Taking advantage of the features of my home phone, I had set it to forward all incoming calls to my cell phone. Thus, Doug Clark of the editorial staff of the News & Record, was able to interview me for his editorial on the RMA report as I drove to the Coliseum on Friday morning.
A bit later as my husband and I shared a table at lunch in the VIP dining area with Yvonne Johnson and her husband, reporter Frank Mickens of WFMY News2 phoned and requested an on-camera interview for his story about the Project Homestead report. Noting that the first game was beginning in less than a half hour, I agreed to do so if he could get to me before I entered the arena for the game. He and his cameraman somehow managed to navigate the traffic and get there in time.
During halftime of the game, News & Record reporter Eric Swensen managed to locate me in my seat and get a few comments for his story on the Project Homestead report.
Later that same afternoon, Lorraine Ahearn of the News & Record phoned me in the middle of a game seeking information on the police investigation report. It was so noisy with all the bands, cheering and crowd noise, I'm not sure either of us heard or understood a single word the other said.
So despite the obstacles, the press managed to get their interviews and stories.
Speaking of those two hot issues:
* I support the release of the full report on the Project Homestead investigation. Even if there is not enough evidence to file formal charges against anyone, I believe the city council and the public has a right to see whatever information -- good or bad -- was uncovered.
* I have decidedly mixed feelings about the leak of the RMA report. Now that some of the detailed evidence has been publicly revealed, numerous people have commented they now understand why we councilmembers backed the city manager so strongly when he took certain actions. In that respect, this release has fostered public vindication and made my job a little bit easier.
On the other hand, I can only pray that the release of this confidential information does not undermine the two ongoing investigations and hamper any chance of justice being achieved. There's also the possibility that lawsuits over the violation of state personnel privacy laws being filed against the city, an unneeded expense for taxpayers.
However, the biggest casualty is the potential loss of trust among city council members as well as between city council members and staff. It's fairly certain that a councilmember deliberately broke confidentiality protocol and gave that report to the newspaper. This action leaves me wondering "who did it" and "who can I trust anymore" -- my sense of "team" certainly has been torpedoed. I can imagine the leak puts the city manager in an awkward situation as well -- he has made it a point to keep us councilmembers updated on the investigation. But with the very real potential for additional leaks, I could fully understand how he might be hesitant to do so in the future. That's a real shame!
15 comments:
Sandy:
If a member of city council is proved to have leaked the document, do you think that council member should face criminal or civil penalty or sanction?
jsykes,
I would not have a problem with any of the possibilities you listed. Councilmembers should be subject to the law and the consequences of violating it just like any other citizen.
Speaking of law violaters, I guess it's not your fault that Yvonne brought her lawyer husband to your shared lunch. I'll bet you don't even know of Waler Johnson's history of obtaing property by false pretenses and tax evasion.
Eric,
Yes, I am well aware of Mr. Johnson's legal woes -- they have been aired extensively in the newspaper -- but that is between him and the IRS or whomever. The city council has no jurisdiction over his matter.
HUGE violation of trust. Why are you so sure it was a fellow council person? Please address the timing of it all. Project Homestead is done and here the press magically gets a confidential document leaked.
Troublemaker,
I had calls from a number of N&R reporters pleading with me to slip them a copy and how they would not reveal how they got it. Other councilmembers got those very same calls and promises. The pressure was on big time!
I did not know at the time I was given the report by the city manager (nor did my fellow councilmembers) that not everyone "in the know" got the ENTIRE report -- city councilmembers were the ONLY ones who received "the whole enchilada." From what the News & Record has reported, it is apparent the N&R has "the whole enchilada." So...
I don't have a clue about the timing of the leak in relation to the Project Homestead report. I do know that I am really PO'ed about the leak as well as not being able to read the Project Homestead report and will actively support all legal efforts to get both revealed.
I feel good knowing you want to find out who leaked the report. Correct me if I am wrong. Was council the only possible leak? I really want the city to at least reveal who had access to the leak. Also, there is a law that would allow the city to go seize the documents from the N&R. I would think that would be explored as well. Get to the bottom of it Mrs. Carmany. I am thrilled to read what u wrote! I also currently think the steps at Saint james deal makes no sense. Somebody should wake Bellamy-Small up.
Troublemaker,
All I know is that access to the full report was severely restricted, and only a few staff members had it in addition to city councilmembers. I do not know for sure which staff members had it, but for the ones I do know of, I have full faith that they absolutely did NOT leak the report.
I'm not sure what would be gained by trying to seize the document from the N&r at this point except to spend a lot of money in legal fees fighting that battle. They have already publicly revealed significant information from the report, although to their credit, they seem to have been careful not to violate personnel privacy laws and name specific people in most instances. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done -- some witnesses who were previously cooperating fully with the investigation have now clammed up, saying they don't want to see their names published in the newspaper since it's obvious the city is unable to deliver on its promise of confidentiality.That damage cannot be undone even if we were to be successful in retrieving the report. Too late!
As I understand it, progress is being made on the steps at St. James. It's just taking longer than anticipated.
