Gov't

Records Request Completed- “No Wrongdoing and I Didn’t Expect Any”

By  | 

By Dave Freneaux

With this statement Mike Mannino served up welcomed news to the Central community when asked whether he had thus far found anything that would indicate wrongdoing.  On Tuesday Mr. Mannino modified his original requests for documents and has now had made available to him all of the documents due him under his original and modified requests.  He is still reviewing documents and has made additional requests this week for more specific documents.  When Mr. Mannino began his quest for documents he stated that he had no credible evidence of any wrongdoing.  The City of Central has produced approximately 7,000 printed documents in order to satisfy the unprecedented public records request.
 
The pending completion of this records search with an apparent "clean bill of health" for the City of Central, its Mayor, employees and contractors is a positive step forward for everyone who calls Central "Home".  There has been much controversy over the request itself and over the manner in which it has been fulfilled.  While it is possible to spark even more debate over who is responsible for the time, effort and legal fees expended in this matter, the fact remains that it was a legal request, properly made, and the City has complied.  As this process now winds to a close, it would be hard to accept that any Central resident would relish anything more than a confirmation of "No wrongdoing."

22 Comments

  1. Lee Rome

    September 9, 2010 at 8:22 am

    Can we now say “AMEN” to this and go forward with making The City of Central everything we all hope for? At least, Mr. Mannino has cleared the air.

  2. Kyle

    September 9, 2010 at 9:01 am

    This is the best news I’ve heard in a while. AMEN is correct. Thanks to the city officials for their honesty and integrity that others were trying to question.

  3. mike mannino

    September 9, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Dave,
    Just to be clear, what I have done is related to a meeting with Ms Morris where we agreed to streamline the process. I canceled all previous requests except for unredacted billing records and submitted more focused requests. This was to avoid unneccessary work on the part of Ms Morris. I have not completed the requests at this time but any future requests will clearly defined and less onerous on the administration.

    Also, I do have outstanding requests as all have not been filled as of today.

    • dave

      September 9, 2010 at 2:17 pm

      Mike,

      Thanks for the clarification. I agree. In paragraph one of the article I stated that Mike “has made additional requests this week”.

      Dave

  4. Bebe

    September 9, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    (Moderator comment added by Dave: Please see my response below which will address each of these questions.)

    Dave,

    are you now making up facts or are you taking the facts of out context to suit your own opinion??? Where did you get this information Dave?

    And why didn’t you go to the source or call Mike and ask him directly so he could verify the accuracy before you published your proclaimations, assessments and assumptions?? I thought that was the basis of your reporting?? Or is that coutesy resevered for a selected few?

    Is this not yellow journalism here?

    yellow journalism

    — n
    the type of journalism that relies on sensationalism and lurid exaggeration to attract readers

    • dave

      September 9, 2010 at 2:02 pm

      Bebe,

      Wow! To answer your questions:

      “Where did you get this information?” – Mike’s quote comes from this site in his comment under the article “Just The Facts – Public Records” on September 3, 2010 at 7:52 am. – The data contained in the Public Records Requests comes from the copies of those requests which I obtained and paid 25 cents a page for. The data as to which records had been made available came from a first-hand trip over to City Hall where I asked how the City was coming on complying with the records requests. Is there any information I used for which I have not provided a verifiable source?

      “Are you taking the facts out of context?” – No. I even restated the question Mike was asked which prompted his quoted response.

      “And why didn’t you go to the source or call Mike and ask him directly” – I did, two days ago on Tuesday at 2:09 PM, at which time I asked “Has your position changed – no credible evidence of wrongdoing going in, no wrongdoing found so far, don’t believe you will find anything illegal….Still accurate?” To which Mike responded “Yes. So far.”

      Kind of begs the question of why you did not ask Mike whether I had spoken to him before you challenged the basis of my reporting.

      “Or is this a courtesy reserved for a selected few?” – As I have demonstrated, it is a courtesy I extend to everyone whenever possible. That is responsible journalism and common courtesy to the citizens of the community WHERE I LIVE. Regardless of my level of agreement with anyone in Central, they are my neighbors, my friends, my family, and I go to church with them, go to dinner with them, watch ball games with them, and will have to, 24 hours a day 7 days a week, stand by and live with whatever I print each week in the paper.

