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 in Salem and Portland, 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.

Government risk-taking is risky business. If government officials take a policy or program risk and it flops, they are criticized for wasting taxpayer money. If officials avoid taking a risk and a problem festers, they also get criticized for wasting taxpayer money.

Dick Hughes, editorial page editor for the Statesman Journal, says risk-taking is a good idea for government. “If we want government to succeed at a higher level, we must be willing to tolerate failures,” Hughes said. “That sounds counter-intuitive, but most great leaders also have a string of failures – ones from which they learned.”

That sounds good in theory, but maybe less so in practice. In many ways, the deck is stacked against government risk-taking. My 15 years in government service says no risk-taking, however successful, goes unpunished.

It is hard to quarrel with brickbats aimed at foolish risk-taking such as Cover Oregon’s over-reaching attempt to build a health insurance exchange website. Other risk-taking, especially the kind that might take a while to prove out, still earns “gotcha” reporting in the media. Many public managers, who are no fools, quickly grasp the odds are low for risk-taking in government that earns kudos.

There is room for reasonable risk-taking in government, but it requires planning, strategy and discipline, not taking a spin on a roulette wheel. Here are some suggestions based on my experience:

• The risk should result from a consensus. Even good ideas get better when a diverse team vets them and frontline people have a chance to suggest them. When I worked as part of the Executive Department’s management team under Fred Miller, we launched the “Good Ideas Program” (we couldn’t think of a better name), which encouraged fresh thinking and responsible risk-taking. None of the ideas were revolutionary, but many were very good and made a noticeable difference in program efficiency and effectiveness.

• Risk-taking must be able to pass what I call the “front-page test.” You should be able to make a cogent defense of the risk that would stand up in the light of front-page exposure. If an idea couldn’t withstand that kind of public scrutiny, it probably isn’t worth trying.

• Reduce a bright idea to writing. The idea may sound good until you start laying it out on paper. When you write about an idea, you will think it through more clearly –  the rationale, the methods, the answers to tough questions and the results you can realistically achieve. If you can fill in those blanks, you probably have an idea worth considering and implementing.

• Make sure someone is accountable for the good or bad.There will be plenty of people eager to crowd into the picture of a ribbon-cutting, but few willing to be seen on the podium explaining a failure. Make sure the risk has a clear chief risk-taker. Also make sure he or she won’t be tossed to the wolves if there is a failure.

If lawmakers want public managers to take reasonable risks, they need to give them the elbow room to succeed or fail and not pounce on them if they fail. They need to accept some of Dick Hughes’ advice and regard failure as a step toward ultimate success.

That may be harder to do for the news media, but at least reporters and editors can provide a context for risk-taking and explore lessons learned, not just scapegoats to blame.

Risk-taking will always be risky. That’s why you need to do everything possible to make sure the benefits outweigh the risk and responsible risk-takers aren’t skewered for taking risks.

[This blog also appeared on the website of the company where I worked before I retired — CFM Strategic Communications.]

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 in Salem and Portland, 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.

I have reflected on this lately after someone asked me if I was embarrassed after having been a lobbyist for 25 years until I retired a few months ago.

My quick and easy was no.

Sure, with lobbyists as with any other profession, a rotten apple can spoil the barrel. The risk is that all lobbyists get a bad name.

But, in my experience in a company I co-founded about 25 years ago, lobbying has been a forthright, upright and honest profession. Let me summarize how.

First, without standing on some kind of pedestal, I would say that I never was required to engage in unethical conduct to advance the cause of my clients. The clients expected straightforward and honest conduct. My colleagues and I delivered it. The professional association of lobbyists, the Capitol Club (yes, the name could be improved), maintains a code of conduct and good lobbyists live under both the letter and spirit of that code.

I did.

To be effective, a lobbyist must retain credibility at all costs. Your word must be your word, which, if you think about it, is an appropriate aspiration for all of real life.

I and others in my firm also had the privilege of representing a host of honorable and ethical clients over the years. I was never once embarrassed to have my name associated with these clients.

