Zack Matheny's Wyndham Text Messages: Contents
**Zack Matheny's Wyndham Text Messages You're reading it.
**Zack Matheny's Wyndham Text Messages: Part 2
**Zack Matheny's Wyndham Text Messages: Part 3
**Zack Matheny's Wyndham Text Messages: Part 4
**Zack Matheny's Wyndham Text Messages: Part 5 Proof Zack Lied
**Zack Matheny's Wyndham Text Messages: Part 6, Say Your Prayers, Zack
** Zack Matheny's Wyndham Text Messages: Part 7: Two Simple Questions For Zack
**Zack Matheny's Wyndham Text Messages: Part 8: Fall From Grace
Begin Part 1.
On February 21 (7 days ago) I sent the following PIRT (Public Information Request) concerning certain text messages that were going on between Greensboro City Councilman Zack Matheny and principals as well as the commercial realtor involved in the downtown Wyndham Hotel Project during the city council meeting on the very same night in which Council voted to give almost $2 Million Dollars in Incentive Grants to the project despite the fact that the City of Greensboro has confirmed to me that they do no have a feasibility study in their possession-- a violation of State law:
"Would it be possible to get the text messages sent to and from Councilman Zack Matheny during the Greensboro City Council Meeting of February 4, 2014? Specifically ALL the messages concerning the Wyndham Hotel Incentives that were passed by Council that night.
Thanks -Billy Jones"
This morning I sent this follow-up:
"Sarah,
As a follow up, please mark this request ASAP before Councilman Methany's kids break his phone, he looses his phone or the dog eats it or whatever it was that happened the last time someone requested his text messages.
Thanks -Billy"
I think 7 days is long enough for Councilman Matheny to present his phone to the City IT department and any more delay increases the odds that something will be covered up. I know if it were me and I was running for Congress I would clear this up same day.
Update today: Got the following reply to my follow-up at 8:33 AM.. This is important because the information I have been told also implicated other city council members besides Councilman Methany:
"Billy:
I am sorry but Mr. Matheny does not have any records that match your request.
Please let me know if I can help you in any other way.
Sincerely,
Sarah"
I replied with the following question:
"So is it the City of Greensboro's position that Councilman Matheny did not send or receive any text messages during the time period that made up the city council meeting that night?
Thanks -Billy"
The clock is ticking... And then there's the matter of Zack's efforts contradicting his vote.
Update 2: Also today: I got the following response at 10:50 AM:
"Yes - Mr. Matheny has reported that he has not found any records matching Mr. Jones’ request on his phone. He does not have a City-issued cell phone."
My reply,
"I have intel that suggests Councilman Matheny rigged the council vote that night and that he communicated that to the principals and the realtor involved in the Wyndham project during the course of the city council meeting to calm their fears concerning his no vote. Is Councilman Matheny going to willingly present his cell phone to the City IT department or will myself and others be forced to push for warrants and an investigation?
http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2014/02/zack-mathenys-wyndham-text-messages.html
Thanks again, you do a wonderful job against impossible odds.
-Billy"
"Mr Matheny reported" clears up nothing. We want evidence. Why would Zack Methany attend the celebration ar Randall Kaplan's home the very same night the Council gave Kaplan and Cos $2 Million Dollars if Zack was against it?
Update 3: 2:00 PM I sent the following e-mail:
"Sarah,
Please tell Mr Matheny and the acting city attorney they'll want to read the following from the North Carolina School of Government: http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=7088
Thanks -Billy"
Update 4: 6:00 PM. I've been doing a little research and here's what I've found:
They way I see it, if a council person is using their phone during the hours city council is in session then said council person is on the taxpayers' dime no matter who owns the phone and the NC School of Government seems to agree: http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=
Also, it appears to me that these text messages are treated like any other public record so therefore I need no reason to ask for them and therefore should not be prevented from getting them. NC 132-1 defines public records as:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/
"§ 132-1. "Public records" defined.
(a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data-processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public officer or official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political subdivision of government.
(b) The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law. As used herein, "minimal cost" shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information. (1935, c. 265, s. 1; 1975, c. 787, s. 1; 1995, c. 388, s. 1.)"
It is also my understanding that public records are required to be retained so if Zack Matheny has deleted these messages then he is in violation of NC G.S. 132-3
"§ 132-3. Destruction of records regulated.
(a) Prohibition. - No public official may destroy, sell, loan, or otherwise dispose of any public record, except in accordance with G.S. 121-5 and G.S. 130A-99, without the consent of the Department of Cultural Resources. Whoever unlawfully removes a public record from the office where it is usually kept, or alters, defaces, mutilates or destroys it shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and upon conviction only fined not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00).