      “Is this not yellow journalism?” – In fact, no, and I did read your definition. I have not exagerated or sensationalized, and I have shown you reasonable and responsible foundation for everything I printed. I actually find it rather ironic that I would be accused of yellow journalism, but that is a whole different topic.

      Bebe, stay interested. Stay informed. Keep weighing in on the things that you are passionate about. I appreciate your willingness to participate in the discussion.

      Dave

  5. Mike Stephens

    September 9, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    BEBE,
    Mike answered many of these questions himself in a post dated Sept 3 @ 7:52 AM

  6. Kyle

    September 9, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Wow, Dave. Great response to Bebe. I like your factual information in your response. Bebe should be asking those questions to Central City News about all their articles. I bet she wouldn’t get a detailed response like the one you gave!

  7. Tim Lazaroe

    September 9, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Great job Dave!

  8. mike mannino

    September 9, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    Dave,
    In fairness, your headline states that records requests are complete. Then in the article, it states that I have put in additional requests. Both cant be correct. I have no problem being quoted but I never have stated that the requests are complete.

    • dave

      September 9, 2010 at 4:22 pm

      Mike,

      Thought I stated it pretty clearly. 7,000 plus pages came as a result of the initial rounds of records requests. It took a long time, for a number of reasons, to get everything you asked for. I stated that you modified your original requests. With that modification, slightly less documents were required, but you do now have all that you asked for. I think that it is great news because this original request needed to be completed to everyone could get back to business. That you have made additional requests is also stated, and I am optimistic you will receive all of these much more quickly.

      I think you and I can agree that your initial requests, taken together with the request to modify them, has been completed. Please tell me if that is incorrect. You know that I am always open to costructive criticism.

      Dave

  9. Mike Mannino

    September 9, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    That is factually correct. But I’m not saying the process is complete so I dont want people getting on me based on that quote as additional request are turned in. I do stand by the comment that I didnt suspect anything, havent found anything to date of any substance related to wrongdoing. Just improvement opportunities that I think everyone would be in favor of at least looking at for the better of the community. Nobody should have any issue with that I hope.

    Thank You.

  10. Phantom

    September 9, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    Dave

    Do you read the stuff that you type before you press submit

    • dave

      September 10, 2010 at 1:20 am

      Do you make well supported arguments and join in the intelligent debate rather than snipe at the opinions of others with random one-liner veiled insults before you press submit?

  11. Tim Lazaroe

    September 10, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Again Mr. Phantom, what point (if any) are you trying to make?

  12. Bebe

    September 12, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Well Dave,

    Your OPINION Dave, which is stated like a FACT once again, I disagree with. You did exaggerate and sensationalize the headline here to make it very misleading to those who don’t know better or who don’t read the text. And I will straight up tell you, that is my OPINION!

    You say you spoke with Mike, and I guess the rest you copied and pasted out of other conversations on the internet? If this is how you are going to create the news, it may be well then, just to print the whole conversations you take bits and pieces out of?? But I’ll do the same here, copy and paste, since this is part of your news gathering process here in this thread.

    This is what Mike says on Non-Censored City on FB, where it seems the real news and facts are hashed out more and more everyday. Kind of interesting that what has been referred to as a tabloid and gossip page, is more informative and has more truth here than any paper??

    Here is a Post from Mike Mannino and he’s responding here to Tim:

    ..”Tim,
    Let me preface this by saying Dave and I get along and can discuss our difference of opinion on some issues and still be civil.

    To your question, specifically the headline that records requests is complete is not accurrate. Not a big deal except that I have had numerous calls and comments made since yesterday questioning whether I was finished. So the headline is being taken literally without people reading the rest of the text.