If the document was not to be leaked then i would think that one...there would be an investigation as to who leaked it...At this point, everyone is a suspect. So having full faith that they staff did NOT leak the report is simply an opinion...not fact... 2..the point of seizing the document is... a law was created for this situation...and the city will not use the tools they have...the report should have been seized earlier..unless the city and the paper made a deal...which it seems as if they did....as far as the ST. James steps....I doubt any council member really knows the whole deal....history should show you I am following it....closely....just like the asbestos stuff and everything else....council will say everything is fine...until i turn the lights on...the steps at saint james have gotten little attention....in june of 2005 they were ruled 82 % deficient by HUD..in sept somebody got hurt...in october an engineer said they have til march to fix them...in march they said they have more time....RUCO has been told the CO's are being witheld...none of this makes the steps safer...I have been to visit the saints.....it is not impressive...at all..if they are not safe enough to get CO's...why r they still for rent?
also u talk about the money it would cost to seize the documents...would it be more than $800,000 ? That is smaller than the price the city paid for an unappraised piece of property off burnt poplar road...the tax value of the property was $129,000...asking price was not even $200,000....and the city bought it for over 7 times the amount..unapraised...so..would it be wasteful as that? Also, if the witnesses that are claming up are city employees..they do not have the luxury to go silent...all of this sounds to much like a big conspiracy....to say it doesnt sound really odd....is shoing a willingness to hide the facts...as I type ..a source informs me that the city managers office is conducting an investigation of the leak...the details...they are calling for the copies handed out to see if anyone is missing one....I hope the RMA people didnt conduct their investigation like the city manager is conducting the leak.
Troublemaker,
Of course, anything is possible and anyone who had a copy of the report is certainly suspect. However, circumstantial evidence points directly councilmembers. The only persons who had copies of the report described by the N&R (2 parts, 75 pages) were councilmembers. Those limited number of staff members who have access to the report have much lengthier versions of it and/or only specific small pieces of it. NO ONE BUT COUNCILMEMBERS HAD THE 75-PAGE VERSION.
Yes, the city manager's office is conducting an investigation into the matter. City Council is taking steps as well. That's all I can say.
Re seizing the report from the N&R -- Some current interpretations of the law would work against us being successful. It would certainly entail a costly court fight that would drag out for months, if not years. What's to be gained at this point except to a moral victory? They have it and have released a lot of the information -- you can't put the genie back into the bottle.
The last time I looked, everyone's personal rights are still in place despite seeming erosion by the Patriot Act. Employee or non-employee, no one can be forced to testify against their will.
and of course you do not want to chat about the unappraised piece of property on burnt popular road do you? tax value $129,000...the city voted to buy it ...without an appraisal for $800,000 plus. The saint james stuff is just like south gate...except Skip runs them...and everyone is scared of skip...as far as the personal rights stuff...if a city employee is asked a question about work they can be puncished for not cooperating..even fired...and seizing the documents would not be half the fight u claim....loved how u carefully picked the issues to answer....typical...keep in mind...less than 20% of the population voted in GSO last election...in my opinion...that is not impressive...at all...how can u vote to buy something that is $800,000 plus without an appraisal? and the canada Dry building...that is a jike as well...there is no info from DH griffin..and the model used to see what the cost would be is for residential...not commercial...painting a false picture is what is being done...
Troublemaker,
I try to stick to the topic/issue of my original post, but if you insist, here goes.
Re the Burnt Poplar property: Please substantiate your claim that no property appraisal was done. That would be highly unusual,I cannot imagine this allegatin being accurate. I certainly did not knowingly vote on the purchase without an appraisal, and I need the facts to check out on this one.
Re St. James: On this and RUCO issues, I rely heavily on Tom Phillips who is the council's liaison on those issues.Tom is thorough and stays on top of them. If Tom satisfied with the situation, that's good enough for me. (And I would label Tom "totally immune" from the political power you claim Mr. Alston exercises.)
Re forcing employees to testify: Employees have "Garrity Rights", the equivalent of Miranda rights that all citizens have. They carry the same protections (right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you, etc.) The city must comply with these rights.
Plus, you are making a very erroneous assumption that all the witnesses are city employees.
Re seizing the RMA report: If you know how to do this legally and avoid all the attorney fees and circumvent all court process and its delays, please share that information with me.
Also, please explain for me what the city would gain by doing so. It's impossible to erase from memory what the N&R (and now the general public) knows. I'd rather spend the city's time and energy on finishing the investigations, taking the appropriate action against persons who may be implicated in those investigations, and bringing this whole sordid mess to a close.
Re the Canada Dry building: the environmental assessments are being done and any negotiated sales price for the property will be taken into consideration any costs for potential cleanup and/or mitigation.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1405/1193/1600/butch%20memo%20about%20transfer%20station.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1405/1193/1600/tax%20value%20and%20purchase%20price.jpg
love how u erasde my comment! Anyway...here is the documents u shoulda read a long time ago.
You still stick w this?
"Please substantiate your claim that no property appraisal was done. That would be highly unusual,I cannot imagine this allegatin being accurate. I certainly did not knowingly vote on the purchase without an appraisal, and I need the facts to check out on this one."
It is not an allegation. It is a fact. Deal with it!
Troublemaker,
I'm following up and checking on this.
Post a Comment