19) After much discussion, the GTRC decided to define those harmed (without using the term "victim") as follows:
Once appointed by a selection panel representing diverse community stakeholders, the GTRC struggled to establish itself as a legitimate institution in a community with already-low levels of trust.
But other white residents supported the GTRC process and its efforts at racial reconciliation, often because they perceived that clear racial divisions remained in Greensboro.
These differences in opinion played out in a public way when GTRC supporters presented Greensboro's city council with 5300 signatures on a petition calling for the council to endorse the GTRC.
The GTRC nonetheless ultimately found that its legitimacy in the community was not significantly undermined by the vote.
But in Greensboro, a city divided in part because of different experiences and memories of events like those on November 3, 1979, the GTRC could have spent all of its time promoting itself as a fair, legitimate institution and still not have made much headway.
Based on its findings about that context and those events, the GTRC made recommendations about reforms in local, county, and state government, including a living wage for city employees and contractors, and establishing a citizens' review board over the police department.
It is clear that, when reporting on the 1979 events and the GTRC process, most local media outlets report the facts more accurately now than they did prior to the report's release.
GTRC REPORT, supra note 8, at 305 (citing Waller v.
For more information on how these issues were related to the events of November 3, 1979, see GTRC REPORT, supra note 8.
The final report as well as detailed information about the work and origin of the GTRC is available at http://www.
See GTRC MANDATE, supra note 13, at 2 ("The Commission will carry out its mandate while operating independently from any external influence, including the Project.