Is Mike Ruffin our "Guy," or not?

Durham insiders have been abuzz this week over the identity of, well, one of them. A self-described insider named "Guy" popped up on the blogosphere this week with "One Guy's View," a blog that professes to give a behind-the-scenes perspective on Durham politics, telling you things you can't read anywhere else.

There's little question that "Guy" is, in fact, an insider, given that Guy's two stories to date both broke news. First, "Guy" had updates on the Justice Center that hit the Web 24 hours before they became public in a County Commission work session.

Couple that with today's announcement of new standing meetings between the City and County Managers and their staff to improve communications between the governments, which at least one pol has confirmed was late-breaking news, and there's little doubt that Guy knows his or her stuff.

Names reportedly have been flying fast and furious behind the walls of local government offices, with the central question being: just what guy (or gal) is this "Guy," anyway?

Well, there's a clue on the "One Guy's View" website. A clue so obvious, in fact, that it seems too good to be true -- a red herring, as it were.

Still, the clue leaves us looking at two possibilities: either Mike Ruffin is the anonymous "Guy" behind "One Guy's View," or someone very much wants us to think he is.

And what, precisely, is this clue? Well, to find it, you need to do a little digging.

"Guy" was good enough to post a picture of the Justice Center on his post discussing the budget and parking garage changes. When you click that picture, you get a full size image.

Being the nosy blogger I am, I tried deleting the New3-780265.jpg file name to browse the root of the uploaded_images folder in the blog.

(Which, by the way, used to be how you could read copies of the Durham CVB newsletter in pre-publication mode. Sorry, Reyn.)

Anyway, you then get -- at least as of Friday -- this view:

Now, the New3- images are just different views of the Justice Center. But if you check out the last six files, the cano- and devbanner- JPEGs, you get banners for a web site called devotions.com.

It almost appears they were transferred up to the web site by accident, perhaps leftover files caught up in the upload to the new blog.

And what, pray tell, is devotions.com? It's a site described as "Christian devotions for daily living," from an ordained minister and religious columnist for the Roxboro Courier-Times and other regional papers.

And his name just happens to be Mike Ruffin:

Mike Ruffin is currently County Manager for Durham County, NC, a post he has held since November of 2000. As the county’s chief executive officer, he oversees an organization with 1700 employees and an annual budget of over $600 million. Prior to coming to Durham, he held similar posts in the Atlanta, Charlotte, and the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan areas.

In fact, Ruffin's picture appears right on the home page.

...

Now, just because some graphics from Mike Ruffin's web site are posted on "One Guy's View" doesn't necessarily mean that Ruffin is the voice behind this anonymous 'insider' blog.

Frankly, I've sat on this particularly story for three days because I figured it was just too obvious, that someone must be trying to set up the good County Manager, since it's really not hard to find these images up there.

Still, given the type of content on "One Guy's View," insiders were already starting to look within the walls of the county government for an explanation. That's especially true after today's posting--

Durham City Manager Tom Bonfield has reached out to County Manager Mike Ruffin in a spirit of working together more harmoniously. The two managers and their deputy managers will meet once a month to work on common interests. Their first meeting is Monday afternoon.

City and County governments generally work well together, but relations over the last few years have been somewhat frayed by unreturned telephone calls, emails, inaction on joint projects, etc. Bonfield and Ruffin have made it clear to their staffs that they expect working relationships to improve.

Even better was the response of "Anonymous" -- perhaps "Guy" the blogger, perhaps not -- to a comment left on the post:

Ruffin and Baker met on a regular basis, but Baker often did not follow up on agreed-upon actions. This created friction between the county and city. Bonfield is moving to help resolve it.

Do the graphics point to a Ruffin link to the "One Guy's View" site? Or do they point to someone trying to make it look like our erstwhile county manager is behind the site?

For what it's worth, I hope it's the latter. Don't get me wrong -- the presence of a "real" insider blog is an attractive prospect to local political watchers. (No sooner had I read the Justice Center story than I shot off a note to county government employee trying to confirm news of the retail pads going into the deck, all the while wondering where this great inside info was coming from.)

Whoever "Guy" is was careful to note in their initial post that they would only blog on items that were in the public sphere already. Still, there's something that's just a bit -- off -- about the idea of an elected official or senior administration staff member alike blogging anonymously in such a way as to share information that could shape the public discourse.

Nothing at all wrong with that kind of communication, but it just seems best done in the open under one's John Hancock.

In any case, "Guy" has made the local blogosphere more interesting this week. Whether we're any closer to knowing who our friend "Guy" is, though, is an open question.

Comments

[Michael Bacon]

If it is Ruffin, it's sock puppetry of the worst kind. It's one thing to share a perspective on the process from the inside. It's quite another to lavish praise on the county "wisely" deciding to do something, and to rag on Baker for not holding up his end of the bargain, but passing oneself off as an objective judge in the conversation.

Ruffin has been a steady hand at the head of the county for years, but if he is in fact behind this, it deserves a reprimand from the commissioners.

[Reyn]

Flattered to have Bull City Rising check in advance.

But that couldn't be Mike refering to the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area. He would know there simply is no such MSA;)

[Brian Stull]

Kevin, I've seen your comments on good old school reporting before. I have heard such reporters used a device called the telephone to speak with possible subjects of their stories. Have you tried that? What says Mr. Ruffin on your scoop?

[Barry]

Well, One Guy's View seems to have been taken down as of 12:30 or so this afternoon.

[Charles]

The plot thickens!

[Frank Hyman]

I have a great deal of respect for Mike Ruffin and having an anonymous insider giving the public the straight scoop sounds good, but it sounds like this "anonymous" blog was a bit self-serving. Only a slightly different issue, but sounds to me like we're seeing one more reason to do as the newspapers do and rule out anonymous sources on blogs generally unless there's a concrete reason to protect an identity. I sincerely doubt that most of the people writing as "anonymous" are in fear of losing their job or something. My experience is that a plurality if not a majority of the people posting as anonymous either give the impression of having a hidden agenda (which appears to the case with the "Guy".) or they just really don't know what they are talking about and want to get away with being snarky and mean spirited in public without having to stand behind their statements. The rationale that allowing anonymous posts contributes in a positive way to discussion is largely bogus. The few additional thoughtful comments that it might bring is hardly balanced out by the willful ignorance and meanness that no doubt shuts out more thin-skinned prospective posters who would sign their names. Bottom line: if you want to weigh in with your opinion on a civic issue in a public forum--be a man or woman about it and use your real name. There's hardly a lack of thoughtful opinions on the editorial pages of the newspapers that require that much. Frank Hyman

[Greg Barbera]

anonymous blogging should be a crime...

like skateboarding.

[Frank Hyman's Boxers]

My objection to the oneguy blog, frankly speaking, is that the posts are way too long and it is (was) boring.

This town doesn't need another blog about municipal affairs and it sure doesn't a boring one about municipal affairs.

[Rostfrei]

Anonymous blogging should be a crime like panhandling should be a crime. I presume Frank is against sites such as WikiLeaks?

I run a website on swiss consumer banking (NOT illegal or undeclared accounts), and it's anonymous for several reasons:

1. I would probably lose my job, as I work for a large swiss bank.

2. Much of the information on this subject is not readily available to the public or is provided by snake oil salesmen, for-profit financial advisers, and/or trust and estate attorneys.

As the EFF states, "information wants to be free".

[GreenLantern]

I...am...."Guy"....