In another apparent attempt to manage negative headlines, Portland mayoral candidate Jefferson Smith reached out to The Oregonian in a 1:32 a.m. email Tuesday that was at turns accusatory and conciliatory.

Smith acknowledged that he wasn't immediately forthcoming after reports surfaced in August that his

or after reports this month that he

But he also blamed The Oregonian for not asking more questions sooner. "Had you asked, I intended to answer," he wrote of the 1993 episode.

He also said his "reputation has been under some deep attacks" and acknowledged: "I don't know if I'll recover or not."

The email arrived as Smith faces

and a dip in fundraising in recent days. Last week, local political observers said Smith's

as much as the news itself.

The email also was not the first time Smith has sought to manage damaging information. With both the 1993 incident and his driving record, stories stretched out over days as Smith offered one version of events but then faced more scrutiny as public records with conflicting details came to light.

Smith declined through his campaign manager Tuesday to discuss the email or the issues it raised. But in two later emails, Smith wrote that the first message was intended to be off the record. The message, however, was sent to a reporter's work email address at The Oregonian and carried no request for privacy.

In that email, Smith blames the way coverage of the 1993 party unfolded in part on The Oregonian's failure to more closely scrutinize his years at the University of Oregon. A routine check of Eugene police records by The Oregonian before the May primary produced no results because the files had been purged.

"I don't think you ever asked me if I had been arrested or cited," wrote Smith, who is also a state legislator. "I never intended to hide if asked, even as scared as I have been to talk about it (and I'm not proud of that fear)."

On Oct. 1, the day reports of the incident surfaced,

and said the woman began hitting him at the party and was injured as Smith tried to defend himself. He declined to discuss the extent of her injuries.

The next day, Smith released the diversion agreement that allowed him to escape a misdemeanor assault charge. It revealed that the woman required stitches. A fuller picture emerged Oct. 8 when the woman's lawyer released the 1993 police report. In it, the 5-foot-3 woman said Smith "popped" her after she rebuffed his advances. Smith has said he doesn't recall making advances.

On his driving record, Smith said in Tuesday morning's email that he was "befuddled" that The Oregonian didn't get his full driving record after asking about it in September 2011, shortly after Smith announced his candidacy. At the time, Smith acknowledged one license suspension but offered no additional information.

This summer, The Oregonian asked Smith and opponent Charlie Hales for written permission to review their driving records. With some exceptions, these are not public documents because of a federal privacy law. Smith agreed, but the initial record obtained from Oregon Driver and Motor Vehicle Services on Aug. 16 went back only to 2004. Older infractions had been archived.

Asked repeatedly in an interview Aug. 16 whether he had more than four suspensions, Smith declined to answer. In the days that followed, he acknowledged a fifth suspension and then released his full record, which his campaign had obtained in 2011, showing seven suspensions. In the last of a series of stories, Smith acknowledged his "embarrassing" record.

In Tuesday's email, Smith in part blamed his campaign's communication consultant for his initial lack of candor. "My comms guy asked me to stick to a tight message (not exactly my style)," Smith wrote. "I wanted to show discipline to that charge. I should have just handed it to you, but it has been vexing and perplexing that you didn't already have it." He added: "In the general (election), you wrote story after story about it, as if I were trying to hide it."

Later in the email, Smith acknowledged that the newspaper did not have the full record when it questioned him about it Aug. 16. "I still think I got royally shafted in that episode," he wrote. "But now I have an impression that it was not entirely intentional on the part of the paper."

He also tried to extend an olive branch in case he does win the Portland mayor's race: "I hope that something can be done to build some small semblance of trust."

Here's the 1:32 a.m. email Smith sent on Tuesday to The Oregonian:

More

I don't know if I'll be elected mayor or not (or otherwise be engaged in public life going forward). If so, I do want some relationship with some modicum of trust with our daily newspaper. At this point, I suspect that my trust of you is roughly equivalent to your trust of me.

Two things I want to lay on the table:

1) It has occurred to me that you never asked me about college. Had you asked, I intended to answer. And I don't think you ever asked me if I had been arrested or cited. Had you asked, I intended to answer. I didn't bring forward the information that has now become the primary focus of the mayors race. (Had I without permission I still don't think that was the right thing to do -- even though it might've been the smarter thing to do.) But I never intended to hide if asked, even as scared as I have been to talk about it (and I'm not proud of that fear). Those previous sentences might matter little now, but they've been on my mind.

2) I have remained deeply befuddled by the driving record thing. The claim that the full record wasn't publicly available was hugely strange to me. All it apparently takes is I think $10 and a request on the DMV website. When you asked me about it, I told you that I had a terrible driving record. In the general, you wrote story after story about it, as if I were trying to hide it. I signed a disclosure that wasn't needed, and then answered questions before you still apparently didn't have the full record. My comms guy asked me to stick to a tight message (not exactly my style). I wanted to show discipline to that charge. I should have just handed it to you; but it has been vexing and perplexing that you didn't already have it.

This whole time I have been assuming that either 1) somehow the capable reporters at the Oregonian somehow did not know how to get a complete driving record (even with a signed disclosure), or 2) the data was being fed bit by bit from a source who did know but had non-journalistic motives, or 3) there was a specific intent to do it piece-by-piece on behalf of someone/s at the newspaper. That episode -- which dealt my campaign a serious set of blows -- strengthened the view of folks on my end that communicating with you was something I did to our detriment. Recently, Nigel J. [editor's note: Nigel Jaquiss of Willamette Week] explained to me that there's another database that you both typically use -- that is apparently less complete than the DMV. I now assume that was your source, and that I may have misjudged your intent at least in part. (I still think I got royally shafted in that episode...but now I have an impression that it was not entirely intentional on the part of the paper.)

In any event, my reputation has been under some deep attacks over the past 2 months. I don't know if I'll recover or not. I know that a piece of that is your job. (Although I'm not sure the destruction motivation ought to be as big a part as it has seemed recently.) And I know that you are a gifted reporter. If I win, I will try to treat you as such. And I hope that something can be done to build some small semblance of trust.

I suspect our contact will be limited over the next 3 weeks. I don't suspect a single email will do that much to impact trust either way (and I do have real concern that the paper's editorial perspective is driving the news side). But I have wanted to send some word.

--

; on