Guarino

Crime in Chicago and Greensboro; and the Greensboro Police Department

In the past I have compared Chicago and Greensboro.  Both are notorious for their machine politics.  Both are centers for identity politics.  And both have serious crime problems.  In these respects, Greensboro is like Chicago in microcosm.

In the most recent issue of City Journal, Heather MacDonald has an excellent article on the awful crime situation in the city of Chicago, particularly on its South Side.  She notes that this is the territory where Barack Obama used to be a community organizer; and that his work had virtually no impact in alleviating the crime situation in that part of the city.

It is her point that unmarried pregnancy and fatherlessness have much to do with the crime situation on Chicago's South Side.  Community organizing does nothing to address or remedy these dynamics.  In fact, it can be argued that the political philosophy that inspires community organizing tends to further these problems.

There are some fascinating parallels between the politics in Chicago and Greensboro.  MacDonald points out that blacks attained high levels of political power in Chicago, but it did not stop the spread of crime.  That has been true in Greensboro also.  I found it interesting that Jesse Jackson is in town for the opening of the museum, and decries the fact that we now have a white mayor.  Jackson, of course, is based in Chicago, and is part of the power structure there; but he likely will not speak much about Chicago crime while he is here.

MacDonald also points out that the political philosophy of Alinskyism in Chicago assumes that problems in poor communities come from the outside, and that collectivism is the solution.  We hear a lot of this type of rhetoric in Greensboro also.  There is a tendency to refrain from confronting the self-defeating behaviors in these communities.  In Greensboro, as in Chicago, we particularly fail to confront the issue of fatherlessness. 

In Chicago, there have been major issues with school violence and gangs.  But just as in Greensboro, the reaction has been to criticize school discipline; and to make things difficult for police and for those charged with the task of maintaining safety.  In Greensboro, we are in the midst of a debate about SRO's and tasers in our schools spurred by minority members of the county school board.

In Chicago, as in Greensboro, there has been an effort to understate the true racial demographics of crime and youth violence.  There has been a tendency to confront these issues by providing more social services, and by taking a "social sciences" approach.

MacDonald says that Chicago's police culture is not terribly assertive.  Check this out:

“We’d marvel at how the NYPD was getting mayoral support” during New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s tenure, says a former Chicago deputy superintendent. “Mayor Daley is not a cop supporter; it’s no secret that he rules the police department with an iron fist.” The South Side’s black ministers, whom Daley does not want to alienate, also act as a check on more proactive policing. There have been few calls in Chicago for a more aggressive stop-and-frisk policy to get illegal guns off the street, and the police department hasn’t pushed to implement one.

Is that not interesting?  In Greensboro, as in Chicago, police take a passive approach, and have been held in check by the area's politically active black ministers and by certain leaders within our city.

MacDonald says that in Chicago, there is a tendency among the left to refrain from holding families responsible for their children; but instead there are the usual attempts to place the blame on external factors.  Of course, this has been the case in Greensboro as well.

Our politics has been at the root of the problems with the Greensboro Police Department.  The problem is that our political environment has been far too similar to that which exists in the city of Chicago.  That partially explains the extraordinary enthusiasm we saw for Barack Obama during 2008 among local residents and particularly among key segments of our political leadership.

When you view the world through this particular lens, you will not see the police as  a force for good, as a vehicle for reducing crime and establishing order.  Instead, you will see them as the enemy, and you will tend to look to other types of solutions to raise the aspirations of people engaging in self-defeating behaviors.

I would hesitate to label the new city council as conservative-- although it is far more conservative than what we have had in the past.  But one of the main charges they face is to reduce crime; and their challenge is to achieve this when city revenues are decreasing.  Part of this task will involve adopting a better, more proactive approach to fighting crime with the new police chief and the new command staff to be selected.  But part of the council's charge is to clean up the department internally.  Frankly, I am very concerned that they are going to blow it.

Until this date, the new City Council has been preoccupied with dealing with the mess left over from the previous city council including the aquatic center and the downtown hotel.  But they need to move on with key agenda items.  Crime and the police department should be high on that list.

When council members earnestly try to tackle these issues, they need to remember that they will be opposed by folks espousing a worldview that is entirely consistent with that which Heather MacDonald describes as prevailing in the city of Chicago.  It is the same worldview associated with the "community organizing" that Obama espoused.  It is the same worldview that exists among members of the Simkins PAC and the Pulpit Forum members here in Greensboro-- and among those that further their political interests.

Fixing the crime problem and the internal issues within the GPD will be quite a challenge, because there are a lot of wrongheaded, self-interested people out there in our city who wield considerable influence.

Father Absence

According to a new report released by the National Fatherhood Initiative:

While an overwhelming majority of mothers in the survey (or 93 percent) agreed that there is a “father absence crisis” in America today, 55 percent of the mothers said that uninvolved fathers are replaceable by the mother, and 66 percent said that uninvolved fathers are replaceable by other men.

It is a major sociocultural problem when young women believe that fathers are dispensable.  But we have, in many ways, created that situation.

Meanwhile, a Planned Parenthood report blames a one-year increase in teen pregnancies on abstinence education.  However, pregnancies among young unmarried women in their twenties is a much greater problem.

The North Carolina Family Policy Council maintains that unwed pregnancies, abortions and STD's fell in North Carolina after abstinence education was introduced.

Abstinence education programs have not been funded nearly as heavily as sex education programs.  But Robert Rector points out that abstinence education was never given the credit when statistics improved.  In addition, he points to the real issues:

The explosive rise in out-of-wedlock births is due not to a lack of contraceptives, but to a crisis in the relationships of young adult men and women in lower income communities. Couples no longer see the need to be married before having children, and they lack the skills to form stable relationships. Ironically, young non-married parents yearn for eventual stable marriages and healthy families, but they utterly lack the skills and understanding to fulfill their aspirations.

Another irony: One of the greatest sins of abstinence-education programs (in the Left’s view) has been their effort to teach low-income youth that it is best to marry before having children. This affront to political correctness has outraged the Left and has been a principal motivator behind the drive to remove abstinence education from the classroom.

Meanwhile, we learn that the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction is teaching the Roe vs. Wade decision as an example of the Supreme Court upholding individual rights against an oppressive government.

We reap what we sow.

Va, Pensiero

Verdi had a piece that was inspired by Psalm 137.  It looks back on the story of the Jewish exiles in Babylon.

Some apparently are advocating that this piece become the new national anthem in Italy:

The lyrics in English are as follows:

Fly, thoughts, on wings of gold; 
go settle upon the slopes and the hills,
where, soft and mild, 
the sweet air of our native land smells fragrant! 
Greet the banks of the Jordan
and Zion's toppled towers.
Oh, my country so lovely and lost! 
Oh, memory so dear and despairing! 
Golden harp of the prophetic seers,
why do you hang mute upon the willow?
Rekindle our heart's memories and speak of times gone by! 
Mindful of the fate of Jerusalem,
either sound a song of sad lamentation, 
or else let the Lord give us the strength to bear our sufferings!

Downtown Hotel Update

There were some interesting passages in this morning's News and Record.

1. Front page article:

(S)ome — including a few fellow commissioners — said Alston shouldn’t play business hardball while on the job as a county commissioner, period.

“This is Skip’s style,” said Commissioner Paul Gibson, a frequent critic of Alston’s leadership. “He tries to bully you, he tries to intimidate. He’s very competitive and if he can’t convince you, he’ll try to scare you. That’s not the best image for the chairman of the commissioners, and it’s not good for Guilford County.”

I don't always agree with Gibson's political viewpoint, but I do not doubt for a moment what he is saying in this case.

(Councilman Danny) Thompson said he believes Alston’s apology was sincere and he now has a unique opportunity to strike a blow for transparency and ethics in business and local politics.

“I’m hoping Mr. Alston will join with me to set some new guidelines for how elected officials should operate when they find themselves involved in business before their board or their council,” Thompson said. “I’m looking for a silver lining.”

2. Allen Johnson:

Alston recused himself from that vote, but he acknowledges lobbying City Council members on behalf of the $54 million hotel. He denies, however, threatening competing hotel owner Mike Weaver with protests during tomorrow’s opening of the International Civil Rights Center & Museum — and threatening recall elections of Mayor Bill Knight and two council members if they didn’t support the hotel. He contends he was merely saying that other people were making those threats. Uh, right...

(H)ad the city and county established a clearly defined process and guidelines for all of the proposed local stimulus projects, we could have avoided much of this mess.

Other communities have done it, including San Bernardino, Calif., which added rules disqualifying any stimulus bond project from which an elected official stands to gain financially.

That would have nipped the Skip problem in the bud. 

And added a method to all the madness.

Johnson seems skeptical about Alston's claim that he was merely transmitting threats made by others.  He rightfully chastises the lack of a process-- a problem that dates back to the previous city council.  And he says we ought not be approving projects from which elected officials would profit.  I agree.

3. Ed Cone has a piece that suggests Alston ultimately made the right call when he called off the dogs.  I had previously pointed out here this call was apparently made because Alston had learned the city council was not going to revisit its previous approval of the project.

We also learned in an interesting thread last night that Ed does not necessarily oppose the project.  While he has had a series of very good posts and threads that suggest skepticism over the project, he refrains from taking a position that the city council should rescind its previous decision.

I do think the council should rescind; but doubt at this point it will.  Each council member has his or her own reasons for refraining from this action.  Some doubtless support the hotel.  But notwithstanding any of the stated explanations, I think the atmosphere of political correctness and the enshrinement of identity politics in the city of Greensboro are big factors that discourage council members from addressing the issue once again.  The influence of the Simkins PAC, and the fear of losing its endorsement, doubtless loom large in the minds of some council members.  The stated and implied threats also likely have had an effect, because no council member wants to see his or her name dragged through the mud in public.  I suspect some also feel that they do not want a war to erupt over this particular issue; and that they instead want to choose their battles carefully.

But the solution that Allen Johnson and Danny Thompson have begun to elucidate is very necessary.  Our units of local government should not be approving projects or programs when elected officials would profit or derive income from them.

The Problem of "Healthcare Reform", in a Nutshell

James Capretta:

Why, on an issue that is plainly so important, can’t our nation’s elected leaders check their politics at the door and work out an agreement that elicits broad-based support instead of war-room like campaigns to prevail over their opponents?

