I know I am reopening that proverbial can of worms, but it's hard to ignore so much public commentary and remain silent. So, for better or worse, here I go again.
Many good people I know and admire (some with a terrific sense of humor) have written and cartooned about the absolute absurdity of the city council's decision to undergo polygraph testing and the precedence it is setting in attempts to prove that we as individuals are not the infamous "leaker" of the RMA report to the News & Record . Despite receiving support from many who think the polygraph is the right step to take, I totally agree with your statements!!!
Having acknowledged that, I will resolutely keep my Tuesday appointment to be hooked up to "the machine" in an effort to document my innocence and integrity. Yes, I know we brought it upon ourselves by voting to undergo this indignity, but the council had run out of "behind the scenes" options to get the suspected leaker to step forward and accept responsibility for the actions that plunged us into a maelstrom of distrust. To back out now (although I have no fear about undergoing the examination) would start an avalanche of "Aha, I told you they wouldn't do it -- wonder which one has something to hide" comments. In fact, that has already occurred within council's inner circle. One member suggested in a conversation early this week that perhaps we should rethink our decision; another council member speculated to me the next day, "Gee, I wonder why *** is reluctant to take the test, is *** afraid of something?" I can only imagine the general public's reaction to such a suggestion!
Like it or not, I feel the city council's course has been set and there's no turning back now EXCEPT--- there are at least two persons and/or entities who could "pull the plug on the polygraphs" and end this fiasco right now.
One, of course, is the person who gave the report, either directly or indirectly, to the newspaper. If you gave it to anyone, then for heaven's sake, be an adult and explain your actions to the rest of us and to the public. I'm certainly willing to listen, to try to understand your reasons, and to perhaps even personally forgive you (although that possibility decreases with every additional minute this situation drags on and is likely to disappear totally if we do have to go through with the polygraph fiasco). A genuine member of the team will do what is in the best interests of the team.
The second option is for the few persons "in the know" at the News & Record to publicly state that "no council member was responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the leak of the RMA report to us." I understand and accept that the newspaper cannot and will not respond to speculation about the guilt or innocence of individual council members. However, IF no councilmember was involved in any way, the N&R should issue a statement absolving ALL councilmembers IF they have that knowledge (if they don't, they should say so). That could end the perceived need for councilmembers to undergo the polygraphs, remove a tremendous burden from the one who is having to endure council and public speculation, help us heal the mistrust among councilmembers, and redirect leak-detection efforts in the right direction. In other words, such a statement could put an end to this sideshow controversy that is distracting from the more troubling issues within the GPD.
The N&R's failure to issue such a statement so far has been quite revealing to me, and that silence tends to confirm the rampant speculation. I realize such a statement could be problematic for the N&R. IF the leak investigation is on the wrong course, this could direct efforts onto the right trail. Let's face it -- I doubt the N&R wants the council or the public to ever know who their leaker is; future "sources" might become scarce if identities cannot be adequately protected. But the option does exist for the newspaper to step up, bring some clarity to the situation, and perhaps stimulate some healing.
A third potential person/entity with "the power to pull the plug" is the intermediary between "the leaker" and the newspaper if the prominent leak theory is accurate. If such persons or entities are indeed interested in the truth, I would hope that they would be willing and eager to share that truth with the rest of us.
There it is. I've suggested several possibilities to those with the power to enable the city council to step away from the polygraphs without aspersions being cast about our motives. Any takers?
10 comments:
Here's a late addition to your blogroll of Polygraph Pundits.
For what it's worth, I can totally understand your unwillingness to back out at this point. It's just a shame that it got to "this point".
Potatostew,
Thanks so much for your link -- didn't think to go looking for it.
Sandy, there is a question that remains unanswered: at a fundemntal level, why does it matter who shared the report?
You have said it matters because you want to "clear your name" -- of what? That a law has been broken and that the report is not a public record are "facts" in dispute.
The only real issue being addressed is the speculation that council members have that one of their own shared the report. And why? What is the likely outcome?
If all goes well and the eight council members willing to take the polygraph avoid casting suspicion on themselves, where will that leave us? Other than having spent $5,000 of taxpayer money at a time when committees are meeting to try to find ways to trim expenditures, what will be better after the tests? We will still have eight council members who say they didn't release the report and one who won't say. We'll be in the same place we are now -- minus $5,000.
Man, you keep me up too late, Sandy.
Speaking of public records, is the council prepared to release the questions asked and the chart paper from each of the tests?
I understand the difficulty that backing out of the decision to undergo polygraph tests might cause. Some would inevitably question the Council's motives for doing so. But the fact that polygraph tests have no scientific basis and are easily circumvented through the use of simple countermeasures should be reason enough to abandon the idea.
If a member fails the polygraph but fails to confess, it won't prove anything, as polygraphs are notoriously unreliable and false positives are quite common. And if all members polygraphed pass, it won't prove anything either.
A "maelstrom of distrust"? More like a tempest in a teapot.
The only people who are making this an issue are the City Council members. It's a lot easier to cast blame on some boogeyman than to actually confront the issue at hand, namely alleged misconduct within the police department.
This whole polygraph nonsense is nothing more than a smokescreen on the part of the city council. No one cares who the "leaker" is!
Roch,
I think it's important for council members to know who leaked the report to know whom we can or cannot trust. The polygraph hopefully will provide some indication of each one's truthfulness in this particular matter. If we can't trust each other, our ability to work together effectively is impaired.
I have not discussed with other council members nor the polygraph examiners what the procedure could/would be for the release of the examination and need to know what the protocol will be. But as far as I am perdonslly concerned, you are welcome to it all.
And although I know you disagree about whether a law has been broken, I continue to rely on the city attorney's interpretation that the state personnel law likely was broken.
Mr. Maschke,
Thanks for sharing your information. I know there are differing opinions about the accuracy of polygraphs. I guess I'll just have to take my chances and hope for an accurate reading.
Anonymous,
I was referring to the "maelstrom of distrust" among council members themselves, not necessarily in the general public (although there have been plenty of such comments there as well).
When I referred to potential distractions, I was thinking about publicity and public focus, not the actual ongoing investigation into the GPD. That investigation is under the control of the police chief, advised by the city manager, city attorney, and the SBI and has continued unabated and separate from any leak investigation. Council members have no control or jurisdiction over the GPD investigation -- we only receive occasional, general updates on the progress of findings. When it is all said and done, we (the council) have no say or authority about what charges or actions will be taken, if any. That is strictly up to the police chief, city manager, SBI, and/or the district attorney.
I have heard from citizens who ARE interested in exposing the leaker, just as many are interested in finding the leaker who "outed" CIA agent Valerie Plame.
But if you are so worried about publicity and public focus distracting from important business, why go through with this polygraph nonsense? If anyone is guilty of needlessly stoking the fires of controvery, it is the city council.
And as far as any law being broken, that is a red herring and we all know it. Has anyone threatened to press charges? The only person possibly would sue would be Chief Wray - which isn't going to happen, because he would have to answer under oath a lot of potentially embarrassing questions.
Again, this is all a smokescreen designed to keep the public from really examining the job the city council is doing.
Post a Comment