That includes such superb organizations as Providence Health System, Hewlett-Packard, Harris Communications, Catholic Community Services, Youth Villages-Oregon, UnitedHealthcare, Columbia River Pilots, Oregon Winegrowers Association, Coos/Yaquina Bay Pilots, the Portland Trailblazers, Salem-Keizer Transit, the City of Salem, the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, Oregon Public Broadcasting, the Coalition of County Children and Families Commissions, the Port of Portland and many others.

On behalf of these clients, I counted it a privilege to be in the business of helping to form public policy. My clients illustrated a key principle of the business of politics, which is to be open to compromise — solutions to public policy problems somewhere in the middle, which is the where the best solutions lie anyway.

So, is lobbying a honorable profession? I answer yes and look back with fondness and pride at what “we” – my colleagues and I – were able to achieve over the years with the full support and cooperation of our clients.

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.

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 in Salem and Portland, 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.

If you ask me, I don’t believe Hillary Clinton is qualified to run for or be president, given her checkered past.

I have been criticized on occasion for labeling her a “crook,” and, I agree, I probably should have used the word “alleged” as a modifier. For me, though, in the court of public opinion, she is guilty. Not in a criminal court yet, though at some point, she may end up there.

I reach the view on Hillary based on questions about her record as an attorney, as a First Lady, as a U.S. Senator, as U.S. Secretary of State and now as a presidential candidate. But, mainly, I rely on the ethical and leadership failures in relation to the Clinton Foundation, which she still runs with her husband, Bill.

For the following litany of what I’ll call “crookdom,” I rely on Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who has chronicled Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds in material for that newspaper.

Recently Krauthammer said he had no doubt some of the 30,000 e-mails Hillary deleted from her private e-mail server very likely had references to the Clinton Foundation.

Here, according to Krauthammer is a concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax-free international money-laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be one of the largest political criminal enterprises in U.S. history as it hides foreign money and re-packages it to be used for the Clintons’ purposes. And, what’s more, it’s all tax free.

1. You create a separate foreign “charity.” In this case, one in Canada.

2. Foreign oligarchs and governments then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did — contributing mega millions.

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.

5. The Clinton Foundation then “spends” some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10 per cent. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clintons, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world’s best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. It discovers these “clerical errors” and begins the process of re-filing five years of tax returns.

7. Net result — foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton’s pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

By the way, the Canadian “charity” includes as a principal one Frank Giustra. Google him. He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia.

This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted.

Sarcasm aside, if you’re still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clintons, ask yourself this:

Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?

This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling.

It is what should disqualify Hillary Clinton from running for or being president.

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 in Salem and Portland, 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.

AND, THIS BLOG IS A REPRINT OF A PIECE BY A COLLEAGUE, PAGE PHILLIPS, IN MY OLD FIRM, CFM STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS. SHE CAPTURES KEY POINTS ABOUT HOW US OLD FOLKS WORK WITH A NEW GENERATION.

Working with colleagues from a different generation presents a number of communication challenges. But with a few key principles, it’s possible to bridge the generation gap in the workplace.

While working with multiple generations in the office and with clients is nothing new, the digital era constantly brings about new challenges in communication.

Baby Boomers (1946-1954) and Generation X (1965-1970) prefer emails and face-to-face communication, while Millennials (1980-2000) text and use social networks, like Twitter and Instagram, and messaging apps like Snapchat to communicate.

There seems to be a new social media tool emerging every day, and while Millennials seem to instantly understand them, older workers often feel overwhelmed. In reality, too much reliance on one method can alienate coworkers and clients, making it difficult to communicate with someone from another generation with a different preference.

There is a generational difference in formality, too. Suits have turned into jeans – and not just on casual Fridays. Abbreviated stream-of-conscious communication is replacing anguishing over a letter or email.

In many workplaces, the traditional at 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. workday at your desk has been replaced with telecommuting. Measuring productivity now involves judging the quality of your work product rather than how many hours it took you to do it.

So, in today’s fast changing workplace, how can coworkers from different generations work effectively with each other and their clients? Here are some tips.

1. Understand work styles.Rather than assuming your communication style is best, notice how different coworkers and clients prefer to communicate.

Does someone come to your office to talk instead of texting? Does a client respond to your phone call by email? Learn how others like to communicate and use it. If you’re not sure, just ask.

2. Share perceptions and values. You can often avoid generational conflicts by learning one another’s perceptions and values.

A Boomer may find the lack of formality and manners of a Millennial offensive, while Millennials may feel their opinions are not considered or appreciated.

3. Be willing to learn. As an older Gen Xer, I tend to dismiss the newest social media tool by telling myself “it’s a waste of time” or “ it’s just a fad, so no need to learn it.”

But don’t be fooled. Older workers should always be willing to learn new communication tools since they will need them when working with younger clients. Don’t be afraid to ask the younger workers in the office for help.

The opposite is true for younger workers. Abbreviations and short, incomplete thoughts are fine between friends, but that’s not a good way to communicate with clients. Learning how to write well is a trans-generational necessity, so be willing to learn from others on what makes a good writer.

4. Realize the strength in all generations. The best communicators are comfortable with all generations of communication tools, and they aren’t afraid to try out new ones. Since most clients will be multi-generational, valuing the strengths of each generation’s communication style guarantees the best value to one’s client – and a more cohesive workplace.

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 in Salem and Portland, 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.

I am incredulous that Donald Trump is still in the presidential hunt.

All he does is appeal to the worst instincts in citizens as he expresses his own deep-seated racism, his hatred for women, his disdain for immigrants and his inability to put two sentences together in a way that makes sense.

The latter may, in fact, be one of his biggest appeals. He doesn’t even try to answer questions along the campaign trail and only resorts to generalizations that buttress his position as one marketing himself without regard to substance and reality.

Listen to him sometime. I defy you to repeat what he says. Cannot be done.

Referring to when Trump made headlines by questioning one of the initial Republican front-runners, Jeb Bush, columnist Kathleen Parker put it this way:

“Bush’s style isn’t exactly, say, electric, but he does have actual policies in his actual brain to back his campaign points. You may not like or agree with them, but at least there’s something there — a book on immigration, a legislative history on education, a longtime personal relationship with the Hispanic world.

“With Trump it’s all later, baby. Essentially, his motto is: Trust me, I can do this.”

I, for one, refuse to join the Trump bandwagon. Michael Davis, the editor of my hometown newspaper, the Salem Statesman-Journal, had it right a couple days ago when he wrote a piece with the headline

“The case of the loose buffoon running his mouth.”

Mr. Davis intentionally did not mention the name of the buffoon, but he didn’t need to do so. Anyone who read that headline would know that the subject is Donald Trump, who has made a mockery of running for the world’s most important political office, President of the United States.

With kudos to Mr. Davis, here is his column.

“There’s a buffoon on the loose who continues to claim that our country is no longer great.

“This dangerous xenophobe and unrepentant racist would have you believe that our triumphs as a society are all behind us, and that only by electing him to the highest office in the land will we regain our commanding place among free nations.

“What concerns me most about this bully is the lack of proper response to his vitriol and incendiary rabblerousing.

“For months, his accusatory mouth has run wild as his adherents nod their approval, even as the candidate contradicts himself and mouths inanities like all ethnic groups will “love” his presidency. This, as he disparages and defames Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, Syrian refugees and basically anyone who isn’t him.

“The nation’s first reality-show presidential candidate is incapable of providing a straight, informed answer to questions of even moderate difficulty. He dodges, weaves, meanders, misdirects and scat sings his way out of responding intelligently.

“Worse, he attacks opponents and critics with schoolyard taunts, as he did when depicting former prisoner of war John McCain as something less than heroic for being captured by the North Vietnamese.

“A few months ago, it occurred to me that this candidate was a modern-day Joe McCarthy, the vicious former senator from Wisconsin responsible for creating one of the blackest marks on our nation’s history. But the person who aspires to lead our nation is much more dangerous and insidious than McCarthy because he seems determined to stir a civil uprising from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

“The candidate is churning up so much hatred and overt bigotry we are at risk of rekindling hostilities between regions of the country that we thought had been put to rest in the 19th century.

“The candidate’s adherents are armed, they are angry and they’re feeling victimized. They’re being driven by emotion, not reason, and they don’t seem to care a whit whether the guy in the red ball cap can provide specifics. That he perpetuates outrageous falsehoods is of no matter. That he is incapable of an apology or even a clarification is of no consequence.

“The candidate is simply a fast-talking salesman, a pitchman, a B.S. artist, a dealmaker in the worst sense.

“Most enraging is his sales pitch that he will singlehandedly “make America great again.”

“Forget for the moment that we already a great country, albeit it with a list of issues we need to improve. That’s been the case since 1776.

“The candidate’s version of greatness is all caught up in “winning,” as if the global stage is just one big wrestling mat, where one combatant is victorious while another slinks away in shame.

“In the candidate’s cartoonish version of humanity’s progress, there are only winners and losers.

“A nation’s greatness has nothing to do with scoreboards and end zone dances.

“Greatness emanates from a nation’s soul, from its willingness to actually follow through on Monday morning on the promises made over the weekend in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other places of private contemplation where people of conscience gather.

“We are united by the Golden Rule, yet one blustering candidate and his followers are relentlessly turning away from that guiding principle.

“The candidate whose name I can no longer mention – out of revulsion – believes this: Mistreat others and make no apology for doing so.

“Rise up, people of good will and fairness.

“Your silence is exacerbating the problem and slowly spreading another dark blot on our history.”

As Americans, we can do better than Trump and, I add, better than Hillary Clinton who, in her own way, cheapens the political process by her own lack of ethics.

I pine for the day when we will have better choices that reflect more credit on this great country.

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan put it this way recently – and I agree with her:

“We don’t need the drab, manipulative ideological arguments we so often get, and we don’t need the shaming that comes from so much of our political discourse—you’re insensitive, racist, sexist, check your privilege, quit appropriating my culture. We don’t need the two things we so often get from our government and its practitioners, the defensive whine and the impenetrable babble.

“There is a hunger to be reminded we’re all in this together, that this thing we’re all part of is, in fact, a great and noble project.

“We all want to be moved by the public acts of public men and women. We all want to be stirred by the soundtrack of the nation we love. We all want a leader who is equal to the music (which was a reference to her love of instrumental music as she writes).”

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 in Salem and Portland, 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.

Good question.

But I know the answer – and it is yes. Emphatically

I know this because our dog, Hogan, a miniature poodle, not to mention a multi-sport athlete, incurred a torn ACL recently. Yes, a torn ACL, which in the dog business, is called a “cruciate ligament.”

Not quite sure how he did it, other than the report from our very competent dog sitter indicating that, one morning, on a rain-soaked driveway, Hogan slipped and begin limping badly. We were out of town and, when we got the report, we advised our dog sitter to do what she would have done anyway, which is to get an x-ray.

She did and it showed a tear.

When we got home, we arranged for an appointment with a vet surgeon who explained the corrective procedure to us. It would take major surgery to put the two joints in the knee back into alignment, along with insertion of a piece of metal fixed to the leg bone to help the knee heal.

The alternative was not good – let the tear heal on its own, which would not be likely.

We were not sure about whether to proceed with our 11-year-old dog who, as a small dog, probably has five, six or seven good years left in a normal life span.

Eventually, we elected to have the surgery done, so we left him at the vet’s office overnight for the procedure which, by all accounts, went very well, including the fact that he had to be under for the procedure.

But, what was especially tough was the first two weeks after surgery when we had to keep Hogan mostly immobile.   To be sure, he was not inclined to move around much on his recovering leg, but, still, it was up to us to stop any movement.

And, no need to give this too much thought, but immobility included on trips outside in our arms to do “his business.” Enough said.

Let’s just say that, to endure the two-weeks, it was a lot of TV.

Now, we are reaching the end of the third week, with one more week to go before the month-out follow-up visit. After that, we presume Hogan will be allowed to get a little exercise and learn again how to use his now surgically-repaired leg.

All in all, a day in life for dog owners. For us, it was not an easy decision to have the surgery done because it was a major procedure. But one of the factors was NOT how much it would cost. For a member of the family that is not a deterrent. Let’s just say it was a big number.

We have nothing but respect for the surgeon, Dr. Steve Peterson, who works at the VCA Specialty Clinic in Clackamas, Oregon. From the beginning, it was obvious he knew what he was doing, including giving us all the information we needed, but giving us room to make our own decision without any pressure.

He performed the surgery, then gave us his personal cell phone number and said, “Call anytime.” We did and he answered after only a couple rings.

Great professionalism. Great service. And, so far, great result.

And, yes, dogs have knees and tears are one of the most common injuries. Here’s hoping that this is our last one.

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 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.

It’s strange to imagine anyone feeling a sense of gratitude in pondering John Kitzhaber’s tarnished legacy.

But somewhere down the line – after many years of healing and fading memories – Oregonians may actually thank the former governor for making one particular lasting difference for the better. At least that’s the hope after Gov. Kate Brown recently commissioned a task force of lawmakers, lobbyists an accomplished investigative reporter from The Oregonian, and an Oregon broadcaster to take a closer look at Oregon’s public records law.

It was, after all, Kitzhaber’s questionable dealings with his ever-puzzling fiancée Cylvia Hayes that served as the impetus for revisiting the law. Without the famous scandal that ultimately pushed him out of office amid a criminal investigation – and Kitzhaber’s attempts to block and delay the release of many telling emails – we honestly wouldn’t be at this point.

The crux of the issue is the question of where the balance lies between the public’s right to know what’s going on inside the government and our elected officials’ right to privacy.

Of course, the whole situation is actually driven by the media. If Willamette Week reporter Nigel Jaquiss hadn’t dug into what was going on behind the scenes, the Kitzhaber stories may have never seen the light of day.

Kitzhaber’s story aside, maybe it was just time to take another look at the rules anyway. The Oregon Association of Broadcasters and the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association argue we need to bring order to all of Oregon’s public and private record statutes.

Oregon has a basic public records law with an assumption that everything is public. In the strongest possible terms, all attorneys general in recent memory have advised state officials that they should assume all records are public and that they can be protected only if they qualify under one of the exemptions.

The law was created in 1973, and today it has more than a few dozen exemptions. Many of those are justified, of course, so don’t expect all of them to be stricken from the books. Trade secrets, records pertaining to pending litigation, evidence compiled in an open criminal investigation. All of that is exempt from disclosure under the law, and for good reason.

The increased use of email systems in recent years has made public records issues far more complex since the law’s genesis 42 years ago. In fact, that hits at the central question of the investigation into Kitzhaber and Hayes: Did they use private email systems to conduct public business and then shield the emails from public scrutiny?

As it turns out, news organizations have also played a role in complicating the public records issue. Occasionally, reporters make blanket requests for access to email records over a long period of time, which only adds to the government’s difficulty in complying.

But of course, no matter where you stand on the question of the effectiveness of the law, there’s no denying that without a solid system of public access to government records, democracy suffers.

[My colleague at CFM Strategic Communications, Justin Runquist, wrote this piece on public records, with an assist from me. Thus, he deserves the major credit for this analysis.  This piece also appeared in the Salem StatesmanJournal on November 20.]

PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19TH 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 press secretary for an Oregon Congressman 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.

It’s been several weeks since the Department of Peeves was open for business, so, as the department’s director, I say it’s time to throw wide the doors and outline a few additional pet peeves.

1. Using nouns used as verbs

Here are a few examples:

• Partner is a noun, not a verb. So, it is wrong to say that “I intend to partner with someone.” It is right to say, “I intend to be a partner with someone.”

• Catalyst also is a noun. But I have a former partner who coined a word, which I have seen a few times since and which always hurts the ear. It is “catalyze.” Frankly, it’s not a word.

• Or, how about a word that sticks closer to home for me – golf. It is a noun describing a game to which I have become addicted over about 30 years. It is not a verb. Thus, what some golf commentators say – “It’s time for the player to golf his ball.” – sounds crazy.

• My wife has another example, frankly one she likes. In a poem by Dylan Thomas, A Child’s Christmas in Wales, Thomas writes this – “The postman mittened on the door.” Sure, it communicates – a muffled knock, but using the noun “mitten” as a verb? I say no.

2. Splitting infinitives

I know many readers don’t share my concern. But, consider this example. “The athlete was inspired to quickly run to the tape.” It would be stronger to write this, “The athlete was spired to run quickly to the tape.”

3. Requiring singular verbs with singular subjects

There is a change I think should be made in correct sentence construction. It deals with the awkward construction that, under current rules, requires a singular verb when the subject is singular. Being correct sounds awful.

Here is an example. In a paid advertisement from Chipotle founder Steve Ells (after many customers got sick after visiting the restaurants), a sentence read like this: “We have also confirmed that none of our employees in these restaurants have E. coli.” The sentence should have read – none of our employees has E. coli.

In a story about the New York attorney general’s initiative to shut down two daily fantasy sport gaming sites, the Wall Street Journal wrote this: “A handful of other states have previously said fantasy sports amounts to gambling and isn’t allowed.”

The word in bold should have been has, modifying the singular subject, “a handful.” As I wrote above, being accurate sounds awful, so I would recommend changing the construction to allow the plural verb in such cases.

Or, consider the use of the word “none,” as in, “None of the participants are enjoying the meeting.” The word should be is, but, again, it hurts the ear.

4. Using centered around

The correct phrase would be centered on. Literally, it is not possible to center around something.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, this was the sentence – “An insider trading investigation centered around a possible leak of government got a boost…” It should have been centered on.

That’s enough for now. But, as the above shows, there were a few reasons why I opened the Department of Pet Peeves again today.

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 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.

One of the big risks in writing a blog like this – a focus on words, including errors in writing – is the fact that you may make new mistakes even as you point out old ones. But this is a risk worth running for me because I am one of those persons who believes that words – including using the right ones – carry great power.

Sometimes the wrong words arise because of typos. Sometimes they are misspellings that a computer program doesn’t catch. Sometimes they convey impressions when they should be neutral. And sometimes they are just plain the wrong word.

It’s always especially difficult when the mistake changes the meaning. Consider one of the mistakes I make repeatedly. It is to use — or at least type — the word now when I mean the word not, or the reverse. This may be because the “w” and “t” letters are fairly close on the laptop keyboard. Or, it may be, as they would say in tennis, that I am committing an unforced error.

If you write this sentence, Jeb Bush says is will now run for president, you mean what it says…Mr. Bush will run. But what if you meant to use the word “not.” The meaning would be reversed. I have made that mistake often more than I care to admit, though not in relation to Mr. Bush.

Or, a mistake many of us have made is to want to use the word “public,” but then leave out the “l.” Not good.

In fact, as I began writing this blog several months ago, I made that mistake in the introduction that runs every time I post a piece. Fortunately, one of my friends caught the mistake and, said, in effect, “Hey Fiskum, get your act together.”

I did in that blog intro and will continue to do so in other pieces – or at least try to do so.

To make a different point about words, consider the impression that could be conveyed by certain ones used in the news media business. How about the word “admitted,” as in this example? The state official admitted that things had gone poorly in the administration of the state program.

The word “admitted” connotes that the individual being quoted was trying to hide something and only “admitted” the problems when caught trying to hide or under pressure from a reporter. If that’s the way it was, so be it.

If not, how about the word “said,” which is clearly more neutral? Perhaps the manager was simply volunteering to identify something he or she had determined to be a mistake.

Or consider the word “defends.” This was the headline in a hill.com post the other day involving new House Speaker Paul Ryan: “Ryan Defends Open Process in Spending Fight.”

Perhaps the word was right because the Speaker might have been coming under attack from members of his own party for opening up the budget-making process to a series of what were called “tough votes.” Thus, he was “defending” his new process.

But, if he was just explaining the new process, why not use that word — “explains” – as in “Ryan Explains Open Process in Spending Fight.” Again, a different impression, one more neutral, is conveyed.

In writing all of this, am I being too defensive myself? Perhaps. But the point is that when such words as “admitted” and “defends” are used so frequently, the impression remains that every issue mentioned by someone being quoted is a matter of substantial contention.

For my part, I vote for neutrality – or at least understanding the impression conveyed by using certain words that don’t convey neutrality. And I also vote for trying hard to use the right words as they convey the power of thoughts.