The answer is that the disagreement over what must be done to improve American health-care is profound and largely irreconcilable. This isn’t your usual, run-of-the-mill political fight. The two sides hold diametrically opposed views that simply do not easily allow for compromise. Moreover, the outcome of the battle will be highly consequential, not just for our system of financing and delivering health-care, but also for our economy and democratic processes. In short, the stakes are very, very high, and both sides know it.

It seems we are getting different signals nearly every day with respect to what the national Democrats plan to do next.  Reconciliation appears to be among the menu options being considered.  I heard one theory that a reconciliation bill will be introduced in the Senate to fix the already-passed Senate bill; and then both the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill will go over to the House for passage.  One big question is whether the Democrats will adhere to congressional rules.

Other signals being emitted, however, give a different impression.  It sometimes appears they are intending to back off, and wait on health care for a number of months while working on economic issues.

But I think Capretta is right.  The positions taken by the two sides are irreconcilable.

And Republicans ought not make any special efforts to compromise their position.

North Carolina Medicaid: Pressures From All Sides

We learn over at Dome that North Carolina Medicaid is facing a possible $250 million shortfall this year.  Certain cuts may be forthcoming.  What has caused the problem?

The shortage is the result of a combination of factors including increased enrollment and difficulty getting federal approval for cost-saving measures included in this year's Medicaid budget.

They do not mention the relaxation of eligibility standards in recent years.

But we also learn two more unpleasant facts.  First, Medicaid is the fastest growing part of the state budget.  And second, the state's own health department has found that Obamacare would make North Carolina Medicaid costs even higher.

One of North Carolina's United States Senators-- Greensboro's own Kay Hagan-- has previously tried to reassure us that Obamacare would trigger a flood of federal Medicaid dollars to cascade down to North Carolina.  But our own health department-- part of a Democratic administration-- apparently sees things differently.  It is no wonder that Hagan's approval rating is now only 29%.

I cannot help but think that the state of North Carolina today is much different than the state to which we moved back in 1994.

A Better Option

Fantasy Culture

The Real Story About Skip Alston's Apology

I have heard about the manner in which Skip Alston's apology to Bill Knight, Nancy Vaughan and Danny Thompson took place.

The public apology, as stated through various media, was qualified and half-hearted.  But I am told that the personal apology he delivered to these three council members seemed sincere; and that he was, in fact, contrite.

The apology was apparently accepted.  But a message was delivered to him that they would not be giving in to threats.

Initially, Alston had requested that they do a joint press conference with him.  They wisely declined.  I wonder whether someone had gotten to Alston, and told him in frank terms what a mess he had created for himself.

These things were learned even as new information was published about the nature of the hotel deal.  It turns out that the Elm Street partners are selling their property to the new hotel partnership way above its market valuation, and way above what they initially paid for it:

Weaver said that the deal "didn't pass the blink test." He noted that the Elm Street Center property had a tax value of about $5.5 million and was being sold to the Urban Hotel Group for $12.5 million. Weaver said, "I don't know of any properties that have sold for nearly three times tax value." He said, "They can pay more for the property than it is worth because it is not their money. It's other people's money."

So the Elm Street partners presumably make a tidy profit on their initial investment; get bailed out of an apparently bad situation economically with their current arrangement at that property; and get paid off with millions of stimulus bond dollars.

Notwithstanding the verbal message to Alston that his threats would not be heeded, the fact remains that the city council apparently has no intention to revisit the hotel issue.  Some council members believe that the project will sink on its own lack of merits.  But there also may be a certain hunch about the fellow who chairs the local bond commission currently looking at the case, George Brumback.

Brumback required that the Urban Hotel group provide documentation regarding its project; and also required that it secure a letter of credit from a bank.  I am also told he gave them only a week or two to get these things done-- although this was not reported by Jordan Green or Joe Killian.  If the hotel group only has a week or two, it might be a very difficult deadline to meet.

Brumback is apparently an old-school financial guy who is not going to tolerate tomfoolery.  He is apparently not a Barney Frank or a Chris Dodd who will expect money to be loaned to those who are not creditworthy.

Nonetheless, in spite of all of the above, Skip Alston might get by with what he did.  If the city council does not revisit the hotel issue, and if no criminal charges are filed, then Skip might be off the hook-- and indeed, he might even end up being rewarded.  I frankly would have preferred that these two issues were handled differently.

Nancy Vaughan is to be commended, however, for calling out Skip's bluff, and for publicly confronting him.  (I am told that there was no true move afoot in the east Greensboro political community to initiate a recall election.)

The fact remains, however, that Skip Alston has historically derived his political power from the Simkins PAC.  When Melderec forces collaborate with the Simkins PAC to achieve their own objectives, then they grant additional, disproportionate power to people like Alston and the late Michael King.

And when political candidates seek and accept the endorsement of the Simkins PAC, they grant additional, disproportionate power to people like Alston and King.

The Melderec people, and political candidates in general, have created and sustained this monster.

