Skip to main contentBlame Jack Roberts.
WW didn't plan on publishing another article about Bob Burtchaell this week, but Roberts, the former state labor commissioner, is confused whether Burtchaell, a private investigator who until two weeks ago was virtually unknown, deserves all the attention he's getting.
Here's a recap of what's happened:
May 6: WW broke the news of Neil Goldschmidt's abuse of a 14-year-old girl.
May 9: The Oregonian published an op-ed by a "Northeast Portland entrepreneur" named Bob Burtchaell who defended Goldschmidt and argued that the abuse was best left secret.
May 12: WW revealed that for nearly a decade Burtchaell served as an intermediary between Goldschmidt and his victim and benefited from Gov. Goldschmidt's intervention into a lease Burtchaell held on state land.
May 16: The Oregonian recapped WW's story, but omits relevant information and fails to challenge Burtchaell's claim that he got no favors.
Roberts, one of the few public figures willing to criticize Goldschmidt's actions (see "Thinking about the Unthinkable," The Oregonian, May 11, 2004), was confused by the dueling stories. In a Sunday email to both WW and Oregonian reporters, he wrote:
"Gentlemen--I'm having a little problem reconciling what was in the front page story in today's Oregonian with what was in Willamette Week last Wednesday regarding Mr. Burtchaell and the moorage lease....
"The Oregonian article today said: 'Records show Goldschmidt became his strongest advocate before the State Land Board. However the other two members, [state Treasurer Tony] Meeker and [Secretary of State Barbara] Roberts, outvoted Goldschmidt 2-1 in January 1989.'
"The Willamette Week story, however, says: 'After a protracted process, Goldschmidt triumphed over the objections of...Meeker and... Roberts, and Burtchaell got what he wanted....'
"I'm just wondering if there is a clear answer to this."
Roberts' interest (as well as his confusion) is understandable. WW's account offered the first evidence that somebody else helped Goldschmidt keep his secret and that Goldschmidt, as governor, helped him. The Oregonian portrayed Burtchaell as a kind-hearted friend who didn't get what he wanted from the governor.
Here's what the May 16 Oregonian article said, followed by what really happened:
1. The Oregonian reported that "Burtchaell, a recovering alcoholic, said he was motivated [to aid Goldschmidt's victim] only by his desire to help someone in dire straits."
The truth: Burtchaell may have been altruistic, but he unquestionably had financial problems. Court records show that on Jan. 27, 1988, Burtchaell borrowed $241,000 from U.S. Bank. A month later, he sought Goldschmidt's help with a lease that was set to expire. Burtchaell ultimately failed to repay U.S. Bank $294,000, which included $53,000 in interest on the original debt.
2. The Oregonian said Burtchaell wanted to extend his state lease but "was having trouble with state regulators."
The truth: Readers could infer that Burtchaell was engaged in a garden-variety land dispute. Not the case. Records show that Burtchaell knew before his company bought property near the east end of the Sellwood Bridge that the associated lease of state land would expire in 1995.
3. The Oregonian said: "Goldschmidt did weigh in on his behalf, but Burtchaell noted that the land board ultimately ruled against him."
The truth: Burtchaell sought to extend his lease 30 years, even though he knew the state had previously prohibited any extension. (The land he leased was part of a houseboat moorage called Watery Lane.)
Despite Goldschmidt's advocacy, the land board voted 2-1 in January 1989 against Burtchaell. But the board also made a crucial concession, according to Tammy Hubert, a current Division of State Lands official. It agreed to reconsider a lease extension in the future. "The door was opened," Huber says of the 1989 meeting. "That was the end result."
4. The Oregonian quoted Burtchaell as saying Goldschmidt didn't do him any favors. "Did I get any special favors? No," he said. "Did I seek any special favors? No."
The truth: Getting the land board to put the possibility of an extension on the table gave Burtchaell leverage. Residents of the nearby Sellwood Harbor Condos wanted Burtchaell's moorage--which obstructed their views--gone when his lease expired in 1995. Some condo-dwellers, including former Trail Blazers owner Harry Glickman and Hyster Co. CEO William Kilkenny, lobbied Goldschmidt. Rather than heed them, the governor overruled staff and his top land-use advisor to help a cash-strapped private eye.
In May 1990, 16 months after the land board agreed to revisit Burtchaell's lease, Burtchaell's company sold its land and the lease to the condo owners for $350,000. That was $225,000 more than Burtchaell's company paid for the land in 1986. The land board subsequently granted the condo association a lease extension that preserves unobstructed views.
Burtchaell told WW he lost money on Watery Lane, although he declined to offer any proof. He also disputed that the land board helped him. "They didn't give me anything I didn't already have," he says.
On Monday, WW faxed Roberts documents that describe the land board's action. His response: "OK, I've read the fax and I agree that pretty well confirms your version of the story."
WWeek 2015