H&N’s editors, once
again, draw
factual conclusions
favoring one local
constituency and
ideology over
another, effectively
violating
professional
journalist ethical
standards.
KID’s 2/29/16
Meeting Minutes do
not state I was
hired solely to
assist the district
in negotiating a
contract to repair
the deteriorating C
Canal flume; rather
they state I was
retained “to oversee
the Flume contracts
and give
[the district] some
specialized
guidance.”
KID Board members
Cacka & Carleton,
who have since
feigned ignorance,
were familiar with
my federal law and
policy work when I
was hired. Indeed,
they had been
forewarned by
Reclamation
contractor/ Klamath
Basin Agreement
moderator, Ed Sheets,
about my opposition
to the Montana CSKT
Water Compact the
implementation of
which he also
moderates.
My engagement
agreement, posted on
H&N’s website,
clearly defines my
primary task as
preventing that
contract and the
basin agreements
from compromising
district patrons’
land and water
interests and
identifies my
Montana work.
H&N’s editors
unfairly support
Cacka’s and
Carleton’s claims,
made in ethics and
bar complaints, that
they had been
deceived about the
purpose of my hire.
They cleverly try to
absolve these
directors of their
state law obligation
to scrutinize my
contract.
H&N’s editors
conveniently
overlook the
fiduciary duties of
care, loyalty and
obedience such
directors owe to
district patrons and
the Board.
These duties
required them to
carefully examine my
contract, especially
in the absence of a
KID manager.
These duties also
prohibited Cacka &
Carleton from
repeatedly
disrupting district
business, having my
board-confidential
unredacted
engagement agreement
faxed to Malin
Potato Cooperative,
and publicly
disclosing its
privileged contents
through H&N.
Why hasn’t H&N
reported this, or
Cheyne-Knoll-Smiths’
lack of knowledge
regarding Attorney
William Ganong’s
authorized tasks,
considering his
30-year failure to
provide the district
with an engagement
agreement?
Lawrence Kogan