Pulpit Forum Press Conference Tomorrow on Wray Administration and '79 Records

Here we go. 

I am briefly interrupting my blogging break to discuss a developing story.

The News and Record reports that the Pulpit Forum will be holding a press conference.  The topic?  The putatively improper disposal of police records related to the events of 1979 under the administration of David Wray.  An interesting thread is found over at Ed's, in which I participated, but from which I will now check out.

A few points need to be made:

1. If the past is any indication of the future, we can expect that our local mainstream media will hand the Pulpit Forum a huge megaphone, and cover its press conference lovingly, regardless of the merits of the points made.  It is my opinion that this group should not be covered.  They do not possess sufficient standing to make broad pronouncements or accusations in the larger Greensboro community beyond their own narrow constituency.

2. The Pulpit Forum is ostensibly acting based on its conception of religious morality, which includes its particular version of truth and justice.  It has been trying to influence the way a local unit of government behaves.  But, as I pointed out over at Ed's blog, we have seen a concerted effort among the left to demonize and vilify members of the religious right when they try to do similar things.  This occurs even to the extent that members of the religious right have been characterized as the "Taliban".  A markedly different standard is applied to the Pulpit Forum.  They are not labeled as dangerous, and their efforts are not described as impermissible.  The reason?  Their canon lies firmly within the tradition espoused by liberal Democrats.  In fact, most of the Pulpit Forum likely are liberal Democrats; and their tradition is entirely consistent with the local gold standard of identity group politics.

3. This is a group that formerly included Michael King of Project Homestead.  The pastor at whose church the press conference is supposed to take place tomorrow-- Cardes Brown-- is a principal in the Simkins PAC, and has previously been described elsewhere as James Hinson's pastor.  He has previously held at least one other press conference regarding the GPD matter during which he called on the city to act on behalf of black officers.  It would be a mistake to grant this group extraordinary amounts of credence.   We need to know what their motives are; but we already know they have lacked objectivity. 

4. Remember that the TRC process produced a document that found sufficient evidence to place partial blame on the city of Greensboro for what happened during 1979.  If there is already sufficient evidence to pin partial blame on the city of Greensboro, what additional information will these records contain that would aid in the assignment of further blame?  I thought the TRC process already made its finding based on evidence.

5. It would be entirely plausible that police agencies operate according to certain laws and standards regarding the retention of various types of records.  (Certainly, we do in the medical field.)   It turns out that an anonymous commenter has offered the following:

I would be very surprised to learn that original of any November 3rd file was destroyed by anyone at the GPD. However, if they were, it is completely within state procedures to do so.

NC Municipal Records Retention and Disposition Schedule states the following:

Case Records File. Records of cases investigated by police personnel. (Comply with provisions of GS 132-1.4 regarding confidentiality of criminal investigation records.)

Disposition Instructions:
a)  Felonies - Destroy in office after 20 years.
b) Misdemeanors, investigations, noncriminal, missing persons, etc. - Destroy in office after 5 years.

I truly question the motive and timing behind this move by the Pulpit Forum. It appears as if it is a last ditch effort to save Mitch Johnson and I have a strong feeling they will end up with egg on their faces when the facts come out.

It would be interesting if the records retention laws were even remotely similar to what this anonymous commenter offered. 

If this press conference is stereotypically covered by the local media in dramatic fashion tomorrow, trumpeting the earth-shaking statements issued by these exemplars, the general public would do well to keep on hand at least a few grains of salt.  Weigh the claims made objectively, and with due skepticism.

Update: The anonymous commenter in the comments below offers a very relevant link to a state of North Carolina publication that lists the records retention requirements for police agencies in the state.

Update 02/26:  A very good discussion thread is seen over at Ed's today in response to the press conference.  There is ample reason to doubt the veracity and the significance of the allegation made, with all the implications intended.  The remarks issued by the Pulpit Forum were overall divisive, inflammatory and of questionable worth.

Comments

[Bubba]

I'll repeat here what i posted at cone's:

"Isn't it funny how all the Defenders of the Faith here are not interested in the very strange combination of information in the release, the very strange way it's worded, the clear implications made in the statement, and the timing of it all?

Gee, I guess that would require just a little too much inquisitiveness and intellectual integrity to be exhibited.

Heaven forbid!"

Joe, isn't it amazing how quickly they mustered support for the ploy, and pushback against you for pointing out the obvious?

Anyone else think that a concerted offensive plan has now been put into play to turn the tide for the anti-Wray/Wray the Racist crowd?

It's starting all over again, isn't it?

[Anthony]

Skepticism is fine and good, and as was said at Ed's, there may be many reasons (even some good ones) for looking askance at this. However, the whole "separation of church and state" angle is absurd, and distracts from any legitimate argument you may have.

