Our view: You, the jury

According to his attorney, Spokane Deputy Mayor Jack Lynch decided in recent days that the public release of a police report would show that rumors about his activities at High Bridge Park last August were unfounded.

He must not have decided, as the city of Spokane contended in blocking the release of the report for months, that he would be defamed or done irreparable harm. And now that the report is out, the claims that it would be “highly offensive to a reasonable person” or does not convey any “legitimate public concern” look dubious.

Of course, if the report helps Lynch now, it surely would have back in September when this controversy first flared. So why did the city’s legal forces dig in with such tenacity?

The report contains a rumor about prostitution. The city contended that just by mentioning the rumor Lynch could be destroyed. But the rumor was already out in the public domain. Various city officials had heard it. At least two Spokesman-Review reporters had heard it. So did two reporters from KREM-TV.

Rita Amunrud, a Spokane citizen, also heard it and wondered what the city was doing about it. This ultimately led to a confrontation between Lynch and Amunrud that became the subject of a second investigation by the Washington State Patrol, which cleared Lynch of any criminal wrongdoing. But the State Patrol’s report conveyed the rumor and was treated as a public document without objections.

So why couldn’t the city do the same? Furthermore, why didn’t the Spokane Police Department turn the first Lynch investigation over to an independent body? The answer probably lies in the way the department used to do business.

The decision to open an internal investigation into the Lynch rumor was made before Anne Kirkpatrick became chief. To her credit, Kirkpatrick immediately turned the Amunrud matter over to the State Patrol. She correctly saw the conflict in having her department investigate a city official who oversees the police.

If the mayor and acting police chief had recognized that conflict of interest back in September, the city could have avoided the ensuing legal circus, and the public would have more confidence that matters have been handled appropriately.

Read the report at www.spokesmanreview.com. It is not, as Judge Maryann Moreno contended, highly offensive. And, despite her ruling, it is of legitimate public interest.

For one thing, it details how the mayor, city attorney’s office and police department handled matters pertaining to the second most powerful person in city government. It shows that the subject of that investigation was given control over whether the report should be released. Please note that this overriding concern for Lynch’s “right to privacy” was not extended to another city employee who was named in the report, who was not consulted ahead of time and whose name was not blacked out when the report was initially released.

Has the city handled this matter properly? Has Jack Lynch been vindicated? Judge for yourself. It’s too bad city officials and the court didn’t think you had the capacity in the first place.