In 1804, Thomas Jefferson stated that “freedom of the press” is the most effectual means to leave open “all the avenues of truth” to mankind.
“It is therefore the first shut up by those who fear the investigations of their actions,” he said.
Jefferson stated in 1823: “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”
Throughout the past several years in Mooresville, when the press has moved on something, the government has dug in its heels. Despite the fact that the government has been unable to refute any of the provided facts – despite the fact that the press has ultimately been proven right, time and time again – the issue has become more of a battle of wills … and less about the government getting off its duff and trying to see for itself whether the findings of the press are indeed valid or not.
That is, until the town’s most recent controversy.
While some commissioners have been content to drag their feet and wait for “the facts” (i.e. ignore the facts reported by the press) – and even one or two proposed the town should wait to act until a new town manager is in place – Commissioners Miles Atkins and Mac Herring decided from day one to roll up their sleeves and actually seek out the facts. Though most of their actions were outside of public view, the two men have worked tirelessly to fight for the truth in an effort to regain public trust. And in doing so, they facilitated in one month what has historically taken the town many months – and sometimes years – to accomplish.
On June 26, the Report was denied access to public records related to the Mooresville Police Department’s Cops for Kids program because the records were under lock-and-key in then-Police Chief John Crone’s office, and Crone was on vacation. The very next day, Atkins suggested that the town hire a locksmith to access the documents for the public. He also pointed to the need for a new town policy to prohibit public records being kept under lock-and-key in the future.
In the days that followed – before the Cops for Kids story broke in the Report and the Mooresville Tribune – Atkins e-mailed fellow commissioners and Town Attorney Steve Gambill, stating: “I wanted to express my concern about how this is playing out.” In regard to the Report’s planned visit to the police department to review the Cops for Kids files, Atkins suggested that the town attorney be on hand to supervise Crone’s pulling of the records and stated: “It has the potential to turn into a spectacle at the police dept. and create a public perception issue – no matter if the files are perfect.”
Atkins also e-mailed the town board and Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith the day before the July town board meeting, stating: “We will need to get to the bottom of this and make sure we get some answers and there is accountability.” Atkins also made clear his intent to pull the $20,000 that the town had previously approved for Cops for Kids “and not use taxpayer dollars” for the organization.
Commissioner Herring backed Atkins, expressing his concerns and confusion about Cops for Kids in an e-mail to fellow commissioners and town administrators on June 30: “Public accountability is an expectation and necessary to maintain public confidence. I think the public trust charges both (elected officials), such as ourselves, and the police department to being beyond reproach and of the highest ethical standards. Despite our own human shortcomings, we need to collectively live up to that standard.”
Herring continued to express his concerns that the town board’s refusal to be open with the public would be “a public relations nightmare” for the town. “I am afraid we are heading for a mud pit. Not good for public confidence …” Herring wrote.
Despite flippant responses from Smith and one or two other commissioners, Atkins and Herring remained resolute.
Responding to an e-mail from fellow commissioner Frank Rader sarcastically titled “Ready, Fire, Aim,” Atkins called Cops for Kids what members of the public were already coining it: “a personal slush fund for Chief Crone with virtually no (town) oversight…”
Days before the town would officially launch several investigations into the way Crone handled Cops for Kids, Atkins and Herring were questioning the police department’s reported handling of cash in the evidence room, and they were asking whether other funds were set up like Cops for Kids and whether all the Cops for Kids records had been moved to Town Hall.
The day of the July town board meeting, and apparently frustrated with the lack of communication and leadership from town administration, Atkins asked Smith: “What’s the plan?”
Mayor Bill Thunberg – who had spoken nary a word about Cops for Kids during the brewing controversy – responded: “We’ll add personnel to closed session.”
That night, after a lengthy closed session, the town placed Crone on paid leave and announced several investigations into the police chief’s Cops for Kids organization. The town directed all further questions about the matter to Gambill.
A few days later, Herring e-mailed a list of questions to Gambill. In that e-mail, Herring said he felt “betrayed” when reading the “conflicting statements” about Cops for Kids’ “organization and purpose.”
“I had read the website,” Herring said. “It had been posted for over a year. It was false and misleading, and perpetuated a public myth as to what CFK was really about.”
Herring called it “unacceptable” that Smith would support Crone’s statement that he had “no idea” about the content of the Cops for Kids website and how it was posted. “There must be accountability/oversight for such information,” Herring wrote. “Who do I, as a commissioner, hold accountable?”
Herring also expressed concern about Cops for Kids not being a 501(c)(3) charity. “People gave and submitted on their taxes,” Herring stated. “The misperception was widespread, but it persisted … no one knew the bulk of its funds were spent on travel expenses, as the press alleges. Again, who is accountable for allowing this public myth/misperception to be so pervasive in our community?”
Herring called “mysterious” the Secretary of State’s posting of Cops for Kids as a non-profit seven years after it was apparently formed as such. (See http://thegattonreport.blogspot.com/2008/07/seven-years-later-cops-for-kids-turns.html.) “I have never been much of a conspiracy theorist, but this has me wondering, almost as if someone locally has ties in Raleigh whose strings they were able to pull … Is there a local or state cover up of the facts on any level?
