The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson

Last Wednesday evening I attended a Port of St. Helens meeting; I ask a couple of questions, one of which related to the investigation of Mr. Jenks, an employee of the port. The question I ask was which law enforcement officials were doing the investigation, I identified city thru federal. The reply that I was given by Chairperson Pulliam after checking with the ports attorney Olsen was ALL.

I sat through the whole meeting with out incident UNTIL the regular meeting was adjourned, and the chair announced that they were going into executive session. As people filed out of the meeting room, I remained in my chair. My plan was to sit through the executive session along with other reporters from the local media, such as the Spotlight and the St. Helens Chronicle.

Chairperson Paul Pulliam informed me that they were going into executive session, I responded that I knew that and that I would be sitting in. He said that I could not sit in; I told him that I was a reporter for the St. Helens Update, and that I was considered media and that I had every right to sit in that meeting, he repeated that I could not, I again told him that I could under OREGON LAW. Mr. Pulliam started to get agitated, I remained calm . Pulliam said that he would have to adjourn the meeting and not proceed with executive session. I said nothing but shrugged my shoulders. It was apparent that Pulliam was becoming irritated with my steadfast determination to hold my ground. In desperation he turned to Port attorney Harold Olsen, and commenced to speak to him about the problem, which was me.

Olsen made a comment to Pulliam which I did not hear. Pulliam then asked me to leave.   I informed him again that I did not have to go, that I had every right to attend the executive session since I write for the St. Helens Update. Pulliam then made a comment about the Update that was not complimentary. I again stated that state Statute allowed me to attend, Olsen informed me that that the statute had been challenged.  My response to him was a simple so what! Just because it had been challenged did not mean that the statute had changed, he said no more.   
Then Port Commissioner Earl Fisher of Clatskanie joined in informing me, that I had to go, I ask Mr. Fisher if he had read the ORS? His response was "no."  I told him that I had and I qualify as press. He told me that I had to prove to them that I could stay.  My response back was for them to prove to me that I have to go. I suggested that they get the book with the statutes and we could read it.  Not one of them made a move to get the book.   My guess is that they were afraid that I was correct. 

I refused to budge.

By this time Commissioner Colleen Deshazier walked back into the meeting room, evidently the exchange between some of the members of the port commission and myself surprised her.  After she heard what was being said she told them that Tammy writes for the Update all the time. It was apparent by the tone in Pulliam's voice, when he repeated his request to me to leave, that he was getting pretty perturbed. I decided that it was of no use at this time to continue to argue with him. I pointedly stated that I knew that I was correct on my rights, and that I was going to be kind to them tonight and that I would leave, I would return, and I would be sitting in on executive sessions.

I understand that some people do not like the Update.  I also understand that some people DO like the Update, just as some people like or dislike the Spotlight and/or the Chronicle or the Clatskanie Chief.  Does that give any individual or entity the right to ban news media persons just because they personally dislike the represented media group, or object because it is an Internet web page? Which I might add has quite a following.
The United States government recognizes web page representatives as viable media; the White House allows a web page reporter to participate in White House briefings, so if the Federal Government (White House) allows it, what gives the Port of St. Helens the right to deny this reporter the same access?

Stay tuned; check back next week, I hope to have more information on this issue.