Thursday, April 21, 2005
Apologies to Claudette
I sincerely apologize to fellow councilmember Claudette Burroughs-White for my previous comments on this blog about her "violating a negotiated agreement" not to introduce a motion concerning the TRC at Tuesday night's council meeting. It has become clear to me that the information I had received on Monday regarding her intentions was incorrect. I am sorry for any hurt I may have caused due to this miscommunication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Sandy,
I have very mixed opinions about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I can understand and appreciate arguments for and against supporting it.
But part of me feels like the City Council allowed itself to be sucked into playing a Guilford-County-Commissioners-like game (definitely not a compliment) at your most recent meeting.
If I accurately follow how things transpired, the 6-3 decision to OPPOSE THE TRC was in retaliation for a perceived violation of the "negotiated agreement" you reference.
Had the perception of a violation of that agreement not occurred, it sounds like the plan was simply not to endorse the TRC.
I think the City Council would have come out a lot better and could hold its head up much higher had the original plan not to endorse the project been followed.
It strikes me as somewhat arrogant for anyone to assume that the commission's efforts will turn out positively or negatively.
Many of the people supporting the TRC's efforts are not "zealots on the opposite ends of the political spectrum"--they include everyday citizens concerned about our city's past, present, and future.
For a variety of reasons, these citizens perceive that a more complete analysis of that horrible event might have an ultimately positive influence on our community. (That may or may not prove to be true, obviously, but I don't think anyone can predict.)
And while a lot of people think that the types of attitudes and behaviors that led to the events of November 3, 1979 are behind us and are unrepresentative of this area, I look at the way elected officials on the Guilford County Board of Commissioners act and interact, and I wonder if maybe there isn't something in the water we drink in this area that provokes such insane behavior.
I would not go out of my way to argue that what happened way back then has directly influenced such behavior, but I also would not go out of my way to argue that that part of our community's past has absolutely no bearing.
The way that Skip Alston and Linda Shaw famously interacted had the potential to end far worse than it did.
I believe I read that prior to one of their most recent meetings, some commissioners actually counseled Billy Yow to make sure that he allowed Bruce Davis to take the first punch before allowing himself to punch back.
That kind of behavior and those kinds of attitudes have the potential to go in dangerous directions.
Another local example from the past: E.H.Hennis, who in not so subtle ways, threatened violence against commissioners. (Hennis, I believe, had at least past ties to the KKK, if not in the present.)
Or when Rhinoceros Times Editor John Hammer had his confrontation with former Guilford County School Board member Keith Green that resulted in a chair being thrown.
We have been fortunate in Guilford County that none of these incidents has gone any further than they have.
But there are examples in the United States of where such behavior can lead.
Consider that on November 27, 1978, San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk was assassinated at City Hall, together with mayor George Moscone, by former city supervisor Dan White. (Dan White, like our city's defendents from the November 3rd murders, pratically got away with murder; later he committed suicide.)
Another example: In 2003, Othniel Askew shot and killed Brooklyn Councilmember James E. Davis, the first murder ever to take place inside City Hall.
Even if the commissioners, for instance, always maintain at least enough self-control not to murder one another, who is to say that the way they interact and behave won't inspire some sick individual to carry out an act of violence.
In the scheme of things, it will probably never reach such a level, but the intensity brought to their confrontations with one another could very well lead to an incident as bad as or worse than what occurred in 1979.
I personally am very proud of most of the people, places, and events that one would associate with this area.
I think there are more positive things going for our area than negative.
I can understand the desire to avoid exploring one of the darkest events in Greensboro's history.
But I also believe that even today there is a dangerous undercurrent of energy that exists. While, for example, it might be tempting to dismiss the commissioners as harmless zealots whose extreme ways can be ignored, they are also elected officials, which makes them far closer to the mainstream.
While the City Council decided to vote against the TRC's efforts, I am not aware that the City Council has ever taken a position against some of the outrageous, potentially dangerous behavior that has involved commissioners.
If the City Council is worried about the influence of the TRC's work, why has the City Council not taken a stronger position against a group (the Commissioners) that has far more power and influence in Guilford County and which does regular damage to our county's reputation that the TRC would have to work hard to outdo?
City Council members may have had a divided vote, but even with some of the friction that might exist over the TRC issue, you all have not come anywhere close to behaving like the commissioners (at least from what I've observed).
The City Council may not always make popular decisions, but generally speaking the way in which you all make decisions represents a far superior approach than that taken by the commissioners on a regular basis.
I've gone in some different directions than I originally intended, and I have not even expressed a couple of the points I wanted to share with you.
One is that I admire you tremendously for starting and maintaining your Blog. That has to take quite a bit of effort on your part, and I don't think I am alone in appreciating what you have put into it so far (and what you will hopefully be able to continue putting into it!). Even when you express something I do not completely agree with, you still come across as sincere, honest, and respectful, and that matters a lot to me. You have one of the talents too few elected officials truly possess: the ability to communicate well. And you're not afraid to express yourself openly; unfortunately, I don't think we have enough politicians like you at any level.
Secondly, I respect the public apology you posted to Claudette Burroughs-White. That gesture may seem small and insignificant, but it is exactly the kind of act that is unheard of among commissioners, and they have much more to apologize for than I perceive you do.
I wish the City Council could redo Tuesday night; in hindsight, I have a feeling that you all would do a better job the second time around of addressing the TRC issue.
I would at the very least maintain an open-mind about where their efforts lead and not be too stubborn to take into consideration their final report to our community. My perception is that you are respectful enough to pay attention to what they are doing and to take the time to listen to what they ultimately have to report. I hope that perception is accurate.
