Let the Pissing Contest Begin!

I absolutely love a pissing contest! I especially love the ones against Greensboro's mentally and ethically challenged leaders.  Let's get ready to rumble, Bitches!

Remember when there were some questions about Hinson's group homes?  Remember the city  responded via IFYI? 

Jamiah wrote, "In actuality, the city council can only vote to release personnel information to the public in one very narrow circumstance. The city council, in concurrence with the city manager,may vote to inform the public of: The employment of non-employment, promotion, demotion, suspension, or other disciplinary action, reinstatement,transfer,or termination of a city employee and the reasons for that personnel action."

Mr. Watterman is overpaid and under qualified.  He  apparently works against the people,  reportedly sleeps on duty and was  exactly incorrect and absolutely backwards in his first response regarding James Hinson. All of the information that Watterman claimed  was not public record is really a public record.  Who knows where he got the idea that public information requires some kind of vote or approval. In actuality, Mr. Watterman was dead ass wrong.  Guess what?  He didn't apologize nor did he correct himself.  However, I guarantee you his cashed his paycheck.  What does Jamiah bring to the public?  Why is he here?

Right after Watterman spouted his bullshit in the first IFYI response , Nancy Vaughan responded with an amazingly good memo.  Remember?  Then the city put out another IFYI that attempted to correct the first one.  Remember?  You know, the one where Jamiah attempted to blame the media for the stupid shit he wrote?  Classic!  I ask you again, why is Jamiah here?

The debate pretty much ended when the city council and the Chief of Police entered into a close session to talk about Hinson's group homes, the conflict and his paperwork.  Remember?  Council came back out and Denise Turner reported everything about Hinson was, once again, unfounded. 

How did they come to this conclusion?  Chief Miller explained it all and everything is fine!  Miller thinks it's just fine for Hinson to operate  group homes and didn't need to offer any evidence supporting his decision.  He didn't bring the forms that show Hinson got the homes approved BEFORE he began operating them.  Miller didn't give any examples about why Hinson being the Captain of the Eastern Division while owning and directing a group home in the Eastern Division was not a conflict,  Miller just said it wasn't. 
The city offered no other explanation other than Denise saying "Unfounded."  So much for democracy and laws.  Greensboro ignored their core values and embraced secrecy.  Nice job! Only Nancy Vaughan pushed for truth and fairness.  Not sure what the rest of the council was doing that night.  Eight council members, the city attorneys and the city managers office failed miserably on this one.  However, they show no shame and instead seem to be proud of it.

I sent Denise Turner an email right after she reported that Hinson was awesome.  It took her a very long time to respond to me and when she finally did respond, it was disappointing to say the least.  Below is the response Denise took weeks to complete.

Ben, I realized as I sat down this evening I realized that this message had not gone out to you as I thought it had earlier this evening. Here is my response:

Ben,

These issues were discussed in an IFYI dated March 9, 2012 (here is the link for this item- http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=14035) and at a Council Special Meeting on March 20, 2012. Those public discussions were limited to what was deemed public record. I believe you are aware of these discussions. Beyond this information, there is no additional information that can be shared.

          Thank you,

          Denise Turner Roth, Interim City Manager

I found it to be extremely disturbing that Denise sent me a link to Jamiah's first response that included his infamous decision that, ".....the city council can only vote to release personnel information to the public in one very narrow circumstance. The city council, in concurrence with the city manager,may vote to inform the public of: The employment of non-employment, promotion, demotion, suspension, or other disciplinary action, reinstatement,transfer,or termination of a city employee and the reasons for that personnel action."

Really, Denise?  It took you two weeks to come up with that?  So, without further adieu, I am going to respond to Denise.  Ready?

Denise,

After thinking about your response to me regarding James Hinson and his group homes, I have decided to respond. First of all, I was very saddened to see that you took two weeks to respond, even more depressing was your actual response.

I would like to point out to you that the IFYI that you linked to is far from honorable and absolutely incorrect. Why would you send me something that included, "In actuality, the city council can only vote to release personnel information to the public in one very narrow circumstance. The city council, in concurrence with the city manager,may vote to inform the public of: The employment of non-employment, promotion, demotion, suspension, or other disciplinary action, reinstatement,transfer,or termination of a city employee and the reasons for that personnel action."

By sending me that, I have to believe you feel that is an acceptable answer. Please show me the law that supports this claim? Show me the law that supports the city council can only vote to release personnel information to the public in one very narrow circumstance. The city council, in concurrence with the city manager,may vote to inform the public of: The employment of non-employment, promotion, demotion, suspension, or other disciplinary action, reinstatement,transfer,or termination of a city employee and the reasons for that personnel action. You obviously stand strongly behind this. Help me understand why?

I also would like for you to explain to me how every bit of Hinson's outside employment forms are NOT a public record? If something is deemed a non public record, the city should cite what law supports that decision.   If an item meets the definition of a public record, the custodian must allow public inspection unless the custodian can point to some North Carolina (or federal) statute that permits or requires denial of public access.  I believe you already know that. I will be awaiting your answer and hope you can respond quicker than you did last time.

Thanks,
Ben Holder