There are three members of the City Council who, I hope, will have learned from this episode.  They are Trudy Wade, Zack Matheny, and ironically, Nancy Vaughan.  They are all Simkins endorsees.  I think they all need to reconsider their stance with respect to the Simkins PAC.  (Robbie Perkins seems irretrievably beyond the point of reconsidering this matter.)

Besmirching the Grand Opening of the Civil Rights Museum

It is a very good idea for Greensboro to have something substantial that commemorates the events of February 1, 1960.  Indeed, it is highly appropriate that our city have a civil rights museum.

But ever since the inception of this idea in 1993, it has been shrouded in controversy.  Two elected officials-- Skip Alston and Earl Jones-- were the founders, and had acquired somewhat of a reputation in this community.  The project was an object of suspicion for a number of years, and many citizens were concerned with regard to issues of financial accountability; and also with respect to the delays in getting it off the ground.  The museum was proposed as a bond referendum at one point; but it was defeated at the polls.  The citizens of Greensboro went out of their way to reject this as a city-funded project-- likely because of the involvement of Jones and Alston.

Overall, their involvement was regarded as a key factor that limited the ability of the museum to get off the ground.  Several years ago, there was a concerted effort to enhance the image of the proposed museum from a public relations standpoint.  In particular, North Carolina A&T University was given a prominent place in its governance.  But then the revelations became widely known about all the corruption at A&T.  In the meantime, Alston and Jones had remained on the board of the organization-- which had always been non-profit.

During 2006, Les Merritt, then State Auditor, produced a report that was highly critical of the museum's financial management. 

Around 2007, the Melderec forces in local political circles had come around to the idea that the civil rights museum had to happen.  I had heard from a few different sources that the Simkins PAC was questioning candidates regarding the prospect of the city of Greensboro funding the museum.  Mary Rakestraw spoke at a meeting last week; and told the group she had heard that Keith Holliday and Jim Melvin had been collaborating with the PAC with respect to which candidates should be endorsed.

Sure enough, during the ensuing budget cycles, the museum was funded by the city of Greensboro.  And one or more of the Melderec-style foundations came through with some funding-- including the Weaver Foundation.

The board of the museum learned about a method of financing that involved tax credits, and this was the critical turning point that apparently brought us to this point.  The museum opens Monday.

After A&T got involved, and with the passage of time, some of us probably lost sight of the fact that Skip and Earl remained chair and vice chair of the museum board.  I know I did.

Over the last couple of years, Mr. Alston has held it together fairly well as Chair of the Board of County Commissioners.  He adopted a more conservative approach from a fiscal standpoint, and refrained from the type of confrontational outbursts at public meetings we had seen in the past.

But then the Urban Hotel issue arose.  Even though he is Chair of the Board of County Commissioners, and a principal in the Simkins PAC, he actively lobbied for a project in which he had a financial interest.  He was in a position to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars if the project was approved.

The opening of the museum Monday was supposed to be a time of civic celebration.  After all, the Melderec folks had united with the Simkins folks to make it happen.  But over the last week, we all witnessed a "Melderec versus Simkins" melodrama in the course of which Mike Weaver and Skip Alston locked horns over the hotel.

And then, Skip issued verbal threats to Bill Knight, Danny Thompson and Nancy Vaughan.  Deena Hayes and/or Skip had circulated threats that demonstrations would take place at the museum opening; that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would get involved; and that these three council members would be subject to a recall election.

Nancy Vaughan, to her credit, objected vehemently.  And in the public eye, this was not the image of a southern white conservative male confronting Skip.  Instead, it was a northern moderate white female-- a world of difference in terms of public perception.

It became obvious to some of us that the behavior of Skip and Deena could possibly be construed as criminal.  As I consider the events of the last week, I wonder how many times threats have been issued by Mr. Alston and Ms. Hayes during their respective periods of public service.  I wonder how many times this type of thing happened in the shadows, and we never heard about it.

But in any case, we learned more today.  It turns out that the museum, which had previously been a non-profit, recently was converted to a for-profit company.  This apparently took place to facilitate the tax credits that permitted the completion of the museum.  The problem is that Skip Alston is one of the for-profit owners of the new LLC; and this change has not been widely publicized.  Few knew about it.  Skip Moore, who had previously defended Action Greensboro's $5,000 illegal donation to the PAC, is yet another owner.

It is very wrong for Mr. Alston to own a for-profit company that is receiving taxpayer funds from the city as if it were a non-profit.  This is yet another ethically questionable arrangement.

Skip Alston and Deena Hayes over the last week together managed to ruin the build-up to the opening of the museum.  On Monday, there will be public celebration, and numerous dignitaries will be in attendance.  Everyone will try to create an appearance as if nothing had happened; and they will likely be successful in pulling it off.

But anyone paying attention should know that the image of the museum in the community has now been permanently sullied by Mr. Alston's association with it. 

The Rat Pack and Johnny Carson

Tony Grapes shares a YouTube video that features a young Johnny Carson singing with the Rat Pack:

Cops in Black and White, Part XCII-- The Conclusion

Jerry Bledsoe concludes his series in the Rhino Times with a fascinating overview of the police department controversy.  I encourage everyone to read the whole thing, which is found here.

