NorthCoastOregon.com

Local News

Commissioner vs Newspaper Part IV: The Phantom Investigation

Part IV of a 4 part series about the Daily Astorian and Clatsop County Commissioner Richard Lee

Part 1: Yellow Journalism

Part II: Leaving Things Out

Part III: Ready To Attack

Investigation?

The Daily Astorian’s headlines on February 12, 2008 read, “Criminal investigator probes Lee” with a subheading stating: Attorney says commissioner’s actions adverse to county. Most would say that the two were related, however they were two different stories. The subheading appears to have been used merely to give credence to the headline.

The opening sentence in the Daily Astorian DOJ Investigation article states:The Oregon Department of Justice is investigating Commissioner Richard Lee. But after phone calls, interviews, emails, and numerous Public Information Requests, NorthCoastOregon has been unable to find a paper trail of any investigation of Richard Lee of any kind by the Department of Justice in at least the last year. As a matter of fact the only “investigation” that could be found is the one that the county arranged into the allegations made by Jennifer Bunch involving a Human Resource issue.

“Criminal Investigation” is a powerful term according to the The Oregon Court of Appeals. They ruled that any and all documents of a Criminal Investigation are available to the Media. And if the agency chooses redact part of the documents they must state why.


Last fall, during the political frey of the 4-123 campaign, the Oregon Secretary of State’s office was contacted by Larry Taylor with allegations that Lee had made false statements in an advertisement. The state compliance officer ruled that clear and sufficient evidence had not been provided by Taylor to support his allegations. Taylor also filed a complaint stating “suspicious circumstances” occurred regarding a woman from Hubbard making a contribution of $4,000 to the committee that Taylor opposed. Taylor accused four county commissioners of “directly or indirectly” giving the woman money to contribute, Lee being one. The Secretary of State’s office ruled again that there was insufficient evidence to pursue an investigation of the allegations on that complaint as well.

The Daily Astorian wrote that the Oregon Department of Justice was investigating Commissioner Richard Lee according to Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin. The story went on to state that the Sheriff “would not give any details” of the investigation but he did state that the investigation had been ongoing for two weeks, it was being conducted by criminal investigator Page McBeth, and that McBeth had interviewed a number of people inside and outside county government.

A phone call to media representative Stephanie Soden produced interesting results. When first contacted on Friday, February 29th, by NCO editor Tryan Hartill, and asked about an investigation of Commissioner Richard Lee, Soden replied that there hadn’t been an investigation in the Clatsop County area by the Department of Justice in at least 3 months.

Subsequently Soden was emailed by this reporter to clarify Soden’s conversation with Hartill. When Soden replied March 3rd her story changed slightly yet she confirmed that there had not been an investigation by the DOJ regarding “Commissioner Robert Lee”. It was confirmed that Soden meant Commissioner Richard Lee. Soden continued, “A preliminary inquiry was conducted in response to a request that criminal allegations be investigated. That inquiry has concluded and DOJ determined that insufficient facts and evidence exist to warrant a criminal investigation at this time.”

Documents and Emails

In a Public Information Request a email from Soden to District Attorney Marquis shows up. In that February 29th email Soden says, “District Attorney Marquis -I wanted to give you a heads up that I received a call this afternoon from Tryon Hartell (sp?) from the North Coast News asking for confirmation that DOJ completed its investigation of Commissioner Lee and copies of any conclusive reports. I responded by informing this “reporter” that there was not an investigation – concluded or otherwise – at DOJ on this issue……”

The email omits the first part of the conversation when Soden was read the first sentence of the Daily Astorian article and she replied “They got it wrong”. But the email did include the end of the conversation when NCO told her that the Daily Astorian is the “largest Newspaper in the County…..and they got it wrong?”, to which she did not respond. The email from Soden to Josh Marquis finishes with, “This email is intended to keep you in the loop on the news media inquiries at DOJ on this issue as a result of our phone discussion a few weeks ago. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this.”

Emails from Sheriff Bergin reveal some confusion as to what is going on. On February 13th Bergin writes: “… what usually occurs first is that citizens from our community bring the alleged criminal activity to Law Enforcement or the District Attorney’s Office where then it is determined the best course of action is to be taken. In this scenario, the Sheriff’s Office was not the one who brought it to DOJ because the allegations were not brought to us. I was asked a few weeks ago by DOJ to provide him with some names/info that they were requesting for interviews.”

By February 29th the Sheriff has changed his answer a little, “DOJ did ask for names or should I say ask for info on some people who they could interview regarding a complaint but I don’t know if it would be considered an investigation or more of an inquiry to see if there was something they needed to actually investigate.”

March 12, 2008: “I also want you to know that you or anyone else is welcome to come to my office anytime and go through anything pertinent that could help you in your endevours. I am a big proponent of open government and do not believe in hiding anything. I also believe that when someone asks you a question you should answer directly and to the best of your ability.”

On March 17th, after being asked if he took the story to the Daily Astorian, Bergin writes, “I did not go to the Daily A but was talking to Joe Gamm and thought he was referencing Lee because of all the media surrounding him in the paper and the radio at the time and that’s when I said yes it is true that DOJ is looking at him. I did not “go” to them, he called me. I honestly thought he (Joe) knew by the way he was talking and remember by the time I made that comment, Page the “investigator” for DOJ had interviewed several people around the county so I am sure the word was already out.”

