Today's the day in Oregon: Sometime after 8 p.m., we'll learn the outcome of Measures 66 and 67, the twin ballot measures designed to raise necessary revenues through slight tax increases on the state's wealthiest corporations and individuals. (If you're in Oregon and haven't turned in your ballot yet, get it to a drop box quickly. And don't be fooled by the fake ballot distributed a little while back by the anti-ballot measure campaign; make sure you're returning the real thing.)
One thing is already known about today's outcome, though. Thanks to decisions made during the recent transition in leadership at The Oregonian -- decisions having to do with the newspaper's editorial position on the ballot measures, specifically to allow front-page political advertising -- Oregon's largest newspaper is a compromised commodity.
It appears clear that the decision was made at the newspaper's highest level, by its brand-new publisher, N. Christian Anderson III. Various reporters and media sources have added facts to a chronology of that decision-making process that makes certain facts clear but opens still more questions.
Here, for example, is what I've gleaned:Sometime between November 2 and December 31, Pat McCormick -- one-half of Oregonians Against Job Killing Taxes -- asked to buy a "spadea," which The Oregonian defined as "a double-sided format that covers half of the front page and all of the 'A' section's back page," but McCormick was denied.
At the time, however, the paper's advertising department told them that The Oregonian did not accept political ads in the spadea format.
Mitch Nolan at Oregon Media Central found that the policy was established by Mario Van Dongen, director of The Oregonian's sales and marketing department.
He says that the sales department would have known of the policy if someone had inquired with them, but that it was not a written company position that the president or publisher would necessarily have known about.
Van Dongen explained to Nolan that he held this policy because
"a political ad might take advantage of the placement and make it look like it's a newspaper statement." He says controlling the content of a political ad is difficult, because it can become a slippery slope toward censoring it.
Sometime during December, however, Anderson changed that policy. He acknowledges that the change was made in December, and he has said then-president Patrick Stickel was a party to the conversation. Stickel resigned effective December 31. Nolan reported:
He says that Stickel received an inquiry about a political ad on the spadea while Van Dongen was away, so, after consultation with Anderson, the decision to accept it was made without him.
This means that after McCormick was first told of The Oregonian's policy against publishing political ads on its spadeas, someone made a second inquiry, directly to Stickel, who took up the matter with Anderson.
I assume that the second inquiry wouldn't have come from McCormick. Once informed of the newspaper's policy, he would be foolish to immediately make a second run at it. (Mommy, I know you said I couldn't have a cookie, but can I have one now?) Of course, I could be wrong: Perhaps McCormick is that foolish and I overestimate him. But giving him the benefit of doubt, I'll assume the second inquiry didn't come from him.
Then The Oregonian, on January 4 -- just after the resignation of both its longtime president and longtime editor -- published the first of a series of editorials opposing Measures 66 and 67.
Next, Nolan reports:
After the editorial, McCormick says lobbyist Mark Nelson had the campaign's media-buying firm make another effort to secure the spadea, which they were successful at doing.
McCormick and Nelson are partners in Oregonians Against Job Killing Taxes; so far as I can tell, they comprise the entire membership of the "organization." This suggests to me that when McCormick learned of the newspaper's policy against selling political ads on spadeas, he would inform Nelson of the fact. But after The Oregonian declared its opposition to the ballot measures, Nelson somehow knew to make another -- what sounds like a third, counting McCormick as first and December's mystery inquiry as second -- inquiry into buying a political spadea.
What tipped him off? (Mommy, I know you said before that I couldn't have a cookie, but CAMDEN TOWN told me that you'd changed your mind, so can I have one now?) Who knows?
What we know next is that the first anti-ballot measure spadea is published on January 17. In his editorial page space, Anderson publishes a fuzzy note explaining the spadea's existence but not its origin. Having published one for the anti-ballot measure crowd, he extends the same invitation to the ballot measures' proponents.
Nolan at Oregon Media Central learned from McCormick that the controversial ad wasn't purchased by his own "organization" but by a third party:
McCormick says the ads were technically purchased by the Northwest Grocery Association as an in-kind contribution to his organization.
Nolan wrote:
Northwest Grocery Association president Joe Gilliam says it is his organization's policy not to comment on their expenditures during a campaign, while Anderson says that his paper does not disclose its rate sheet.
That added a interesting new fact to the puzzle, but then no one wanted to talk about it. To me, there are several great questions that needed to be asked and answered. For example, Why did the Northwest Grocery Association, out of the blue, offer to buy a $25,000 advertisement on behalf of Oregonians Against Job Killing Taxes? Was it the NWGA that made the mysterious December inquiry, allegedly to Patrick Stickel himself, prompting Anderson's decision to scrap the previous policy? Since McCormick called it an "in-kind contribution" to OAJKT but hadn't run the "contribution" through his organization's own reporting before the spadea was published, who coordinated that contribution?
The answers to these questions aren't trivial, because they fall in one of two possible categories: Either that process began inside the walls of The Oregonian, which means Anderson's controversial decision to sell front-page advertising to political activists supported by the newspaper's new editorial structure was an inside job, or it began outside the newspaper. Since Anderson's alternately empty and circuitous answers don't satisfy the question, we're left to look for answers elsewhere.
I started with the Northwest Grocery Association's website. It explains that NWGA is essentially a trade group, a consortium of business leaders and owners in the Northwest. It calls itself a "not-for-profit" and a "legislative watchdog, public relations agency and news and information resource. The Association represents the retailers, wholesalers, brokers, manufacturers and suppliers that support the Pacific Northwest's $70 billion dollar grocery industry - one of the Northwest's biggest assets." So while it isn't a company itself, it represents really big companies. It says it includes 180 "member companies" and more than 1,622 "members": "retailers, wholesalers, suppliers, brokers, buyers and manufacturers."
It notes that more than 100,000 people are employees of its members.
I was intrigued by NWGA's pages that talked about its "legislative issues," though you have to be a member to get into the good stuff, and I'm not. What it tells the public is interesting enough, though. It pays two lobbyists to represent it in Oregon alone:
Shawn Miller NWGA Oregon Lobbyist Shawn@MillerPublicAffairs.com
Alan Tresidder NWGA Oregon Lobbyist alan@thetresiddercompany.com
And it tells prospective members that one of the advantages of joining NWGA is that:
NWGA is continually lobbying for fair industry regulation and legislation agenda items that include food safety, labeling, container redemption, OLCC issues, workers' compensation, labor laws and lottery, tax issues. NWGA is keeping the best interests of its members at the forefront of lawmakers' minds.
Surely this is the paydirt that would answer my questions, I thought. Since NWGA mentions that it lobbies on tax issues, I looked for its position on Measures 66 and 67. I looked on its "press release" page and found nothing there -- I don't mean there was no press release on Oregon's ballot measures, I mean there was nothing there at all. Zippo press releases. Nada. One would assume that NWGA had no public position on Measures 66 and 67.
So I looked on its "2010 Legislative Issues" page:
2010 Legislative Issues
NOTICE - NWGA Members: Log into the members only section to view NWGA Issue Briefs. Go to the "Legislative Action" tab, and then click on NWGA Legislative Accomp. on the left menu.
Oregon:
Bottle Bill Expansion - Creation of Redemption Centers vs. Return to Retail
OLCC License Refusal
Beer and Wine Taxation
Drivers License Indication of DUI
Local Government Input on OLCC Liquor License
Expanding Related Items in Liquor Stores/Increase Agent Compensation
Tobacco Retail License and Dept. of Revenue Inspections
Tobacco Tax Increases
Retail Tobacco Inspections
Greenhouse Gas Reduction/Cap and Trade
Hazardous Substances/Chemicals
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Hazardous Materials Recycling
Drug Take Back Program
Pharmacy Child Immunizations
Patient Safety Commission Mandatory Pharmacy Participation
Electronic Prescription Monitoring Program
Online Pharmacy Dispensing
State Managed Retail Drug System
Family Leave Benefit
Small Tort Attorney Fees
UI Benefits to Part-time Workers
Employer Gag Bill
Street Maintance Fees
I was surprised to find no mention whatsoever of Measures 66 and 67. Look at the list of its 2010 legislative issues again and tell me if you see Measures 66 and 67 there. Nothing -- really, nothing -- on the list comes even close to addressing Measures 66 and 67.
