to us as soon as it is available to him. 

Cherry's case is one of many cited by a report, Our Democratic Mission, released by the Beloved Community Center earlier this year highlighting issues that point to a "subculture of corruption and double standards" in the police department. The center is holding a community meeting on June 13 to discuss issues related to the department.

This week's IFYI report

Here is this week's IFYI report from the Greensboro city manager's office. The report is out a day early because Good Friday is tomorrow.

It includes information about the South Elm Street Redevelopment, meetings to gather input on the public-information request process, MWBE contracting and the city's legislative agenda with the NC General Assembly.

Greensboro blogging staple Ed Cone used to post these, and during his hiatus from updating his site, we plan to post the IFYI report here for folks to easily peruse when there is information or material in it that we think will be of public interest. If you want to read it every week in full, you can subscribe to the city manager's distribution list like we do.

Here's some pull out information if you don't want to read through it all yourself: 

-The plan for the South Elm Street Redevelopment project includes a 500 space parking deck and more than 210 apartments in phase one. 

-The project has an anticipated completion date of 2025 and appears to include a second 500 space parking deck in phase 3 followed by a 150 room hotel.

-The total anticipated investment for the project is $81.7 million, including $11 million of public funds.

-The city will host two meetings about public records, one aimed at journalists and bloggers and the other at the general public, on April 8-9.

-The city is looking at a Small Business Enterprise Program aimed at increasing contracting opportunities for minority and women owned businesses through several potential methods.

-A state senate bill could create a $16.8 million budget shortfall for the city if passed — the goal of the legislation is to decrease taxes. 

-There are several other legislative items of relevance highlighted in the document, including a House Bill 299 entitled "Law Enforcement Fairness Act" that would create a "quasi-judicial board for each municipality to review dismissals and grievances by law enforcement officers."

Unexpected find: city prank?

One of the most interesting parts of public information requests from the city (which anyone can file by contacting Donnie Turlington in the Public Affairs Dept.) is that you never know what it will come back with. Sometimes it comes in the form of a stream of emails from Roy Carroll about the noise at Greene Street Club. After narrowing searches by terms and the timeline, there's still frequently plenty of material that isn't pertinent to your search. Take, for example, the email below from four years ago that had nothing to do with what I was looking for in a request that I got back yesterday.