Part 2: The Withholding — OHA Investigation Summary

OHA's deputy state epidemiologist Ali Hamade withheld the damning first draft of the SB 283 report from a public records request.
- Activist Cynthia Franklin requested "ALL draft versions … distributed for review." Hamade sent four drafts and withheld the first — the one with pages of evidence of harm crossed out.
- His emails were barely disguised: he provided what he "understood to be the relevant ones — close to final drafts" and asked colleagues if "some should be added or removed."
Oregon law required disclosure. Hamade could not choose which drafts were "relevant."
- ORS 192.329 requires all copies of a requested record to be provided.
- ORS 192.355 requires release of preliminary records. The AG's own manual states "drafts or incomplete records are not inherently exempt from disclosure."
- OHA sent Franklin no notice that any record had been withheld, as the law requires.
The first draft had been distributed to others and reviewed — disproving OHA's later defense.
- André Ourso (not an author) received the first draft, read it, and left three editorial comments — confirmed by OHA itself.
- Intern Blake Buchalter also reviewed it and left many comments.
- OHA later told Sen. Dembrow the withheld drafts were not "distributed by the authors to the reviewers." The claim collapsed on its own terms: Ourso was not an author, and he reviewed it.
The draft only surfaced because one OHA staffer, Jeanne Windham, shot straight.
- When reporter Daniel Forbes pressed OHA, Windham informed him a November 3 draft existed and had been "inadvertently omitted." She sent it with its full Word change log intact — the document that laid bare every deletion Hamade had made.
Forbes carried documentary evidence of the likely crime — detailed in his Washington Spectator article — to three levels of state authority. Each turned away.
- Oregon State Police: Lt. Cord Wood claimed "the November 3 draft was not circulated to the review committee, but is notated by the author." There was no review committee. The draft bore comments in three colors from three people. Wood's reply showed no sign of investigation.
- Attorney General's office: Senior Assistant AG Andrew Foltz replied, "I am unable to comment on this matter." The AG's communications director suggested Forbes was "trying to reach the Public Records Advocate" — as if he were seeking records rather than reporting a crime.
- Governor Kate Brown's office: Forbes emailed the General Counsel and Chief of Staff. Not a peep from any of them.
OHA's own explanations contradicted each other.
- Press officer Jonathan Modie offered a "suspicion" that Windham had used an eDiscovery email search — despite OHA policy stating "the email system is not an archiving tool." He never followed through with documentation.
- Central Operations Manager Keely West (a lawyer): "Staff provided those drafts they understood to be responsive." But staff is not permitted to make that determination.
- West added the first draft "might not have been included because it did not go through a full review process." Franklin had asked for drafts distributed for review, not drafts with a completed review.
In July 2026, current OHA Director Sejal Hathi doubled down on the false statement to Sen. Dembrow.
- Forbes alerted Hathi that the agency's 2021 statement did not hold water. OHA's press office replied that it stood by the statement.
- On the charge that a senior staff member may have committed a crime, OHA wished Forbes "a great rest of [his] week."
An internal OHA memo acknowledged the stakes: "the results of the review could be used by schools to take measures to reduce harm to children if there is an indication of harm."
- The first draft contained that indication. It was crossed out, and then the draft itself was withheld from the public.

The Withholding

Explore the evidence

The Removal Record

Inside the Drafts

The Investigation Timeline

OHA's Response