And finally, as I indicated, I don't perceive the current problems in our community as ones that directly involve the City Council, but in the future, I wish the City Council (or at least you as an individual) would weigh in on ugliness or pettiness that occurs within other government bodies or within our community at large.
(I don't know the history of how City Councils closer in time to 1979 treated the issues surrounding the November 3rd murders, but maybe they did not weigh in enough, and that is part of the reason that the City Council in 2005 is being asked to carry the burden of weighing in.)
I hope I have managed to make some sense in what I've expressed.
Keep Blogging--you do a great job at it!
And enjoy a great weekend!
Sincerely,
Hardy
Hardy,
Wow, you had a lot to say. I'll try to comment on as many points as I can.
First about blogging - I'm finding it to be a great communication tool and hope I'm providing a bit of education/information about everything a councilmember has to deal with. This "peek into the inner sanctum" certainy has its risks by sharing my thoughts and observations, but I think it's worth those risks.
An example which leads to my second point - my apology to Claudette. Without this blog, I probably would have never said what I did say here in the first place. But after finding out my initial reaction was based on bad information, that apology was a "no brainer." My parents would not have tolerated anything less!
[And as an aside to Chewie's comments over on Hogg's Blog, the 'big secret information' - that I THOUGHT I HAD received in my session with the Mayor was that Claudette would not be introducing a motion. Nothing more, nothing less!]
Other points:
When I refer to "zealots on opposite ends of the political spectrum," I'm talking about those involved in the Nov. 3, 1979 event, not people involved in the current efforts.
I agree there are plenty of examples incredibly bad behavior throughout the years exhibited by elected officials and members of the general public centered around political and/or racial issues - both here in Greensboro and around the world. However, I question whether these are direct results of the Nov. 3 event. Problems of this nature existed long before that happening, and I'm afraid will occur in the future, whatever the outcome/resolution of the TRC.
If I could press "rewind" and re-do the way the TRC debate played out the other night, I would in order to end up with a "kinder, gentler" resolution to it. But no matter how it might be worded, I still would not be in favor of endorsing the TRC. Again I state, let me make my judgment AFTER their work is complete.
I do not know how the "then" city council reacted to the Nov. 3 event, but there is a letter to the editor in today's N&R that indicates quite a few hearings and discussion by the city's Human Relations Commission. The writer was a member of the Commission at the time and participated in those efforts.
Lastly, I feel it would be totally inappropriate for the city council as a whole or me as an individual council member to take an official stance on the way the county commissioners behave in their meetings as you suggest. We have a tenuous relationship as it is, and I would not want to poison that relationship by trying to pass judgment on them. I'll leave that task to the constituents and voters while trying to set the example of how a governmental body CAN debate the merits of an issue without going ballistic.
Sandy,
I cannot determine from your appology what the misinformation might have been, I appears that there was at the least an "understanding" among the council members that there was not to be a motion if the Mayor's "compromise" wording failed? Perhaps the person that made the motion was not of the same mind that there was an "understanding"...but thats not your fault...seems to me that the Mayor tried REAL HARD to communicate and that EVERYBODY ELSE GOT IT !! I see no reason for your appology....rather I think she (CBW) should appologize to the council and the city for being "somewhere else" then this topic was discussed !!
The misinformation I had was that Claudette would not be introducting a resolution. Despite the mayor's sincere efforts, it is obvious that miscommunication did occur on that point. Once I learned that my comments were based on erroneous information/miscommunication - whoever's fault it was - I felt it best to try to heal the hurt my remarks caused by issuing the apology.
Perhaps Allen Johnson's article entitled, "What The Truth and Reconciliation Vote Says About Our City Council," that was published by the Greensboro News-Record will clear up any ambiguity.
Personally, I think that Ms. Carmany is one of the most classy politicians in America given the manner in which she diffused a potentially ugly situation.
Councilmember Tom Phillips originally posted the article's direct hyperlink in one of his recent postings.
What The Truth and Reconciliation Vote Says About Our City Council
By Allen Johnson
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/outloud
http://www.news-record.com/news/columnists/staff/ajcol_042405.htm
Ah, Sandy -- you made that secret information sound so much more secretive when you first wrote about it, by saying it was something "that never could have been said in public discussion." Claudette NOT introducing a motion doesn't seem like it would require the hush-hush -- but obviously it did, for reasons I won't guess at.
I hope you won't mind if I post your explanation of it over at Hogg's Blog. Since you've answered, I don't want to leave it hanging out there as a mystery that others may wonder about, and readers there should know that you responded.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, and what led up to the Council's vote, so candidly.
Chewie,
Of course I don't mind if you post my response on Hogg's Blog since I am unable to do so. I've always assumed anything I post becomes part of the public domain for folks to do with it as they wish, but I really appreciate you checking first. I do hope you will post this one as well.
Your comment about the items "that never could have been said in public discussion" clears up some confusion I've had over others' comments about "the big secret." The information about Claudette's intent is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I was referring to when I talked about "blunt statements" being made during those conversations with the mayor. I didn't consider the information I thought I had about Claudette's (and other council members) intentions to be a secret at all.
I WAS referring to one-on-one, heartfelt sharing of personal feelings and asking of pointed questions in an effort for FRIENDS to understand each other. It would have been difficult to have that type of frank conversation in a public setting, the way things often get misconstrued or misinterpreted.
As seem to be the case with your interpretation of what I posted! I'll try to be clearer in the future!
Post a Comment