We are in the final few weeks of a hot political race, involving John Hummel and Patrick Flaherty.

Hummel, the former Bend city councilman, is running against incumbent Deschutes District Attorney Flaherty.

A week and a half ago, the Hummel campaign announced that for 17 days it would be releasing selected documents from Flaherty’s early tenure, now nearly four years ago.

This from the campaign: “Beginning Tuesday, April 15, the campaign of Deschutes County District Attorney candidate John Hummel will release 17 documents in 17 days illustrating the need for a change in leadership at the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office.

“The documents and records chronicle the poor decision-making, bad judgment and improper behavior of incumbent district attorney Patrick Flaherty.”

According to the announcement, the documents “will be drawn from a massive file collected by Oregon State Police during an investigation of Flaherty, from The Bulletin, and from the Vote Hummel campaign’s own research.”

The documents, depicting the tempestuous days of Flaherty’s start as district attorney, are real enough, and the decisions cost taxpayers a lot of money.

No doubt, Flaherty gave new meaning to the term “rocky start.”

In his campaign, Flaherty has regretted the price tag attached to his decisions but said he believes his decisions were in the best interests of the district attorney’s office and citizens of Central Oregon.

Several aspects of the 17-day campaign are troubling.

First, these documents are fragmentary, though purporting to paint a complete portrait. What’s left out of the picture is the full documentation of a series of contentious arguments that include Flaherty’s assertions.

The Bulletin covered all of this extensively, and fought legally with Flaherty when he sought to drag one of our reporters before a grand jury.

But we presented the full story, all sides, and responses when we could secure them. That’s quite different from Hummel’s 17 days of documents.

Second, the use of the 17 days is clever, though not very attractive.

It is the period before the ballots are mailed and, just as importantly, after the last person-to-person debate between Hummel and Flaherty.

Would it not have been fairer to bring this up in open debate?

Would it not have been more informative to voters to reveal ideas that contrast with the current operations of the district attorney’s office?

What are the details behind Hummel’s rather sweeping implication of no cooperation between law enforcement agencies now in Deschutes?

What are the crime statistics that led him to imply that we are not as safe as we could be?

Not including those cases that Flaherty inherited from his predecessor, what are the charging inconsistencies of Flaherty on his watch?

This is politics and, as often said, politics is not beanbag.

But the essential argument that Hummel makes is that, given the early days’ turmoil and costs, Flaherty is not personally fit to be the district attorney. Does Hummel’s approach suggest a fit individual?

One thing is certain: Elected officials make decisions that cost taxpayers money.

Flaherty has to explain his decisions, but so should Hummel explain his as a city councilman when — wisely or not, depending on your view — a lot of taxpayer money was foolishly spent, if not wasted.

Yes, Flaherty created some very angry former employees, which is an undeniable part of his legacy.

Hummel has suggested that dissension remains and is rife in the DA’s office. If so, demonstrate it instead of releasing old documents.

— John Costa is editor-in-chief

of The Bulletin. Contact: 541-383-0337, jcosta@bendbulletin.com.