    I will once again say this is by no means complete, I have changed the direction after meeting with Ms. Morris to reduce the amount of work required while still getting what I would like to have. I have some requests pending as of Tuesday, more will follow I’m sure. I just dont want people to misunderstand and start complaining that I said this was complete when that is not the case……..”
    Friday at 7:59am

    I think information first hand carries more weight Dave and I will tend to believe the source rather than a reporter of it. Sometimes reporters hear what they want to hear, depending oh how their hearing is wired

    Oh, and here Tim who tells you what a great job you did above, then actually agress with Mike, as I do. At least he makes the approapriate concessions and disctinctions due to deliberation on the topic.

    “Tim Lazaroe says:

    Okay Mike I agree: The headline can be misleading if one DOES NOT TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE ARTICLE.
    Friday at 8:04am “…….

    but I am sure Dave as the intelligent man you are, you were very aware that the headline was sensationalized, exaggerated so as to be misleading! What is the definition of that again??

    Some people just have headlines stick in their head, and they don’t always read a text in its entirity. But I would think that you would also print a solid, complete truth without misleading anyone in how it is written in the headlines as well. Isn’t this what ya’ll always accuse the other paper of doing??

    Ya know, it seems a more appropriate name for this city lately, would be something like “Kettle Pot”, because there are sooo many pots around here who scream constantly the kettles black but do not even see or realize their pot is the same color.

    • dave

      September 12, 2010 at 9:04 am

      Bebe, thanks for your post supporting the accuracy of the article. Thanks also for providing the entirety of the comments by Mike and Tim in which they confirm the truth of the article for anyone who reads it. By the way, if
      I recall, the article is only two short paragraphs long, and the full details of the story are actually presented in the first paragraph, in the first 72 words.
      Dave

  13. Bebe

    September 12, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Dave….you are one piece of work!! I gotta give ya that….lol.

    You make our points different, so lets have it your way and focus on the body of the article and the statements it contains. And IF people actually read the article they may come or may not come to the truth of the matter…they certainly won’t get there from the headline, and they will have to struggle with decifering the truth within the body of the article as well due to the conflicts, by the way the article is written.

    as another poster on the NCCC rightly pointed out her confusion, by stating the following and her perception of the argument she presented, I post here:

    …….Also, if you really read it- it states that the “records REQUEST is complete” and that the the records search is incomplete with this statement, “The PENDING COMPLETION of this records search with an APPARENT ‘clean bill of health’…that makes a big difference to me than-it’s all over, we found nothing wrong!…..

    and as your headline does imply a falsified finding I agree with this girl in her assessment. It is not what you lead her to believe by the headline.

    You also say within the article that “he is still reviewing documents and has made additional requests this week for more specific documents”….this is actually true. So if this is true Dave, how can putting the headline for this story as 7,000 page public records request completed, “No Wrongdoing and I Didn’t Expect Any” as being anything more than sensationalism, and total exaggeration?

    Which btw does show your hidden bias and agenda, because you have done nothing more here than manipulate and twist the facts and opinions to the fulfilling of your own personal apparent agenda. And I know that this is an APPARENT bias and suggested agenda of which you conveniently, constantly deny.

    Not that anyone wants anything to be wrong mind you, in fact, we want things to be better and analysis of records is one approach to that goal. Although the city did give itself way more than its legal due time to submit those documents. There is a timeline for requests just so the city cannot ‘misplace’ any documents or go back and redact documents that should have been done before they were filed as public records, if they needed any redaction at all.

    But you just take the liberty of jumping the gun and assuming and suggesting, even delaring in headlines to all that everything is over….and nothing is wrong or cannot be better, nothing was found as the headline? I call that yellow journalism, I don’t know what you call it. I guess if you feel you put in a truth here or there, you can make the headline to suit yourself. It seems to me you have a real talent for manipulating the facts and news to suit yourself as well.

    Whats wrong with just speaking the truth in headlines and within the body of the article, the truth stately clearly in both, and let the truth show itself in due time? Why did you feel the need to be so conflicting and so obvious? Thats not your style. It sounds like you are trying to create a truth, rather than reveal it.

    • dave

      September 12, 2010 at 10:51 am

      Bebe, Again, thank you for your confirmation, albeit begrudging, that the short article, taken in it’s entirety, is accurate. The original requests, as modified, have been fulfilled.

      I find it completely ironic that I would be accused of sensationalism or exaggeration in Central. Please feel free to analyze the articles I write and give them a grade on entirety of truth and level of bias, both intended and unintended. Then, analyze the controversial stories printed by any other media distributed in Central for the same entirety of truth and level of bias. I would be interested in that comparison.
      Dave

  14. Bebe

    September 12, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    well Dave, I see people from this CS site already doing that for you and bashing the CCN all over the place. I just thought it would be appropriate to point it out here as well, since there seems to be a false sense of purity that eminates from the CS. Lets keep it real, rather than divided, huh?

    and you Dave, find anything out of the realm of perfection for yourself ironic, for you seem to believe Dave that you are the absolute judge of truth and know all…sees all…etc. You even have some regular annoymous people here who’s only purpose it seems is to sing of your glory and give you pats on the back, whether earned, deserved or not. Are they real people?

    Dave, even your saying, just the facts, which you utilize and suggest is a substitute for truth is a complete irony. Facts are just sometimes temporary, documentable, observable perceptions, that can and do change and as you can see they can be twisted, turned, selected, modified and manipulated more times than not….truth, however by contrast, always stands!

    and we need truthful, unmanipulated facts, clearly presented and stated to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, to come to the real truth. Not a conveneintly created, constructed and suggested ‘truth.’

    and if your competition engages in the same types of misuse, misleading and manipulation in the power given to the press for such activities, then I would hope that it would at least not be in a headline.

    A study done by google shows that 44% of people only read headlines, and never read the actual article. There is probably little difference there in printed versions as well, I am assuming by just utilizing common sense.

    So, I see the headlines as a more damanging tool that when corrupted, even if the correct information is in the body of the article, will be missed and many led to believe something that is not exactly true based on the sensationalism and the exaggeration presented in the headline.

    I see this as a more serious offense because of the percent of the population that just scans headlines. But I am sure Dave, with your ability to know all, that you were completelly aware of this fact.

    Thats why I would appreciate just the truth; not a slanted, biased, opinionated, sensationalized, exaggerated piece of a fact that is used in a form of manipulation to suit ones own agenda, not be located in a headline especially and not in the body either. That may be too much to ask for, I realize, but I can hope for such honesty and dignity.

    your own statement in your own defense suggesting that others do it so that I guess that is suppose to make something okay? when you stated here,

    “analyze the controversial stories printed by any other media distributed in Central for the same entirety of truth and level of bias”, …. we seem to do this constantly every week on the NCCC page.

    and in the defense of a man who does not stoop to the bashing techniques of your following here, when he gives his own opinion, he lets you know it. It is never diguised or slipped in under the covers, Its called his column or editorial. He’s not afraid to have an opinion and voice it regardless of its popularity status, and I respect that. Some are not so brave. That doesn’t mean I always agree with his opinion, only that I appreciate the honesty in which it is delivered.

    • dave

      September 12, 2010 at 1:07 pm

      Bebe,

      I wrote and deleted my response to your barrage several times. I sometimes rely on the concept that “Just because I have a right to say something, does not make it right to say.” In this case, as in a previous exchange you and I have had on this site, I am going to have to let your comments stand, not because I agree, and not because I would have any difficulty providing a rebuttal, but beacuse this would stray away from the analytical, which was my question. My invitation/challenge for you was to do the analysis. You have declined. That is your right. Taking the detour into a discussion which has become more about our personal beliefs than about the analysis I don’t think would be productive. Please refer to my last two posts on this thread for my comments on the matter.

      Dave

  15. Bebe

    September 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    what is this Dave? We are over here having a converstaiton and this is what you are writing here??

    I answered your request for the analysis I do believe elsewhere, and for the complete truth of record, I will post it here, since you are insinuating that it was neglected.

    Again to this request or grading and comparisons on the two papers, I responded in the following manner:

    “The only thing you should grade yourself against is what is in the highest level of truthfulness and integrity. If you are willing to be soothed by a ‘grade’ of comparison, then your intention and goals are insincere.”

    That Dave was my response as you well know.

    And Dave, I appreciate your concern over my emotional status that you so kindly concede, but I assure you I am quite calm and productive. No detours were made here, just legitmate points.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *