WBLS Investigation: The Bottom Line

An outsider listening to comments Monday regarding the WBLS matter might have thought people were talking about two different things, so wide was the dichotomy of viewpoints.

On one side, speakers portrayed the Aug.1, 2010 Town Meeting broadcast over WBLS as the salvation to a city wracked by gun violence.

""WBLS planted a seed," one speaker said. "Our city is much better."

"The mindset is changing," said another.

Others talked about shots fired in their neighborhoods. One speaker described what happened when the wife of a shooting victim went to his aid.

"When she grabbed him, a piece of his head fell off on the sidewalk."

"The mayor sacrificed ... she did what she felt was right," another said.

In 2010 questions arose immediately after the radio show. Plaintalker filed an OPRA request on Aug. 2.

Questions on how the event was funded persisted for many months without answers. Finally the governing body invoked its investigative powers under the city's special charter. An attorney hired to conduct the investigation gathered information and asked questions at hearings. His report was given to the council in December.

An item on Monday's agenda was authorization of an additional payment for his work.

One resident said money would not have had to be spent, if the mayor had responded early on to inquiries about the funding.

Others said the $20,000 check to WBLS was really only $5,000 in city funds and the attorney should not be paid at all.

"We never investigated an amount of money," Council President Adrian Mapp said, adding the investigation hinged on "policies and procedures and statutes."

The mayor was reprimanded and fined $200 and the findings were forwarded to  the state Attorney General, the Union County Prosecutor and the director of the state Department of Community Affairs. Partisans of the mayor still say her actions saved lives, although the 11 homicides in 2011 kicked the rate up 450 percent from two in 2009.

The bottom line for the WBLS controversy appears to be a deep divide among both elected officials and residents over the mayor's role, backed on one side by a formal investigation and on the other by strong feelings. Is the mayor choosing demagoguery over governance? That is the question.

--Bernice