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 as 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 press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon, as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as 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.

Remember that old question – what did he/she know and when did he/she know it?

The question, originally posed in relation to the Watergate scandal, could be used today here in Oregon to describe a new public records controversy which probably won’t go away any time soon. And the question is this: What did those in charge of public records law implementation know and when did they know it?

I choose to comment on this because, truth be told, I was assigned to handle numerous public records issues when I served in state government in Oregon, as well as when I lobbied for the Oregon Association of Broadcasters at the Capitol.

The presumption, underlined by every Attorneys General in recent years, was this:

All government records are public unless there is a specific law that allows them to be withheld – and, in those cases, if it is a close call, err on the side of public release.

Here is what the Oregonian newspaper wrote about the current controversy:

“A newly released memo outlines tensions between Governor Kate Brown’s General Counsel Misha Isaak and Oregon Public Records Advocate Ginger McCall.

“Attorneys for the governor repeatedly sought to stop the state’s official transparency advocate from finding and fixing weaknesses in Oregon’s public records law, and Brown was fully briefed on those developments in May, a newly released document shows.”

There is much more in the Oregonian, as well as comments from the governor who disputes notions that she set to compromise the new law. As for me, from the cheap seats in South Salem, I posit these conclusions:

• It is almost never a good idea to name a public employee and presume they will be independent or convey upon them some kind of independent status.

All public employees should be subject to someone, either a state government manager or a statewide elected official, such as the governor. And, then, if there are problems, someone at or near the top should be held accountable for those problems, either to agree they exist or propose ways to fix them.

For me, this issue arose in relation to work I have been doing recently on a committee created at the behest of Oregon Common Cause. It was created to consider ways to inject ethics considerations back into public life, both for those in elective or appointive office and for the public in general.

In this context, we heard that the Federal Ethics Office was supposed to be independent of both the Executive and Legislative Branches. Without a competent executive director – and there was one until he recently retired – the independent status would have made the office king or queen.

Better to create the office as an integral part of government, then hold those accountable for their record in supervising it.

• It is almost never a good idea to create a new government position and expect that person, alone, to comply with a complicated state law, in this case public records law.

A tendency in government is to create something new – a new position or even a new agency – rather than require what already exists to function well government. Too often, it’s the way of government – create something new to manage something old.

In this case, there is well-established public records law, ORS 192.500 (including at least specific exemptions in such cases as the personal information about government employees, including their home addresses and phone numbers) and the task should be for the legislature and other high elected officials to make sure the law works as it was intended to work.

Hold agencies and individuals accountable to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. Don’t create something new and presume that produce the needed fix.

The current public records controversy will stay with us for some time. The media, which is invested in public records, will make sure it does.

So be it.