Greensboro City Council member Tom Phillips told me last fall that he would read the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Sandy Carmany said she was "waiting for the report." Florence Gatten said she had a "responsibility to study and comprehend the end product." Keith Holliday said he planned to listen to audio versions of the hearings, and said he was open to speaking with Commission members.

Sandra Anderson Groat, Mike Barber, and Goldie Wells were not yet on the Council; Yvonne Johnson participated in the TRC process; Dianne Bellamy-Small never returned my calls.

Council members speak on Truth and Reconciliation hearings

Edward Cone
News & Record
10-9-05

Not a single white member of the Greensboro City Council spent a single minute at the public hearings conducted by the Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Even after the council's contentious 6-3 vote along racial lines to oppose the process, I found that startling.

The hearings on the 1979 Klan-Nazi shootings in Greensboro, which killed five and injured 10, drew national media attention. There was dramatic testimony from survivors of the doomed march, and from Klansmen, cops, lawyers and elected officials. The commissioners appeared credible and independent. Weren't the council members curious about what was going on in their city? Having rejected the premature endorsement of a fraught process, didn't they want to see how the process played out?

I asked those questions of the six white council members, as well as Mayor Pro Tem Yvonne Johnson and Claudette Burroughs-White, who did attend some hearings. At press time, Dianne Bellamy-Small had not returned my call.

Robbie Perkins, who proposed the motion to oppose the process (rather than merely not endorsing it), said he was "absolutely not tempted to go" to the hearings. "I don't think it's in the best interest of Greensboro. People have the right to do it, and I have the right not to be a part of it." I asked him if the racially split vote disturbed him, and he said no. "I vote my conscience."

Perkins, who is not running for re-election, said most people aren't interested in the project and that controversy was "manufactured by the News & Record" (as someone who has criticized this newspaper for what I see as inadequate coverage, that one made me laugh). "The end product is where this will get judged," he said.

Tom Phillips did not consider attending the hearings. "My attending would not matter," he said. He will read the report. "If we as a council think it is worthwhile, we'll consider it. If I disagree with the final conclusions, I'll be called names. They say we're racists -- when are people going to ask black council members why they always vote together?" He said Nelson Johnson's involvement compromised the project (a danger I pointed to as early as 2003); that he understood that the commission was independent of Johnson; and that he wanted to know where the money Johnson raised for the project had gone.

Sandy Carmany said she had no interest in attending the hearings. "I am waiting for the report," she said. I asked if she considered the hearings themselves as a vital part of the process. She said she preferred facts to emotions. I asked about the black-white divide, not just in that one train wreck of a vote but in a larger context. "I've never viewed it as a racial issue," she said.

Don Vaughan did not consider attending but said he followed the hearings in The Peacemaker and the News & Record (still, he was not aware that Yvonne Johnson had testified last Friday). He doesn't plan to attend the TRC's November forum on next steps toward reconciliation but believes good can come out of this process, including "healing for the families of those involved."

Florence Gatten said she considered attending, has paid attention to the process and has a "responsibility to study and comprehend the end product." She claims "huge respect" for the commissioners and their work. She called the council vote "an anomaly" that was forced upon them and said tense feelings resulted among council members.

Mayor Keith Holliday considered attending the hearings but felt his presence would have been politicized. He plans to listen to the recordings of the hearings. "I'm pleased with what I'm hearing on the neutrality and professionalism of the commission," he said. He is irked at Burroughs-White for pushing the vote in April and wishes the process had been done under the aegis of an academic institution that made all parties feel safe. He might attend the November meeting, especially if the city's Human Relations staff is involved. "I can't ignore the fact that this is happening," he said. "Regardless of the fact that I saw the potential for more negative than positive, I need to address it." He is willing to meet with commission members to talk about next steps.

Yvonne Johnson said of her white colleagues, "People feel removed because this didn't happen in their neighborhood, and they don't think it could. They get bogged down in distrust and anger." Her constituents, she said, are paying close attention. "The response of the council is noted, it's on people's mind," she said.

