Not to be outdone by the Oregon Catalyst’s John Kitzhaber “scandal,” Carla Axtman of the liberal/Democratic Blue Oregon blog has come up with a “scandal” involving Kitzhaber’s Republican opponent, Chris Dudley.
If anything, Axtman’s entry is even lamer than the Oregon Catalyst’s.
Seems that back in 2007, Don King, the coach of the Lake Oswego High School swim team and also the proprietor of a private swim club in that posh Portland suburb, was charged with sexual abuse involving a girl under 18. Although he pleaded not guilty and eventually was acquitted by a jury, he lost his coaching job with the school district.
The following year, King applied to be reinstated. At a hearing held by the school board, Dudley – whose three children had been coached by King – testified in his favor. Axtman got a copy of the minutes of that meeting and quotes them at length.
“Mr. Dudley’s perception of Mr. King is that he thrives on connection with other people,” according to the minutes. “Mr. Dudley stressed that Mr. King truly cares about his swimmers and strives to ensure that everyone he works with improves. Mr. King coached all of Mr. Dudley’s children, as well as many of their friends. He observed Mr. King having children on his lap, having his hand on the clothed buttocks of children, and pulling children over by hooking a finger on the inside of a bathing suit, as well as other nurturing, emotionally connective interaction with children (boys and girls) of all ages. Mr. Dudley conceded that he would have been uncomfortable observing any coach other than Mr. King perform these actions with his children if he was unfamiliar with the person and/or context.”
The board unanimously declined to reinstate King. “About a month later, King abandoned his effort to retain his swim coach credentials with USA Swimming, the body which governs U.S. competitive swimming,” Axtman writes. “He did so after three women came forward alleging King sexually abused them as teenagers” in California when King coached there.
In view of all this, Axtman continues, “Dudley’s defense [of King] is odd, to say the least. Especially given how elected officials and members of the community, including a jury, had significant worries about King’s behavior. … This is simply terrible judgment on Dudley’s part. Either that, or he was easily snookered. Neither is [an] especially great prospect.”
Let’s put aside the rhetoric and look at the facts for a minute. King was somebody Dudley had known for about a decade. He had helped rehabilitate Dudley when he suffered an injury playing for the Blazers. He had coached his children without, apparently, any excessive laying on of hands. The jury (despite whatever “significant worries” it might have had) acquitted King. So Dudley was willing to go in front of the school board and testify for him.
And incidentally, although Axtman fails to mention it, Dudley was just one of five witnesses who spoke in favor of King at that meeting, including people who had worked with King and whose children had been coached by him.
As material for a scandal goes, this is mighty thin gruel. Dudley was not defending sex abuse in general, nor was he defending a convicted sex offender; he was merely telling the board what he knew about King.
I was surprised to read Axtman’s post on Blue Oregon, and I’m disappointed that she hasn’t taken it down and offered Dudley an apology. Let’s leave this sort of thing to the Rush Limbaughs and Matt Drudges of the world, okay?
This article appears in Jun 24-30, 2010.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Odd that you’d peg this a “scandal”. Certainly nobody else has.
This is a question of good judgement, or lack thereof. Dudley’s own testimony indicated his discomfort with the way King touched children. Yet he ignored his own instincts. And while others testified on King’s behalf, I read no other that indicated a squeamishness about King’s actions like Dudley did. Further, as far as I can tell, none of the others who made this bad call defending King are asking to be our Governor.
Some key relevant facts are left out of this commentary, unfortunately. Dudley’s own articulated discomfort with King’s actions, for one. King’s unanimous dismissal by the LO School Board, for another. The fact that a woman had come forward during the hearings to say that King molested her (which King was later caught admitting to the victim in a conversation overheard by police).
Shame on The Source for not doing the work to do this story themselves. How a potential public officials make decisions on public matters (and this was a highly public issue in the community) is not only relevant, it’s an indicator of what we may expect if the person is elected.
As you know, Carla, I am not a Republican and am no big fan of Dudley, who as far as I can judge at this stage is an empty suit.
But we still have a thing called “presumption of innocence” in this country. King was acquitted of the Lake Oswego charge and as far as I know was never convicted on the California charge. Dudley testified to what he knew about the man, both the good and the bad. The board made its decision and that was that.
Frankly I would feel worse about a gubernatorial candidate who was willing to presume the guilt of somebody accused of sexual abuse than about one who was willing to say a few words in favor of a friend accused of such abuse.
And as somebody commented re your own post, Democrats should be careful where they tread on sex scandals lest Republicans start talking about Kitzhaber and Goldschmidt.
Bruce: I would never confuse you for a Republican. I promise I’m not that cruel.
The problem is that Dudley DID presume guilt. By his own testimony, he saw that King’s actions were squeamish-inducing. Yet because it was King, he just couldn’t bring himself to believe it was bad. That’s highly problematic judgment on Dudley’s part.
Look at it from this scenario: Dudley wins the election and becomes Governor. Its now his job to appoint people to important positions, including those which manage big budgets. Dudley has a friend that he likes and wants to appoint. He’s seen red flags about this person’s fiscal management skills, but because he knows the person and believes in the person, he ignores the red flags and appoints them anyway.
A number of people come forward to say that Dudley’s new appointee has bounced checks at their businesses. Others say that the new appointee has embezzled money from them. Exactly the stuff that Dudley saw going on, but ignored.
This King situation is essentially that same scenario with a different issue.
Go HBM! Carla, kind of stretching it a little aren’t ya? It just shows how silly both sides look! But in all seriousness………PLEASE DON”T RE-ELECT Kitzhaber!!!
“I would never confuse you for a Republican.”
Thank you for that.
“The problem is that Dudley DID presume guilt. By his own testimony, he saw that King’s actions were squeamish-inducing. Yet because it was King, he just couldn’t bring himself to believe it was bad.”
I disagree with that interpretation. Dudley said he saw King do some things (touching kids) that he would feel uneasy about if he didn’t know the man and didn’t know the context — i.e., it was a coaching situation and that was the way King acted when he was coaching. Apparently the other witnesses saw the same behavior by King and interpreted it in the same way.
Of course one shouldn’t ignore “red flags,” but neither should one condemn a person on the basis of “red flags” alone. “Red flags” are an indication of a POSSIBLE problem, not proof that there is a problem. They are a reason for further investigation and consideration. I don’t think Dudley ignored the “red flags” regarding King, but he put a different interpretation on them than some other people did.
Having said that, I’m not going to go back and forth on this any more. You have your way of seeing this issue and I have mine, and I don’t think either of us will persuade the other.