On March 17th Bergin was also asked: “Another point I am confused on is what did the DOJ ask for from you? You have said you gave him a list of names and numbers, but pertaining to what? What made you decide whose name to give to Page McBeth?” The Sheriff has not, as yet, responded to these questions.

Ken Dobson, the lawyer representing Richard and Lynda Lee, recently wrote, “I spoke with Donna Maddox, an investigator with the Department of Justice this afternoon regarding the alleged “investigation” of Richard. It turns out that the DOJ is not investigating Richard. She says that some people asked them to open an investigation, they checked into it and determined that there was insufficient evidence to even open an investigation. There was just nothing there.”

Public Information Requests Yield Very Little

On March 5, 2007, NCO began sending Public Information Requests (PIRs) out. The PIRs were sent to the Clatsop County Sheriff’s office, the District Attorney’s Office of Josh Marquis and to the Oregon Department of Justice requesting copies of any documentation the agency was keeping on Richard Lee, had shared with another agency on Lee, had collected on Lee and the original complaint on Richard Lee. The PIR to the Sheriff’s office did not turn up any documentation (hence the confusion as to what was turned over to the DOJ agency).

The Sheriff said he did not keep a copy of the list of names he gave the investigator and he stated the complaint had not originated with him. The PIR to the District Attorney’s office turned up only the email from Soden to Marquis, but questions as to what Soden and Marquis discussed “a few weeks ago” persist. Marquis has declined to comment on the issue. The PIR to the Department of Justice has not as yet been answered.

Despite the fact that there was no investigation and, even more importantly, no originating complaint to give it credence, the Daily Astorian continued reporting to the public on a supposed investigation. During a time when the pubic was making a decision on whether or not to recall their commissioner the paper couldn’t have obtained a confirmation from the Department of Justice media representative Stephanie Soden or it would have gotten the same response we did. If the Daily Astorian had sought confirmation from the DOJ department head, Donna Maddox, they would have received the same response Lee’s attorney received. The question is, how did the Daily Astorian confirm their story, or did they?

Richard Lee has not been the only commissioner criticizing the Daily Astorian’s lack of credibility. Commissioners Hazen, Roberts and Sammuelson have all asked the Daily Astorian to step up their fact checking, or retract a misleading story, or apologize for unsubstantiated attacks..

At the town hall meeting Richard Lee held he said that this is a lack of respect on the part of the paper. The paper misleads its readers and leads them to think suspicious thoughts over innocent matters. Recently the paper’s editorial section wrote, “Lee stocked the County Planning Commission with new members who were inclined to support his interests…” and other news articles staff write, “[Lee] interferes in the selection of members of Clatsop County Planning Commission …” This issue upsets Lee because it infers that commissioners who go out and recruit people to sit on committees and commissions are doing something wrong. “It is what we are supposed to do, encourage community to become involved. If I see someone who I think would do a good job I am going to encourage them to go for a position on one of the committees. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and it is how it is done all across the state,” Lee recently said when asked if he approached people to sit on committees. Do those people support the same things Lee supports? “Possibly, that is why we probably were talking about an issue, it is normal to look for and want to work with [like minded] people.”

As can be witnessed throughout government agencies and administrations throughout Clatsop County this holds true and there is nothing sinister about it. It is actually a healthy component of a community according to many sociological studies. Case in point is the relationship between Auerbach and Weston, one a property owner and another a planner for Clatsop County planning division. While Auerbach also sits on the County Recreational Lands Advisory Committee both Auerbach and Weston sit on the board of Warrenton Trails Association. It is mutually beneficial to the community at large that a good rapport has developed between the two as they look for ways that will work best for the lands they are responsible for and make recommendations to the BOCC on how to manage. While sometimes matters arise that make it difficult to give an unbiased viewpoint committee members, staff and commissioners are cautioned by county counsel to use their own judgment as to whether or not recuse themselves from a discussion or vote.

If people in these positions started recusing themselves from everything in the county they had any knowledge of part of very little progress would be made. Many members of the county staff as well as committee members and commissioners belong to a wide variety of the local groups, clubs and associations, as can be seen by looking at a staff directory and the lists of any local organizations.

What is not good for a community is bad reporting, according to the Communications Research Center at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. The report written by Jack Haskins states: The bad news created a negative image of the community not only on characteristics directly related to the news topics (safety, crime, and violence) but also on general characteristics (standard of living, neighborhoods, and environment). The bad news also created negative perceptions of the newspaper on both news-related characteristics (constructive approach, realistic balance) and general characteristics (trustworthy advertising, editorial staff competence).

How we see ourselves as well as how others outside of our community perceive us could directly impact our economy and ability to attract business, industry as well as tourism. It appears to be something that more people are becoming aware of as might be seen soon in upcoming actions being contemplated in administrations and organizations around the county.

Related:

Part 1: Yellow Journalism

Part II: Leaving Things Out

Part III: Ready To Attack

18 Comments

Submit A Comment

Name (required)

Email (required, but not shown)

URL

Remember my personal information

Please enter the word you see in the image above: