Cowardice or prudence?

I’ve been thinking about posting the full, unredacted version of the RMA report which I’ve had in my possession since Ben Holder disseminated it among Greensboro bloggers nearly two years ago.  Others are, too.

The reason I’m hesitating is because I don’t want to face even the prospect of a fine or possibly jail time.  The full report names names that aren’t currently in the public realm and much of the information contains, I believe, “personnel matters”.

I find myself in the same quandry as the City: balancing the public’s right to know against a possible lawsuit, fine, or a trip to the slammer.  I’ll probably err on the side of staying out of some US or state attorney’s crosshairs.

This entry was posted in Greensboro Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

20 Comments

  1. Beau D. Jackson
    Posted February 18, 2008 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been thinking about posting the full, unredacted version of the RMA report which I’ve had in my possession since Ben Holder dissiminated it among Greensboro bloggers nearly two years ago. Others are, too.

    The reason I’m hesitating is because I don’t want to face even the possibility of a fine or jail time. The full report names names that aren’t currently in the public realm and much of the information contains, I believe, “personnel matters�.

    I find myself in the same quandry as the City: balancing the public’s right to know against a possible lawsuit, fine, or a trip to the slammer. I’ll probably err on the side of staying out of some US or state attorney’s crosshairs.

    Are you suggesting that there is at least one more report out there other than the one posted online, which I read and didn’t see anything incriminating, or are you just bloviating like you did about your very secret meeting with the Mitchster!

  2. Posted February 18, 2008 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    I don’t generally bloviate. There are some new antacids on the market that you may have heard about…

    The whole RMA document was never posted online as far as I know, Beau. The one of which Sam and I speak has additional information and investigations compiled by city attorney staff.

    Of course, those people aren’t to be believed anyway, so why bother… right? (sarcasm alert) (and thanks for reposting my post right under the original)

  3. Posted February 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Beau:

    ” “

  4. Posted February 18, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Hogg, my feelings about posting restricted documents are fairly well-known; however, if you do post it, please be sure to redact the names of innocent and as-yet unidentified people. And please see my email for further private thoughts.

  5. Posted February 18, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    David,

    The city says the RMA report is protected by state personnel privacy laws. The penalties for violating those protections apply to the official custodian of such documents.

    Sam, Joe and I will argue that the RMA report is not protected by personnel records protections because any information the city provided to RMA constituted a release of that information (RMA is not another public body or law enforcement agency) and that any information RMA collected and gave to the city is not a personnel record because state law says that any such record, to receive protection, must be first collected by the public employer. RMA is not the employer of the people on whom it collected information.

    Do with that what you will.

    I am not a lawyer.

  6. Jim Rosenberg
    Posted February 18, 2008 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Don’t.

  7. Posted February 18, 2008 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    I’m surprised that no one got my real point here.

    I’m not going to post it for the same reasons that the City has not released everything they are in possession of regarding this matter.

    There are real legal restraints backed up by very real penalties for doing things you are not supposed to do.

    Roch… if you guys are so sure that nothing will happen and you are breaking no laws if you post the entire document, then by all means post it. Otherwise, don’t keep ragging the city for following the orders of US and state attorneys and being at least as prudent about the matter as you are.

    Has anyone noticed that the city still hasn’t released the documents that Ben and the Rhino made so public. They can’t and, rightfully won’t, without due process.

  8. MyTwoCents
    Posted February 18, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    I thought you were done with this matter? What’s with the Bill O’Reilly verbiage? LOL

  9. Posted February 18, 2008 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    I lied.

  10. Posted February 18, 2008 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    “Otherwise, don’t keep ragging the city for following the orders of US and state attorneys and being at least as prudent about the matter as you are.”

    Sigh….

    What are you talking about? Do you even know?

  11. Posted February 18, 2008 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Maybe I don’t.

    Help me out. If I’m confused perhaps others are. But before you go off, my post was not directed only at your efforts to get info under a FOI request.

    People want to see everything, and that is certainly understandable. But everything can’t legally be released for sound reasons.

    What am I missing?

    Post it.

  12. Beau D. Jackson
    Posted February 18, 2008 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    I don’t generally bloviate. There are some new antacids on the market that you may have heard about…

    “Generally” does this imply that from time to time you are o0bliged to bloviate! I have a cast iron stomach only requiring antiacids when I dine on hogsters. On that note why not have some intestional fortitude and if you have substative information lets hear it otherwise get back on the porch with your bottle of Tums!

  13. Posted February 18, 2008 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

    Because I don’t want trouble with the law Beau. How’s about I send it to you and you post it. I’ll forward my bottle of Tums in the package.

    Check your inbox.

  14. Posted February 18, 2008 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    “following the orders of US and state attorneys”

  15. Jerry Messner
    Posted February 18, 2008 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    It’s typical what someone who doesn’t have a pot to piss in will chance loosing versus what someone with alot to loose will not.

  16. Posted February 19, 2008 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Is there somebody around here without a piss pot? Call me, I have an extra one.

  17. Old Casey
    Posted February 19, 2008 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    If it was a violation of the law to release the RMA Report, why wasn’t someone prosecuted for leaking it to the News-Record? Why wasn’t the News-Record charged with releasing information from the report? Why wasn’t the News-Record instructed to reveal who leaked the report to them, as JR surely knows.

    As Roch said, the city released any personnel information when they made RMA, an outside agency, privy to it. If it has been previously released, why is it protected now?

    Sue said “however, if you do post it, please be sure to redact the names of innocent and as-yet unidentified people”. I assume that you are referring to David Wray and his “best friends”?

  18. Old Casey
    Posted February 19, 2008 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Oh, and did the city council authorize the city to release personnel information to RMA before they did the investigation?

  19. MyTwoCents
    Posted February 19, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    # David Hoggard Says:
    February 18th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    I lied.

    TSK, TSK, TSK.

  20. MyTwoCents
    Posted February 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    # Roch101 Says:
    February 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am

    Is there somebody around here without a piss pot? Call me, I have an extra one.

    I don’t have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of. ;O)