Sandy Carmany: "Over the next several days and weeks, I anticipate a steady release of additional information and explanations to fill in more of the blanks to help the public fully understand everything that has occurred."

That would be helpful.

I'm much less interested in the lockout drama than I am in what led up to it. What are the specifics that are said to have cost Wray the City's trust? What statements were made, and against what facts were they judged?

Johnson told Wray during their last conversation: "To be frank, they either did what they did to some degree without you knowing about it and your finding about it later or they did what they did with you knowing about it and you directing them and knowing about and allowing it to continue. Either way it's a serious issue, obviously...my trust has been completely shattered by what I have read and what I have been told...my greatest disappointment is that the organization and myself, [redacted], the Mayor, the public has been led to believe something that based on the information that has been provided just simply was not so and that, at the end of the day, is unacceptable."

What are the details behind those opaque words?

Wray maintains he told the truth.

They can't both be right.

More here.

Comments

[Bubba]

"What are the specifics that are said to have cost Wray the City's trust?"

Oh, please.....give that meme a rest, will you?

[Anthony]

Yes Ed, don't ask the city to provide specifics that back up its claims against Wray. It's ok if other people ask for more information from the city, but we know that when you ask you're just using reverse psychology to push your anti-Wray agenda.

[Bubba]

"Cost the City's trust" meme assumes the leaders of the city were worthy of trust in this case, and that Wray is STILL the one not to be trusted.

The current evidence indicates just the reverse, whether certain posters like it or not.

Using that meme is just a back door way of keeping the Wray as Bad guy thread going.

[Anthony]

Look at the sentence that you quoted though Bubba:

"What are the specifics that are said to have cost Wray the City's trust?"

The sentence is not agreeing with the truth of the city's claim, it's simply acknowledging that this is what the city is claiming. In the sentence quoted, Ed is asking them to back up their claim.

If the sentence read "What are the specifics that cost Wray the city's trust", then I might agree with what you're saying, as it would be repeating the city's claim as a fact. But that's just not the case here.

[Bubba]

You're wrong.

[tonywilkins]

"I'm much less interested in the lockout drama than I am in what led up to it."
You're right on the money with that comment Ed.
It's not that unusual for a suspended employee to be denied access to the workplace.
But what is unusual is how we can go from Ed Kitchen's quote of "Chief Wray believes passionately in the high standards for which the Greensboro Police Department is known, and he is working to make an excellent organization even better." to Mitchell Johnson's decision to suspend a very short time later.
I believe that may have resulted from a medical condition suffered by Johnson called "nospineatall". There is no cure for "nospineatall" but rest will relieve the symptoms. I hope that by the end of November we will be able to allow Mr. Johnson some much needed rest for this condition and that he be able to lead a normal life.

[meblogin]

Same question Ed,

Was Wray's boss trustworthy to hear the real story?

[Ed Cone]

Your question is confusing, Meb.

Are you saying that Wray was dishonest, but that might have been OK?

Are you saying the chief of police can mislead the city manager and council if he decides that's the thing to do?

[Wendell Sawyer]

Ed:

Good questions. It is nice to know that Mitch Johnson was polite when he forced David Wray to resign.

As for the contention that locking a police chief out of his office is simply, more or less, a routine procedure, William Hill, the attorney for the Greensboro Police Officers Association, was quoted by the N&R on 1/7/06 as saying, "As far as locks being changed? I've never heard of it before. And I've been practicing law in the area of law enforcement liability for over a decade."

Early on, the city council and the city manager seemed to be genuinely anguished about their inability to provide any details about the forced resignation of Wray. As I remember, the teaser was something like: "If the public only knew what we know about what David Wray was doing, they would understand our position but we can't comment now because of the ongoing investigations by the FBI and the SBI."

Well, the FBI completed its investigation into Wray's administration and, finally, the SBI has completed its investigation. Indictments against Wray? Zero.

Now that the "ongoing investigations" have been concluded, it would seem that the council members and the city manager would be eager to reveal the contents of that big bag of awful secrets they've been hiding that led to the downfall of David Wray. Instead, we are informed that Mitch Johnson was polite when he locked Wray out of his office and forced him to resign.

Where's the beef?

[Ed Cone]

The Council will hold a special meeting on Friday morning to discuss the release of additional information.

See Carmany's comment, linked above, for potential constraints on full and immediate disclosure.

I joked in a January '07 column that I might reprint my January '06 column calling for more information from the City. It's been a long time coming, and there is much we need to know.

The non-indictment of Wray seems to me a bit of a red herring. Obviously an indictment would have been big news, but there are many things a chief could do to get in trouble that might not result in an indictment. The two indictments handed down suggest that bad behavior was going on in at least one of the areas highlighted by the investigative reports, but they don't in and of themselves show us anything about Wray and his relationship with his employers.

All the more reason for the City to make its case, soon.

[meblogin]

...great question....

What do you do if you have a less than honest city manager and city lawyer?

I am not saying that they are...just speculating as to why Wray did not share everything.

back you you...though I believe you understood my comment earlier...does that make you less than honest?

me

[Ed Cone]

Maybe Wray was trying to expose the real killer in the OJ case, Meb.

If it's just speculation, it's a distraction. Wray hasn't said he was less than forthcoming for some reason, he says he told the whole truth.

[Bubba]

"Maybe Wray was trying to expose the real killer in the OJ case, Meb."

You don't handle being reduced to a huge, smoldering pile of ash very well, do you?

It shows.

[meblogin]

Hi Ed,

I see where you are coming from and stand corrected. Wray's position is that he was forthcoming and if Johnson had other information then the sources of the information told Wray something different than they told Johnson or the RMA investigators.

In my opinion Wray was far more professional than Johnson in the released recording.

You have reporting skills. Did the RMA report read like the work of experts or amatures trying to please their customer?

Is it Johnson who found a witch behind every tree?....and found them....and were the witches working an agenda of very dark magic?

...then again more speculation I guess... :)

[Roch101]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ed, but it sounds to me like you are willing to give some credence to the excuses offered by those who voted against Mike Barber's motion to release all information. If so, you may want to rethink.

The council's willingness to defer to the attorney general's request that release of information may harm their case is unconscionable. A criminal indictment is a zero sum game. There will be a winner and a loser. So when council decides not to release information because it could harm the state's case, they are also deciding not to release information because it could help the defendants. Is that a proper position for city government to take?

[Ed Cone]

Roch, I don't know what the proper position for the City is on the full and immediate release of information. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know what the unreleased info is, nor the scope of investigations it might influence. Barber disagreed with the AG, a majority of the Council did not.

I wrote in the N&R in January 2006: One of the statutes covering [the release of information] says city officials can release such information if they deem that doing so is "essential to maintaining public confidence" in city services.

We've crossed that threshold of essentialness, and we need to know more facts. Soon.

Soon has come and gone many times over, and public confidence is shaky. I'm as impatient as anyone to get answers to the questions posed in the post above. Put up or Shut up time is rapidly approaching for the City.

[Roch101]

Ed, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand that by siding with the AG, the city is siding against the defendants. It's not a matter of agreeing with the AG (maybe the release of information will harm their case, maybe it won't). The issue is whether the city should be acquiescing to the interests of one side or another, especially when such actions work against what should be priority one: open government and the restoration of public confidence.

[wayne stutts]

I am really glad that several Council members and the Mayor chose not to re-run. I have never been so disappointed with people I helped elect. People who I respected like Tom Phillips and Mayor Holliday. They look foolish and incompetent to me. With the exception of Mike Barber, the whole damn council should go. Especially Sandy Carmany, Our city manager Mitchell Johnson, and our city Attorney Linda Miles. They must think we are a bunch of fools.