Startling news broke in Portland, Oregon, on January 19, 2009. The recently-inaugurated mayor, Sam Adams, had just admitted to a past affair with a young man; moreover, it was possible the young man had been a minor at the time. Sixteen months earlier, however, Adams had vehemently denied charges of that affair leveled at him by a rival for the mayor’s post. Among other things, Adams, an openly gay Portland politician, had declared the rumor an overt political smear, and a homophobic one to boot. In the process, Adams had destroyed the credibility of his political opponent, and went on to win the election by a wide margin.

The Oregonian was the predominant newspaper both in Oregon and in Portland, the state’s most populous city. Its editorial board served as a guiding voice in Portland’s civic life, making difficult judgment calls on numerous political and social issues, which were published on the Oregonian ’s editorial page. Editorial Page Editor Bob Caldwell knew his seven-member board would be expected to weigh in on Adams’ confession. Specifically, the group would have to decide whether to call for Adams’ resignation.

The board had enthusiastically backed Adams for mayor. He had been the most experienced candidate running, with charm and intelligence to spare. With his generous election margin, Adams had a mandate that gave him considerable leverage to tackle the pressing economic issues that faced the city in the midst of the most severe national recession since the 1930s. Moreover, the board was proud their city had embraced an openly gay mayor, another example of the tolerant liberalism on which Portland prided itself. But the confession was a major event.

Caldwell wanted to make sure that Adams had an opportunity to state his case. So he invited the mayor to visit the board the next morning. During their meeting, Adams changed his story several times. The board sensed he was still concealing some of the facts; some were unconvinced that the young man had been 18—Oregon’s legal age of sexual consent—at the time of the affair.

As the editorial board gathered after the meeting, they debated what to write. Some facts were clear. By his own admission, Adams had lied in 2007. Portland voters might not have elected him had he admitted to the affair before the election. Moreover, Adams had discredited another potential candidate, depriving voters of that choice. On the other hand, Adams was a charismatic public figure who had won high voter approval, and whose policy priorities reflected those of the board as well as the electorate.

The board had to decide what they could usefully say about the situation. What kind of editorial would best serve the interests of Oregonian readers? Did they have enough information? If, as Adams maintained, he had lied but done nothing illegal, did his behavior warrant a call for his resignation? Would they be considering such a move if the mayor had lied about a relationship with a woman, underage or not? Did the board risk undermining a capable leader unnecessarily? To whom, fundamentally, was the board responsible in presenting its perspective?