I was just about to quit and go get a pork loin sandwich when I Googled the association's name once more and scrolled through the links.
One turned up a short list of these names:
President Joe Gilliam
Vice President of Political Affairs Dan Floyd
V P of Sales and Promotions Marlene Quinn
Editor Sandra Wilkin
Bookkeeper Trudy Macadam
Gilliam had already stonewalled Nolan at Oregon Media Central, so I Googled NWGA's vice president of political affairs, Dan Floyd, and learned that Floyd serves on an advisory board to the Food Industry Leadership Center at Portland State University. Curiously, the last name on that advisory board list is Debi Walery, described as "General Advertising Manager, Oregonian Publishing Company." Sure enough, two other online sources confirm that Walery is presently the general advertising manager of The Oregonian. That's a great coincidence, that the Oregonian's advertising chief serves on a local advisory board with the NWGA's vice president for sales and promotion. But coincidence alone doesn't mean anything.
Before getting too far ahead of myself, I checked another of the NWGA Google results and found the organization's listing at the National Center for Charitable Statistics, which catalogs non-profit organizations and their IRS tax filings online. Check it out for yourself and download the NWGA's most recent filing, from 2008. It's 40 pages long but the only one you need to read closely is Page 7, which lists the members of the Northwest Grocery Association's Board of Directors:
E. JOE GILLIAM PRESIDENT
LYNN GUST CHAIRMAN
DALE HENLEY PAST CHAIR
RON BRAKE FIRST VICE CHAIR
GREG SPARKS TREASURER
MIKE READ SECRETARY
MARC ALBERS BOARD MEMBER
FORD CAROTHERS BOARD MEMBER
MIKE CLAWSON BOARD MEMBER
DIRK DAVIS BOARD MEMBER
DONNA GIORDANO BOARD MEMBER
JASON JOHNSON BOARD MEMBER
CRAIG ALLEN BOARD MEMBER
STEVE FRISBY BOARD MEMBER
DEBI WALERY BOARD MEMBER
MIKE ZUPAN BOARD MEMBER
Do you see what I saw?
Next to the last name on the list of the NWGA's Board of Directors is the same Debi Walery who works as N. Christian Anderson III's general advertising manager at The Oregonian.
So it's not merely a coincidence that Walery serves with NWGA's public affairs man on the Food Industry Leadership Center's Advisory Board. In fact, check the advisory board's roster again: It also includes Lynn Gust, NWGA's chairman, and Rob Brake, NWGA's first vice chairman.
Call it "conspiracy bubble" if you like, Mr. Publisher, but the pieces of this puzzle fit cleanly together, don't they? The paper's advertising manager wants to beef up ad revenues as much as the publisher does, but she knows that under the old publisher, political content isn't allowed on the spadeas. Van Dongen said as much to Mitch Nolan at Oregon Media Central:
He says that the sales department would have known of the policy if someone had inquired with them, but that it was not a written company position that the president or publisher would necessarily have known about.
Walery sits on the board of directors of a trade group that has the money to spend on advertising, she knows the advertising fits the trade group's legislative agenda, and she's well-connected to its decision-makers.
So after McCormick's first request to buy that kind of ad was denied, did Walery ask Stickel about changing the policy? Or did she go directly to Anderson?
And once Anderson changed the policy, who called McCormick and Nelson to tell them to re-inquire? Was that Walery?
It isn't about alleging anything illegal, of course -- unless, that is, it's illegal -- but rather, it's about conflict of interest and ethics. What would Anderson say to those journalism ethics students he "taught" at the Cronkite School of Journalism in Arizona about this? Speaking of Cronkite -- the gold standard of what ethics in journalism once meant -- what would HE have said about it?
However much Anderson spins Walery's role in Spadea-gate, it stinks bad enough to choke the dairy cows on Carol Marie Leuthold's farm in Tillamook. I'm only sorry this connection wasn't discovered sooner. The Oregonian's subscribers and readers deserve better.
The only question I have left is whether or not Walery, unlike Anderson, is registered to vote in Oregon and, if so, does she identify a party affiliation? I have a hunch, and it'd be interesting to know.