“Is there integrity in the custody of the records (all records, not just financial) from Mon. 6/30 when the press went through them until now?” Herring continued.
He also questioned if the law was broken when a deposit was made into the Cops for Kids bank account from the evidence room, and he asked specific questions about all the trips funded by Cops for Kids: “How were these trips justified?” he asked. “What was the benefit to our community? Was this a personal vacation fund?”
Referring to how the Cops for Kids mission statement was redefined to state that its purpose was not to help underprivileged children and families but “to foster better relationships between police and youth,” Herring said: “I am sure it did for those taking the trips!”
“Are Erskine Smith’s actions throughout all these concerns above reproach(?)” Herring asked. “Perception is his hands are tainted by this.”
The town board – thanks to the strong leadership of Atkins and Herring – acted swiftly to close the first chapter in the Cops for Kids saga. And had it not been for the lack of concern and leadership demonstrated by Smith, the chapter would have probably been closed even sooner.
The town board did what it needed to do. It moved when it needed to move and put town staff in charge of carrying out the investigations and audits. While some people are expressing frustration with how long it has taken for the investigations – including the audit and the inventory of the evidence room – to get underway, we must remember who is responsible for what.
Though Crone’s firing ended one chapter of the Cops for Kids story, several chapters are still being written. We will wait to see how the town board deals with them. But if past actions are any indication, we can rest assured that we have at least two commissioners steadily behind the wheel. They are responding to public outcry, they are asking the tough questions, and they are demanding accountability from the government on behalf of the people.
For exercising the ability to discern between fact and spin – for having the courage of their convictions – for standing in the light of truth rather than the shadow of doubtful colleagues – for being good, responsible stewards of the public’s trust – our hats are off to Commissioners Miles Atkins and Mac Herring.
We also commend Acting Police Chief Carl Robbins, who has served as a steady hand over the police department throughout the past month of uncertainty and unrest. As Mooresville Tribune Editor Dale Gowing wrote Friday in his online commentary: Robbins “is what we need right now to stabilize the police department.”
Over the past month, Robbins has proven himself worthy of being called “chief.” He has shown that he is responsive to the public. He has made clear his expectations of the Mooresville police officers, yet he has taken time to tell them how proud he is of them. He has almost single-handedly built up employee morale at a time when we would expect it to be at an all-time low; yet, he maintains that the police department staff deserves all the credit.
Robbins has led the police department with an unwavering steadfastness and fairness – all things that the public and officers expect, need and deserve from a police chief.
The Mooresville Police Department has withstood a month of utter turmoil, seemingly without flinching. During a time when the Town of Mooresville’s reputation is being battered and bruised because of the actions of its former chief, the police department, under Robbins’ leadership, has given us all something to be proud of.
Showing posts with label Thank or Spank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thank or Spank. Show all posts
Monday, August 11, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Report Spanks Frank Rader, At-Large Commissioner
Commissioner Frank Rader claims he’s the “numbers man.”
Wonder what he’d say the odds are that an elected official could effectively undermine the acting chief of police, interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation and violate the town charter and state law … all at the same time?
Perhaps Commissioner Rader can help us with this equation:
The Town of Mooresville has placed its police chief, John Crone, on paid suspension, pending the results of a criminal investigation by the State Bureau of Investigation into Crone’s handling of his Cops for Kids organization. The town has also launched an internal personnel investigation of Crone as well as external audits of the Cops for Kids fund. Separately, the N.C. Secretary of State is investigating Cops for Kids’ charitable solicitation license, and the jury’s still out on whether the Internal Revenue Service will be looking into why Crone apparently never paid taxes on Cops for Kids income.
Yet beginning the middle of last week, Rader took it upon himself – apparently without the knowledge or consent of fellow commissioners – to make presentations to police officers during staff meetings at the police department.
Despite the fact that the investigations – presumably aimed at explaining irregularities in Crone’s Cops for Kids records and determining whether any criminal activity has occurred – are ongoing, Rader told police personnel that he is inclined to believe Crone’s version of the story (which, as evidenced by Crone’s own interviews with television news stations, has changed as quickly as the wind). Rader also alluded to the officers that they could write letters of support for Crone, as long as the letters are written on personal time, using personal resources. (See “Free Speech or Speech Under Duress?”) He also read excerpts from an anonymous letter that was sent to Crone before the Cops for Kids story broke. Rader also saw fit to distribute a scanned copy of that anonymous letter to members of the media last week. He calls it outrageous. Here it is:
.jpg)
But while Rader felt compelled to distribute the “outrageous” letter to officers and the media, he apparently did not feel compelled to circulate this:
This is a deposit slip showing a $361 deposit made two months ago from the police department evidence room into Crone’s Cops for Kids bank account – a violation of state law and police procedures.
Nor did Rader circulate this:
The first document is Crone’s personal accounting of Cops for Kids finances. It shows that at the end of May, Crone had recorded a balance of $2,830 in a single bank account. The second document is the May 2008 Cops for Kids bank statement. It shows that as of May 22, 2008, while Crone had recorded a balance of $2,830 in the Cops for Kids’ single account, the bank showed that the organization had $20,151 combined in two separate accounts.