(b) Revenue Records. - Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section and G.S. 121-5, when a record of the Department of Revenue has been copied in any manner, the original record may be destroyed upon the order of the Secretary of Revenue. If a record of the Department of Revenue has not been copied, the original record shall be preserved for at least three years. After three years the original record may be destroyed upon the order of the Secretary of Revenue.
(c) Employment Security Records. - Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section and G.S. 121-5, when a record of the Division of Employment Security has been copied in any manner, the original record may be destroyed upon the order of the Division. If a record of that Division has not been copied, the original record shall be preserved for at least three years. After three years the original record may be destroyed upon the order of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce. (1935, c. 265, s. 3; 1943, c. 237; 1953, c. 675, s. 17; 1957, c. 330, s. 2; 1973, c. 476, s. 48; 1993, c. 485, s. 39; c. 539, s. 966; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1997-309, s. 12; 2001-115, s. 2; 2011-401, s. 3.16.)"
If Zack refuses to turn them over:
"§ 132-5. Demanding custody.
Whoever is entitled to the custody of public records shall demand them from any person having illegal possession of them, who shall forthwith deliver the same to him. If the person who unlawfully possesses public records shall without just cause refuse or neglect for 10 days after a request made in writing by any citizen of the State to deliver such records to their lawful custodian, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1935, c. 265, s. 5; 1975, c. 696, s. 2; 1993, c. 539, s. 968; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)"
Anything I'm missing? Your thoughts?
Update 5: Saturday March 1, 2014 11:00 AM An e-mail I sent prompts Roch Smith Jr to send the following e-mail to myself and others including Councilman Matheny:
"Gentlemen,
I'm including all of you on this email, including Zack, as I think much of this speculation could end with answers from the horse's mouth (no offense, Zack.)
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Zack is aware of the requirements under state law to preserve records of public business, including texts, as I have asked for and received texts from Zack before. So, it would be helpful Zack can tell us:
1. Did he not send or receive any texts during the council meeting in question or did he delete them?
2. If they were deleted, why and how often does he delete them? Can he, for example, provide texts from the day of the council meeting, not just during the meeting?
The gnashing of teeth seems unnecessary to me as there is a more direct route to a clear explanation. I'll let Zack take it from here.
Roch"
Zack Matheny replies to all:
"Roch et all,
I don't have not sent any texts about the proposed hotels.
If you review the closed session notes from November that were released, it shows that I had concerns and wasn't supporting it then. There would have been no reason for me to even send a text, nor receive a text, because folks knew I was going to vote in opposition.
Thanks for your question,
Zack"
I reply to all:
"Then Mr Matheny should have no concerns with presenting his phone to the City of Greensboro IT department so that they can verify his claim:
"I don't have not sent any texts about the proposed hotels."
Correct?
-Billy Jones"
Roch again replies to all:
"Thanks for the reply, Zack. You've avoided answering the questions.
1. Did he not send or receive any texts during the council meeting in question or did he delete them?
2. If they were deleted, why and how often does he delete them? Can he, for example, provide texts from the day of the council meeting, not just during the meeting?
I think these are reasonable questions. I hope you'll answer them directly. Don't be Nixon.
Yours,
Roch"
Is Zack even old enough to know who Nixon was? Oh well, when at first you practice to deceive...
This is getting especially messy now that we know the incentive package is actually going to cause layoffs.
Update 6 Minutes later George Hartzman adds:
"Please contact your wireless carrier and ask them to provide the sent/received and time information concerning the time period in question to clear this up.
I don't think your wireless carrier has the contents of the texts necessarily, but they certainly have the phone numbers to whom or from and times any communications were sent.
As I recall Billy is only asking for texts during a city council meeting, which makes the phone records of any contacts during that time discover-able.
g"
Will Zack seek to clear this up? Will he answer Roch's questions? Will he surrender his phone to the City IT Department? Or will his kiss his chances of getting elected to Congress goodbye forever?
Update 7: Saturday 5:40 PM Zugzwang Make your move Zack. Or you'll like my next move even less. On that you have my promise.
Update 8: Sunday, March 2, 2014 I'm far from done with this and have many avenues yet to explore including an atomic option that Mr Matheny will be unable to evade but before I drop the bomb I've a few more things to do beginning with my next PIRT request to the City of Greensboro:
"Sarah,
In the thread below, Councilman Matheny refers to closed session notes from November. please send me those as well as any notes and/or communications involving the Wyndham Hotel related to that closed session.
Also, please send me all text messages for Zack Matheny for February 4, 2014 for the entire 24 hour period. Please have Mr Matheny bring his phone to the City IT department. I do understand personal and calls not related to city business will be filtered out.
