Sometimes the premature airing of certain information can have detrimental and costly effects. The General Assembly obviously recognized the need for limited access to sensitive information in passing the Open Meetings Law which spells out specific occasions (legal issues, personnel issues, land acquisition) when the city council's deliberations and inside information can be temporarily withheld from public scrutiny.
Also, I think most citizens recognize the necessity for law enforcement officials to be able secure evidence and findings uncovered in the course of their investigations until they have solved the case and nabbed the suspects. If that information becomes public too early in the investigative process, the likelihood that key witnesses will "clam up" or disappear and vital evidence be hidden or destroyed increases tremendously, greatly impeding the chance to successfully nail any wrongdoers. When "the right to know" has the potential of impeding or derailing the outcome of an investigation, then secrecy must be accepted until the case is concluded.
With that said, I totally agree with Ed Cone's column in today's News & Record that the report on the investigation into the Project Homestead problems should be released immediately. That investigation is complete (or as complete as it is ever likely to be, given the sloppy recordkeeping and "poor memories" cited by the District Attorney), and there is no longer a need to keep those findings confidential. The public -- and the city council -- has a definite need and right to know the details and findings/non-findings of that investigation. If those findings are critical of the actions of the city council and/or some of its individual members, so be it!
On the other hand, I absolutely deplore and condemn the irresponsible actions of "the leaker" and the News & Record for their recent release of the RMA investigative report into the problems in the Greensboro Police Department. Those findings were merely the beginning point for a more thorough investigation that is now underway, and the premature public airing of that information and specific names of key players has severely damaged that investigation. Formerly cooperative witnesses are declining further involvement now that their confidentiality has been breached ( who can blame them?). One can only imagine the scrambling that must be going on in certain quarters to alter or get rid of potentially damaging evidence now that they know which specific incidents involving certain individuals have been targeted. I also fear that potential witnesses in any future investigation of any sort are likely to hesitate before cooperating lest their names be splashed all over the news too.
(And can you imagine what "rubes" the FBI must think we are, unable to maintain confidentiality? Do you think they'll ever trust US again?)
In my opinion, "the leaker's" arrogance, total disregard for established procedures, and betrayal of the city council's need for confidentiality in certain circumstances coupled with the newspaper's rush to "get the story" has irreparably damaged the chance of uncovering the truth in this sad case (or at the very least, made it exceedingly more difficult). On top of that, the city manger is now having to conduct an investigation to find out who leaked the information, another distraction from all the other pressing matters that should be claiming his attention such as preparations for the budget.
The other tragic casualty in this unfortunate situation is the loss of trust and respect among councilmembers, knowing that it is highly likely that it was "one of us." Councilmembers are fairly certain who "our leaker" is now based on things that have come to light. That person could be facing legal prosecution, and at the very least, owes fellow councilmembers an explanation and apology. Our working relationship is forever damaged, and I for one can never see myself trusting or respecting that person again.
My puzzled question, both to "the leaker" and the News & Record is, "WHY?" Why did you find it necessary to jeopardize our ability to uncover the truth and mete out justice in this case?
The city council, the city manager and city attorney, the acting police chief and his investigative team, and even the FBI were/are aggressively pursuing the investigation and had/have publicly committed to "do the right thing." In every statement I have heard from fellow councilmembers, it was evident we would release everything we could when the investigation is complete and the city manager and the FBI have taken the appropriate actions taken to deal with those findings. I have no doubt about our commitment to honor the public's "right to know" at the appropriate time.
The unfortunate leak and subsequent publication of the RMA report was poor judgment, in my opinion. When the "right to know" is inappropriately applied, the results can be just as criminal and damaging to truth and justice as the original wrongdoing!
22 comments:
Sandy, JR discusses this issue, among others, here (primarily in the comments, as the original post went to a different, although related, issue).
So, then. You're "leaking," to us that you know who the "leaker," is?
"Leaking," as old as politics itself, is a method used by politicians themselves to manipulate public opinion.
