Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
Often, the best stories get both positive and negative reactions. And the more complex the story, the more questions readers may have about it
That happened after we published a story Oct. 21 based on internal documents involving former Lane County counsel Rob Bovett’s concerns over the CleanLane project, which included a potential $300 million county government liability.
I can’t say I expected what happened next, as Lane County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky released a video condemning the story.
Sure, in my 30-plus years in newsrooms, I’ve received calls, emails and text messages from officials immediately following a story’s publication, but I’ve never had a public official make a video response and have it come six days later.
Following release of the video, there were a few themes that emerged in the feedback, both positive and negative (and included in our flow of letters to the editor). Among the questions we received:
- Why did we publish information that was “proven” wrong?
- Why didn’t we give the county the opportunity to comment?
- Why were we trying to influence the election by timing the story’s publication?
Let’s talk about these, starting with the one where we published information that was “proven wrong” and never corrected it.
Importantly, in this story, Lookout itself didn’t assert the correctness of Bovett’s claims. We reported them, as the public should expect us to, after careful vetting.
Consider that the story is based on documents from a high-ranking county official who raised concerns about the county’s liability in the contract with Bulk Handling Systems. Bovett isn’t a mid-level staffer; he was one of two people who report directly to the Board of County Commissioners. He is a lawyer, and his interpretation of the contract carries weight, and the public needed to know about it. As one reader told us, it filled a gap in public understanding of why Bovett seemed to leave his job unexpectedly last summer.
One important point: Every bit of information in the story is directly tied to what Bovett wrote in two official documents shared with the five elected county commissioners and other county staffers. These are not conclusions that Lookout reached and inserted into a story. We shared information the public might never have otherwise known about the $150 million CleanLane project that residents will pay for.
Mokrohisky contends the potential $300 million liability figure is inaccurate because of a two-year maximum clause he had included in the contract. We reported the two-year clause in our story, along with the fact that Bovett, the county’s top lawyer, was concerned the contract was worded in a way that made him unsure the two-year liability limit would hold up. We also reported Bovett worked to limit the liability.
This isn’t the first time this ambiguity — which could have costly implications for residents — has been reported.
A story published Oct. 4 in the Register-Guard also calls out the softness of the two-year liability cap, stating: “The contract does not explicitly state that such a limit applies.”
That was the concern Bovett outlined in his memo and that concern is what Lookout Eugene-Springfield reported.
Some readers also asked why we did not allow the county to comment before publication.
We have been looking into this story for months. Lookout senior correspondent Ben Botkin submitted an open records request, which the county denied. As we finalized the story, we gave the county ample time to respond to our questions, including agreeing to hold the story a total of 21 hours so they could respond.
From the time we first reached out asking Mokrohisky to “comment in any way on the record, please call (Botkin) or send a statement,” to the time we published, more than 24 hours passed. And we included those comments in the story. After the county released its video, we again asked to sit down with Mokrohisky for an interview. He denied that request, asking instead that we send questions so there would be “well-documented, written conversation.” It is not uncommon for us to send a question or two if we are looking for specific feedback on a specific point. However, we made it clear that we needed a conversation where answers aren’t vetted beforehand.
We also took pains to verify the documents’ authenticity. This is standard operating procedure at Lookout and has been since we published our first story about Oregon State Hospital, based on a recording of an internal meeting Lookout reviewed.
Nothing about this story was rushed, as the video claims.
We also went the extra step of making official feedback available to readers, publishing officials’ responses verbatim, even those that misstated our reporting.
Finally, there was the concern that we were trying to influence the election — Mokrohisky all but said that in his video.
Before publishing, we discussed whether to run the story now or wait until after the election. I made the final call, and I still believe publishing when we did, was correct.
Why? This is a critical story about a topic of major public interest and concern.
Critics said we were trying to bias voters against current Lane County Commissioner Heather Buch in her race against Jake Pelroy.
Let’s swap the scenario: Instead of publishing Oct. 21, what if we waited until Nov. 17, two weeks after the election? I am confident we would have received multiple emails charging us with withholding the information until after the election because we didn’t want to hurt Buch’s campaign. (Further, it is worth noting that the Lookout Editorial Board endorsed her, never mind that editorial endorsements have zero influence on our news coverage.)
Lookout is nonpartisan. We take that very seriously, and it’s a guiding principle for everything we do. Our news coverage is meant to inform, not influence.
In hindsight, while the story did mention it, we could have been more explicit about the Buch-Pelroy race and the surrounding controversy over CleanLane.
Lookout also received multiple written requests to “return” the documents to the county, initially from the county’s public information office, Devon Ashbridge, and then from its interim county counsel, Mallory R. Beebe. Journalists often receive internal or even confidential memos as part of their work. Some become the basis for major investigative stories; others never see the light of day.
We have a rigorous internal process for handling and reporting on the documents we review. It starts with getting at least a second source to validate what we have is authentic. We are extremely careful with how we handle documents to ensure we do not violate the trust of any source who confides in us. In some cases, we may make documents public, but in others, we may choose not to.
We have no intention of giving these documents to Lane County. We have decided for now, not to make them public.
It is not uncommon for people to disagree with our reporting or to assume there are motives behind it.
But our job is to be a watchdog for this community. That means asking hard questions and sharing information that might make people uncomfortable. We take this responsibility seriously.
That means we will keep asking for documents. We will keep asking for interviews. We will challenge the status quo. We do that to serve all of you.
