Skip to main contentYOU DON'T MISS THE WATER 'TIL THE WELFARE RUNS DRY
I find it highly amusing that the "Good Americans" are both Republican by nature and so angry at their loss of federal welfare support ["The Good Americans," WW, Aug. 15, 2001]. Do they not even understand the principles of their own party? (Here's a hint: The only welfare support Republicans will always be behind is for the very rich and very powerful. For proof, look at the Bush tax cuts and Cheney energy plan.)
I doubt very much, however, that the farmers' worry at the tyranny of the federal government ever caused them any sleepless nights as long as the subsidized water kept coming.
Potatoes and alfalfa require huge amounts of water. Maybe--I know this sounds like a crazy idea--but just maybe the middle of the desert is not the best place to grow them. Garbanzo beans, however, grow very well in dry climates. Maybe the endangered humans of the Klamath Basin should prove they are more evolved than their fish counterparts and adapt to changing times. Naw, that would be too hard. It's easier just to blame that heartless government who took away their welfare.
Ken Olson
Northeast 20th Avenue
PROSECUTOR ON DEFENSIVEYour most recent article on the bar complaints against deputy district attorneys Pat Callahan and Charles Ball continues the practice of omission and distortion that has characterized your reporting on this story ["Prosecuting the Prosecutors," WW, July 25, 2001].
I investigated the allegations for our office internally when they were first made in 1999. I concluded then and I conclude now that, although a regrettable mistake was made in not securing the reports underlying the Tellinghusen investigation, the error was clearly inadvertent and had no adverse effect on [Portland police Sgt. Michael] Barkley in his legal proceedings. Callahan and Ball relied on representations by the City Attorney's Office and a sworn statement from the Police Bureau in their belief that the reports did not exist. The mistake occurred, at least in part, because of a separation in the police record-keeping system between purely internal investigations of alleged police misconduct and criminal investigations of such conduct. Without going into a detailed explanation, it is sufficient to note that such a separation is designed to avoid serious constitutional issues that can result if the two are combined.
A central fact that I discovered, a fact Willamette Week has never made clear to its readers, is that the undisclosed reports serve to disprove the basic theory under which Barkley's attorney sought them. That is, they show that the investigation of [Det. Mel] Tellinghusen was not some sham designed to prod Tellinghusen in the "right" direction in his investigation of Barkley, but rather a professional inquiry that showed the allegations against Tellinghusen were groundless accusations against him and another police officer by a criminal defendant who they had successfully investigated.
To add to this central distortion, your most recent article lifted two statements by Ball and Tellinghusen out of context to falsely imply that they are deceitful. First, you quoted Ball as saying, "Just because Mr. Matasar (Barkley's attorney) requests doesn't mean that we have to honor his request." Then you opined that it is actually the judge that decides what is relevant, as if to show your reader: Gotcha Ball, you're a liar.
In fact, Ball's statement was made in the course of an argument before a judge about what was relevant and Ball went on to say, "There has to be first a connection. There has to be exculpatory information.... And for me to do it automatically barring that, then there has to be an order of the court if we choose not to do it." In other words, Ball was affirming rather than disputing the court's role as the final arbitrator of relevancy.
As to Tellinghusen, you say that he swore he was not at a meeting and then later remembered "very well" what happened at the meeting. Liar caught again. Except that this statement by Willamette Week is clearly wrong. In fact, Tellinghusen was never completely clear as to whether he had been at the meeting in question, one of two that had taken place with the person in question in the course of a long investigation with many meetings.
The testimony you refer to by Tellinghusen, taken over two years after the meeting he was being asked to recall, includes the following illustrative exchange: "Q: Did you ever go at a time with Mr. Ball (that is, to the second meeting)? A: I don't believe so. Not that I remember." Another two years passed, and then when asked about the two meetings by the bar investigator, Tellinghusen said he "believed" there was a second meeting and that he was there. He did not "remember what was talked about at the time." When reminded that he had testified as outlined above, he said "his recollection was unclear" and that he may have been "confused" based on a discussion he had had about the second meeting with the other detective on the case who clearly was there. Some lie.
Let me conclude by saying that I have worked with Pat Callahan and Charles Ball for the better part of two decades. Yes, people, those at Willamette Week included, can make mistakes. However, I know them both to be dedicated public servants who are as honest as the day is long. Your articles on this matter have unfairly implied otherwise to the very public they serve and have no doubt contributed to the atmosphere in which the bar has so far chosen to pursue what I believe to be groundless complaints.
Norman W. Frink,
Deputy District Attorney
On behalf of Michael D. Schrunk, District Attorney
Multnomah County
Nick Budnick responds: Mr. Frink thinks my article implied that his two fellow prosecutors are "deceitful" and "liars." That was not my intent.
Both Charles Ball and Pat Callahan enjoy reputations as highly ethical. At issue before the state bar is not their honesty, but whether they made sufficient efforts to locate information subpoenaed by the defense.
That information was a criminal investigation of Det. Mel Tellinghusen based on a prostitute's allegations. Eventually police investigators deemed the charges false.
Frink cites this outcome as proof that Ball and Callahan had no reason to conceal the records, and he considers it a "central distortion" that I did not echo his point. Since no one is accusing Ball and Callahan of intentional concealment, I didn't see the need to address an allegation that's not being made.
I quoted Ball suggesting that he didn't consider the records relevant. Frink interprets this as my effort to show Ball is a liar. In reality, this quote was included as a possible explanation why Ball didn't exert the necessary effort to locate the records.
Frink correctly notes that in 1998 Tellinghusen testified that he did not recall meeting with Ball and with psychologist, Robert Davis--a meeting at which Davis claimed he was improperly pressured. Tellinghusen did not flat-out deny being there, and I apologize for that error.
It does not alter the fact that when interviewed by the bar, contrary to his earlier testimony, Tellinghusen believed he did recall the meeting, well enough to say that it was "casual" and that he did not recall any of the things happening at the meeting that Davis said happened. As Frink correctly notes, Tellinghusen backed off his second version of events after the investigator showed him a copy of his earlier testimony.
WWeek 2015