Nor is Rader circulating this:
.jpg)
These invoices show that in 2006 and 2007, approximately $1,900 in Cops for Kids money was spent to pay for the police department’s employee Christmas banquet, which is beyond the scope of the narrow Cops for Kids mission that Crone and Erskine Smith are now saying governed the organization.
Is the anonymous letter that was sent to Crone angry? Yes. Does it accuse Crone of illegal and unethical behavior? Absolutely. But you decide which is more outrageous: The letter itself, or the fact that Rader is circulating it while ignoring the evidence that is the basis of the ongoing investigations into Crone and Cops for Kids.
Does the “numbers man” approve of financial records that show different balances? Does the “numbers man” approve of transferring money from the evidence room into a personal slush fund? Does the “numbers man” approve of using many hundreds of dollars earmarked for children to pay for the police department's holiday banquets? Does the “numbers man” approve of cash withdrawals for thousands and thousands of dollars for no documented reason, as regularly occurred from the Cops for Kids accounts? Does the “numbers man” approve of keeping hundreds of dollars in cash in a plastic baggie in a public folder, as was discovered while members of the public reviewed the Cops for Kids records?
Where was the “numbers man” – the commissioner who claims to go through the town budget with a "fine-tooth comb" – when Crone and Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith slipped in a $20,000 transfer of taxpayer dollars to Cops for Kids for the current fiscal year? Even after it was discovered that Cops for Kids was an incorporated entity, Rader continued to champion behind the scenes for the “absorption” of Cops for Kids into the town’s general fund. The problem with that: Incorporated entities cannot be “absorbed” by the government.
Commissioner Chris Carney, responding to Report questions on Monday, said while the investigation is ongoing, the police department “is a place where an elected official does not belong.”
“I would not be doing that,” Carney said, referring to Rader’s presentations to police officers. “That’s why we encouraged investigators to come in. We are not serving as jury in this process. We shouldn’t be even rendering an opinion. We should be encouraging the facts to come out and let them prove guilt or innocence. We should only be making sure our town manager is doing everything to protect the integrity of the process and the confidence of our citizens.”
Carney and Commissioner Miles Atkins agreed that Rader was not acting on behalf of the town board. Atkins said Rader’s presentations at the police department “is all news to me.”
Commissioners Thurman Houston, Mac Herring and Mitch Abraham did not respond.
Mayor Bill Thunberg also did not respond to Report questions. However, he said in a television news broadcast that aired on News 14 Carolina on July 8: “We’ll go where the facts take us.” On behalf of the town board, he said, “In the final analysis, it’s the town manager’s responsibility with regards to personnel and handling those personnel kinds of decisions. It’s our responsibility to be sure the public trust is maintained.”
Rader responded to the Report’s questions on Tuesday morning, stating in an e-mail: “Not available. Response will be delayed until July 28. Vacation. This is form reply. Due to service area send/receive uncertain.”
Town Attorney Steve Gambill said the town charter and state statutes “explain why the Town Board does not get involved with personnel decisions” other than those that affect the town attorney and town manager.
Gambill said Section 5.5 of the town charter and N.C. General Statute 160A-148 define the powers and duties of the town manager and state that the town manager is responsible for the administration of all the town’s affairs.
Rader’s presentations to police officers last week were inappropriate not only because he acted outside of the town charter and state statutes, but because his actions could lead directly to destabilizing the police department by outright undermining what the acting chief of police had specifically instructed his officers to do – and not to do – while the investigations into the suspended police chief are ongoing.
In an e-mail to town administration on July 11, Interim Police Chief Carl Robbins said he had instructed all police personnel “not to comment on Crone’s disciplinary status or the investigations.”
Robbins told the officers “it was their choice if they wanted to contact (Crone).”
During the weekend that followed Robbins’ e-mail to town administration, six officers, all under the same captain, and a civilian staff member wrote letters of support for Crone to the town board. The very day after Robbins acknowledged that the letters were written in violation of the town’s personnel policy since they were written while on duty and using town resources, a defiant Rader – in his “Rader-At-Large” e-mail – reproduced all the letters of support. Yet he failed to acknowledge that they violated policy and the direct orders of the acting police chief.
Robbins had told officers “not to speculate or engage in discussions with the public about the allegations since we need the facts” and added: “We need to give the investigators time to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation.”
Thorough and impartial? Rader didn’t get the memo.
One is left wondering whether Rader would have reproduced letters that are critical of Crone. One must wonder if he suggested to the officers during his “presentations” that they could also write letters in support of the investigations launched by the town that Rader ostensibly represents ... or if the officers would even feel comfortable writing such letters. One must also wonder whose interest Rader is trying to protect: the town’s or the suspended police chief’s?
Perhaps those officers who didn’t write letters in support of Crone or the investigations are the ones who follow the orders of their chief. Perhaps they’re the ones who believe in the integrity of an impartial investigation, untainted by town personnel and officials.
It appears that impartiality and the integrity of the investigations may not be interests shared by Rader, who’s already on the record, casting his lot with a suspended town employee who appears to be guilty of at least poor record-keeping, violating town financial policies, and misleading the public and, at worst, criminal behavior.
