July 13, 2005

Investigator Clears Hennessee Of Undue Influence Over Contracts

But Two-Paragraph 'Report' Provides No Details Of Investigation

This afternoon before the Portland Development Commission, an independent investigator retained by the agency cleared Chair Matt Hennessee of having "directly or indirectly unduly influenced expenditure of public funds to specific vendors" as pertaining to Nathaniel Clevenger and 3 Public Communications.

That determination was reported to the Board of Commissioners in a terse, two-paragraph memorandum from Bradley F. Tellam, an attorney with Barran Liebman retained by PDC to investigate the matter of Clevenger's contracts with the agency, and whether or not Hennessee's connections to Clevenger were used to secure those contracts. That memo reported that no undue influence existed.

In his memo (pdf), Tellam says that he had "received PDC materials relating to contracting procedures," the contract file on Clevenger's firm itself, "a number of [other] documents," and conducted interviews with PDC staffers in order to reach his conclusion.

Tellam's memo provides no details on how he evaluated any of this material or what it contained, leaving the public with no way to retrace his steps and verify his conclusion. According to Martha Richmond (one of PDC's "media contacts"), that two-paragraph memo represents the totality of Tellam's report.

Despite this, Commissioner Doug Blomgren said: "I want to say that I believe this concludes this matter." Hennessee himself was not present for the agenda item, having temporarily turned over his duties as Chair to Blomgren during its consideration.

Let us make one observation up front, lest anyone misunderstand where we're going with this: Portland's infamous two degrees of separation virtually guarantees that questions such as those which had been raised about Hennessee and Clevenger will come up now and then, regardless of whether or not those questions ultimately are determined to have merit.

(In some sense, such scrutiny is just the price of doing public business in a City as small as Portland.)

But this report offers nothing in the way of the specificity or transparency required to demonstrate that those questions in the end indeed were unfounded.

The issues regarding connections between Hennessee and Clevenger may very well be put to rest by Tellam's investigation. But without a way for anyone else to judge for themselves (notwithstanding the requirement of the investigation that PDC staffers' identities be protected), we're required simply to take Tellam's word for it.

At the very end of today's Commission meeting, Commissioner Eric Parsons took a moment to deliver a message intended both for Hennessee and for the media.

"As you know," Parsons said, "we received a request to look at the possibility that you as Chair had in some way unduly influenced the expenditure of public money through contracting." Parsons said that the outside attorney retained for the investigation "conducted a very, very thorough review of the events surrounding the issues" which he said had been "so well-publicized by our friends in the press."

Referring to Tellam's memo, Parsons said that "there was no evidence whatever" to indicate that Hennessee had unduly influenced the decisions to reward the contracts at issue. He called the controversy "an instance of unsubstantiated rumors becoming interesting and reported by the press in ways that they could have been perceived to be true." Further, he urged that "this outcome could be reported as robustly as was the initial allegation."

With all due respect to Commissioner Parsons, he missed the point. In order, then, that he and others fully understand the point, we repeat what we've said before, in this and other contexts: Trust, but verify.

In the public arena, we're supposed to assure, not simply assume. Processes such as this investigation are supposed to make it clear for the public (for whom a public agency works) where the lines are, and just how one party or another did -- or indeed did not -- cross those lines.

To say that is to say absolutely nothing, neither positive nor negative, about the specific people involved (in this matter or any other), because determinations of this sort when it comes to public agencies aren't about the people, but about the processes people in the public arena are supposed to follow.

We raise questions about the lack of specificity and transparency in Tellam's report not to "go after" the people at issue in this particular case, but to keep everyone's eye on the ball: Transparency, in the cause of the public being able to judge for themselves how public agencies conduct the public's business.

Again, with due respect to Commissioner Parsons, it is neither the public's nor the press' job to simply take the word of public officials, contractors, or investigators at face value. In public life, when questions are raised, only a full and transparent accounting of events can answer those questions.

To make it perfectly clear for Parsons and others: There were two things "on trial" (as it were) here. First, the relationship between Hennessee and Clevenger, and whether or not it was used improperly. Second, the often-impenetrable shield around PDC.

And while Tellam's investigation indeed may have yielded nothing untoward about the first point, the utter and complete lack of detail about that investigation does nothing to help alleviate PDC's transparency problems, and makes his conclusions regarding the first point entirely unverifiable.

Lacking that requisite specificity and transparency for proper public judgments to be made, there's no way for the questions to be answered satisfactorily based upon Tellam's "report" -- and, frankly, that should irk the parties at issue (namely, Hennessee and Clevenger) as much as it irks us.

In the end, Tellam's report is no different, is no better, than the earlier denials by Hennessee and Clevenger themselves. "I've checked into it," is the essential paraphrase of his memorandum. "Trust me when I say there's no problem."

That may be so, with without providing the data necessary for people to evaluate Tellam's investigation for themselves, the public's need to know remains unsatisfied still.

Posted at 06:51 PM | PermalinkComments (5) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Design & Development, Metro-Area Politics

« Previous Next »