news-record.com

GREENSBORO — The status of three Greensboro police officers accused of sexual assault by a female officer is being withheld from the public because of a new practice the city has adopted narrowing what it will release about employees.

Sgt. A.S. Wallace and Officers J.O. LeGrand and C.S. Stevens had been on paid leave while police and prosecutors investigated the complaint filed in Decem-
ber.

Guilford District Attorney Doug Henderson decided in May not to prosecute the three, citing a lack of evidence.

Police Chief Tim Bellamy would not say whether the officers remain under investigation. He said he will report the outcome to City Manager Mitchell Johnson.

If the officers are now on paid leave pending internal discipline, the city will no longer tell the public.

City officials say they are complying with a November ruling by a Durham judge. In a case between Durham and Capitol Broadcasting Co., parent company of WRAL-TV, the judge ruled that paid administrative leave is not a “change in position classification,” which is public under state law.

Greensboro spokeswoman Pat Boswell said a city attorney found the Durham case in April. Boswell said the change is not a narrowing but a clarification of what information is public.
“We didn’t want this in any way to inappropriately restrict public access,” Boswell said.

But several City Council members, including Mayor Yvonne Johnson, bristle at the change, especially as it relates to a highly public situation.
“Of course I believe in adhering to the law, but I want to know what’s what,” Johnson said.

District 3 council member Zack Matheny said he was frustrated that the city is now withholding information he believed he voted to release.

Ten days after police announced the investigation, and after a News & Record lawsuit, the council voted to release information about the incident.

“We voted on it,” Matheny said. “We should have been notified that our vote didn’t matter.”

Council member Sandra Anderson-Groat said the change undermines the progress the council has tried to make in restoring the public’s trust.

“I strongly believe that we have an issue with public trust and the only way we’re going to gain trust is by being open with the public,” she said. “I campaigned on transparency and I can’t make it happen on my own.”

Council member Mary Rakestraw said the city is doing too much to protect employees and not enough to serve residents.

“Who are we protecting?” she said. “We’re supposed to be protecting the citizens of this city.”

Council member Robbie Perkins said the council isn’t hiding anything, and when a decision is made about the officers, it will be announced.

Under the city’s new practice, if an employee is suspended without pay, that can be released.

“You’ve got to respect the city attorney’s decision to protect its client,” Perkins said. “I’m not interested in spending the taxpayers’ money by revealing something that’s not legal to do.”

State law limits what a government can release about an employee. Allowable information includes:

* basic information such as name, age, hiring date and current title;

* current job and salary;

* date and amount of the most recent pay adjustment;

* most recent change in position, such as a promotion, transfer or suspension.

“We didn’t just decide on our own to make a change in this,” Boswell said. “The way we had been handling it had been specifically ruled illegal by a neighboring court.”

But opinion is not unanimous that the Durham judge’s decision is correct.

“It’s a Superior Court case, so it doesn’t really bind anyone but the parties involved,” said David Lawrence, a professor with the UNC School of Government and expert on municipal government and public records.

But Lawrence said the decision could be used to persuade other cities: “It’s an opinion that a responsible city attorney would take into account.”

Amanda Martin, an attorney for the N.C. Press Association, disagrees with the decision.

“I believe that placing a public employee on administrative leave is a 'change in classification’ under the statute because it is a change in something about his or her status with respect to his or her employer,” Martin wrote in an e-mail.

If the officers are disciplined, Boswell said Greensboro residents will know.

“When someone is the recipient of disciplinary action, that information is public,” Boswell said. “But administrative leave isn’t.”

Contact Sonja Elmquist at 373-7090 or sonja.elmquist@news-record.com