Thanks again.
-Billy"
I realize I can't force Councilman Matheny to actually turn his phone over to the City IT Department as the law only requires that he surrender only the text messages (talk about the fox guarding the hen house) but his failure to do so will not set well with the public and will force the so-called atomic option that I will explain at a later date.
I did say Zack would like my next move even less. This only gets worse for Zack the longer it continues. After all,
Matheny's opposition to the incentive was particularly strange, since he had spoken in favor of the project in the past. He's also been an unabashed cheerleader for the council's economic development ventures.
So what gives?
"It was out of my comfort zone," Matheny said Wednesday. "It’s too much for me personally."
And that's all the explanation we ever got. Now, in March, Zack says,
"If you review the closed session notes from November that were released, it shows that I had concerns and wasn't supporting it then."
We'll soon see...
Update 9: Sunday 9:30 PM. I e-mail the following Public Information Request entitled, PIRT Follow-up On Zack Texts:
"Sarah,
Please ask Councilman Matheny to provide 24 hour telephone records for February 4, 2014 to verify his claims that no texts messages exist that meet the conditions of my previous PIRT requests.
Thanks you -Billy"
If Zack is innocent it will be proven beyond the shadow of any doubt in this thread. That is, if Zack chooses to cooperate. If Zack chooses not to co-operate... Every story on every page of this blog no matter how old, if proven to be incorrect, can still be corrected if those persons of whom I've written are willing to make the effort to provide evidence to the contrary. Some have done so. As to why most don't choose to do so.... Well, you Dear Readers, can only speculate as to why.
Update 10: Wednesday, March 5, 2014. This morning I send the following public information request concerning Councilman Zack Matheny as it appears Zack has legally chosen not to comply with my request for the telephone records that might help clear his name:
"Sarah,
Please send all text messages, e-mails and other communications for 30 days prior to February 4, 2014 between Councilman Zack Matheny and the following people:
Milton Kern
George House
George Kaplan
Greg Dillon
Mike Barber
Nancy Vaughan
Nancy Hoffmann
Yvonne Johnson
Tony Wilkins
Marikay Abuizuaiter
Jamal Fox
Sharon Hightower
Don Jud, aka, G. Donald Jud
Howard L Williams
Robbie Perkins, aka Robert V Perkins
Sam Simpson
David Hagan
Also, Did you get my previous PIRT concerning the November closed session Council meeting?
Thanks
-Billy Jones"
Do you actually Believe Zack is going to claim he hasn't communicated with any of these people? Yeah, right!
Update 11: Thursday, March 6, 2014 9:00 AM Yesterday morning I got the following e-mail from Sarah Healy:
"Billy:
I just read your blog again but I couldn’t find the date of the closed session meeting in November – what was the date? Let me know and I will log it into the system for you.
Thanks so much,
Sarah"
Wanting to give Councilman Matheny every chance to respond and knowing his history of ignoring my e-mails anytime he finds answering uncomfortable I added Roch Smith Jr and Mr Matheny to the list of recipients and sent the following:
"Sarah,
Since Mr Matheny never replies to my e-mails I forwarding this to Roch Smith jr in hopes that he can get Mr Matheny to give us the date of the November Closed session notes Mr Matheny spoke of.
Thanks again -Billy"
This morning I got the following reply from Roch:
"Zack did not answer my questions either. Looking the city's archive of council meetings on their website, I don't see minutes from a November closed session. You might also keep in mind that, thanks to Zack (and I'm not being sarcastic) closed sessions are audio recorded -- if you can find the meeting date."
My reply:
"Thank you Roch. I was completely unaware of the audio recordings. With Sarah's help I will continue to search for the November closed session Mr Matheny referred to. In the meantime I have updated my post at http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2014/02/zack-mathenys-wyndham-text-messages.html to reflect this conversation and most everything else I've been doing concerning this matter. Key word: most.
Thanks again -Billy"
Update 12: 10:30 AM Zack Replies at last:
"Guys, this is what Mujeeb sent out (or should have sent out in February. The minutes from November 12, 2013, show that I had concerns over expense.
Glad I could help get you this,
Zack
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shah-Khan, Mujeeb
Date: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:22 AM
Subject: Elm Street Center Hotel - Release of Closed Session Minutes
To: "Shah-Khan, Mujeeb"
Cc: "Westmoreland, Jim", "Turlington, Donnie" , "Scott, Andrew" , "Dubel, Kathi K" , "Healy, Sarah"
Mayor and Council: (bcc)
Good morning. In response to a public records request by George Hartzman concerning the Elm Street Center Hotel project, portions of closed session minutes from three Council meetings were released and provided to Mr. Hartzman. Once Council approves an incentive, such as the one approved last Tuesday, withholding records related to proposed incentives to prevent premature disclosure of the incentives, is no longer needed. Council previously authorized the City Attorney to release closed session minutes in such a circumstance. The minutes are attached. You may note redactions in the minutes; the redactions are related to a discussion regarding a case pending against the City, and then a personnel matter.
