Guarino

The Top 10 Reasons Why Only 30 People Showed Up for Mitchell Johnson's Town Meeting

It was surprising to read in the paper this morning that only 30 people showed up for City Manager Mitchell Johnson's town meeting last night.  A picture in the News and Record showed a nearly empty auditorium.  Ryan Shell over at Greensboro Politics wonders what this means.

It seems appropriate to uncover the reasons for this poor showing.  In that spirit, I am pleased to present the Top Ten Reasons Greensboro Residents Didn't Show Up For Mitchell Johnson's Town Meeting, in no particular order:

10. They had other, higher priority commitments, or better things to do. 

9. If they wanted to hear a pretty song being sung, they could have stayed home and watched American Idol.

8. They had difficulty overcoming their sense of revulsion.

7. They were aware of the recent performance of the Greensboro Police Department; and were afraid about the safety of the neighborhood in which the meeting was being held.

6. They had experienced the written Q&A format at Yvonne Johnson's town meeting, and decided not to blow another entire evening not getting to the crux of the issue.

5. If they had wanted to see an appealing picture being displayed, they could have gone to the Weatherspoon museum.

4. If they wanted to witness some fictional tales, they could have gone to the Grande at Friendly Center, and enjoy being entertained at the same time.

3. They did not want to be micromanaged.

2. If they had wanted to observe a part of a machine at work, they could have stayed home, popped open the car hood, pulled up a lawn chair, and watched the fan belt spin.

1. If they wanted to get snowed, they could have traveled with the Braves to see them play in Denver.

Skybus Memories

Sam Hieb is all over the Skybus issue.  Yesterday, he raised the question as to whether it is time to remove Henry Isaacson as the Chairman of the Piedmont Triad International Airport Authority.  Today, he discusses today's press reports that Allegiant Airlines affirmed that it had pulled out of PTI because of the impact of Skybus.

Hieb questions "the mindset of PTIA board chairman Henry Isaacson, who said he’d put together another incentives package for a low-fare carrier 'in a heartbeat'...

"Isaacson’s ‘heartbeat’ comment — not to mention the opinion of the Journal — should be of little comfort to Triad taxpayers. It reflects that the desperate mindset of throwing money at low-fare carriers — who will be more than happy to accept it — will continue at PTIA. If that happens, we could face an even worse scenario than the Skybus deal — an airline could actually linger long enough to qualify for incentives before going bankrupt.

"Citizens need to ask themselves if this is truly the direction they want PTIA to take. If not, they need to look closely at the airport’s leadership."

And of Allegiant's decision to resume operations at PTI, Sam states the following:

"With this new development, you have to wonder if Isaacson would still put together an incentives package for another discount carrier in a 'heartbeat.'  Perhaps they will learn something from this episode. But never assume."

Finally, while it has been reported that incentive monies are being returned and recouped, it is far from clear that the book is closed on this issue.  Says Paul Messino of the JLF (ht Sam):

"Although it's nice that some money will be coming back, it's only a small portion of the complete incentives package given to Skybus -- the total amount and impact of which remains to be calculated.

"...It was because Skybus needed incentives to survive that their business was doomed to fail in a competitive market."

Update: Red Clay Citizen adds to the discussion:

Here's Isaacson... opining about the market dynamics:

I want people in the Triad to understand that Allegiant is an altogether different airline than Skybus,” Isaacson said. “They’ve been around for awhile; they’ve been making money; they’re established. I think the only reason they were leaving us is that Skybus was sort of permeating the low-fare territory. They don’t compete at the point of origin with another low-fare carrier.”

Is this 20/20 hindsight or something Isaacson could have sussed beforehand? Seriously, a company that hasn't been around for awhile, isn't making money and isn't established in an industry plagued by multiple factors like unstable inputs (jet fuel)... Why are these bureaucrats throwing our cash at such poor investments? This attempt to pick winners and losers is just wacky. Isaacson, et al, couldn't possibly have had the prescience to predict what Allegiant called the "destabilizing" factor of Skybus -- never mind that these subsidies contributed to the destabilization. Nor does 20/20 hindsight help matters once everything goes haywire.

Excuse me, Mr. Isaacson, I think I'd like to invest my own resources. I'm pretty sure Vanguard or I could do a heckuva lot better than you.

 

 

Cops in Black and White, Part L

Jerry Bledsoe continues his landmark series in the Rhino Times with a segment about retired Captain Matt Lojko.  Most of us first learned about Lojko when we read in the paper of his retirement from the GPD amidst the investigations during late 2005.  The following is a summary.

The initial part of the segment contains extensive biographical information about Lojko I will not attempt to repeat.  But there are a few matters of interest.  He has a master's degree in Public Affairs.  He had served as Sylvester Daughtry's executive officer, and later became police chief in Smithfield and Reidsville.  He rose to the leadership of a number of professional organizations; and received a number of honors along his path.  He was hired back at the GPD by Robert White, and was eventually promoted to Captain.

And he was named by David Wray to command a division that included Internal Affairs.  There had been much concern that Internal Affairs complaints take too long to process.  He assumed the job on June 1, 2005; and James Hinson found the tracker on his police vehicle only three days later.  Hinson shortly thereafter went public with lawyer/Simkins principal Joe Williams.  Soon thereafter, Hinson's  estranged wife, Beverly, made allegations about surveillance in her neighborhood.  Lojko stepped into a firestorm.

The premise that the neighborhood surveillance was directed against Beverly Hinson was quickly debunked; and Lojko had a role in making that happen.  He intervened with the Internal Affairs investigator, Don Webb, to assure the investigation was handled expeditiously, because he understood the political implications. 

Lojko later supervised the Wyrick/Thacker investigation, which had been authorized by the police attorney.   These two investigators soured on their task-- to investigate James Hinson-- when they learned another investigation by Corp. Ryan Walton had taken place one year earlier.  Lojko and Wray did not know about Walton's memo-to-file, which explained why Walton felt there was no violation-- and also why he felt there was no need to question Hinson.  A friend of Hinson had been Walton's supervisor.

The previous commander of Internal Affairs-- Dwight Crotts-- maintained he had told Lojko about the Walton memo; but Lojko says he did not, and had taken careful notes when Crotts briefed him.

Lojko was interrogated by RMA on November 21, 2005.  The questioners attempted to trap him.  They seemed to be convinced that the surveillance in Beverly Hinson's neighborhood was being conducted by the GPD against her.  They were interested in getting Lojko to say that he or Wray knew about the Walton memo-to-file regarding Hinson.

The RMA people seemed to be accusing Lojko of rushing inappropriately-- and thereby interfering with-- the investigation of the surveillance in Beverly Hinson's neighborhood.   Lojko maintained that he was reacting to a major political problem for the department, because the allegations had been reported in the media.

Lojko held his position, and the RMA people informed him he would be polygraphed.  He had been the object of a hostile, confrontational interrogation for about four hours, and the polygraph was administered afterward.  This was in violation of professional standards for polygraphs.   Lojko demonstrated no deception on the polygraph.

Lojko was very upset afterward.  He informed the city that he was retiring the next day.  His wife was an attorney who was disabled with MS, but who nevertheless volunteered with the Police Department.  She also resigned her volunteer position.  Lojko's retirement-- and Randall Brady's medical leave-- was covered in the local paper; and the appearance was that there had been wrong-doing.

The city advised Lojko it would be withholding his benefits.  He had to retain the services of an attorney; and one year later, his benefits were reinstated.

Wrote Bledsoe:

"(When Joe) Williams pressed the city with unsubstantiated claims of racism, Lojko believed that Mitch Johnson and other city leaders rushed to accommodate him... So many in the department, from command staff on down, allowed petty grievances, disgruntlement and their own interests to prevail over the integrity of the department and the mission to which they all had sworn."

And Lojko said:

"I think that some decisions were made looking at things from a short-term gain that have had long-term dire consequences for the city of Greensboro, the Greensboro Police Department, and people who have devastated careers, ended careers.  I feel sorry about the whole situation.  It's sad.  It's tragic." 

And he defends the internal investigations that took place, and says that reasonable people with knowledge of all the circumstances agree they were needed.  He cited the Internal Affairs system, the layers of protections it affords, and the accreditation behind it; and said, "The system would have worked.  But it just wasn't allowed to.  There was interference."

My own personal note: In the recent past, I have had the privilege of making the acquaintance of Matt Lojko, and getting to know him a bit better.  He is an impressive man; and he exudes credibility. 

This segment in the Bledsoe series contains some interesting insights into Lojko's story-- the fact that David Wray, when he was contending to become chief, was competing with Lojko's boyhood friend, Bill Stafford, and yet still Lojko supported Wray's vision for the department; and also how the illness suffered by Lojko's wife's had spurred necessary adjustments to his career path that had brought him back to the Triad from Smithfield. 

Lojko now does some consulting on matters related to policing and security.  The ill-treatment to which he was subjected by the city was entirely indefensible.  He was yet another casualty of the GPD fiasco.

Matt Lojko Speaks Out, and David Wray Takes the High Road

Matt Lojko left the following comment in response to my previous post on David Wray securing a federal position:

In their book, “Firing Back – How Great Leaders
Rebound After Career Disasters”, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld & Andrew Ward write:

No one can truly define success and failure for us – only we can define them for ourselves.

No one can take away our dignity unless we surrender it. 

No one can take away our hope and pride unless we give up.

No one can take away our love for those others around us who believe in us – unless we elect to ignore them.

No one can take away our concern for our community unless we retreat from it.

No one can steal our creativity; imagination, and skills unless we stop thinking.

No one can take away our humor unless we forget to simile.

No one can take away our hope and opportunity for tomorrow unless we close our own eyes.

Congratulations and best of luck in your new position.  I was honored to work with you.

Matthew A. Lojko, Jr.
Captain, Retired
Greensboro Police Department

I thank Matt for contributing to the discussion.  It was interesting that David Wray gave an interview with the News and Record after so much time had elapsed.  But he took the high road:

Wray said he has no regrets about his time as chief and said he appreciates the support he has been given by many in Greensboro since his resignation, saying "There are a lot of fine people there and there's a lot worth fighting for."

"I would tell people to believe in your community and work toward a strong community. Keep doing what it takes to keep it and make it strong."

This statement, however, has important implications.  The question it raises:

At this particular time, what do we need to do in order to "work toward a strong community"?

Good News: Wray Has a Job

The News and Record reports that David Wray has a new position.  He will be Federal Security Director for eastern Tennessee for the U.S. Transportation Security Administration.

He is a good man the city of Greensboro treated in a horrendous fashion.   It is fitting that, after his prolonged tribulation, he is now able to go on to a better job, in a better place, and work for a better employer.

David, best wishes with your new position.  And try to remember that the relatively small group of individuals who engineered the coup two years ago are not representative of the people in the Piedmont Triad.  You know that because you were born and raised here; but it is nonetheless important to remember.  Many folks here understand the injustice that took place.

Update: Sam Spagnola has more, especially with respect to how this reflects upon the credibility of the current city administration.

Update II: Mary, Tony, Billy Jones and Meblogin also have something to say.
 

Robbie Perkins Watch, Part I: A Lindsay-Equivalent?

There has been much talk about the prospects of Councilman Robbie Perkins running for mayor.  It has been discussed in the Rhino, and has also likely been the topic of numerous conversations.  The scuttlebutt is that Yvonne Johnson may only serve one term as mayor, thereby clearing the way for Perkins to make a run for the top spot.

It has been reported previously that Perkins is, at least nominally, a Republican.  It should then follow that fellow Republicans-- and conservatives-- should be excited over the prospects that he might assume the mayoralty.  Right?

Wrong.

In fact, Perkins' ascension to that post would be a problem for Greensboro.  It makes me think of another self-described Republican,  John V. Lindsay, who became mayor of New York when I was a child in 1965.  Of some interest is the fact that William F. Buckley, Jr. opposed him when he first ran for the office that year.

Lindsay was an unmitigated disaster as mayor of New York.

Steven Malanga wrote in City Journal about the former mayor shortly after he died:

Candor compels us to note that the patrician Lindsay’s two terms as mayor of New York were a catastrophe from which the city, and even the nation, have still not entirely recovered. The pure embodiment of the elite orthodoxy of his day, Lindsay helped transform the debate on race in America with an agenda that provoked white flight from cities, welcomed militant black separatists into the mainstream, and introduced a vision of social welfare that encouraged dependency among the poor and nearly destroyed New York’s economy.

There is little reason to believe, at least at this time, that Perkins would pursue a massive expansion of entitlement programs as mayor of Greensboro in a manner akin to Lindsay.  But many of the other ingredients are there.

Perkins is not averse to voting in favor of tax increases; and in fact our City Council does this nearly every year.  He  pursues and obtains the endorsement of the Simkins PAC without appearing to give it a second thought.  And, of course, his politics qualifies him for that endorsement.

I had written a couple of months ago about city documents that revealed how Perkins had repeatedly been Michael King's point man on the matter of Project Homestead.

When Mary Rakestraw was planning to ask for a vote to remove the City Manager over matters related to the non-disclosure of public documents regarding the GPD fiasco, Perkins was Mitchell Johnson's most vociferous defender.

This is a matter of some interest.  Why?  Because back last summer, I circulated a questionnaire to City Council candidates asking them what they would do to clean up the GPD.  Perkins' response?

i) Fully disclose the nature of the problems to regain public trust.

ii) Assign responsibility of clean-up to the City Manager along with a timetable and reporting schedule, and hold him responsible for the job.

Does anyone detect a hint of irony?  His questionnaire response, which I posted back in August, is found here.

And of course, only last week Perkins voted and spoke against exploring the matter of the White Street Landfill.  He also tried to oppose the appointment of Bill Knight to a City Council budget committee.

A trend emerges when one views Perkins' actions on Mitchell Johnson, the GPD fiasco, the White Street Landfill, Project Homestead and the Simkins endorsement.  Some of us would argue that this approach, which entails appealing to identity group politics, is harmful to the city.

But wait a minute.  Hasn't Perkins' trademark been development-related issues?  And is not his position on development emblematic of Republicanism?

Well, yes and no.  Certainly, Republicans are supposed to favor free markets and property rights.  Those positions would naturally tend to align with development interests.  But "Perkinsism", and Greensboro's approach to development issues, present a twist that is a bit different.  What we have here is a hierarchy of requirements that is fairly stringent in order to maintain a certain vision of quality (and in the past, also to accommodate the development of suburbs-within-the-city). 

And developers here pay to play.  They give to the right candidates, hire the right attorneys, and thereby gain access and clout to find the necessary compromises to get their projects approved.  In the past, they have almost always been successful.

An interesting discussion took place at the last council meeting with respect to annexations.  Ordinarily, conservatives would tend to be very circumspect about annexations.  Not Robbie Perkins.  He stated last week unabashedly that any neighborhood receiving city water and sewer should be annexed.  Period.

Of course, this suits development needs.  The city runs water and sewer to enable development; then annexes the neighborhood later; then asks for bonds to provide more local infrastructure for the annexed community; then raises taxes to pay for the bonds; and then is able to run more water and sewer to foster more development.  It keeps the wheels turning, tax revenues rising, and developers happy.

It has been the opinion of some observers that elected officials representing development interests tend to find common cause with the Simkins PAC.  Wendell Sawyer coined the "Melderec" term to describe this phenomenon.  The most obvious Melderec-con-Simkins members of the City Council at this time are Robbie Perkins, Yvonne Johnson, Sandra Anderson Groat and Zack Matheny.

I hope to make Perkins Watch an occasional feature at this blog in anticipation of the day Robbie Perkins might run for mayor.  He cuts the right profile, and does many of the things that are needed to win in Greensboro.   It is a shame that, all too often, these also happen to be precisely the wrong things to do.

Just like Mayor Lindsay in 1965.

The Right to Health Insurance; and the Right to Be Spared Police Chases

The News and Record this weekend highlighted a story indicating the number of premature deaths in our state because of the lack of health insurance.  The subtext, of course, is the ongoing media drumbeat that health insurance should be an entitlement, that we should have universal health care.

Neal Boortz aptly deals with that premise:

Among the rights guaranteed (not “given” as Bill Clinton believes) to you in our Constitution are:

Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
The right to peaceably assemble.
The right to petition the government
The right to keep and bear arms
The right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures
Protection from double jeopardy
Due process
A speedy and public trial by jury
The right to legal counsel when charged with a crime

With one exception, the right to representation in court and a trial by jury, these rights require nothing of any other citizen but that they recognize your rights and not interfere with them.

Your “right to health care” would require some other person to give up a portion of their life or their property to either treat you or to provide you with drugs or medical implements. The Constitution does not provide for another individual to be indentured to you in this manner.

Therefore, you have no “right” to health care.

Deal with it. (Hat tip: Fred Gregory)

Another prominently placed news article this weekend featured the adverse consequences associated with high-speed police chases.  This was presented in the wake of a decision not to bring charges against Officer William Symmes.

Presumably, we should proclaim to the local criminal class that they no longer, as a matter of policy, will be chased when they perform criminal acts; and see what happens in response to that newfound knowledge.

Peter Singer, Bestiality and Natural Law

Peter Singer is an "ethics" professor at Princeton University.  I had previously been aware of his position in defense of infanticide, arguing that this practice is a logical extension of abortion.   Of course, his point is well taken that the latter stage fetus is not much different biologically from an infant.  But that should cause the taking of the life of both the fetus and the infant to be impermissible, even unthinkable.

I became aware this weekend of another position Singer had taken a number of years ago-- in defense of bestiality.  Somehow, I had missed this previously.

Again he makes the "logical extension" argument-- that once we make the determination that sex dissociated from procreation is acceptable, then the potential is for practices like bestiality to become more legitimized, perhaps as long as issues regarding consent are clarified.

How does one obtain consent in these circumstances?

A speaker I heard yesterday, Professor J. Budziszewski of the University of Texas at Austin, argues that there is a natural law that is written on all our hearts.  He says it is built by our Creator into human nature, and woven into the fabric of the adult mind.  He further states that we are generally able to differentiate right from wrong; but for various reasons do not always acknowledge it.

According to Budziszewski, natural law is under attack in our society; and the dark sides of our culture cause an injured conscience.  He says that there is much self-deception, and also repression of moral knowledge.

Thusly, Budziszewski explains Singer, and many of the rest of us.

   

Newt on the War on Terror

Newt Gingrich has some compelling things to say about our increasingly lackadaisical attitude toward the War on Terror.  Watch the video (ht: Wendell Sawyer).

One of his observations: The civil liberties crowd has recently been creating a maelstrom over perceived breaches in this area.  But the loss of civil liberties we will have to endure after we lose an American city will be far worse.