You keep saying things like "when they [the religious right] try to do similar things" and "in a manner not unlike the Pulpit Forum is doing" but you haven't even remotely demonstrated any similarities between this and other situations other than that there are pastors involved.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, yes, I agree. I am not worried about the pushback-- but you are right that I did point out the obvious, which should have made my statements fairly unremarkable.

Anthony, I am really not going to get into specific examples, because it will just be an opportunity to parse them and demonstrate how the Pulpit Forum example is different. I can't play along.

Even though it is predictable, I find it pretty amazing that the premise I offered is opposed.

The algorithm still stands. Liberal clergy, and those aligned with the Democratic coalition, are free to try to influence public policy according to their vision of religious morality. Conservative clergy are dangerous, contemptible, and run the risk of penetrating the esteemed wall of separation, if they try to do so.

If we understand the ground rules, we will all be better off.

[Anon]

Joe:

The following is the link to the NC Municipal Records Retention and Disposition Schedule. The portion pertaining to police case files is on page 65 of the document.

http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/records/local/municipalschedulefinal.pdf

[Anthony]

"I am really not going to get into specific examples, because it will just be an opportunity to parse them and demonstrate how the Pulpit Forum example is different."

Well, that's the point. You assert that they are the same, but are unwilling to provide any specific examples to demonstrate that similarity. You're making a claim and not backing it up with any evidence. It's easy to see why such a premise is opposed.

Do you accept any premise anyone cares to put forth without expecting that premise to be supported in some way other than by a bald assertion?

[Joe Guarino]

Anthony, I think you may be commenting in denial of the manner in which the media and elements of the political left have treated conservative Christians over the years when they have attempted to influence public policy.

I am pointing out the obvious. I am not going to prolong the debate by offering examples to be picked apart as if that disproves the central truth.

We disagree.

[Joel Gillespie]

Anthony et al,

With all due respect, everywhere the mainstream media has a different standard (and uses different terminology) for religious conservatives than for liberal, and especially African American liberal, clergy. If you need documentation for this you just haven't been awake.

[Joel Gillespie]

Not only that, but with the exception of Huckabee, who I think pretty much just dared the IRS and whoever else to push the matter, but liberal African American clergy have been given a totally free pass over the years for mixing not just religion and politics, but Sunday worship and political rallies, whereas anything close to that in conservative mostly European American (but also conservative black churches) is accompanied by fear, dread, and anxious waiting for letters or agents to arrive. Thankfully in my case I don't believe in mixing the role of church and state, so it's not an issue for me.

[Joe Guarino]

Thank you, Joel, for pointing out the reality, which some locally do not want to acknowledge.

This issue of separationism has been presented to us in the past as being of earth-shaking significance, of grave importance. When we see obvious major breaches treated with kid gloves, it makes you wonder.

[Bubba]

"I am pointing out the obvious. I am not going to prolong the debate by offering examples to be picked apart as if that disproves the central truth."

Well said and done, Joe.

Any further comment on this aspect just serves as diversion from the main points that need to be discussed.

This type of diversion tactic is standard operating procedure whenever the need to deflect attention away from the pertinent points of the discussion is needed.

We've been through all this before.....MANY times.

[Anthony]

Joe,

I have a reply, but it got kind of lengthy, and you seemed to want to just agree to disagree, so I've posted it at my site rather than here:

http://pleadthefirst.com/2008/02/26/the-pulpit-forum-and-church-and-state/

[Jim Caserta]

Churches are free to address issues, as the Catholic Church does on many issues ranging from abortion to immigration. Problems arise when churches explicitly endorse candidates. The relevant law is not the 1st amendment separation, but IRS nonprofit codes. Churches are free to trade nonprofit status for the ability to explicitly endorse candidates.

Another, completely irrelevant issue, is whether many churches are really operating as not-for-profit enterprises, especially considering the wealth some pastors are amassing. I once thought that all Catholic priests took vows of poverty, but have come to understand that only some orders - I think Jesuits are one - take such a vow.

[Jim Caserta]

Here is the story on IRS investigation of ministries:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07ministers.html?scp=1&sq=nonprofit+church+hinn&st=nyt

Here is another on an IRS investigation into a sermon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/washington/22church.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Roch101]

Anthony is right. We are friends, Joe, we are practically polar opposites politically, yet I think you are a smart guy and I approach your opinions with an open mind. On this one though (other than your factual presentation of the law regarding records) you come up way short on specifics.

You don't like it that some African-Americans in Greensboro have political clout. We get that. Got it long ago, actually. If you have anything substantive to say about their claims, you haven't said it yet.

[Joe Guarino]

Jim, there are two separate issues: the so-called constitutional separation of church and state, which has been represented in the past to prohibit the dreaded religious right-- for instance, conservative evangelicals and conservative Catholics-- from exerting influence in the public square to affect policy; and the IRS requirements that prohibit political activity among churches that benefit from tax exempt status.

The Pulpit Forum ministers are political figures. They are practitioners of identity group politics. I believe one of their members-- a local pastor-- was highlighted on the website of Yvonne Johnson for mayor delivering his endorsement of her. This is just one instance.

Nationally, we have seen black churches and black ministers involve themselves in the Democratic primaries in the respective states. No objections have been raised.

Roch, my objection is not to African Americans having political clout. My objection is to the practice of identity politics, and to machine politics based on identity politics; and as you know, these are some of the exalted political traditions we have here locally.

[Bubba]

"On this one though (other than your factual presentation of the law regarding records) you come up way short on specifics.

You don't like it that some African-Americans in Greensboro have political clout. We get that. Got it long ago, actually. If you have anything substantive to say about their claims, you haven't said it yet."

Irrelevant.

The information Joe speaks about is well documented and is in the public domain. Further discussion is simply diversionary.

Let's move the discussion forward.

Let's speak to the substance (or lack thereof) that this press conference will bring, and how it all fits in to recent events.

[Stormy]

"We did hear info about the PD and David Wray on Thursday which we should have heard two years ago. It was not complimentary to Chief Wray and his best friends."

What are the odds that this "improper destruction of police records regarding the events of 1979" is what Groat is talking about? I'll give everyone 100 to 1 odds that this is it. Of course, if it is, then Groat is right, why has this not been an issue for two years?

[Stormy]

12. CASE RECORDS FILE. Records of cases investigated by police personnel. (Comply with provisions of G.S. 132-1.4 regarding confidentiality of criminal investigation records.)

DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS:
a) Felonies - Destroy in office after 20 years.

Would this be the ruling file retention law? If so, then that would have made the records ready for destruction in 2000.

I believe that in cases where statutory law specifies time lines for retention that it is mandatory that they be followed.

[Bubba]

"What are the odds that this 'improper destruction of police records regarding the events of 1979' is what Groat is talking about? I'll give everyone 100 to 1 odds that this is it. Of course, if it is, then Groat is right, why has this not been an issue for two years?"

Great point, Stormy.

If true, and if we are correct in the interpretation of the law about the files, this whole thing becomes just another indication of the well-coordinated pushback campaign by the Deniers/Enablers, and the Greensboro Power Broker Cabals.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, Stormy, I do not know if there is a real connection between Groat's statement and the Pulpit Forum announcement. There is a seeming temporal relationship, at least, however.

It amazes me that this group is considered to have any credibility given what we have known from the past.

[Stormy]

Joe,

Read the statement that the black ministers just released after their press conference. If this wasn't about race and racism in GPD, it is now. They have stated that it is about racism in David Wray's administration. Of course, they will not reveal the "Source", but we can probably make an intelligent guess who it might be.

After reading this statement, I have little doubt that this was what Groat saw in closed session. And, could it be what Mitch showed Dave Hoggard when he had him over for a chat a few weeks ago? Hoggard has been pretty pro-Mitch since that visit. It would also make sense that Mr. Melvin called and threatened him with the destruction of his stadium. Melvin would obviously not want that information to get out, as it might implicate his administration when he was mayor.

All very intriguing.

[Bubba]

And no sign of the actual "request" made for the files, and no evidence that the destruction was any sort of criminal act.

Unbelievable!

Watch the attempts to make chicken salad over this.

The pushback campaign runs wide and deep.

"Moving forward", my ass!

[Stormy]

Uh, oh! I thought that the name Craig McMinn sounded familiar. From Jerry Bledsoe's series 3/22/07, Part 27:

"Williamson reported the call he had received about the Game Time Lounge to his superiors. Records show that because the informant had named a police officer as protecting the club, Williamson was instructed to report that information to Craig McMinn, who at that time was the sergeant in Special Intelligence."

"McMinn, who is white, had attended Lt. James Hinson's bachelor's party, where strippers and officers openly committed sexual acts, although McMinn was reported to have left soon after the strippers arrived. Two of the dancers at the party had referred to him as "the white shadow." Det. Scott Sanders, who was investigating Hinson's bachelor's party, had been attempting to identify the white shadow, but McMinn, who was Sanders immediate supervisor, had not made his presence at the party known."

This guy is a credible source? Can there be much doubt that James Hinson is the Source?

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, it is unbelievable.

Stormy, you made some excellent comments over at Ed's today. The discussion over there in response to the press conference raises many reasons to question the significance and the veracity of the allegation made.

And little new information was shared above and beyond what the initial press release indicated, although there was plenty of inflammatory, divisive rhetoric. I also think what they said about Mary Rakestraw was truly contemptible.

[Bubba]

And none of the Enablers/Deniers want to question the farce that's being perpetrated.

They're all hoping for some small shred of negative information to actually come out so they can point the finger at Wray, and shield Mitch Johnson and various members of city council.

This comment made elsewhere but relevant here also: Everyone seems to have forgotten the very first question that should have been asked, which is of course: Was there anything to destroy? It seems because the good ministers of God's word said it then it is just assumed to be a fact that there were "boxes" that were then destroyed so that no one could prove there were, or were not, any boxes.

My thought is that now that the now that the demonizing of David Wray seems to be coming to an end and not one allegation made against him has been proven true (in fact all so far have been proven false) then something else has to be thrown into the pot. Having seen their first attempts failed all concerned were clever enough to make sure this next charge was invulnerable to attack.

[Brenda Bowers]

I made the above comment. Don't know why my name wasn't posted. BB

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, one legitimate question has been raised, and that is whether this entire episode was orchestrated.

Remember, the sources upon which the Pulpit Forum were likely relying also were the types of sources that made allegations about black books and targeted, discriminatory monitoring of black police officers. Remember how substantive those allegations turned out to be.

And Brenda, you raise an interesting point about whether the boxes truly existed. There is reason to believe they may not have. Look back at Ed Cone's thread today for the details.

[Bubba]

After reading Tim Bellamy's press release, it's pretty clear that the whole story had no truth to it from the very beginning.

What lengths are these people not willing to go to in an effort to keep the pot boiling?

Yet WE are the ones who "refuse to move on."

[Stormy]

There is only one person who can testify to the truth of these allegations, The White Shadow, Sgt. McGinn. He is the only named person, so if GPD and the city really wanted to get answers, they could interview him. He is the person that is said that ordered the destruction of the boxes of evidence. He is the person hanging out there. He can be made to testify via Garrity, so let's get to the bottom of this, if people really want to do so. They also could suspend McGinn while he is being investigated. Isn't it interesting, that they selected the guy who supervised Officer Sanders? It sure throws another cloud of suspicion on him.

The truth is that the black ministers just wanted to throw some wood on the fire for a while and create a hullabaloo. Which they have, and got a lot of media exposure. When it all dies down, all many casual observers will remember is that David Wray did something else evil, and Mark Rakestraw is a troublemaker. It seems that some people just won't let race die as a divider in this city.

[Roger Greene]

The city pretty much cut their water to a drip with this statement in the N&R:

http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/pressreleases/080226-statement.htm

Nelson Johnson better hope there is no justice, because if there were he'd be in jail and his cell mates would be the Klan/Nazi shooters. He mislead the police about where the march would be so he could have what they thought was going to be the same type confrontation with the Klan as occurred in China Grove weeks before. When you promote a DEATH to the Klan march, not a ban the Klan or send the Klan to Iran type march, then taunt about the butt kicking you gave them in China Grove and call them cowards you don't expect a lot of mere name calling to happen the next go 'round.

Johnson is just as guilty for the 5 deaths that day as the shooters, IMO. He wanted a confrontation and has spent years since trying to cover that up by falsely accusing the City of Greensboro, the FBI, the CIA, the State of NC, Santa Claus and whoever else he can throw in when it suits him.

[Joe Guarino]

Roger, given the city's response, it appears that the Pulpit Forum does not have the support of the PAC on this particular issue.

I agree with you about Nelson Johnson.

Bubba, I am not sure the truth matters when it comes to the city of Greensboro. The city has not bought into Nelson Johnson's various 1979 crusades for the most part. Again, as I suggested to Roger, I don't think his crusade is a priority item for the PAC.

Stormy, I think you are absolutely right. If the GPD truly wanted to interview McMinn and require information from him on an internal administrative basis, they could do so. As you know, however, he is reportedly a friend of Hinson. I wonder if this whole thing was a PR stunt to gain the upper hand politically in the ongoing GPD debate. The Pulpit Forum leaders are, after all, political figures.

[Billy Hamilton]

Jerry Bledsoe's installment in the Rhino is a must read today about David Wray's recollections about the RMA and City's interrogations of himself and his command staff. There can be no doubt that Johnson and Miles intentionally tore the command staff apart for their own political agenda:

David Wray "We'd been operating in good faith. We all thought we'd been working for a city government that had a great deal more honor than it did."

Wow!

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Billy. I will get to my summary soon.