Rader calls himself the “numbers man,” but something isn’t adding up.
Wonder what he’d say the odds are that an elected official could effectively undermine the acting chief of police, interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation and violate the town charter and state law … all at the same time?
Perhaps Commissioner Rader can help us with this equation:
The Town of Mooresville has placed its police chief, John Crone, on paid suspension, pending the results of a criminal investigation by the State Bureau of Investigation into Crone’s handling of his Cops for Kids organization. The town has also launched an internal personnel investigation of Crone as well as external audits of the Cops for Kids fund. Separately, the N.C. Secretary of State is investigating Cops for Kids’ charitable solicitation license, and the jury’s still out on whether the Internal Revenue Service will be looking into why Crone apparently never paid taxes on Cops for Kids income.
Yet beginning the middle of last week, Rader took it upon himself – apparently without the knowledge or consent of fellow commissioners – to make presentations to police officers during staff meetings at the police department.
Despite the fact that the investigations – presumably aimed at explaining irregularities in Crone’s Cops for Kids records and determining whether any criminal activity has occurred – are ongoing, Rader told police personnel that he is inclined to believe Crone’s version of the story (which, as evidenced by Crone’s own interviews with television news stations, has changed as quickly as the wind). Rader also alluded to the officers that they could write letters of support for Crone, as long as the letters are written on personal time, using personal resources. (See “Free Speech or Speech Under Duress?”) He also read excerpts from an anonymous letter that was sent to Crone before the Cops for Kids story broke. Rader also saw fit to distribute a scanned copy of that anonymous letter to members of the media last week. He calls it outrageous. Here it is:
.jpg)
But while Rader felt compelled to distribute the “outrageous” letter to officers and the media, he apparently did not feel compelled to circulate this:
This is a deposit slip showing a $361 deposit made two months ago from the police department evidence room into Crone’s Cops for Kids bank account – a violation of state law and police procedures.
Nor did Rader circulate this:
The first document is Crone’s personal accounting of Cops for Kids finances. It shows that at the end of May, Crone had recorded a balance of $2,830 in a single bank account. The second document is the May 2008 Cops for Kids bank statement. It shows that as of May 22, 2008, while Crone had recorded a balance of $2,830 in the Cops for Kids’ single account, the bank showed that the organization had $20,151 combined in two separate accounts.
Nor is Rader circulating this:
.jpg)
These invoices show that in 2006 and 2007, approximately $1,900 in Cops for Kids money was spent to pay for the police department’s employee Christmas banquet, which is beyond the scope of the narrow Cops for Kids mission that Crone and Erskine Smith are now saying governed the organization.
Is the anonymous letter that was sent to Crone angry? Yes. Does it accuse Crone of illegal and unethical behavior? Absolutely. But you decide which is more outrageous: The letter itself, or the fact that Rader is circulating it while ignoring the evidence that is the basis of the ongoing investigations into Crone and Cops for Kids.
Does the “numbers man” approve of financial records that show different balances? Does the “numbers man” approve of transferring money from the evidence room into a personal slush fund? Does the “numbers man” approve of using many hundreds of dollars earmarked for children to pay for the police department's holiday banquets? Does the “numbers man” approve of cash withdrawals for thousands and thousands of dollars for no documented reason, as regularly occurred from the Cops for Kids accounts? Does the “numbers man” approve of keeping hundreds of dollars in cash in a plastic baggie in a public folder, as was discovered while members of the public reviewed the Cops for Kids records?
Where was the “numbers man” – the commissioner who claims to go through the town budget with a "fine-tooth comb" – when Crone and Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith slipped in a $20,000 transfer of taxpayer dollars to Cops for Kids for the current fiscal year? Even after it was discovered that Cops for Kids was an incorporated entity, Rader continued to champion behind the scenes for the “absorption” of Cops for Kids into the town’s general fund. The problem with that: Incorporated entities cannot be “absorbed” by the government.
Commissioner Chris Carney, responding to Report questions on Monday, said while the investigation is ongoing, the police department “is a place where an elected official does not belong.”
“I would not be doing that,” Carney said, referring to Rader’s presentations to police officers. “That’s why we encouraged investigators to come in. We are not serving as jury in this process. We shouldn’t be even rendering an opinion. We should be encouraging the facts to come out and let them prove guilt or innocence. We should only be making sure our town manager is doing everything to protect the integrity of the process and the confidence of our citizens.”
Carney and Commissioner Miles Atkins agreed that Rader was not acting on behalf of the town board. Atkins said Rader’s presentations at the police department “is all news to me.”
Commissioners Thurman Houston, Mac Herring and Mitch Abraham did not respond.
Mayor Bill Thunberg also did not respond to Report questions. However, he said in a television news broadcast that aired on News 14 Carolina on July 8: “We’ll go where the facts take us.” On behalf of the town board, he said, “In the final analysis, it’s the town manager’s responsibility with regards to personnel and handling those personnel kinds of decisions. It’s our responsibility to be sure the public trust is maintained.”
Rader responded to the Report’s questions on Tuesday morning, stating in an e-mail: “Not available. Response will be delayed until July 28. Vacation. This is form reply. Due to service area send/receive uncertain.”
Town Attorney Steve Gambill said the town charter and state statutes “explain why the Town Board does not get involved with personnel decisions” other than those that affect the town attorney and town manager.
Gambill said Section 5.5 of the town charter and N.C. General Statute 160A-148 define the powers and duties of the town manager and state that the town manager is responsible for the administration of all the town’s affairs.
Rader’s presentations to police officers last week were inappropriate not only because he acted outside of the town charter and state statutes, but because his actions could lead directly to destabilizing the police department by outright undermining what the acting chief of police had specifically instructed his officers to do – and not to do – while the investigations into the suspended police chief are ongoing.
In an e-mail to town administration on July 11, Interim Police Chief Carl Robbins said he had instructed all police personnel “not to comment on Crone’s disciplinary status or the investigations.”
Robbins told the officers “it was their choice if they wanted to contact (Crone).”
During the weekend that followed Robbins’ e-mail to town administration, six officers, all under the same captain, and a civilian staff member wrote letters of support for Crone to the town board. The very day after Robbins acknowledged that the letters were written in violation of the town’s personnel policy since they were written while on duty and using town resources, a defiant Rader – in his “Rader-At-Large” e-mail – reproduced all the letters of support. Yet he failed to acknowledge that they violated policy and the direct orders of the acting police chief.
Robbins had told officers “not to speculate or engage in discussions with the public about the allegations since we need the facts” and added: “We need to give the investigators time to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation.”
Thorough and impartial? Rader didn’t get the memo.
One is left wondering whether Rader would have reproduced letters that are critical of Crone. One must wonder if he suggested to the officers during his “presentations” that they could also write letters in support of the investigations launched by the town that Rader ostensibly represents ... or if the officers would even feel comfortable writing such letters. One must also wonder whose interest Rader is trying to protect: the town’s or the suspended police chief’s?
Perhaps those officers who didn’t write letters in support of Crone or the investigations are the ones who follow the orders of their chief. Perhaps they’re the ones who believe in the integrity of an impartial investigation, untainted by town personnel and officials.
It appears that impartiality and the integrity of the investigations may not be interests shared by Rader, who’s already on the record, casting his lot with a suspended town employee who appears to be guilty of at least poor record-keeping, violating town financial policies, and misleading the public and, at worst, criminal behavior.
Rader calls himself the “numbers man,” but something isn’t adding up.
Friday, May 2, 2008
The Report spanks Alan Martin, candidate for DA
I’ve never seen Alan Martin in action in court. But I’ve heard that he often uses the courtroom to hone many of the “skills” that he has learned as an actor in the local theatre community.
Just imagine it: Alan Martin, assistant DA, parading around a courtroom, expressively presenting the state’s case to the men and women on the jury … when all of a sudden he immediately stops in the midst of his argument to ask a tough, pointed question of a suspect on the stand.
I bet Alan Martin can really dish it out. But, unfortunately, it appears he can’t take it. Of the three Republican candidates vying for the DA position for Iredell and Alexander counties, Martin was the only one who did not respond to a single question that the Report recently submitted to the candidates.
It is unfortunate for all of us when a public official chooses to hide from the people. But the person who pays the highest political price – regardless of the election’s outcome – is actually the person who chooses to hide.
Why? Because that person’s non-responsiveness does not make the question go away. And when a question exists to which I want an answer, I don’t typically stop when someone simply ignores me. Instead, I go out and search for the answers myself.
Did I find the actual answers to the questions we asked of Martin? No. But I did accidentally stumble upon some other interesting information.
For instance, Alan Martin has apparently changed his party affiliation eight times in 10 years. According to information provided to the Report, Martin was a Democrat in November 1996. But in November 1998, he was a Republican. In September 2002, he was a Democrat again. But two months later, he was “unaffiliated.” In July 2004, Martin was a Republican again. Four months later – in November 2004 – he was once again “unaffiliated,” which he remained until May 2006, when he turned Republican again. But six months later, he was “unaffiliated” again. In November 2007 – just six months ago – he turned Republican again. He was still a Republican when he registered with the Iredell County Elections Office, from Mecklenburg County, in January 2008.
Martin’s voter registration in Iredell and Mecklenburg counties raises another question: why does the DA-hopeful’s website, www.alanmartinforda.org, claim that “Alan moved to Mooresville, NC in 1996”? If he has lived in Mooresville since 1996, why was he registered to vote in Mecklenburg County from 2002 through 2007? And why, if he has lived in Mooresville since 1996, did he register to vote in Iredell County just four months ago?
The answer is simple: contrary to the information provided on his website, Martin has not lived in Mooresville since 1996. He lived in Davidson. In fact, according to the Register of Deeds, he just bought a home in Mooresville five months ago.
Why is that important? Because his “residency” in Mooresville resonates with Mooresville citizens – many people who “vote their zip code” might be inclined to vote for Martin simply because he’s supposedly “one of us.”
Republicans should also know that on April 12, 2005, an “unaffiliated” Martin authored a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer in which he revealed: “I once had a professor, a former N.C. Supreme Court justice, who jokingly said he ‘strongly believed in the two-party system – a great big Democrat Party and an itty-bitty Republican Party.’ Sadly, there is no humor in House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s support for a free and independent judiciary – as long as all federal judges agree with his radical agenda.”
And interestingly, back to the issue of residency, note that Martin listed Davidson as his town of residence in that 2005 letter to the editor.
But even more telling is this recent mailer that Martin and his camp have mailed to Republican voters:
.jpg)
.jpg)
Negative campaign ads are just a part of the game, and they typically don’t affect me one way or the other. But Martin’s did. Why? Because Sarah Kirkman is Martin’s colleague, his partner. Their job, together, is to protect and defend the people of our community and beyond.
Typically, two candidates are going toe-to-toe when they employ a negative direct-mail campaign. And that means that only one of those two people is eventually elected. But in the DA race, that’s not the case. If Alan Martin is elected our district attorney, Sarah Kirkman would still be an assistant DA in the Iredell County district attorney’s office, but she would be reporting to Martin. Surely Martin, when he approved that sleazy mailer, considered that it could also swing the other way…
Perhaps in no other political race should opponents reject the muck of dirty politics, and instead choose the high road, as much as in the race for district attorney. After all, these are our public defenders. They call investigations. They prosecute criminals. Their integrity, principles and character must be impeccable and must remain securely intact even through political campaigning. The greater good should always trump any egotistical need for “a win.”
Regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s primary election – which, since a Democrat is not running in the DA race, will decide our next district attorney – Martin and Kirkman will still have to work together in the Iredell County district attorney’s office. And one must wonder to what degree Martin’s mailer will affect that working relationship post-election – and at what cost to the community.
Further, Martin’s approval of the smear campaign against his colleague begs the question: if he stoops to that level in an effort to win an election, to what level will he stoop to win a case as DA?
Just as telling as the mailer – if not more so – is the fact that Martin did not respond to recent and pointed Report questions sent to his campaign e-mail address (See DA hopefuls respond to Report questions, April 30), including some about his past decisions and actions – and inactions – in Mooresville.
We asked Martin why the DAs office did not denounce our police department’s role in nearly botching the notorious Witherspoon murder case and why the DAs office, behind closed doors, offered Misty Witherspoon (who shot and killed her police-officer husband in 2005) a 7-year plea deal. Martin did not respond. (Interestingly, Martin's very own campaign website has a link to the newspaper article I wrote in July 2007, pointing out some of the police department's mistakes. Here's the link: http://www.alanmartinforda.org/news/mooresville/despite_conviction.html .)
We asked Martin why he exonerated our current Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith during the library scandal in 2002, when many people in the community believed that Smith committed obstruction of justice. But at the time, Martin absolved Smith and attempted to justify his actions by telling a local newspaper source that he was in “Lunch Rotary” with Smith, basically suggesting that his relationship with Smith trumped his duties as a public prosecutor. We asked Martin if he believed that he had treated Smith preferentially, and we gave him a platform to calm local citizens’ fear that he would not investigate and fully prosecute white-collar crime. Martin did not respond.
Ironically, current 22nd Prosecutorial District Attorney Garry Frank (Martin’s boss) wrote in a recent endorsement letter for Martin: “The public is not well served if a district attorney yields his or her judgment to political correctness or the influence of powerful individuals.”
I wholeheartedly agree. And that is precisely why, in clear conscience, at least I will not be voting on Tuesday for Alan Martin for DA – and come what may.
Just imagine it: Alan Martin, assistant DA, parading around a courtroom, expressively presenting the state’s case to the men and women on the jury … when all of a sudden he immediately stops in the midst of his argument to ask a tough, pointed question of a suspect on the stand.
I bet Alan Martin can really dish it out. But, unfortunately, it appears he can’t take it. Of the three Republican candidates vying for the DA position for Iredell and Alexander counties, Martin was the only one who did not respond to a single question that the Report recently submitted to the candidates.
It is unfortunate for all of us when a public official chooses to hide from the people. But the person who pays the highest political price – regardless of the election’s outcome – is actually the person who chooses to hide.
Why? Because that person’s non-responsiveness does not make the question go away. And when a question exists to which I want an answer, I don’t typically stop when someone simply ignores me. Instead, I go out and search for the answers myself.
Did I find the actual answers to the questions we asked of Martin? No. But I did accidentally stumble upon some other interesting information.
For instance, Alan Martin has apparently changed his party affiliation eight times in 10 years. According to information provided to the Report, Martin was a Democrat in November 1996. But in November 1998, he was a Republican. In September 2002, he was a Democrat again. But two months later, he was “unaffiliated.” In July 2004, Martin was a Republican again. Four months later – in November 2004 – he was once again “unaffiliated,” which he remained until May 2006, when he turned Republican again. But six months later, he was “unaffiliated” again. In November 2007 – just six months ago – he turned Republican again. He was still a Republican when he registered with the Iredell County Elections Office, from Mecklenburg County, in January 2008.
Martin’s voter registration in Iredell and Mecklenburg counties raises another question: why does the DA-hopeful’s website, www.alanmartinforda.org, claim that “Alan moved to Mooresville, NC in 1996”? If he has lived in Mooresville since 1996, why was he registered to vote in Mecklenburg County from 2002 through 2007? And why, if he has lived in Mooresville since 1996, did he register to vote in Iredell County just four months ago?
The answer is simple: contrary to the information provided on his website, Martin has not lived in Mooresville since 1996. He lived in Davidson. In fact, according to the Register of Deeds, he just bought a home in Mooresville five months ago.
Why is that important? Because his “residency” in Mooresville resonates with Mooresville citizens – many people who “vote their zip code” might be inclined to vote for Martin simply because he’s supposedly “one of us.”
Republicans should also know that on April 12, 2005, an “unaffiliated” Martin authored a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer in which he revealed: “I once had a professor, a former N.C. Supreme Court justice, who jokingly said he ‘strongly believed in the two-party system – a great big Democrat Party and an itty-bitty Republican Party.’ Sadly, there is no humor in House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s support for a free and independent judiciary – as long as all federal judges agree with his radical agenda.”
And interestingly, back to the issue of residency, note that Martin listed Davidson as his town of residence in that 2005 letter to the editor.
But even more telling is this recent mailer that Martin and his camp have mailed to Republican voters:
.jpg)
.jpg)
Negative campaign ads are just a part of the game, and they typically don’t affect me one way or the other. But Martin’s did. Why? Because Sarah Kirkman is Martin’s colleague, his partner. Their job, together, is to protect and defend the people of our community and beyond.
Typically, two candidates are going toe-to-toe when they employ a negative direct-mail campaign. And that means that only one of those two people is eventually elected. But in the DA race, that’s not the case. If Alan Martin is elected our district attorney, Sarah Kirkman would still be an assistant DA in the Iredell County district attorney’s office, but she would be reporting to Martin. Surely Martin, when he approved that sleazy mailer, considered that it could also swing the other way…
Perhaps in no other political race should opponents reject the muck of dirty politics, and instead choose the high road, as much as in the race for district attorney. After all, these are our public defenders. They call investigations. They prosecute criminals. Their integrity, principles and character must be impeccable and must remain securely intact even through political campaigning. The greater good should always trump any egotistical need for “a win.”
Regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s primary election – which, since a Democrat is not running in the DA race, will decide our next district attorney – Martin and Kirkman will still have to work together in the Iredell County district attorney’s office. And one must wonder to what degree Martin’s mailer will affect that working relationship post-election – and at what cost to the community.
Further, Martin’s approval of the smear campaign against his colleague begs the question: if he stoops to that level in an effort to win an election, to what level will he stoop to win a case as DA?
Just as telling as the mailer – if not more so – is the fact that Martin did not respond to recent and pointed Report questions sent to his campaign e-mail address (See DA hopefuls respond to Report questions, April 30), including some about his past decisions and actions – and inactions – in Mooresville.
We asked Martin why the DAs office did not denounce our police department’s role in nearly botching the notorious Witherspoon murder case and why the DAs office, behind closed doors, offered Misty Witherspoon (who shot and killed her police-officer husband in 2005) a 7-year plea deal. Martin did not respond. (Interestingly, Martin's very own campaign website has a link to the newspaper article I wrote in July 2007, pointing out some of the police department's mistakes. Here's the link: http://www.alanmartinforda.org/news/mooresville/despite_conviction.html .)
We asked Martin why he exonerated our current Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith during the library scandal in 2002, when many people in the community believed that Smith committed obstruction of justice. But at the time, Martin absolved Smith and attempted to justify his actions by telling a local newspaper source that he was in “Lunch Rotary” with Smith, basically suggesting that his relationship with Smith trumped his duties as a public prosecutor. We asked Martin if he believed that he had treated Smith preferentially, and we gave him a platform to calm local citizens’ fear that he would not investigate and fully prosecute white-collar crime. Martin did not respond.
Ironically, current 22nd Prosecutorial District Attorney Garry Frank (Martin’s boss) wrote in a recent endorsement letter for Martin: “The public is not well served if a district attorney yields his or her judgment to political correctness or the influence of powerful individuals.”
I wholeheartedly agree. And that is precisely why, in clear conscience, at least I will not be voting on Tuesday for Alan Martin for DA – and come what may.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
"Thank or Spank": SICDC
During my 10 years as a newspaper reporter (the last four years of which were spent doing investigative work), I have covered many controversial issues in the Town of Mooresville. And as you can imagine, I have encountered more than my fair share of cold resistance from people when I’ve asked them for information or answers.
I have been pleasantly surprised, however, by the change in the wind that I’ve noticed in this community during the last two weeks as we've talked about the South Iredell Community Development Corporation’s (SICDC) debt to the town. For the most part, the people I have corresponded with were accommodating, honest, polite and helpful.
And sometimes, such “intangibles” are just as telling – if not more telling – than the “tangibles.”
An anonymous poster in the comments section of the entry earlier today (“SICDC satisfies debt to town”) stated this: “…the SICDC is to be commended for being responsive to the public outcry demanding repayment of this debt and for acting quickly to remedy this embarrassing situation.”
I wholeheartedly agree.
Specifically, a big thanks to Town Finance Director Maia Setzer; former state legislator Robert Brawley; Ben Thomas of Thomas & Godley, P.L.L.C. and SICDC President Woody Washam.
Setzer, as I’ve come to expect from her, quickly and respectfully responded to any and all of my questions and information requests – even when that meant digging through files two or three times during a busy day. When Setzer was out of the office, she still responded to my e-mails, letting me know that she had received the questions and would find the answers as soon as she was back at work.
I also thank former state legislator Robert Brawley for openly and candidly answering Report questions about the history of the SICDC and his opinion of the organization’s current state. Brawley showed that his courage was greater than any fear he may have had over the perceived disapproval of a few. I thank him for having the courage of his convictions, and from what I’m hearing, I’m not the only one thanking him for that ...
I must be honest: I didn’t expect for SICDC Attorney Ben Thomas to be very receptive to my recent e-mail asking for SICDC documents. But I was wrong. While Thomas could have easily made me jump through hoops (which, by the way, I would have) to obtain the information, he instead was courteous, open and prompt in providing me with what I requested.
As for Woody Washam, well, one of my readers put it best: his comments in yesterday’s e-mail to the Report “showed me that he harbors no ill will toward the exposure of this matter and that is certainly to his credit.” Washam is to be commended for that.
The only good government is an open government. I cannot stress enough how refreshing it has been the past two weeks to talk to people without feeling “the chill.” The responsiveness of Setzer, Brawley, Thomas and Washam during the Report’s coverage of the SICDC situation is very much appreciated and indicates a shift toward more open, cooperative government in our community. I also take it as a positive sign that the SICDC's new leadership is moving the organization toward being more open and transparent.
The “Thank or Spank” column is the brainchild of one of my readers and will be an ongoing feature in the Gatton Report. If you have information about a town official or employee that you think may belong in "Thank or Spank" – maybe to “thank” a friendly voice answering the phone at Town Hall or a sanitation worker who went back to pick up your trash though you didn’t have it on the curb on time … or to “spank” a public official for not responding to your e-mails or a police officer who drove past your stranded vehicle without stopping to help – please pass it along by posting a comment after any "Thank or Spank" entry or send it to me at jgatton@windstream.net
I have been pleasantly surprised, however, by the change in the wind that I’ve noticed in this community during the last two weeks as we've talked about the South Iredell Community Development Corporation’s (SICDC) debt to the town. For the most part, the people I have corresponded with were accommodating, honest, polite and helpful.
And sometimes, such “intangibles” are just as telling – if not more telling – than the “tangibles.”
An anonymous poster in the comments section of the entry earlier today (“SICDC satisfies debt to town”) stated this: “…the SICDC is to be commended for being responsive to the public outcry demanding repayment of this debt and for acting quickly to remedy this embarrassing situation.”
I wholeheartedly agree.
Specifically, a big thanks to Town Finance Director Maia Setzer; former state legislator Robert Brawley; Ben Thomas of Thomas & Godley, P.L.L.C. and SICDC President Woody Washam.
Setzer, as I’ve come to expect from her, quickly and respectfully responded to any and all of my questions and information requests – even when that meant digging through files two or three times during a busy day. When Setzer was out of the office, she still responded to my e-mails, letting me know that she had received the questions and would find the answers as soon as she was back at work.
I also thank former state legislator Robert Brawley for openly and candidly answering Report questions about the history of the SICDC and his opinion of the organization’s current state. Brawley showed that his courage was greater than any fear he may have had over the perceived disapproval of a few. I thank him for having the courage of his convictions, and from what I’m hearing, I’m not the only one thanking him for that ...
I must be honest: I didn’t expect for SICDC Attorney Ben Thomas to be very receptive to my recent e-mail asking for SICDC documents. But I was wrong. While Thomas could have easily made me jump through hoops (which, by the way, I would have) to obtain the information, he instead was courteous, open and prompt in providing me with what I requested.
As for Woody Washam, well, one of my readers put it best: his comments in yesterday’s e-mail to the Report “showed me that he harbors no ill will toward the exposure of this matter and that is certainly to his credit.” Washam is to be commended for that.
The only good government is an open government. I cannot stress enough how refreshing it has been the past two weeks to talk to people without feeling “the chill.” The responsiveness of Setzer, Brawley, Thomas and Washam during the Report’s coverage of the SICDC situation is very much appreciated and indicates a shift toward more open, cooperative government in our community. I also take it as a positive sign that the SICDC's new leadership is moving the organization toward being more open and transparent.
The “Thank or Spank” column is the brainchild of one of my readers and will be an ongoing feature in the Gatton Report. If you have information about a town official or employee that you think may belong in "Thank or Spank" – maybe to “thank” a friendly voice answering the phone at Town Hall or a sanitation worker who went back to pick up your trash though you didn’t have it on the curb on time … or to “spank” a public official for not responding to your e-mails or a police officer who drove past your stranded vehicle without stopping to help – please pass it along by posting a comment after any "Thank or Spank" entry or send it to me at jgatton@windstream.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
