A hurricane force wind ripped through blogs and social media Thursday about allegations that the Seattle Times might be sitting on a story of critical interest to King County voters. A post at Sound Politics Wednesday night suggested that Times reporter Keith Ervin was failing to follow through on a public records request for documents relating to any allegations of inappropriate behavior by King County Councilman Dow Constantine toward female county employees. Within days of Ervin’s request, a restraining order was filed in King County Superior Court prohibiting the county from supplying any documents regarding a “Jane Doe.”

[A more detailed timeline of these events follows this post.]

Sound Politics writer Mark Griswold hit the airwaves in the morning and afternoon to hammer the point home that a lack of action on the part of the Times to break the restraining order was hypocritical considering the way the paper had handled Constantine’s opponent, Susan Hutchison, earlier in this year’s campaign for King County executive.

When the promise of titillating and salacious headlines tempted the Seattle Times to sue for the unsealing of the documents in Hutchison’s suit against former employer KIRO television, time was of the essence and that was during the primary. Still, the Times felt that voters should be aware of whatever might be in the Hutchison/KIRO documents before casting ballots and they took legal action to ensure the facts would come out. Doesn’t the possible discovery of sexual misconduct or inappropriate behavior by an elected official while in office exceed the standard previously established by the Times for taking legal action? Furthermore, now that the cat is out of the bag, if Constantine is being unfairly implicated, doesn’t Constantine deserve to have his name cleared before some voters make a snap judgment based on moral impulse?

Erica C. Barnett of the Publicola blog took her best shot to debunk the notion that there might even be any reason to suspect that anything unseemly has transpired in the way the Seattle Times and Jane Doe have handled this episode. First suggesting that Sound Politics made specific allegations that blogger Mark Griswold only alluded to, then sliding a soapbox under Constantine’s campaign spokesman for a quick riff on how “false and malicious” those unmade claims were, Barnett concludes her opus apologia thus:

Hutchison’s spokesman, Jordan McCarren, says he initiated a call with Ervin and found out that Ervin, in response to his initial request, received a heavily redacted document involving Constantine and a female employee.

So, I guess there’s smoke in there after all? Whether there is fire as well can only be determined by an investigation from a large municipal daily newspaper supported by legal counsel. Seattle only has one daily left, and in the era of hope and change now is the moment for the Seattle Times to shed its reputation as a safe port for Democrats dodging scandals.

With the campaign for King County executive between Constantine and Susan Hutchison concluding next Tuesday, and a recent poll indicating as many as 19% of likely voters may still be waiting to mark their ballots, Ervin and the Seattle Times editorial board should give careful consideration to pursuing a Jeffersonian model of the press’s role in politics and society. There may even be a sliver of a legal avenue for the Times to publish any small amount of information it may possess, while still preserving the privacy of Jane Doe, in order to inform the public as fully as possible and fulfill its primary purpose in a free society.

Each election, the residents of King County function as the Council’s board of directors, making the hiring and firing decisions based on the best information available. They have a right to know if any elected official, regardless of ideological pedigree, has been implicated in improper acts, including those of a sexual nature. Oversexed employees are a major liability for any organization, not only in terms of morale, but in terms of real dollars spent to handle and settle claims.

Smoke and fire are almost certainly scheduled for a meeting soon, but will it come before or after the election? The Times should not be making an elite determination of what should or should not be important to voters. It should reveal what it knows and let the people prioritize the importance of the details.

###

A Brief Timeline of the Seattle Times Investigation of Allegations of Inappropriate Behavior by Dow Constantine

This timeline is not intended to be all-inclusive, nor does it imply any connection or causal relation between any of the events described.

October 20, 2009 – After receiving a tip about a story involving County Council Chair Dow Constantine and inappropriate behavior involving a county employee, Seattle Times reporter Keith Ervin makes a request to the King County Council for “records relating to any complaints alleging inappropriate comments or behavior by County Councilmen Dow Constantine toward any employee.”

October 23, 2009 – Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council, e-mails Council staff to review all files for material relevant to Ervin’s request and to forward copies of all documents by noon of October 26. Her request also indicates that staff may refer documents to the County’s legal counsel for possible redaction.

October 27, 2009 – A temporary restraining order is granted in King County Superior Court, having been filed by attorney Tyler Firkins under case number 09-2-34489-0SEA “Jane Doe vs. King County.” (The case number does not produce results when run through the Washington Courts case search, nor do any proceedings appear within a thirty day period associated with Firkins’ State Bar number.)

The judge’s order prohibits county employees from releasing “any and all notes and documents regarding Jane Doe.” The order also contains verbiage that attempts to shield King County from any liability that may arise from failure to comply with Ervin’s request for public records. The court document concludes by setting a date for a preliminary injunction hearing of November 10, one week after Election Day.

A copy of the signed order was faxed from Firkin to Noris. The fax header indicates this transmission occurred at 1:59 p.m.

                October 30, 2009 - ????