August 01, 2005
(Updated) PDC To Release More Information From Tellam Investigation?
Something Additional May Be Released Tomorrow
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
We're getting some whispers that at some point tomorrow the Portland Development Commission will be releasing more material related to a certain say-nothing two-paragraph memorandum (pdf) which we've previously mentioned a number of times now, most-recently a couple of days ago.
What we're hearing so far (and this is not completely confirmed as of this posting) is that PDC will be releasing a two-page document of some sort about the investigation in question.
Now, it's obviously impossible to pre-judge whether or not those two-pages will satisfactorily explain the investigation, in contrast to the original two-paragraph memo which did not. We'll all find out the answer to that tomorrow.
But for whatever it's worth, what can be said is that while the allegedly-forthcoming two-page document (if, indeed, that's what being released tomorrow) might be a reaction to our public records request, it doesn't actually satisfy that request, which was for "all documents generated ... in the production" of the original memo. We presume that such material would encompass more than two pages of material.
Regardless of whether or not the new material addresses what we're ultimately after here -- actual transparency, so that we have more than merely the investigator's word to go by -- what it doesn't do is technically serve as a response to our public records request, since the law appears to give public agencies no more than seven days to respond to such requests, after which that delay is to be treated as a denial of the request.
As mentioned in our previous item on this, it's been more than seven working days since PDC received our original request.
Which perhaps is neither here nor there, except for this reason: Such a delay beyond seven working days allows PDC to prevent its having to have a public document somewhere stating that they denied someone's public records request. It's just denied by default and automatically after seven working days, something like one version of a pocket veto, without them having to do anything overt.
As for the specifics of whatever it is that might be forthcoming during the day tomorrow, we'll all just have to wait and see.
August 2nd, 2005 Update
It needs to be noted out here in the open that since last night we have made one alteration to the original post here, in direct contradiction to one of our publicly-professed editorial policies: "Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry."
Some readers have, of course, already seen the original version. There isn't anything we can do about that.
All we can say is that we did not take the step to violate one of our own policies lightly, and in fact we have never knowingly done so before (and at the moment, upon reflection, we're not coming up with any unknowing exampels either). Unfortunately, we can't explain the change without in essence saying what the change was.
We'll have to take whatever hit we might take as a result of this, in terms of reader opinion and our own credibility. All we can do to try to blunt some of that is to admit that we've changed something, and to state that what was changed did not bear upon the facts of what we were reporting.
Meanwhile, we have an update on our own public records request, which we will get to shortly.
Comments (1)
Jack Bog on 01 Aug 2005
In your lead paragraph here, I think you mean "two-paragraph," not "two-page."