The report "Mayor Goes on the Attack Against the Accuser" creates the misleading impression of a new development in this story while in fact it is based on the interview conducted on January 15 and reported a week ago. Who made the decision to serialize the story in this way?

 

I thought we made this clear in the story and I apologize for the confusion: the story was indeed based on information provided to us by Mayor Adams on Jan. 15. The story had to do with explosive charges that Adams made against John Vezina. We wanted to get Vezina's response before we published anything. He got back to us on January 21, which is why the story was not published till the 28th.

 

the Oregonian and Portland Tribune wrote editorials calling for Sam Adams' resignation. Has Willamette Week written an editorial on whether Adams should resign--I was wondering if WW's editors have opinions on the subject.

 

Why haven't you editorialized in favor of Sam's resignation? This isn't an ethical jump ball. It's pretty obvious he should resign.

 

I have been a supporter of Mayor Adams remaining in office, but the report on page 7 of this week's WW disturbed me, especially the limited responses by the parties involved (and non-response in the case of Beau Breedlove).

Does Mayor Adams still claim to have made a phone call to John Vezina about an alleged attempted assault by Vezina against Breedlove? Does Vezina affirm or deny having received such a phone call? (You quote Vezina as denying any attempted assault occurred, but not denying that Adams left him a message about the matter.)

These questions seem critical to me. Were Adams and Vezina asked specifically whether this alleged phone call took place, and if so, did they simply dodge the issue?