If you have any questions about the minutes, please contact me at your convenience.
Mujeeb
S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan
CITY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
PH: 336.373.2695
FAX: 336.373.2078
mujeeb.shahkhan@greensboro-nc.gov
www.greensboro-nc.gov"
The e-mail included the following 5 attachments:
ATTOOOO1 Appears to be a blank page to me.
Redacted Closed Session Minutes 11-12-2013
Redacted Closed Session Minutes 11-19-2013
ATTOOOO1 Again appears to be a blank page to me.
Redacted Closed Session Minutes 1-21-2014
Roch Smith Jr adds:
"Now that the need for confidentiality has passed, un-redacted minutes recordings can be made available.
Availing ourselves of your happy cooperation, can you see that those get to us?
Yours,
Roch"
I'll allow you, Dear Readers, to take the time to read the redacted minutes of the closed session city council meetings and send your questions to RecycleBill@gmail.com before I comment further.
Update 13: Thursday afternoon. I attended a 2:30 meeting with Sarah and some of the folks from the City Economic Development Department (More on that in another post.) After running some errands I returned home and found the following e-mail from Sarah in my inbox:
"Billy:
We received a response from Councilman Matheny attached above. He does not have any personal email that matches your request below. There are texts (or a text) with Mayor Vaughan which we are working on obtaining. We are also conducting an IT email search on your request below.
We will be in touch.
Thanks,
Sarah"
I replied:
"Sarah,
Councilman Matheny also uses the e-mail address zackmatheny@gmail.com you'll want to check that as well.
Thanks as always!!!
-Billy"
And it still comes down to "Zack said..." Are you beginning to see the big hole in the process of recording and reporting what is supposed to be public information in North Carolina?
Update 14: Sunday, March 9, 2014: 9:35 PM. I send the following Public Information Request to a group of recipients that includes Mayor Nancy Vaughan:
"Please answer the following questions as a PIRT request.
At what point does failing to provide public information become illegal?
And at what point does withholding public information, become illegally in possession of public information?
This is an issue that really needs to be resolved once and for all.
These issues have haunted the Greensboro City Council and City Staff for over a decade and will continue to haunt you until resolved. Never again will answers like, "If you knew what we knew," be acceptable or even tolerated. Even the appearance of corruption must be avoided, Council and Staff should be ready, willing and able to go above and beyond the letter of the law in order to fulfill the spirit and intent of the law: http://greensboroperformingarts.blogspot.com/2014/02/zack-mathenys-wyndham-text-messages.html
Oh, and Zack, this was just 1 day:"
I thought it time he paid attention....
Update 15: Friday, March 14, 2014 Zack sends 2 text messages for an entire month but still nothing from the rest of City Council. If Zack is smart he'll not be hiring his friend, Amil Rossabi to represent him in court. Like that 2 bit lawyer, Rossabi would really want to try me again anyway.
Update 16: Saturday, March 15, 2014 Minutes from closed session City Council meetings fail to provide evidence claimed by Councilman Matheny.
Zack surely will need to do better.
Update 17: Monday, March 17, 2014 In an ongoing attempt to prove Zack's innocence I've asked yet again for non-redacted closed session notes and credit card receipts or other evidence to prove Zack really went to Washington that night and not to the party at Randall Kaplan's home.
Update 18: Thursday, March 20, 2014 Zack's trip to Washington and the Greensboro City Council meeting appeared to take place at exactly the same time. Zack has the magical ability to be in 2 places 300 miles apart at the exact same moment. With that kind of magic it's hardly a wonder he was once selected as one of Greensboro's
Yes, I am an ass. I practice.
Update 19: Monday, March 24, 2014 We now have evidence that Zack did attend the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday and Friday but Tuesday night-- the night of Kaplan's party-- and all day Wednesday remain unaccounted for.
And why did Zack volunteer the Sunday, February 2 text message indicating he was going to Washington at 8:10 on Tuesday night when he in-fact missed that flight and that text message was not yet part of the information I had requested?
Update 20: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 I e-mail 2 simple questions to Zack and await his answers. Roch still doesn't get it but that's okay as I'll make it all plain soon.
Update 21: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:10 PM Being that Zack won't answer, I answer for him. Zack won't like my answer.
Update 22: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:40 PM. I get confirmation that Zack refuses to share telephone records or e-mails from his g-mail account.
