I haven’t received any response from the Inlander so I have
to assume they must have a “Nadine Policy” in place.
It kind of seems like a fitting name for a policy when you
consider all the press from the Inlander and the Spokesman Review regarding the
allegation Nadine Woodward won’t talk to the Daniel Walters and the Inlander
don’t you think?
The April 25, 2019 story in which
Walters details information from the 2014 HR case, and even interviews the
alleged victim creates some real problems for the City of Spokane and to a
lesser extent for the Inlander. The reason it creates problems is obvious, it
appears that Walters received a copy of or information regarding the 2014 case
outside of the Public Records Request process and reported on the information
For those that aren’t familiar with
the Public Records Act you should be aware that in cases like the Adriano Eva
matter when a PRR is made to a government agency that agency is required to
make what is referred to as “Third Party Notification” so that the subject of
the release has an opportunity to go to Superior Court and object to the
release. Adriano Eva received his “Third-Party Notification” on April 29, 2019
four days after the Walters Inlander story.
You will notice in the above
Third-Party Notification Laurie Farnsworth as is required advises Eva that he
has until May 13, 2019 to object to the release of the records.
Eva took advantage of his legal right
and obtained TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) against the City and Daniel
As for me I’m holding off on whether
or not the Jane Doe case ends up being a win for the Media until such time as
the Washington State Supreme Court hears the likely appeal and renders a
Regardless of what happens on Friday
the City is very likely still in deep manure, because some how some way the
information regarding the 2014 case was provided to Walters and the Inlander
prior to the PRA process being completed and Eva having a chance to object.
Eva’s lawyer in my opinion would be remiss if he didn’t point out the
possibility of malice on the part City if Eva’s 2.8 Million dollar claim
against the City ends up in a lawsuit.
As far as the Inlander and Daniel
Walters are concerned the April 25, 2019 story opens up some real issues about
protecting sources, and whether or not to go with a story before you receive
Public Records through Public Records Requests or from outside sources. I receive
Public Records from outside sources almost on a weekly basis and use what I
have received to formulate Public Records Requests, in most cases not all I
will wait until I receive the records via the PRR route to protect my sources
especially where access to the records is very limited. If the records have
been widely distributed making identifying the source impossible sometimes I
will go with the story and the record. What happens if you don’t use caution
when it comes to that you could easily put your source in jeopardy and also
could find yourself on the witness stand with a contempt charge for refusing to
identify your sources, so it becomes a real balancing act.
When you look at all the issues
surrounding this case maybe the Inlander’s lack of transparency in not
responding to me even though it subjects them to criticism was the right move,
since I had some great follow-up questions if they had chosen to respond.