Update: GTRC Director Jill Williams, in the comments below…ÂÂ
“For the record, no one not working with the Commission has seen any part of the final report, which is not even completed yet (though we are scrambling to get it done this week). The Commissioners, staff and few volunteers who have been working on the report all understand the importance of keeping its contents confidential until it is released to the public on May 25th. In accordance with our Mandate, which says that the GTRC is to operate “independently from any external influence, including the Projectâ€?, no party has had undue influence on our work.”
___________________________
The Troublemaker claims that the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission (website, blog) is actually being directed by Rev. Nelson Johnson. This is not a new allegation because it echoes sentiments of some people who have been opposed to the “process” since its inception. However…
In the comments to his post, Ben goes even further by quoting from a recent conversation he says he had with GTR Project co-chair Z. Hollar about the what might be contained in Commission’s final report due out later this month…
“People are not going to like the report because it will not look favorably upon the police department.â€?
If Holder’s quotation from Hollar is accurate, it could raise serious questions about the separation of the organizing Project and the investigating, and (hopefully) independent, Commission.
The Troublemaker says that no one from the Commission staff would dare comment on either allegation at his place - perhaps they will do so here.
30 Comments
it is accurate. and they wont comment here either
David,
Haven’t you painted the GTRC into a corner? If the report doesn’t take the police to task, it will have reached such a conclusion independently; if the report doesn’t look favorably upon the police department, it will raise “serious questions” about the commission’s independence.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to look at the evidence presented in the report as a gauge of its credibility rather than link credibility to a specific outcome?
No, the question I am raising is based on Ben’s report of Hollar’s statement. Has Z seen the report or was he merely speculating when speaking to Ben. If he has seen it, how did he get access since he’s not on the staff or the Commission?
I can imagine him using the word “if” instead of “because” in Ben’s reported quote as a casual statement. I’m hoping Hollar has not seen the report as the quote seems to imply.. but…
I believe the report will stand on its own merits if Hollar has seen it or not. I am not one of those who believes the commission has been influenced by anything other than the testimonies of those that came forward and other above-board input.
Johnson and Hollar are not directing the Commission IMHO, but if anyone outside of the Commission and their staff has previewed the document - that would be inappropriate and would put the whole process under questions that should be answered as to their independence.
Ben… Did Hollar say he has seen the report, or was he simply speculating as to what is in it?
if it is about making gso better..and that is all..why couldnt they just get to work…why waste all that man power on hearings and pagentry…why not just get to scrubbing on todays issues? because the report is going to be used as a stage for nelson and a police review board. bottom line. thye want org’s to read it. endorse their recommendationsw. and put nelson in charge of a police review board.
didnt ask him…just made a note to further examione his…”The report will not look favorably upon the police department.”on I have never heard allen or hollar say…nelson was crazy to have that march. they think he is a super hero. I absolutley have to question this especially when the city is in such great turmoil. the gtrc is gonna help nelson gain power. Johnson is very close to hinson as well. All of that just kinda makes me feel icky. i am 100% sure that if the GTRP has seen the report they would not come clean about it. i know the gtrc has volunteers working on it. i know theat volunteers for the gtrc are only accepted if they are on the side of the gtrp and neslon johnson. the chance of them getting inside info and influence is absolutley possible. if the cops and the nazi’s and the fbi and the kkk can plan to kill nelson…u dotn think the report could be shared w the gtrp? to chase one conspiracy without even entertaining the thought of others is stupid.
Ben, I know it pisses you off when anyone questions anything you say or allege, but I seriously doubt most of what you are aleegeing regarding Johnson’s plot to take over the police department or whatever that theory entails. But I appreciate the fact that we are at least still ‘talking’.
So call me “stupid” if you want for focusing on only “one conspiracy” of yours, but there is a reason for my myopia.
I am only trying to address Hollar’s alleged statement to you because you finally provided a named source for the information. By your own admission, those are few and far between and it was a good break from you imploring everyone simply to “trust me” over and over.
The Hollar statement, as quoted, implies that he has seen the finished report and, if true, would be problematic with me and many others. I’d appreciate it if you will substantiate the insinuation by asking Hollar a simple question… “Have you seen any part of Commission’s upcoming report.”
If he says “no, I haven’t seen it”, then he was merely speculating as to the outcome like many others do every day. If he says “yes, I have seen it”, then there is obviously a problem of independence and that needs to be examined.
You say you are “100% sure” that members of the GTRC would not “come clean” about seeing the report “if” they have seen it. But you have insinuated that one member of that group DID see it - not “if” they did.
Help us out here - which is it?
Yours - HoggWash
all i ever said was he told me that the report was not going to look good for the police department. this was said days after the john young letter in your N&R. I questioned the letter that was written in response. hollar told me that the report was not going to be good for the police department. I bring that up becuase i was certain in there response to young that the theme was to be neutral and take a wait and see approach. he did not say…i think…or it might…he said it will.
