May 04, 2005
Continuing To Out The Clevenger Connections
It's Not What PR Flacks Say, It's What They Do
Back in the beginning of March, we noted a connection between Portland Development Commission Chair Matt Hennessee and one Nathaniel Clevenger, PR flack for Opus Northwest during the Burnside Bridgehead selection process.
Later that same month, we posted a follow-up in which Clevenger asserted that Hennessee simply was a "friend" and in which a Portland Tribune reporter told us that Clevenger had described the relationship to him as "platonic".
Today, Willamette Week swoops in and reports other relevant connections which shine a little more light on Clevenger's spin.
What's the problem with that? Only that earlier this year, Clevenger had two communications contracts with PDC -one for $40,000 and another for $55,000. Among his responsibilities? Speechwriting for Hennessee.
And the fellow assembling the effort to find Hennessee an elected office? You guessed it! The very same Clevenger.
So much for them just being "friends" of the "platonic" sort. We suggest, in addition to watching for answers to our open questions for Opus Northwest, that the reader also keep a watchful eye on any involvement Clevenger continues to have on the Burnside Bridgehead project, and take whatever you might hear from him with a protective layer of salt.
Posted at 11:06 AM | PermalinkComments (1) | TrackBacks (2)
More In Burnside Bridgehead, Design & Development, Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (2)
-
The Pitbull PR Method on 18 May 2005
This is not an episode in the Seven Deadly Agency Types series, but it could be - except that here we're looking at an example of an apparently deadly PR person, not an agency type. Long time blogger and citizen...
-
Rope-A-Dope on 31 Jul 2005
The Oregonian's/i> investigative reporting reminds me of late of that punch-drunk boxer on the ropes: Ready to collapse under the weight of his own head, yet still flailing wildly, hoping against hope that he'll land a lucky punch. Consider these...
Comments (1)
mytulpa on 06 May 2005
Both parties have said there was no connection. Where is the proof that there is a connection between the decision and these two?