March 22, 2005
Follow-Up On That Clevenger/Hennessee Connection
Some Response From Involved Parties
A few weeks ago, we made some remarks about the Portland Tribune item which stated that Nathaniel Clevenger "occasionally represents" Portland Development Commission Chair Matt Hennessee. It was an issue for us at the time because Clevenger has also been working with Opus Northwest during its pitch to be selected by PDC for the Burnside Bridgehead project.
About a week later, we got email from Clevenger saying that the Tribune had gotten it wrong.
The Tribune’s description of my relationship with Mr. Hennessee was misleading. Mr. Hennessee is a friend of mine. As such, I provide advice to him on a variety of issues. Recently, for example, I suggested that he try a different cologne. I like the current stuff, but it makes me sneeze.
(Additionally, he closed with this retort: "I suppose one could argue that I 'represent' him in the same way you might claim you are a journalist in that you keep a journal (of sorts).")
While the original Tribune item was not bylined (it was part of their new "Sources Say" column), Clevenger indicated to us that the reporter in question was Jon Bell -- so we asked Bell about the origin of the seemingly rather specific "occasionally represents" phrase.
He called me after the item appeared and said that his relationship with Matt is purely platonic and that he's never been paid by Hennessee. He also said that as per the Bridgehead RFP, he is prohibited from talking with Matt about it and that the two do not discuss the Bridgehead project.
For what it's worth, that prohibition indeed is contained within the RFP (pdf), on page 27, under a section on "restrictons on communication".
During the course of this solicitation, proposers are cautioned not to undertake any activities or actions to promote or advertise their proposals except in the course of PDC-authorized presentations; or to make any direct or indirect (through others) contact with members of the Portland Development Commission, Evaluation Committee members (if named) or PDC staff members not identified in this solicitation as a contact for specific information, except upon prior approval of the above stated Project Manager.
A message left early last week for Hennessee himself, seeking his comment on the Tribune characterization and our picking it up here, brought no response. As such, we do not know his characterization of the matter.
While we still think even a personal connection between PDC board members and people seeking to procure business from PDC (even though in a town as incestuous as this one, it's essentially unavoidable) is a relevant piece of information from a full transparency standpoint, we thought it proper -- once we had assembled comments from the various parties involved in the question -- to pass all of this along.
One last meta-thought. While what we're about to say bears no relation to what Clevenger had to say, we admit that we continue to be rather baffled about how he said it. By which we mean not the tone -- we can handle that -- but the fact that he didn't simply post a reader comment like everyone else.
This is a blog, no one needs to jump through editorial hoops to express their views or respond to things. We suggested that he sent email as a way of daring us to post what he said. He had no response to that.
Comments (2)
Concerned... on 22 Mar 2005
According to PDC staff, Chair Hennessee "forced" the hiring of Clevenger for a lucrative contract with PDC.
No process; no competition. Just a lucrative contract with PDC for a "communications audit" with a firm that was neither respected or desired.
And this direction coming from the PDC Chair via The Don.
Gotta make you wonder...
allehseya on 23 Mar 2005
Bleh.
The Tribune column itself reads like gossip reporting on gossip. While I agree that all of this may be relevant -- it is only in the event that the 'gossip' evolve into 'facts' with named sources to verify them. Simply regurgitating the gossip "According to PDC staff, Chair Hennessee "forced" the hiring of Clevenger for a lucrative contract with PDC doesnt prove anything except some people like to gossip at the PDC about the PDC -- but apparently don't care enough about what they're talking about to go on record.
While I have no opinion one way or another at this point (due to not having enough facts to formulate one) -- I do think that friends give friends a lead on job openings / contract opportunities all the time. Since there's a policy in place designed to ensure that a conflict of interest doesnt arise, I wouldnt automatically assume that it is being violated just because the people are friends.
In light of what is being assumed or implied by The Tribune and here on Communique -- all things considered, I have to say that Clevenger's response whether in comment form, email or whatever -- was at least .... well....funny.