I received a response to my queries as to whether the PR firm had been let go, as was alleged in an anonymous comment on my blog post Thursday.

Here it is in its entirety from Eric Wohlleber, VP of Gramercy Communications:

“Not sure about a rumor, but I can tell you that our engagement does end on Sunday. Our work was limited in time and focused on responding to a large volume of media inquiries and assisting with the dissemination of information to the public. I would like to add that our job was never to ‘spin’ information, and any suggestion otherwise is an insult to a profession we take very seriously. Our company has a long track record of success and is well regarded for our professionalism and our many community works.”

As for the insults he takes exception to, that had me a little confused at first. That is until I received a "friendly" call from Wohlleber yesterday. He was responding to my calling him a "flack" in a blog post yesterday.

We had a "lively debate" to quote Dennis Brunelle when he described the Housing Authority's public meeting last month in which residents shouted about not being able to speak.

Now first off, a flack is, to quote Dictionary.com (which I also quoted to him):
flack
noun Sometimes Disparaging.
1. press agent.
2. publicity.
verb (used without object)
3. to serve as a press agent or publicist: to flack for a new rock group.
4. to promote; publicize: to flack a new record.

Not to be confused with:
Flak
noun
1. antiaircraft fire, especially as experienced by the crews of combat airplanes at which the fire is directed.
2. criticism; hostile reaction; abuse: Such an unpopular decision is bound to draw a lot of flak from the press.

Ok, so I admit it does say "sometimes disparaging," but the post was about him not releasing information as a public relations person.

He was pretty adamant that Gramercy was only on board to dispense information to the public and to help out the Housing Authority that was inundated by calls.

Of course, I reminded him the one thing he wouldn't release was how much he was being paid with public funds, i.e. taxpayer money.

He said the information would be "forthcoming" or would come "in due time" or something to that effect. I said I "eagerly await it."

Then he called into question my journalistic integrity for following up on "anonymous blog posts" which he found — as a former reporter — somehow insulting to the profession. I asked if he had ever responded to anonymous phone calls (you know, doing due diligence as a reporter?) he said he did, but he found that to be different in some way than following up on comments.

I don't know about when he was a reporter, but the internet is here now.

On an unrelated (or possibly related) note, Ed Spychalski responded to my FOIL regarding Gramercy's contract very quickly saying he will get the info to us Monday or Tuesday (and added "Go Giants," so his heart is in the right place).

So we'll get the info after Gramercy stops working with the Housing Authority. If it had come out in the first place, of course, it probably would have just been a line in the original story they were introduced in. Of course now it will likely be a story Tuesday or Wednesday.