There was one particularly interesting new revelation in this installment.  Bledsoe reveals that he directly provided information to Deputy Attorney General Jim Coman that kept several officers from being indicted.  This was information that the city of Greensboro had withheld from the SBI because of its zeal to obtain indictments.

There was one particularly striking passage in which Bledsoe, among other things, talks about how certain "political groups" are dictating how things happen at the department from a personnel standpoint:

The current department is bereft of direction, with inept leadership at the top, the result of purging more able and experienced officers.

It is a department so racially polarized that it is in effect two. One is black, the other mostly white. Each has different standards and expectations. Racial discrimination against non-black employees in promotions and job assignments is expected and can be documented. Incompetence not only is tolerated but has been rewarded with promotions to supervisory positions.

It's a department where association with prostitutes, drug dealers and other criminals is considered to be insignificant, and where misbehavior often is covered up by other officers.

Lying is of no consequence in this department and has been practiced even by top commanders, including the chief. When lying is acceptable for police officers, the public has to wonder if officers also are lying in court, where stakes are high, to achieve the ends they desire. Defense lawyers would have a heyday if some officers ever were required to testify.

These matters are only part of the corruption that is eating away at the department's core. Tim Bellamy, city management, some councilmembers, and the political machines that have great influence from behind the scenes in Greensboro simply pretend that the corruption doesn't exist, because to deal with it would bring outcries of indignation and stir unbearable turmoil. But corruption ignored only grows. Eventually it will create more scandal, even less public trust in the Police Department and the justice system, and further stain Greensboro's reputation.

Political influence in the modern Greensboro Police Department has never been greater or more obvious than it is now.

Confidential police information and documents have been passed to political groups without any questions raised within the department. Certain officers have felt free to bypass the chain of command and take their grievances directly to political groups which support them, no matter their behavior, and these officers have done so with impunity. Political groups have been allowed to determine whether an officer could be fired and who could be assigned or removed from positions in the department.

When these influences are allowed, the public has to question whether political groups and powerful individuals also have the ability to influence the outcomes of investigations, or even to keep investigations from being conducted.

I tip my hat to Jerry Bledsoe, whose writing and investigative talents I admire greatly.  I salute his courage, and also that of John Hammer, in producing and publishing this series.

After I began summarizing the installments here several years ago, I never heard a peep of protest from either Bledsoe or Hammer, even though both had ample reason to feel a sense of ownership over the content. 

My intent, however, was to make the lengthy segments more accessible for the average reader who would otherwise not take the time to follow it.  I also wanted to magnify the information in the series so more would become aware of the worrisome things that had been happening in our city.

I made a commitment to the readers here that I would follow through on this task of producing these summaries; but I frankly had no idea that the commitment would last over three years.  Getting it done some Thursday nights was a real challenge; and in recent months I have not always posted these summaries in a timely way.

But some readers have told me the summaries have been very helpful to them.  I hope that has been true for many of you. 

In the meantime, many thanks to Jerry Bledsoe and John Hammer for an edgy, risky, outstanding series that has told us much about the true nature of the city in which we live.

Has a Crime Been Committed with the Downtown Hotel Mess?

Let's try a George Hartzman-style post:

If someone issues a threat, and the intended effect is to secure private gain, then has the crime of extortion been committed?  And if so, should the victims press charges?

Extortion: (from West's Encyclopedia of American Law)

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Under the common law, extortion is a misdemeanor consisting of an unlawful taking of money by a government officer. It is an oppressive misuse of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.

Most jurisdictions have statutes governing extortion that broaden the common-law definition. Under such statutes, any person who takes money or property from another by means of illegal compulsion may be guilty of the offense. When used in this sense, extortion is synonymous with blackmail, which is extortion by a private person. In addition, under some statutes a corporation may be liable for extortion.

Elements of Offense

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim's spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.

Other types of threats sufficient to constitute extortion include those to harm the victim's business and those to either testify against the victim or withhold testimony necessary to his or her defense or claim in an administrative proceeding or a lawsuit. Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.

Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as "willful" or "purposeful" in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime.

Statutes governing extortion by private persons vary in content. Many hold that a threat accompanied by an intent to acquire the victim's property is sufficient to establish the crime; others require that the property must actually be acquired as a result of the threat. Extortion by officials is treated similarly. Some statutes hold that the crime occurs when there is a meeting of the minds between the officer and the party from whom the money is exacted.

Extortion by Public Officers

The essence of extortion by a public officer is the oppressive use of official position to obtain a fee. The officer falsely claims authority to take that to which he or she is not lawfully entitled. This is known as acting under color of office. For example, a highway department officer who collects money from a tax delinquent automobile owner in excess of the authorized amount on the pretense of collecting a fine is extorting money under color of office. The victim, although consenting to payment, is not doing so voluntarily but is yielding to official authority.

There are four basic ways in which a public officer commits extortion. The officer might demand a fee not allowed by law and accept it under the guise of performing an official duty. He or she might take a fee greater than that allowed by law. In this case the victim must at least believe that he or she is under an obligation to pay some amount. A third method is for the officer to receive a fee before it is due. The crime is committed regardless of whether the sum taken is likely to become due in the future. It is not criminal, however, for an officer to collect a fee before it is due if the person paying so requests. Finally, extortion may be committed by the officer's taking a fee for services that are not performed. The service refrained from must be one within the official capacity of the officer in order to constitute extortion.

