There has been a firestorm over the last week regarding Interim City Manager Bob Morgan's decision to reinstate AJ Blake to the Greensboro Police Department. Seldom has there been, in my memory, a decision in our local politics that evokes such a passionate reaction among so many people. And that reaction has taken place even though the story has not been given "drumbeat" treatment in the News and Record. The voices of protest have arisen spontaneously-- and many seem to be from within the department.
I had heard rumblings that there was going to be a meeting of the Greensboro City Council on this matter on Friday (October 2) at 2:00 PM. However, I am now told that there will not be a quorum at the meeting, so it therefore may not even take place. Apparently, individual council members are feeling pressure not to show up for the meeting if my sources are correct. Apparently, all the platitudes about transparency are but a sad joke.
We have heard stories for three years about certain officers who do not meet the standards that should be expected of those employed by the GPD; and about the efforts to protect those officers in spite of their serious deficiencies. But we learned about those officers retrospectively-- long after the fact.
In the case of AJ Blake, we saw the situation unfold before our eyes. And unlike some of those other situations, the administrative processes within the GPD itself arrived at a decision to terminate. This was a momentous turn of events.
Now that Bob Morgan has reinstated him, it is up to the Greensboro City Council to act. But unfortunately, it appears that nearly all the current members of the City Council are behaving like cowards; and are trying to avoid having to deal with this situation. The explicit threat of our city's machine-based identity group politics can weigh heavily on council members like Perkins and Groat and Matheny. But I am not aware of even a single council member other than Mary Rakestraw who is explicitly standing up on this issue. I am very concerned that the rest may be cravenly slinking toward the safest political place.
This is an extremely important issue that should not be conveniently stonewalled by a self-interested political class. The quality of our police department, and the standards it sets for its officers, have been brought into serious question in recent years. The effectiveness of the GPD as a crime-fighting force, and Greensboro's viability as a safe community, will depend in large part on the quality of the people employed by that agency. When people like Bob Morgan communicate before the entire city that standards for Greensboro police officers are unimportant, as he did on the matter of AJ Blake, then that is a major red flag for the city's future.
The people of the city of Greensboro need to let their council members know, as soon as possible, how they feel about this situation. And those concerned about the future of the city and its police department need to vote intelligently in the primary that takes place next week.
I have watched many City Council meetings where members give lip service to repairing the police department. Let me assure you-they do not care (with the exception of Mary). She is the only one who specifically asked me about the officer who was shot in February during the bank robbery pursuit. Last year I invited every council member to our "Cops who Care/Shop with a Cop" event at Target. The only one who responded was the mayor and she had another committment. The 54 children that received the shopping trip to Target to purchase items were primarily from Council District 1 & 2. The News & Record had our press release up for about an hour on Tuesday before it was put on page 2 of the website. My question is this: do people want the status quo in this town? Do you want to keep paying high taxes, have crappy schools that my child will not attend, and have the same council members do nothing? If so, keep voting them in.
Posted by: Wendy S. Raines | October 01, 2009 at 08:09 AM
"And those concerned about the future of the city and its police department need to vote intelligently in the primary that takes place next week."
Joe, the great majority of the great minority who will vote in the primary either don't know about this issue, or don't care about this issue, or will simply vote the way they've been told to vote.
I hate to be pessimistic, but we know these circumstance are true based upon past experiences. The best we can hope for is incremental progress in solving the problem.
I fear it will take YEARS before we subdue the odious influence groups in this city who first and foremost call the shots for their own selfish benefit, which always takes priority over any benefit to the entire community.
Posted by: bubba | October 01, 2009 at 08:11 AM
The status quo cuts both ways. In other words, if the city is not going in the right direction, the means and methods of those who want it to change must also change -- they are not effective.
Posted by: Roch101 | October 01, 2009 at 08:38 AM
Wendy, thanks for your comments. And yes, I agree. Bubba, I agree that the reality is that only incremental progress will be made given the nature of our machine/identity politics and the cowardly public officials who are a part of it.