Thanks, Lex, I followed that discussion with interest as it unfolded but chose not to jump into the fray at that time. Good, valid points were made by a number of commenters there.
Even so, I still hold fast to my stated premise -- the city was at the time (and still is) diligently investigating the findings of the RMA report, and the leak and the subsequent publishing by the N&R of some of that information has served as an serious impediment to that investigation. I see no difference between the leak and the published stories than someone crashing through the yellow crime-scene tape and trampling all over critical evidence.
jw,
It will be interesting to learn what the motives were for leaking the RMA report in the first place.
Don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out!
Sandy, I'm speaking only for myself here, but I'm sure JR will be happy to consider whatever proof you have that the N&R's publication of information from the report has seriously impeded the city's investigation.
I'm curious: Do you believe the N&R's extensive coverage of Project Homestead impeded THAT investigation and led to no one's being criminally charged?
I don't have any use for shrouds of secrecy. They seem to be all the rage these days, from the POTUS all the way down to our lowly city council. The problem with them is that they beget more secrecy, which in turn begets more and before you know it entire issues have been swept under the rug.
The public needs to know just what the GPD is up to because, frankly, it has a terrible record of governing itself and because the fear is that yet another accusation of out and out racism on its part will be swept under the rug. After all, on your watch we still have no definitive answers on the CWP/Klan shootings, and there are none in sight.
As a member of the public, I'm not really concerned with your idea of the "appropriate time" for transparency to begin within government. The right of citizens to hold their government to such a standard has no qualifiers or conditions. I'm certain that "leaks" and activisim would be unecessary if Greensburgers had any expectation of their local government handling situations like this with any intelligence (or at least with something other than self-interest). Alas, I'm afraid we don't.
Lex,
Please check with reporter Eric Swensen for those details. The city manager cited specific examples of negative impacts to the investigation in an interview with him on that subject on Friday that has not yet appeared in the N&R.
No, I am not saying the N&R impeded the Project Homestead investigation. The city audit information was legally made available to the media and publicly revealed AFTER that investigative process was complete. And, unless I am mistaken, the N&R did not obtain and print leaked confidential information and reveal witness identities from the ongoing SBI/FBI investigations as they were occurring.
My THEORY as to why sufficient evidence was unavailable in the PH case - as demonstrated by the missing computer,sloppy recordkeeping, supposed poor memories, etc. - is that some of the "witnesses" were potentially liable for some of the problems and DID NOT WANT that information to be available. It was likely in those persons' best interests NOT to cooperate and potentially be charged or embarassed. That's human nature, not media interference, so I'll let you off the hook on that one. {smile}
Nick,
You wrote "After all, on your watch we still have no definitive answers on the CWP/Klan shootings, and there are none in sight."
Ouch! I know I'm old as dirt and have been on the city council for quite a while, but geez, the CWP/Klan shootings occurred 20+ years before I was even on the council. I'm willing to accept criticism of stuff I HAVE said and done, but please don't pile on things I had no contact with or responsiblility for.. {smile}
Please help me understand. Are you suggesting that evidence and testimony obtained in any ongoing police investigation should be publicly released before the investigation is complete? Seems to me, that would allow a lot of "bad guys" to destroy incriminating evidence or escape once they find out the police are on their trail. Or on the flip side, release of preliminary, incomplete findings could cause serious undeserved public suspicion and embarassment for persons who are found later on in the investigation to be innocent or uninvolved. Not a good scenario in either situation!
I'm sorry you do not have the trust in us "to do the right thing" in this police investigation. All I can do is to repeat that we are committed - and are demonstrating that commitment - to get to the bottom of it and reveal the truth once we have all the facts. If you don't believe that, there's nothing else I can do or say. So be it.
Sandy, Nick could legitimatley be referring to your vote to "oppose the truth and reconcilation process."
Yes, I was referring to your opposition to the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. I realize that the actual events did take place before your tenure on the council. I apologize for any confusion.
I do realize the importance of safeguarding ongoing investigations, obviously. Again, I think people begin to worry when those investigations drag on and are eventually taken out of the light of day to go on solely out of the sight of the public. We are beginning to fear that will be the fate of the GPD investigation.
On a peronal note I think it bears saying that I've found you to be one of the "good ones" on the council, possessed of an 'every-person' sensibility toward the community not rooted in your financial or political ties to it. Kudos on that, and a big raspberry for the truth and reconciliation no-go, which was a real head-scratcher. As many of us say around here, "What part are you against? The truth? Or the reconciliation?"
[[And, unless I am mistaken, the N&R did not obtain and print leaked confidential information and reveal witness identities from the ongoing SBI/FBI investigations as they were occurring.]]
As a review of the N&R's Homestead reporting will show, my colleague Stan Swofford did, in fact, obtain and print leaked confidential information in his stories on numerous occasions (and the N&R granted anonymity to his sources). His reporting also identified people who may or may not have been witnesses in the then-ongoing SBI/FBI investigations who were in a position to know things investigators were interested in. In other words, if they were NOT witnesses at the time, they probably should have been.
Roch and Nick,
Thanks for clarifying that reference to the CWP/Klan shooting; it's a relief you don't see me as being THAT ancient.
Nick,as I discussed extensively back in April, 2005, I am not/ was not against "truth" or "reconciliation" - I was against endorsing a unwritten report ("a blank check") and was questioning the accuracy of such a report to be based on dimming memories over the intervening years and personal agendas/biases. I'm not sure "definitive answers" will ever be available no matter how many times that incident is investigated and discussed.
Re the GPD investigation, all I can ask for is patience. I can vouch that a tremendous amount of time and resources are being devoted to it. The sheer volume of evidence to be thoroughly examined is much greater than anticipated, and it's just going to take time to sift through it all.
Lex,
Thanks for jogging my memory about Stan's use of leaks and release of confidential information from informants in his stories. I'm not sure I was aware of his sources at the time of that investigation since we were not kept as closely informed about that investigation (conducted by the SBI/FBI as opposed to internally) as we have the GPD one.
Does this mean that I SHOULD be blaming the N&R for witnesses not cooperating and "lost" evidence after all? {smile}
Well, to my very great surprise, no one else is (that I'm aware of), so, no, let's keep that streak intact. :-)
Here's some of what Mitchell Johnson said to me Friday (from a posting over at the Inside Scoop blog):
Johnson expressed concern that this would hurt the city now and in the future if a similar investigation was needed because people would be less willing to come forward and speak up if they were afraid what they said would end up on the front page of the paper. Johnson has received one phone call from someone who is now declining to cooperate further in the investigation
Johnson said a good deal of information developed by both the city's legal staff and the consultants brought into investigate Wray "was (developed) because people were able to come forward and talk about issues confidentially."
The leak, he said, has also "thrown some doubt on the integrity of my office, the legal office, some members of the police department and the City Council."
Sandy wrote: "I was against endorsing a unwritten report..."
But that's not what you voted on. You didn't cast a no vote on endorsing a repot, you cast a yes vote on opposing the process.
Roch,
You are correct, and that was discussed on this blog back in April, 2005 as well. (I apologize for not including the appropriate link, but I haven't figured out how to get that far back in my archives to find the specific post.)
Hi Sandy,
You can get to your older archives by manipulating the year and month in the URL of the more recent archive listed in the right hand column. Notice where the date is indicated in the following. You'll see that I've editied it so that it takes you to April of '05:
http://sandycarmany.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_sandycarmany_archive.html
based on things that you said in your blog verses things that were said to the media by city council members in the past, I think I know who the leaker is Sandy. It looks like you are trying to tell us with out telling us who the leaker is. If the same person im thinking of is the leaker, then its apalling that the person would do such a thing and lie. But I guess its appalling for any city council member to do such a thing.
Thanks for the lesson, Roch. I knew there had to be a way to get to that, just hadn't had time to sit down and figure it out.
Anonymous,
I agree. Whomever it is, it is indeed appalling and disheartening.
Post a Comment