Claudette Burroughs-White, who is not running for re-election, said the vote and the decision by the white council members to ignore the hearings left her with bad feelings. "There is a segment of this community whose opinions and status are not respected," she said. "You don't have to agree, but when you won't even listen, it continues to divide us and cause mistrust. I don't get it. Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me."

My take: The vote in April, which was sought not by the commission but by a supporting organization, was terribly destructive to the entire process. The white members of the council still don't know how important the hearings were. I don't think the white members are racist or uncaring. I do think they are under-informed and feel boxed in.

Holliday seems ready to try leading us to a better place. Maybe, just maybe, we can get there.

Copyright © 2005 - The News & Record

Comments

[Chewie]

Council member Tom Phillips today, as reported by WFMY:

"I could not care less what the report has to say. At some point I will take a look at it."

[Chewie]

Link to Frank Mickens' story. He said they reached Phillips on the phone.

The actual quote is "I could care less what that report has to say. At some point I plan to take a look at it."

[Patrick Eakes]

It's sort of funny how that phrase has come to be misused most of the time.

You could care less? If you could care less, doesn't that give some indicate you care, the opposite of what you intended to say?

[sean coon]

you have to take the tone and delivery of that phrase into account to register its intended meaning:

"(actually) i could care (even) less..."

it's just one example of how english phraseology is confusing to people trying to pick up our language.

[Tom Phillips]

Frank Mickens didn't quite tell the whole story. I was sitting on my balconey looking at the ocean when Frank called on my cell phone (I'm changing my number). I told him I was on vacation and I couldn't care less........ I taken my last call from Mr. Mickens

[Ed Cone]

Fair enough, Tom. Enjoy your vacation. I look forward to discussing the report with you.

[Roch101]

Actually, what WFMY reported was that Phillips said, "" I could care less what they report has to say. At some point I plant to take a look at it." -- a hopeful sign.

[Chewie]

Tom, I had a feeling you would say that, which is why I linked to it with no comment. It's on WFMY's website, and ran on the 6:00 news last night with a graphic of this quote. It's fair to say it got out there, and is still there. So if you have more to say, I hope this motivates you to keep talking -- not shut up.

[Chewie]

And Tom, are you monitoring this thread while still on vacation?

[Chewie]

No comment, Tom?

Okay. I'll just send your regular clipping service an invoice. Who do you use?

[ben holder]

I wont be reading it.

[Juno888]

Deserving site... i like it .lol..

[Don Machine]

Cai I add something about Greensboro?

Greensboro (IPA: /ˈɡriːnzbəroʊ/[citation needed]) is a city in the U.S. state of North Carolina. It is the third-largest city, by population, in North Carolina and the largest city in Guilford County and the surrounding Piedmont Triad metropolitan region.

As of the 2000 census, Greensboro was home to 223,891 residents. Its estimated 2007 population was 244,610.

The city is located at the intersection of two major interstate highways (I-85 and I-40) in the Piedmont ("foot of the mountains") region of central North Carolina.

In 1808, Greensborough (as was the spelling prior to 1895) was planned around a central courthouse square to succeed the nearby town of Guilford Court House as the county seat. This act moved the county courts closer to the geographical center of the county, a location more easily reached by the majority of the county's citizens.

In 2003, the previous Greensboro - Winston-Salem - High Point metropolitan statistical area (MSA) was re-defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, resulting in the formation of the Greensboro-High Point MSA and the Winston-Salem MSA. The 2006 population estimate for the Greensboro-High Point MSA was 685,378.

The Greensboro - Winston-Salem - High Point combined statistical area (CSA), popularly referred to as the Piedmont Triad, had an estimated population of 1,513,576 in 2006 making it the 30th largest metropolitan area in the USA. Source: US Bureau of the Census, Released April 2007