Whichever way it is viewed, the deal by which the Department of Conservation received $175,000 from Meridian Energy, and the manner in which it was made, has undermined Doc's credibility.
For while the department might argue its agreement with the state-owned enterprise in relation to its position on the proposed Project Hayes wind farm is a matter of record, the public perception is rather different.
It is different precisely because of the element of secrecy attendant upon "the deal" - in the form of a confidentiality clause which precluded widespread knowledge that money would change hands in favour of Doc if the project proceeded.
It does not take a particularly zealous Green conspiracy theorist to add "secret payment" to "Meridian's agenda" and arrive at "pact of silence". Neither does the degree of surprised indignation now emanating from the department do the organisation any favours.
It is true that a public accommodation was reached between Meridian Energy and Doc.
This newspaper reported as much in May 2007 in an article arising from the original Project Hayes hearings.
"Meridian Energy and the Department of Conservation have reached agreement over earlier concerns Doc had about Project Hayes," it read.
It went on to explain in broad terms that while Doc had previously been concerned about the impact the wind farm - with its 176 turbines installed on hillsides near Ranfurly - would have on the ecology of the Lammermoor Range and the amenity values of nearby conservation areas, proposed resource consent conditions would now address the department's concerns.
Those conditions were listed at the time to include a weed management and monitoring programme, a fire management plan, an accidental discovery protocol for any archaeological sites found during construction, and monitoring of any threatened flora and fauna in the areas, including birdstrike.
It is now found through documents "discovered" under the Official Information Act that the agreement signed in May 2007 indicated that Doc would inform the hearing panel and any other court examining the project that its previous concerns had been resolved; and that the "quid pro quo" - the $175,000 it would receive were the project to proceed - would go towards maintaining and improving access to the Rock and Pillar Conservation Area and/or fund research into the decline of the falcon.
There is force in Doc's argument that it was following the pragmatic, commonsense course: that it had concerns, expressed them to Meridian Energy, and negotiated for those concerns to be addressed by way of consent conditions and, it says, a conditional payment.
Better this than spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars fighting a battle in the Environment Court.
As Prime Minister John Key has put it, if the money was destined for environmental mitigation, then it might be considered appropriate - but if it was to purchase silence, it would not.
Where the appearance of obfuscation arises is in Doc's contention that the details of its agreement, including the matter of the payment, were "publicly" released.
It now appears that those details were given under a further Official Information Act request, this time to Forest and Bird, in July 2007, with all but the figures of the conditional payment blacked out - for reasons of commercial sensitivity.
Whether a release to such an organisation, under the duress of the Official Information Act, can be considered full public disclosure is arguable.
The Department of Conservation is the organisation citizens expect to uphold environmental values; because if not it, then who?
But the implications of the "whole of government" approach to the Project Hayes consent hearings, in which it has been suggested that the department was told to pull its punches, only adds to the suspicion it acted with less than the expected transparency.
Rightly or wrongly, the affair has left people with the impression Doc has been less than forthright and, in this matter at least, something of a toothless tiger.
If there is a lesson in the episode for Doc and its political masters, it is that secrecy will out, inconvenient facts will eventually be aired and that the best policy is openness from the outset - which, after all, is nothing more than people's democratic entitlement.
