Part 2 of a four part series on the relationship between County Commissioner Richard Lee and The Daily Astorian’s editor/publisher and CEO of the corporation that owns the paper, Steve Forrester
Daily Astorian Asserts majority want stipend returned to right wrongs
Throughout the campaign the Daily Astorian repeatedly made a point that twenty people spoke against the stipend removal and that the Board of County Commissioners were thwarting the “will” of the majority of the people by removing the stipend of a duly elected state official, that the ballot measure would “right the wrong” and the damage that the commissioners had created and that the “action [of the Board] was an attempt to control the office of the DA.” What did they mean and when?; County takes new turn on DA salary; DA controversy hits boiling point; opens up salary wound, pours in salt; Eleventh-hour filing stalls petition; The wound is still raw over DA’s salary cut; Richard Lee welcomes Marquis’ latest action.
One critically important reporting event that was notably passed over by the Daily Astorian was contained in the story DA salary initiative OK to move forward wherein it was reported, “Charles Hinkle, the lawyer representing the Committee to Retain the Independence of the Office of District Attorney … apparently confident his argument would prevail and wanting to save time, had already drawn up an order implementing the judge’s decree. Revised slightly after Junkin disputed some of the wording, the order directs Williams “to process that initiative … for circulation to the voters and placement on the ballot, if it obtains the required number of signatures.” What the paper refused to tell their readers was the fact that the judge had removed almost three lines of Hinkle’s argument, specifically crossing a line through the text which Hinkle wanted the judge to include regarding the constitutionality of the ballot measure. Removed from the order implementing the judges decree was that the initiative petition proposing a charter amendment “meets the requirements of Article VI, section 10, of the Oregon constitution.”
When the ballot measure was defeated the Daily Astorian did not back down. Steve Forrester, in his editorial following the defeat, attacked the commissioners as a whole and Richard Lee in particular. Forrester coined the phrase, “old time boss” in this editorial and, at a time when encouraging an amicable partnership would heal the county Forrester’s November 20, 2007 editorial is full of rancor. “Commissioner Lee’s performance in the past 11 months embodies a rural version of the kind of big city boss that was once common in Chicago and New York…” Forrester writes, “Lee recommended the appointment of a commissioner who eventually became pivotal in rejecting the planning staff’s recommendation regarding Northern Star’s proposed LNG terminal…”
Lee emerges as ringleader
Although Richard Lee was not a member of the committee defending the charter from being changed, Forrester insisted on calling him the leader of the opposition and repeatedly took up the District Attorney’s side, putting forth that Lee had a vendetta against the District Attorney because Marquis’ wife had ran (and lost) against Lee the year before. Those that know Lee have said he does not carry grudges. The winner rarely is the one with the vendetta. Forrester also contended that Lee must be the leader of the opposition because Forrester’s reporter was able to find a tenuous link to a woman who contributed $4,000 to the committee opposing the ballot measure. Clatsop County has an old-time Boss; Close election begs for a solution
We’re in one of the darkest moments of 16 years of home rule government; A big lie and laundered money; Mailing suggests some ‘truths’ about the DA ballot measure that are not self-evident;
While editorials are merely an opinion most journalists agree that because they are in a news venue opinion should be clearly stated and not given as facts. In Forrester’s comments above the former is clearly an opinion, which anyone can discern on their own whether or not Lee’s behavior is similar to the behavior of historical figures but in the latter statement the reader must go entirely on Forrester’s say so because Forrester has refused to give the reader all of the information to form their own opinion. Forrester refused to publish the staff findings, the planning commission’s report and the county council’s memos to show how often the Board actually deferred to the staff over the commission, how often the Board blended both the staff and the commission’s recommendations together and how often the Board elected to follow the advice of county council. Forrester refused to publish the information that the Board worked hard to get the LNG company to the table to negotiate the proposed Bradwood Landing development and if the Board hadn’t been willing to work with Northern Star, the corporation was going directly to FERC. Out of all of the Daily Astorian articles the one that alludes to the extra work and effort, and the possibility that issues will go to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) was the October 23, 2007 article, Astoria leader blasts LNG secrecy.
In most of Forrester’s editorials the claims he makes against Richard Lee and the rest of the county commissioners are not corroborated by empirical evidence. In 2007 many local government officials quietly quit speaking to the reporters of the Daily Astorian, or gave only brief interviews, well aware of the half truths the paper was publishing.
Bunch’s story bursts in the Daily Astorian
Just before the news of the Goldsmith Report broke in the Daily Astorian, its reporter, Joe Gamm ran an exclusive story starring the claimant in the investigation. Just the day before this exclusive interview County Manager, Scott Derickson, refused to answer questions regarding this same issue. With Derickson stating that because the county was conducting an independent investigation stemming from a complaint of an employee that includes a county commissioner and because the matters was currently being handled by the Clatsop County legal team and the county’s insurance provider, many people were perplexed when Jennifer Bunch spilled her story to the Daily Astorian the very next day.
Immediately after going to the Daily Astorian with her story the Goldsmith Report broke and Richard Lee filed a tort claim in response. The woman couldn’t be questioned by any other news venues. However, NCO reporting showed many ironies between the woman’s activities regarding the Lees and her activities in the planning office to help a co-worker complete his development.
The Daily Astorian reported that the woman, Jennifer Bunch, claimed that she was afraid for her job if she didn’t give Lee lenient treatment on his land use applications. The Daily Astorian emphasized that the county had hired an “independent” outside lawyer to investigate the allegations. The Daily Astorian failed to tell its readers that Jennifer Bunch’s mother had recently retired as the District Attorney’s trial assistant. The same paper which didn’t hesitate to inform their readers that Lee’s second wife’s daughter’s husband’s oldest brother’s renter had made a $4,000 contribution to the campaign to defeat the ballot measure the paper endorsed didn’t feel Bunch’s relationship to the District Attorney was relevant to the story.
What the Daily Astorian left out
The Daily Astorian didn’t inform their readers that the outside lawyer had investigated two other cases with the same charges against Lee. Goldsmith’s interviews with the other planners did not support Bunch’s story that the Lees acted hostile to Bunch, other planners witnessing the exchange failed to see malicious intent by Lynda Lee. The Goldsmith Report failed, as did the Daily Astorian, to report that the reason the Lees phoned Ed Wegner is because they were friends of the Wegners, they had dinner together and spent time going out together to events.
The Lees claim they never told Wegner to fire Bunch, Lynda Lee says she said something along the lines of, “You really have to do something about that woman, she was very rude to me!” The Daily Astorian failed to report on the people who came to the subsequent BOCC meetings to complain of their treatment from the same woman and how they had been misdirected on applications. The Daily Astorian failed to report Jim Neikes’ letter charging favoritism on the part of the planning department towards a fellow coworker developing his parents’ property.
Tom Freel, a radio newsman with KAST, brought out the point that given what the report said the other planners saw in the exchanges between the Lees and Jennifer Bunch the only way possible for Bunch to be under the impression that her job was in jeopardy was if Ed Wegner, for some reason, told her his version of the conversation between himself and Lynda Lee.
Next Installment:
Planner Jennifer Bunch claims Lees are the only developers to take advantage of Lee’s unique position as a commissioner, and because they were “running amok” she had to stop them. What story did the Daily Astorian miss and was it on purpose?
Previous:
The Rant of the Daily A
No comments:
Post a Comment