Roch, I hear what you are saying. But I have a real difficult time blaming those who are on the right side of the issue. To suggest that a mere stylistic change will be more effective-- or that somehow working within or acquiescing with a corrupt system will be more effective-- just doesn't fly in my opinion.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 01, 2009 at 08:59 AM
It is not any single issue, Joe. Reductive thinking that brings it down to "don't blame those who are right and don't ask us to work with those who are wrong," is part of the problem. But, easier to protest than change, I suppose.
Posted by: Roch101 | October 01, 2009 at 09:48 AM
Roch, I have tried to work with City Council on issues related to the police department in a professional manner. In 2005, the GPOA conducted a survery in which over 100 members responded. At the time of David Wray's hiring we had 185 members, we now have over 500. I would like to quote a News & Record article (I have a copy in front of me but it does not have the date).
"They're (GPOA) trying to use the press as a tool to leverage public support for their positions...To me that's not very effective and certainly not very meaningful. I think Chief Wray has proven himself over the years as an outstanding police officer, or else he wouldn't be in the position he's in" Robbie Perkins. Mr. Perkins was discounting our survey. The issues addressed in our survey were real issues that needed attention. Instead a few months later, the tide turned, the city spend thousands on a report to get rid of Wray. No matter if you supported him or did not, as a taxpayer, I would rather the city and council listen to concerns, investigate them, and maybe have gone to Wray and said "It's not working out. We'll give you 60 days to get another job." Instead this town always takes the route of blowing everything up and causing controversy.
Another example: In November of 2007 I presented a promotional proposal to Bellamy due to the fact that our promotional system at the GPD was antiquated and out of date with current police practice. The promotional proposal and subsequent requests for a written response were ignored by the police administration. July of 2008, after spending $250,000, the Buracker report comes out. If you were present at the presentation, Buracker actually had a slide that said for the department to use my proposal (I had given him a copy). The city could have saved $250, 000 if they would listen to officers and their ideas. I know of another officer who submitted a gas saving proposal last summer during the $4-5 gallon gas and it was ignored. Not even a reply.
There are a lot of educated officers with specialized skills that could be utilized to present ideas that would save money, time, and resources. Maybe we need a council that will hire people in administrative positions who want the input of the people who actually work and do not sit at a desk from 8-5 all day. This applies to any city department. I would like to see the city run like a business.
Posted by: Wendy S. Raines | October 01, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Roch, "working with those who are wrong" has been attempted for years. It is not as if it has not been tried before.
This is a complex problem, as your use of the term "reductive" implies. The complexity is partially because on obstinacy due to erroneous interpretations based on race; and a political structure that requires elected officials to succumb to that obstinacy. Reasoning with people who are inherently unreasonable, and who are deliberately ignorant of the realities, is extremely difficult. And of course, it is not possible if they will not even see fit to show up and meet and discuss the situation.
So it does ultimately boil down to a simple formulation. Who is right, and who is wrong? Who will discuss the matter, and who refuses to do so?
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 01, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Wendy, I may not have agreed with you on every GPD-related issue over the last several years, but I think your instincts and your arguments on this issue are precisely correct. Morgan's decision was indefensible. And if the City Council is deciding to support him by refusing to discuss the matter, then it shares responsibility for a horrendous decision that was made.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 01, 2009 at 10:45 AM
"My question is this: do people want the status quo in this town? Do you want to keep paying high taxes, have crappy schools that my child will not attend, and have the same council members do nothing? If so, keep voting them in."
Wendy, the answer is overwhelmingly, "Yes". Most of the good citizens of Greensboro, and more widely Guilford County, are basically flaccid when it comes to being active citizens. I'm not sure that most of them even recognize the issues, much less act on them. It takes energy to be an active citizen, and most residents of this county just are not involved enough to influence governmental and political events. Believe it or not, GCS BOE/Administration is the worst governmental body in this county, as they have the responsibility for the education of the children of the county. And, as you noted, the schooling that they offer-up, at ever increasing bloated costs, is crappy. The damage that they do is everlasting, and, parents do nothing. The children of the poor, and their wasted futures, are the ones that suffer the most with the poor quality of education.
I am of the opinion that all elected offices should consist of one year term. If a politician is eligible for more than one term, then their priority is to stay in office. What I want is a politician with the stones to do what is right for the people, not do what is best to get himself/herself re-elected. What I want is a politician who doesn't care if he/she is re-elected.
Posted by: Stormy | October 01, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Indeed, Stormy. Our local politics largely consists of ways that we must cater to the various least common denominators that have a nefarious influence on our public institutions.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 01, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Stormy, you are correct about the energy it takes to be an involved citizen. It requires a lot of reading, critical thinking, and the ability to stand up to the status quo. I appreciate those of you, even the ones I do not always agree with, that post on this blog because I do think you try to see past biases and look at the real issues.
Posted by: Wendy S. Raines | October 01, 2009 at 11:38 AM
We are going to meet tomorrow at 2:00 pm. If by chance it is only a few of us, we look forward to hearing from Bob Morgan as to his thoughts about his decision, reasoning, and to answer some of the questions presented above, as well as a few others.
Wendy, you and I did meet and had a legthly conversation. I do not recall getting any invitation to attend an event at Target. I would also say that I have been very supportive of the Police department and the officers that make up the department. At times even, this blog has been negative about me, because i was supportive of the department. I was surprised to hear that you think Mary, who I get along with well, was the only councilmember to support the department and it's officers.
My goal tomorrow is to hear what Bob's thoughts were behind his decision. Reality is, I am not sure what council can do being that the manager is our only employee. However, I can tell you that I will be at the MMOB at 2:00pm anxiously waiting to hear the thought process behind Mr. Morgan's decision.
Posted by: Zack Matheny | October 01, 2009 at 09:47 PM
Thanks Zack. As you can see from another popular blog, this issue is not the only thing going on at the PD. Mary is the only Council member we have personally spoken to that immediately expressed concern that this reinstatement occurred. You may be correct that there is nothing the Council can do at this point. I do not know all of the legalities of the charter and how you can manage this situation.
I can provide you with a copy of the letter I sent about Shop with a Cop dated November 8, 2008. I hand delivered each Council member a letter to their office in the city.
Posted by: Wendy S. Raines | October 01, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Zack, I appreciate and applaud the fact that you will be attending; and I appreciate your commenting here. This was a terrible decision on the part of the Interim City Manager; and I encourage you to review the information and the threads at this blog from the last seven days if you have not already done so.
I suspect that the City Council has more wherewithal to get this decision reversed than some would lead you to believe. I hope you will maintain a healthy measure of skepticism tomorrow when they tell you why they had no choice but to reinstate Blake; and how there is now no turning back.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 01, 2009 at 10:41 PM
" Instead this town always takes the route of blowing everything up and causing controversy." -- Wendy
Wendy, I agree that is a common and unfortunate tendency in Greensboro. Although I am only partially familiar with some of the matter to which you refer, it does sound like you are trying to do the right things. I hope the resistance you encounter doesn't make you throw your hands up and give up completely.
What I was referring to was a tendency, perhaps to complex for a blog comment, for those opposed to the status quo to be politically ineffectual, often shooting themselves in the foot before even getting out of the gate by elevating their anger above practical purpose. I suppose that is not really a Greensboro problem, although it certainly happens here to a great enough degree.
Posted by: Roch101 | October 01, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Roch, I understand your comment more clearly now. I have tried to remain level headed and keep my anger private. There are so many issues that I have kept between the Chief and me, certain council members, and members of the GPOA Executive Board. However, maybe it is time for some things to come out. I am trying to look at the current situation from a standpoint that it may take something like this to rally the public. I want the police department repaired. We do not need more expensive reports; we need accountability on every level. I believe if a subordinate does something under a certain commander that warrants his firing or suspension then the commander should be held accountable (I am not speaking of off-duty things). At some point things do not flow downhill. One must recognize that the culture of an organization stems from the upper echelon.
Posted by: Wendy S. Raines | October 02, 2009 at 09:18 AM