About 40 minutes ago I emailed the DPSST in Salem, asking for an interview with director, John Minnis. I wanted him to defend his agency’s background checking process for private security guards walking the streets of downtown Portland, in light of this week’s story. Here’s the response:

Greetings Matt,

Thank you for your request. As Director Minnis’ representative, and on his behalf, I am declining your invitation for the interview you are seeking. We believe the agency is neither obligated nor obliged to defend its background process. As I stated during our recent conversation, the agency has met its statutory obligations. You, as a reporter well know, that you have the ability to present a story as you see it. In turn, it is the responsibility of your readers to make decisions for themselves about the information you provide to them. If your readers feel that statute should be changed in this case, they, like all Oregonians have the legislative process available to them to make change happen. I mean that very sincerely. I appreciate the caring and energy with which do your job. Please let me know in the future how I can be of further assistance to you.

Thank you,

Jeanine Hohn
Oregon Department of Public
Safety Standards and Training
Public Information Officer - Legislative Liaison
[Phone number redacted.]

That’s what you get for asking someone for an interview like an asshole, I suppose. But what do you think? Does the DPSST have to stick up for itself? Or can it continue letting people on the run from warrants patrol the streets of downtown Portland, allegedly instigating fights with members of the public, with guns on their hips, blowing off curious journalists, left, right, and center? And what’s all this about the “legislative process?” How on earth do I go about getting involved with that?!