Other Crimes Distinguished

As a crime of theft, extortion is closely related to robbery and false pretenses.

Robbery differs from extortion in that the property is taken against the will and without the consent of the victim, unlike extortion, where the victim consents, although unwillingly, to surrender money or property. Another distinguishing factor is that the nature of the threat for robbery is limited to immediate physical harm to the victim or his or her home. Extortion, on the other hand, encompasses a greater variety of threats.

False pretenses is another crime similar to extortion. The main difference is that for false pretenses the property is obtained by a lie as opposed to a threat.

Defenses

A person who acts under a claim of right (an honest belief that he or she has a right to the money or property taken) may allege this factor as an affirmative defense to an extortion charge. What constitutes a valid claim of right defense may vary from one jurisdiction to another. For example, M, a department store manager, accuses C, a customer, of stealing certain merchandise. M threatens to have C arrested for larceny unless C compensates M for the full value of the item. In some jurisdictions it is only necessary for M to prove that he or she had an honest belief that C took the merchandise in order for M to avoid an extortion conviction. Other jurisdictions apply a stricter test, under which M's belief must be based upon circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that C took the item. Another, more stringent, test requires that C in fact owe the money to M. Finally, some states entirely reject the claim of right defense on the theory that M's threat is an improper means of collecting a debt.

Punishment

Extortion is generally punished by a fine or imprisonment, or both. Where the offense is committed by a public officer, the penalty may include forfeiture of office. Under some statutes, the victim of an extortion may bring a civil action and recover pecuniary damages.

Federal Offenses

Extortion is also a federal offense when it interferes with interstate commerce. It is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

Another federal statute makes it a crime to engage in extortionate credit transactions.

 

 

Hotel Filth: Council to Succumb to Threats?

Jordan Green has an interesting post that illustrates yet another threat that apparently was issued by Skip Alston.

Ed Cone has done some stellar blogging over the last week on the hotel issue.  However, yesterday he had a post that may turn out not to be entirely true.  He said:

As Ryan Shell first reported yesterday, the protest march is off. Skip Alston took credit for defusing the situation.

Alston knows he's playing in a different league now. He sees beyond black and white, all the way to green, and he understands that Weaver and Quaintance wear the same lenses.

That is fine, as far as it goes.  However, it may not be representing entirely the reason the situation was defused.  The word is instead that Alston became aware that the hotel issue will not be revisited in the city council.  After the alleged threats were made, there has apparently been no inclination to bring the issue up for reconsideration.

I am told that the new county attorney was the staffer who advised Andy Scott erroneously about the process for approving the bond projects.  Since Mr. Alston is chair of the board of county commissioners, this attorney is, of course, his employee.

If there is no appetite among the nine council members to reconsider this matter, it would be a downright shame.  It would be yet another example of local elected officials acquiescing with the corruption associated with the Simkins PAC in order to preserve their own viability politically.  But it also may reflect a desire to avoid the unseemly appearances associated with protests and recalls and racial accusations.  In short, the gambit played by Alston and Deena Hayes might have worked, at least temporarily.

But there is one other possibility.  Council members might be banking on the fact that the project might be squelched by other parties-- for instance, the local bond commission, which I am told is meeting today on this matter; the Local Government Commision in Raleigh; or the folks on the open market evaluating the bonds and considering them for purchase.

The scuttlebutt is that the recovery bond program was publicized among a network of Obama's Democratic supporters in the inner cities across the nation.  That is apparently how people like those we have seen locally had gotten involved.  It is entirely possible that scams, not unlike that which we are seeing here in Greensboro, are being replicated nationwide; and if so, that is a great indication as to why Obama's economic stimulus plan is not working.

In any event, if the City Council is withdrawing from a confrontation on this matter, it might represent greater wisdom in the long run if other parties will kill the project.  Somehow incorporated into that calculus is political self-interest on the part of those council members who want to remain in the good graces of the Simkins PAC. 

But in the meantime, my concern is over lessons I learned growing up on the streets of New York.  If you succumb to the threats issued by bullies, then you embolden them to act that way again, and again, and again.  In the long run, it never pays to acquiesce with corruption.

It was, after all, the site of the first Tea Party

Cleaning Up the Hotel Mess: "Quintessential Greensboro"

Much has happened over the last week with respect to the infamous Greensboro downtown hotel stimulus bond proposal.  There is so much to say about this entire mess:

1. It has now become common knowledge that Bridget Chisholm will command a handsome, seven-figure fee out of the proceeds of the bonds; that Deena Hayes' apparent live-in boyfriend-- a general contractor-- is one of the principals in the Urban Hotel group, and their household therefore stands to profit from the proposal; and that Skip Alston might be commanding a brokerage fee amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, at least.  This information became public knowledge even as a new report cast doubt on the project's feasibility.  This report had apparently been withheld from city council members by city staff.

2. An interesting conflict arose between Alston and Hayes, on the one hand, and Dennis Quaintance and Mike Weaver, on the other hand.  The former were apparently quite unhappy that a public information request (and an apparent threat of litigation) had been made by the latter.  There were threats of demonstrations at the time of the grand opening of the civil rights museum; but that now seems to be simmering down.  Even as of last night, however, there was a report of a new threat-- that a recall initiative is being considered against three city council members; and also that two high profile individuals at the museum ceremony might take action.  Jesse Jackson has been regarded by some on the national scene as a shakedown artist; and it will be interesting to see whether his skills will be utilized to assist with this particular shakedown here in Greensboro. 

3. The public dispute between Quaintance/Weaver and Alston/Hayes has been somewhat entertaining to watch.  It has essentially been a conflict between two sets of liberals-- the old "civil rights" guard, and Greensboro's "business progressives".  With respect to the hoteliers, I remember all the plaudits over their "green" hotel; a Quaintance op-ed piece trumpeting the value of diversity; and of course, the recent mentions of Weaver's efforts to fund the civil rights museum.  We have been witnessing a conflict between Melderec and Simkins.  But the dispute has ultimately been over money.

4. This episode has cast a spotlight on the stimulus bonds program for "recovery zones".  While this seems like a good concept on the surface, it would be interesting to see how the program is taking shape nationwide.  Is it being commonly used to create new competition for existing businesses in the private sector?  Is it commonly being used to shower largesse on Barack Obama's political supporters in urban areas across the country?  It would be good to know; but the experience thus far in Greensboro has not been a good indicator.

5. Sam Hieb, who claims credit for pointing out early that the City Council should not have voted December 15 in favor of this proposal, has some interesting information about the stimulus bond program.  Apparently the federal taxpayer will ultimately be liable for losses under the program.

6. The actions of city and county staff continue to arouse concern.  We need to know who that county staff member was who, we are told, misled city staff regarding the nature of the first council vote.  It is my understanding that Andy Scott offered his resignation, but it was not accepted.  But we also need to be concerned about whether the zeal to get the city council to vote on December 15 was based on a desire to assist Skip and Deena; or whether it represented a desire on the part of certain individuals to effect policy.   The hotel proposal had been germinating for months; and I would like to know what actions, if any, were taken by the following individuals prior to December 15: Rashad Young, Andy Scott, Bob Morgan, Robbie Perkins, Yvonne Johnson and Goldie Wells.  I would like to know what, if anything, they did to move this thing along, and why.

7. In Greensboro, an enshrined place has been granted with respect to the input of city staff.  There have been certain political and media pressures upon council members to accept the recommendations of city staff in a nearly automatic way.  We have heard constant warnings that council should not "micromanage" staff.  Once that environment has been created, it is no wonder that council members might be gunshy about challenging staff. 

The hotel matter was scheduled for a vote during the very first full council meeting, after the lengthy, passionate aquatic center discussion.  And this issue-- like the aquatic center issue-- represents yet another instance when the current city council might ultimately feel the need to clean up a mess that was created prior to when it assumed office. 

In fact, council members cannot trust, even for one minute, anything that the city staff says, or anything that the city staff produces.  Council members simply cannot rely upon staff.  As they do their work, council members need to presume that everything the city staff does is wrong, or agenda-driven; or that their work is intended to satisfy the demands of our local machine politics.

8. This has been a fascinating glimpse into public corruption, and into attempts to hide the truth, here in Greensboro.  When certain participants began to fling racial accusations, Doug Clark called it "quintessential Greensboro".  But in fact, it is the public corruption, and the tendency to acquiesce with it, that is truly quintessential Greensboro about this whole episode.

9. This issue has been remarkable from the standpoint of the information that gradually arose to the surface because of the contributions of the News and Record, the blogs, Yes!Weekly and the Triad Business Journal.  Ed Cone's blogging has been as good over the last week as it has ever been.  Many folks are demonstrating a healthy attitude of skepticism in the manner they report and discuss this matter. I am not sure I can recall ever having seen such an outpouring of journalistic skepticism from so many quarters with respect to our city government.  I will leave for another day the question of whether any of this skepticism is causally related to the political change that took place during the November election.

10. Several weeks ago, I had a post here that discussed the hotel issue.  I raised the question of whether the move to Elm St. was motivated by a desire for the hotel to be located in close proximity to Skip and Earl's Museum.  That post set off a mini-firestorm of comments, here and elsewhere, with numerous cheap shots taken at the author of this blog.  But in fact, a recent News and Record article was revealing:

Weaver said he learned about the potential march in a conversation Friday with Melvin “Skip” Alston, chairman of the county Board of Commissioners, one of the museum’s founders and a real estate broker in the Ole Asheboro Hotel project.

“He (Alston) said, 'I’m really concerned about the effect your opposition to the stimulus funding, or your questioning of it, might have on the civil rights museum,” Weaver said. “I said, 'I don’t understand.’ And he said, 'There are a bunch of citizens who are talking about a civil rights march in front of the museum.’”

“I said, 'You’ve got to be kidding.’ And he said, 'You can stop it (the march).’”

What I said in that post, and in the ensuing comment thread, was very mild compared with what the awful reality turned out to be with this hotel scam.  I have taken a position against the corruption associated with the Simkins PAC, and the disproportionate influence it wields, for several years.  I have been criticized because of it.  I suppose some might now feel led to apologize, although I certainly do not expect that.

11. The city council needs to vote on this matter once again.  Each council member needs to be accountable for his/her vote now that all of the information has become public.  If any council members want to show the entire city that they acquiesce with corruption, then that is their choice to make.  But they should not allow Skip Alston and Deena Hayes to intimidate them.  If these two individuals threaten to stage a demonstration in front of the civil rights museum, or to instigate a recall initiative, perhaps the response should be, "MAKE...OUR...DAY."

The Day That Health Care Died

As heard on Rush:

Blogging Break

I have a very sick home computer that needs attention.  This is an opportune time for a blogging break.  Hope to be back soon.

Kay Hagan, Tony Rand and Unpassed Bills

Recall that the US Attorney for the eastern district of North Carolina had been busy investigating and prosecuting Raleigh Democrats.  In spite of that fact, Greensboro's own Senator Kay Hagan nominated a replacement for this particular official.  Hagan had been a colleague and compatriot of some of those figures who were attracting the attention of the US Attorney.

Then we learned about Tony Rand's resignation from the NC Senate under a cloud.  Hagan had worked very closely with Rand in the Senate. 

Now NC Spin reports:

We keep hearing rumors that former Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand is himself the subject of federal investigations due to his involvement in the corporation that has close connections with DOT, DMV, SBI and other government agencies. Rand has tried to distance himself from the operations of the company but we understand the feds aren`t buying it. 

Meanwhile, over at Ed Cone's, Hagan bemoans the fact that she is unable to get certain bills passed in the US Senate even though it has had a filibuster-proof Democratic supermajority:

(P)eople say, have you voted on them yet, have they come forward yet, and, no, because all these bills have to go down through this funnel to get a time to actually bring something to the floor, it's extremely cumbersome the way it stand right now...

That comes down to not a good way to be acting on legislation that is absolutely crucial.

"Crucial", of course, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

What Hagan does not mention is what happened with the Democrat-controlled legislature in Raleigh when she was a part of the leadership.  Republican-sponsored bills would oft hardly ever see the light of day.  Pro-life legislation has typically been consigned to a near-certain death in the Rules Committee.

It is somewhat difficult to muster sympathy for the Senator's plight under the circumstances. 

Untangling the Confusion over the Downtown Hotel

Ed Cone had a fascinating post earlier today that generated a substantial comment thread regarding the downtown hotel.  A vote had been taken on December 15 that everyone was led to believe was preliminary in nature.  Over the last week, Mayor Bill Knight and Councilman Danny Thompson learned, after investing many hours of inquiry on the topic, that there is no further action to be taken by the City Council.  The action taken December 15 was apparently the only legitimate vote to trigger consideration of projects designated by the city.

This has created somewhat of a whirlwind of discussion.  But the bottom line is that the City Council was apparently misled by city staff-- specifically, Andy Scott:

At the time, council members had not been briefed on the projects. The staff said they did not yet have enough details to provide that information.

The approval was a procedural issue to met an arbitrary state deadline to ensure the city didn’t lose its allocation, Scott told council members.

The city would not be bound to the projects, he said.

The council would have a chance to fully vet the projects in January, before the items were to be sent the county bond issuing authority — the next step to approving the bond sale, Young said the city staff was told by the county.

Some commenters have already suggested this reflects poorly on city council members.  I disagree.  In this particular case, it was city staff that screwed up.  Andy Scott, and by default, Rashad Young are responsible for the mess. 

Apparently Knight and Thompson spoke with the state Treasurer's office, which has some jurisdiction in these matters, as well as the private bond counsel based at a law firm in Raleigh who possesses expertise on federal stimulus recovery bonds-- Mary Nash Rusher.  There is a very specific, limited role for the state, the county and the city in this process. 

But I am told Scott had apparently busied himself devising policies and procedures in connection with what he perceived to be a larger role by municipalities.  And I am further told Scott conceded earlier this afternoon that the interpretation presented to Knight and Thompson is essentially correct-- that the previous council vote was the only action to be taken to signal city approval of these proposed projects.

Robbie Perkins of Textgate fame has previously stated that his favorite city employee is Andy Scott.  He said this at a forum I attended a couple of months ago.

It should be noted that Sam Spagnola had some comments over at Ed's that need to be investigated and studied further.  Sam, an attorney, believes the City Council can look at this again if that is its desire.

I was present at a county GOP meeting tonight at which four council members were present including Mayor Knight.  I must state that I continue to have grave misgivings regarding this proposal.  One council member in particular spoke with some degree of passion tonight in opposition - Zack Matheny.

If there is a way to rescind the council's prior vote on this matter, I hope that can happen.

But in the meantime, I hope the city council will deliver a clear message to city staff: This will be the last time a mess-up of this magnitude will be tolerated.

Update--  Sam Hieb has more:

All I know is Assistant City Manager Andy Scott told the council in no uncertain terms that the Dec. 15 motion to take advantage of fed bond money did not bind them to any project —-the council would be asked to approve such projects as they came before them following a public hearing. If indeed Scott did not properly advise the council on such a major issue, I would think his job would be in jeopardy.