In This State

• in → (preposition, introducing “this state” as a location phrase)

• this → (demonstrative adjective, modifies “state”)

• state → (noun, object of the preposition “in”)

Public Interest or Public “Enquiry”? Laura’s Curious Case of Linguistic Confusion

“Public Interest” Meets Public Confusion

It’s no small task for a public agency to read its own laws correctly. But then again, it’s no small feat to misread “public interest” as “public curiosity,” either. And yet, somehow, that’s precisely the interpretive magic trick performed by Laura Kardokus, Executive Director of the Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners (OBTP).

When I requested a fee waiver under ORS 192.324(5) as part of a public records request—emphasizing the impact of OBTP’s licensing policy on over 800,000 tax professionals—Laura issued a denial that would be comical if it weren’t part of a pattern of stonewalling. Her reasoning? There were “few enquiries” about the material I had requested​Timeline of events PRR …. Not “few concerns,” not “limited public benefit,” but—“enquiries.” Because, apparently, we’re now in a Jane Austen novel.

Curiosity Is Not a Legal Standard

The statute in question allows for a waiver of fees when disclosure of the records “primarily benefits the general public.” This is not a hard phrase. It doesn’t take a law degree—or even a dictionary published after 1950—to recognize that “public interest” means for the good of the public, not merely the curiosity of it. And yet Laura took the position that the bar for public interest is not whether the disclosure would benefit the public, but whether the public has already been clamoring for it. If no one else is knocking on the OBTP’s door, well then, surely it must not be important.

By this logic, no government scandal would ever merit disclosure unless a crowd had already assembled. It turns the statute on its head: instead of empowering citizens to uncover matters of public importance, it reduces “public interest” to a popularity contest—and one judged solely by whether she has gotten “enquiries.”

Jane Austen Called—She Wants Her Vocabulary Back

Let’s pause on that word: “enquiries.” The British spelling is cute. Endearing, even. Perhaps she keeps her agency memos in a cravat and stores legal definitions under a lace bonnet. But this is America. And more importantly, this is statutory interpretation, not tea with the vicar.

It would be charming if it weren’t tragic.

What Part of ‘In This State’ Is Confusing You?

Her confusion becomes even more concerning when you remember that this is the same agency that insists it has the authority to regulate tax professionals outside Oregon, despite the statute explicitly referring to people in this state. If Laura can’t interpret plain terms like “public interest,” it’s no wonder we’ve found ourselves in a multi-month war over the definition of the word in.

At some point, one has to ask: is this a board of tax practitioners, or a board of linguistic performance artists?

A $60,000 Lesson in How Not to Govern

Let’s not forget the stakes. While Laura was busy tallying “enquiries,” hundreds of professionals were left in legal limbo—either forking over hundreds of dollars under duress or abandoning Oregon clients entirely. OBTP’s own meeting minutes boast that “Consultants were actually up 207. A lot of that is due to out-of-state numbers.”​ That’s nearly $60,000 extracted on the strength of a legal interpretation weaker than her grasp of statutory language.

This isn’t just bad governance. It’s weaponized incompetence.

Oops, That Wasn’t True Either

And when called out, what did Laura do? She told the Attorney General’s office that her denial had nothing to do with retaliation, that OBTP had reached out to me first—a statement later retracted in a corrected DOJ letter because, well, it wasn’t true​Public Fee Waiver Appea….

So here we are, litigating the meaning of “in,” “interest,” and apparently “enquiry.” And frankly, if Laura’s grasp of English is this loose, maybe we should stop fighting over statutes and start with something simpler—like Hooked on Phonics.

Conclusion: Hooked on Phonics for Public Officials

But let’s give her this: if the OBTP ever needs a rebrand, I suggest “The Oregon Bureau of Tax Pantomime.” Because what they’re doing isn’t interpretation. It’s theater.

And not very good theater, at that.