I think you are crazy when u say I finally gave a name. like i never have. You ever heard of butch simmons? Linda miles? mitch johnson? James Springette, jay Fullmore, i name folks all the time. What i wont do is name who gives me info…let me ask u this..name some rumors or crazy ideas i have printed that didnt come true?
u dont piss me off…i just think u get it to easy round here. like many folks..it appears to me that u were born on the third base of gso and walk around like u hit a triple.
if u read my comment..i just informed the readers that the co-chair told me that the “Report was not going to look favorably upon the police department. As for the police review board. that will be the biggest theme of the final report. they are targeting groups to recive it. the reason is cuz group endorsements count. All of this will be shown in a lil bit. i am truly sorry I am just now seeing the master plan.
to answer your question…which i think in my comments i already did..i dont know if he saw it…i didnt ask…but i sure did think it was odd that days after they felt the need to produce a rebuttal for john young the co-chair tells me what the report will not look favorably upon. i know the gtrp and the gtrc spend tons of time toghether. Z hollar and jill williamns recently went to davidson college together to do some touchy feely bs for rich white people…to assume that they are not getting an inside track on the outcome of the report is stupid…
I am stealing this line you used to describe me…
“…it appears to me that u were born on the third base …and walk around like u hit a triple.”
I LOVE that….
and i do love u….maybe i am jealous….u r in the cool group…i never have been…one of the coolest times i have ever had in a gso political scene was hanging w u at the elections…dont take me seriously….i am a rabid dog…that has been hit by a truck…left on the side of the road…alone….grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
You are a good man, Ben. The ultimate insider.
Even keel… steady as she goes….
hogg wash
Yeah. I suppose so.
It comes in mint flavor, too.
I’m bettin’ on Ben
For the record, no one not working with the Commission has seen any part of the final report, which is not even completed yet (though we are scrambling to get it done this week). The Commissioners, staff and few volunteers who have been working on the report all understand the importance of keeping its contents confidential until it is released to the public on May 25th. In accordance with our Mandate, which says that the GTRC is to operate “independently from any external influence, including the Project”, no party has had undue influence on our work.
Also for the record, Ben Holder has volunteered for the Commission and has contributed significantly to its research. We are grateful for the work he has done to engage police officers and Klansmen in this process. Without him, police officers Rick Ball and Mike Toomes would not have spoken at our second hearing. He also played a role in getting Virgil Griffin to speak at the first hearing. Additionally, he has worked to try to engage other police officers and has helped with other research, such as researching some of the newspaper articles printed immediately after the shootings. His coverage of the process through his blog and, previously, at the Carolina Peacemaker, has also served to keep the Commission and the public aware of Commission-related news not reported anywhere else, such as when members of the special intelligence division had a meeting with the staff at Mt. Zion Baptist Church about the community dialogue, but didn’t invite Commission staff. This list is not meant to cover everything he did for the Commission, but instead to acknowledge the important role Ben has played in this process. Ben was able to make these contributions because of his knowledge of Greensboro, his extensive contacts, and, most importantly, his ability to recognize and analyze injustices and work towards correcting them in many cases. The Commission, collectively, and I, personally, have learned a great deal from Ben Holder and sincerely appreciate his contributions.
then why am i ignored when i asked to be a report recipient. that long winded comment was cover for the gtrc.
it puzzles me that williams wrote my contributions here.
she left some out too
Could be Ben, that Jill wanted to set the record straight on who has seen the report and also back up the your statements on the value of your contributions to the Commission.
And she might have done it here because I didn’t taunt them for a response like you did - I invited it.
Jill,
Thanks for pointing out Ben’s service to the commission. As we both know, his contributions to Greensboro have been many and varied. I only recently met him, but it’s clear to me that he is a highly passionate person with a keen sense of right and wrong.
He has a strong will and vast energy to work to see that right, as he sees it, prevails, even if some disapprove of his style and tactics. On many occasions, he has been a voice for the voiceless, and I suspect that few have independently done more to help such people.
That said, let me explain my comment above about why I would bet on Ben to be right on this occasion.
I don’t question your honesty and sincerity in stating that nobody outside the commission staff has seen any part of the report and that staff members and volunteers understand the importance of confidentiality.
But the city council has leaks. So do city government and the police department, not to mention to CIA. And in most of those cases, the people who leak have reason to be concerned about their jobs if found out. The commission staff will be out of their jobs at the end of the month. What could possibly happen to them if they passed on information to people they favored? Human nature, whatever the culture, thrives on telling secrets.
Not only that, but staff members of the T&R Project–which was created by Nelson Johnson, other former CWP members, and citizens who support them–simply shifted over to the commission when it was formed. Some of them remain, as may their dedication to the original cause. Moreover, I’ve encountered volunteers for the commission who were almost cult-like in their dedication to Nelson Johnson.
I think it’s naïve for anybody to think that Nelson Johnson and others from the project haven’t had a strong effect on the commission’s actions all along, that they don’t already know what the findings will be so that they can be making preparations in advance of them.
Ben clearly thinks that one of those finding will be for the police review board for which Johnson and others have fought for years, a goal from the beginning of the project
He may be wrong, and so may I. We’ll know in 10 days. But if you’re a betting person, I’d say the odds are with Ben’s view.
Jerry,
So you’re going on record stipulating that
- the Final Report of the Greensboro Truth & Reconciliation Commission has been “leaked” by either a Commissioner or staff member; and
- that the 7 Commissioners have compromised their personal integrity and their mandate by allowing their actions to be strongly affected by “Nelson Johnson and others from the project”.
In doing so, you are willing to put your credibility on the line based on evidence you do not present.
Duly noted.
Anytime you’d like to bring something to the table other than paranoia, gossip, and character assassination, please don’t hesitate.
All I ask is the same chewie. Both sides. my feelings about the matter are hardly just based on paranoia, gossip, and character assassination. After all, it has been said that I have the ability to recognize and analyze injustices and work towards correcting them in many cases. However, it only counts with some when it is done in agrreance with the right
team. To question Bledsoe as you have and not question Willaims shaky “no one not working with the Commission has seen any part of the final report,” statement is hardly fair. In a gtrc post Ubuntu Weekly #58 they state “One by one the chapters of our final report are coming together, thanks to the work of staff, volunteers and consultants. We’re looking forward to presenting a collective memory to replace the divergent understandings that help keep us divided.” In this post it is a little different. Willaims wrote, “The Commissioners, staff and few volunteers who have been working on the report” The word few was added and the consultants were left out. The word choice is intersting to me.
also, when questioning williams about this matter recently, she stated the volunteers have not seent he report. Why did she tell me they have not seen it then report here that, “volunteers who have been working on the report all understand the importance of keeping its contents confidential”
If the point of all of this is that Nelson Johnson started this process to set the stage for the establishment of a police review board and install himself as the head of it - I ain’t buyin’ it.
He may have hoped that that would be the outcome and he may be doing everything he can to make the case for one - but that hardly causes me to think that “Greensboro needs to adopt a police review board” will be a driving conclusion from the Commission’s work.
If that recommendation IS made as a main point in the Commission’s final report, then I will jump on this conspiracy bandwagon at the proper time - but that jumping-on opportunity will not be here for another 10 days.
Chewie,
I see that your old true-believer self is back, putting words in my mouth that I never said. Are you finally willing to acknowledge your relationship to the commission and to the people who started the project, which you wouldn’t do when you were attacking Allen Johnson for allowing critics of the commission to be heard?
williams said to me this morning that i misunderstood what she said about volunteers not seeign the report. if that is the case, then i do apologize. i certainly do not want to put words in others peoples mouth. Once again, I apparently misunderstood.
Jerry, I don’t see where I put words in your mouth.
I wouldn’t attack Allen Johnson; I like and respect the guy. I’ve criticized some decisions he’s made on the editorial page. That’s true for most of us.
I’ve been extremely consistent in my support of this Commission and its work, from its very origins in the Project. I don’t see where I’ve wavered from that. Conspiracy theory yourself to death if you wish. I am only a true believer in myself. Everyone else has to prove themselves, and that has always included everyone associated with this effort.
I don’t predicate my support for the Commission or lack thereof on what’s contained in the report. The basis of my support is that this was a GOOD IDEA and badly needed in Greensboro, and other communities around the U.S. From the public aspects of their work, I have observed the Commission exerting effort to be fair and listen to all. I’ve repeatedly asked for anyone who has proof otherwise to come forward with a when and where. No one has.
I continue to ask that those who want to plant doubt, innuendo, or accusations against individuals please present some substantial evidence to back up their claims. Paranoia is not enough to convince me or others who have followed this closely enough to see the integrity with which it was undertaken. These are human beings, and they’re not perfect, but I have no reason to think that they haven’t done their level best to live up to their mandate.
I also believe that in a community, people have to be held accountable for what they say, particularly if the effect of their words is to indict the behavior or motivations of others. It’s irresponsible for us to allow speculative fishing expeditions into what someone may have done wrong.
Given the Wray case, I thought you felt the same way, Jerry.
The basis of my support is that this was a GOOD IDEA and badly needed in Greensboro, and other communities around the U.S.
prove that please? how is it good and badly needed? what will the work do for the leveling of the playing field?
“If that recommendation IS made as a main point in the Commission’s final report, then I will jump on this conspiracy bandwagon at the proper time…” — David
Again, David, you are painting the GTRC into a corner: If the report recommends a police review board, you’ll lable it a conspiracy. The report will reamin legitimate, in your eyes, if it doesn’t recommend a police review board.
Again, I ask, wouldn’t it make more sense to look at the evidence presented in the report as a gauge of its credibility rather than link credibility to a specific outcome? If the report recommends a police review board, maybe that recommendation will be prefectly logical and factually supported. If such a recommendation is pulled out of thin air, then maybe it’s a “conspiracy.” Shouldn’t we wait and see?
Of course you are correct, Roch.
I should have said, “If the Commission recommends installing Nelson Johnson as the head of a Police Review Board, then I WILL jump on….”
Better?
Well, my point was that any pre-conditions on possible outcomes without waiting to see how those outcomes might be justitified isn’t fair, but yes, a recommendation that a police review board be established with a suggestion for who should lead it would be, on its face, highly dubious and beyond the scope of what I understand to be the Commission’s mission.