PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager, and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

There is a very real sense in which elected officials, caught in some kind of potentially criminal web, are guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion.

That was the case with former Governor John Kitzhaber and his “first lady,” Cylvia Hayes.

Kitzhaber resigned when he lost support from his supporters among key Democrat office-holders. Due to Kitzhaber’s behavior, he also lost support from some members of the public who had recently voted him into office for fourth term. He was not in a criminal court; he was in the court of public opinion.

The fact is that Kitzhaber still has not been convicted of any crime, though the investigation of his conduct and that of Ms. Hayes is continuing. In this criminal proceeding, he is innocent until proven guilty.

To those who say the “guilty, not innocent” criterion is unfair, I say, that’s the way it is in public life. Those who run for election and win should be held to a high standard and, when they lose public support, they deserve to step aside, even though they have not had their day in an official court.

Let me add that the allegation against a public official must be something more than just an unsubstantiated attack by a political opponent. It must have more gravity, including by media reporters playing the “watchdog of the people role,” if it is to rise to the level of something that risks a political office.

A group calling itself the “Center for Public Integrity” made a media announcement recently in which it gave Oregon an “F” because, the organization maintained, “state officials and lawmakers have failed to address profound weaknesses in the public records law revealed by the allegations that forced Kitzhaber from office in February.”

Even though the organization appears, by the information on its website, to enjoy some credibility, its conclusion is way too simplistic.

Kitzhaber left office because he cashed in his own credibility. Politically, he could not survive.

It wasn’t Oregon’s public records law that did him in.   That law rests on a straightforward and simple premise: All government records are public unless they fit into one or more of the specific exemptions outlined in law (ORS 192.500). In the strongest possible terms, all attorney generals in recent memory have advised government officials to assume that records are public. Then, if exemptions apply, those records can be protected.

Examples are the home addresses of law enforcement officials because release could subject them to increased threats to their safety; information submitted to the State of Oregon by companies wanting to do business here if release could compromise trade secrets; and information about state government land acquisition interests if release could results in higher prices for the land.

In other words, even if the public records law was perfect, it could be flouted by someone who wanted to skirt its requirements.

That said, it is past time for Oregon’s public records statutes to be updated in several important ways – ways that have been advocated by two important interest groups, the Oregon Association of Broadcasters (a long-time public affairs client of the firm where I toiled for 25 years, CFM Strategic Communications) and the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association.

A few examples of what could be improved:

• Public records statutes should be updated to reflect the increased use of e-mails, as well as other forms of new technology.

• Over the years, it is possible that too many public records exemptions have been added to the law. There are more than 40 contained in ORS 192.502. Some of them have clear rationales; others don’t. They should be reviewed one-by-one.

• In addition, a large number of exemptions has been added in other places throughout Oregon statutes, which makes it hard to track them. They should be collated into the main law to make it easier to understand overall State of Oregon policy.

• However, the basic test in the public records law is worth preserving. It is the balancing test between the public’s right to know and personal privacy, with the former being the bias. It is the test on which all exemptions should be reviewed.

Oregon’s public records system does not deserve an “F.” There is room for improvement, but public officials should live under a higher law than what’s written in statutes.

They owe credibility to the public that elected them and, when they sacrifice that credibility, they should do what Kitzhaber did — resign.