The blogger meeting with City Manager Mitch Johnson was useful. The first part was essentially a press conference in which Johnson and staff answered questions about alleged irregularities in contractor payments and about the release of the information pertaining to the GPD mess. I was satisfied with the answers, and don't believe the Manager is running some sort of rogue operation in which he overpays contractors and withholds info on a whim.

But I didn't really attend for any of that stuff. I wanted to get to the question of how the City adjusts to the blogosphere and to increased demands for transparency. We had a short but productive talk about putting as much info as possible online, being proactive instead of reactive in terms of sharing information, and humanizing staff and explaining their constraints by using YouTube. It's not just about blogging; not everyone has the time or talent to write a useful blog. The City can't chase every rabbit, or answer every question again and again and again, but it can put info up early and often, and it can and should expect people to do their homework before launching a barrage of queries.

John Hammer and Margaret Banks were there, interesting to see their takes, as well as those of other attendees. JW did some fine moderating. More TK.

Comments

[benholder]

I was satisfied with the answers, and don't believe the Manager is running some sort of rogue operation in which he overpays contractors and withholds info on a whim.

any reason for that?

[Fec Stench]

We're streaming.

[Brenda Bowers]

I listened to the entire recorded meeting three times and sorry folks I was not impressed. The willow Oaks "explanations” were a pot of BS. The Bryant Electric spiel was even worse. Ben tried his best to get an answer and just couldn’t. I really and truly wish this weren’t happening to this lovely city but it is. I didn’t know any of these players in December of ‘05 and now I know them almost too well. Johnson is a sad little man who for some unknown reason turned against David Wray. Or perhaps he was against Wray all along but felt he had to hire him since the former city manager wanted him and the city council seemed to go along. I don’t know why he did what he did , but he is in a hole now and trying to bluff his way thru it. All seems to be waiting on the SBI report. Wonder what he and the council will do if it goes against them?

[David Hoggard]

"A sad little man" and the rest...

Brenda, you are the one who is a sad, little... oh, never mind.

Wonder what you will do and say if "it" goes "for" "them", (Them is us, you know). You'd better save a little of your venom for those corruptable SBI folks.

[The CA]

...or it could go the "other way"... What's more important is regardless of which way it goes, that the truth come out, and if that means some people have to eat crow, let's hope it is done publicly and that all misperceptions are cleared up by those responsible for advancing them. Accountability would be nice, whether it be from the City, Wray, Johnson, the N&R, Bledsoe, the Rhino, or bloggers, including myself.

This story has been a dead weight on the City for way too long. Let those who were right bask in the glory and those who wrong be man enough to admit it, and let's move on when it's over.

[jw]

"I listened to the entire recorded meeting three times..."

Let's see. At about 98 minutes X 3 = 294 divided by 60 minutes in an hour, that comes to 4.9, or nearly 5 hours of listening.

Whew!

[David Wharton]

"...and let's move on when it's over."

Well said, Sam!

[David Hoggard]

Amen, Sam.

That's what I was getting at when I said "them" is "us". I'm truly weary of the divisiveness all of this has caused.

[jw]

"...and let's move on when it's over."

The problem is, folks are not going to agree about at what point it's over.

[The CA]

Yes JW, I'm reminded of the lyrics from Queensryche's "Silent Lucidity":

"wide awake you face the day/the dream is over/or has it just begun?"

[jc]

Mitch can help himself by getting rid of Hinson and James. If he doesnt, I'm cetain we will never entirely get over it. The GPD will always be thought to be corrupt by many.

[Fred Gregory]

What JC said

[meblogin]

I have finished listening to the meeting.

...me...I thought it was great. I thought Mitch and others representing the city did a great job answering questions.

This information gives me confidence that at a later date we will be satisfied with the decisions made pertaining to Wray and the GPD.

Thanks to all for taking the time to participate in this meeting.

My two cents---- Mitch, Have a meeting like this once per month or every other month that lasts 2 hours +/-. I believe it would save you and your staff many many hours in the short and long run.

thanks,
me

PS...I am curious as to why this meeting has not generated exciting debate...unless of course everyone walked away with a sense of satisfaction that good answers were given.

[Bubba]

"PS...I am curious as to why this meeting has not generated exciting debate...unless of course everyone walked away with a sense of satisfaction that good answers were given."

There was not enough time to ask all the questions that needed to be asked, to say nothing of enough time for the follow up questions that needed to be asked from the replies to the original questions.

The time for the second half of the planned program got shortchanged by the Q&A session, as it was.

[meblogin]

It sounded like there were good answers pertaining to both construction topics
by the city.
So far Ben has not posted about either other than video tape with multiple repeats that show a pattern. My belief is that the pattern shown is that even highly competent people with good intentions sometimes say the wrong things or in hindsight would have chosen different words.

Does Ben now believe that the contractors did the additional work and should have been paid?

or

Does Ben now believe that the contractors did the additional work but did not keep good documentation and therefore should not be paid?...even though they did the work.

[Fred Gregory]

Me

Do you believe that David Wray was honestly and sincerly striving legally to resolve a very sensitive and complex situation within a law enforcement agency. As I have said previously , the city manager and this community would be a lot less unsetlled today if Mitch had , in his micro management of the GPD, at least given the Chief a longer leash instead of jumping the gun. There is something personal here and that ain't good. Grensboro is much worse off than it was when this precipitous action was taken.

With regard to Willow Oaks , those were non answers and bureaucratic triple talk. How can you posibly be satisfied with those flimsy explanations when confronted with the facts as presdented by Ben ?

[A Bystander]

There is a problem using YouTube as reported, "and humanizing staff and explaining their constraints by using YouTube". Most networks block access to this service including the City's computer network. So I guess if you want to see or view a YouTube tap-dance from the City Manager you will have to do it from the privacy of your home.

[meblogin]

Perhaps the contractors should be interviewed who maybe settled for less. Ben...have you talked with them?

Perhaps the competitors to the same contractors should be questioned to see if they would have hauled 700 trucks for the same compromised price.

It appears that David Wray had some high ranking policemen that are about to be served. If this is the case...then David Wray needed to terminate some high ranking policemen. He did not....was he blind or a participant. I don't know.
He had/has a great resume. Our city manager and council believe Wray needed to go and have much more information than we. Why are we so quick to say they are wrong? They keep saying the truth is coming and that they are looking forward to sharing. Why do we not trust?

I disagree that the conversation was triple talk. Ben only showed that documentation was not in place. Perhaps he is comfortable not paying a bull dozer operator for not having all the paperwork. Perhaps both of you are comfortable judging a city's leadership on 2 or so examples when our city handles 100s if not 1000s of construction projects per year. If our leadership is 998 good...2 bad...how bad is it? Can you do better?

Show me some proof and I will champion their termination....otherwise...I champion innocent until proven otherwise and encourage others to do the same.

I do believe that there should be some changes made with regard to how contracts are given....but darn...it becomes a can of worms when not done on low bid...favorites step in quickly.

I am ok to agree to disagree as I don't have any inside information and time will tell who the crooks are. So far...I support our leadership based on what I heard. I believe that they made it right and hopefully learned from any mistakes made.

Who here has not made many mistakes? It is not our mistakes but what we do with them that matters. I heard learning from the meeting...not triple talk...

thanks