[Vision2020] re: conflict of interest

Fri Aug 6 01:08:55 PDT 2004

Wayne,
         Your spirited comments regarding Paul Kimmell are, well, spirited.
         Frankly I disagree with your opinion of the man.
         I've had many dealings with Paul. Some in his capacity at the 
chamber, and some as a commissioner. I have always found Paul to be a 
conscientious, honorable, hard working man. I agree with everything Jon 
Kimberling and Tom Hudson wrote about Kimmell. He has impressed me, and I'm 
not easily impressed-nor am I blind, fawning or lusting towards Kimmell, as 
you accuse Kimberling and Hudson.
         Have you ever met Paul? On what do you base your opinions of him?

         I would like to raise a few points that trouble me:
1.      I find it disturbing that a man is being raked through the mud 
simply because he is a member of a church that has a pastor with some odd 
views. I've heard Christ Church has over 500 members. I'll bet there's just 
as many different opinions of Wilson in the church. Some probably think he 
walks on water. Some probably can't stand him, and I'll bet most are 
somewhere in the middle.
         Does membership in a church mean a person becomes a mindless 
zombie that agrees with every stance the church pastor takes?
         Really?
         I know lots of Catholics using birth control. They don't seem to 
be in lock-step with their pope. I also know a number of homosexuals that 
fervently believe they are not going to hell. Yet they continue to go to 
churches espousing different views. How can this be? Do they have brains 
that they are using for themselves? Impossible!
         Stretching to make my point-how accurate is it to generalize about 
a person based on a few known facts about their life? Paul is being 
castigated for being a member of Christ Church and, undeniably, making one 
bad decision in not removing himself from a Commissioner vote. Does knowing 
Paul Kimmell attends Christ Church allow us to accurately infer everything 
else about him?
         If people knew only a few things about you what might they infer?
         Paul is bald. Does that mean he is an, ahem, "gifted" man?
         I'm six foot five. Do you think I'm a good basketball player? One 
of my cars is a 1976 Monte Carlo. Does that make me a gearhead? I've had 
that car since 1984. Does that mean I'm cheap? Old? I was raised in 
Montana. Does that mean my parents raised sheep for a living and were 
members of the militia? I now live in Idaho. Do I grow potatoes? Am I a 
white supremacist?
         Given these five facts, do you now have incontrovertible evidence 
that I'm a cheap, old, basketball playing gearhead supremacist with a 
fondness for sheep and potatoes?
         Correct me if I'm wrong-and I'm sure you will-but when we 
generalize off of a small pool of facts do we usually get an accurate 
picture? When generalizing is done on the basis of color, what do we call 
it? Racism. What about generalizing on the basis of sex? Sexism. How about 
when we generalize on the basis of income? Classism. Well now. Do we need 
to come up with an ism for generalizing on the basis of attending Christ 
Church? Kirkism, perhaps? I hope not. Isms are ugly, small-minded excuses 
to avoid thinking. We don't need'em around here. And you don't have to be a 
cheap old basketball playing gearhead supremacist with a fondness for sheep 
and potatoes to see that.
         Allow me to peel away my layers of sarcasm and just be blunt: 
Generalizing off of a small pool of facts doesn't work.

2.      It seems obvious to me that Kimmell made a mistake in not recusing 
himself when the church tax exemption came before the commissioners. It 
does not seem nearly as obvious to me that there is evidence of malice 
aforethought. In point of fact, an investigator has found that he WAS NOT 
GUILTY.
         To my knowledge Kimmell stood to make no money from the Christ 
Church tax decision. It probably seemed a fairly straightforward agenda 
item. A church was asking for tax free status. Not uncommon, not earth 
shattering.

3.     Fine lines must be drawn when looking for conflicts of interest. Is 
it really so hard to believe that Kimmell can honorably uphold his 
obligations to the Chamber, while working with the Commissioners and 
attending Christ Church? Call me naive, but I think the man can think for 
himself, and is honorable enough to vote with his heart and do it fairly.
Incidentally, for those that are counting you can now add one more thing 
you know about me: naive.
That must mean I'm a cheap, old, naive, basketball playing gearhead 
supremacist with a fondness for sheep and potatoes. Right?
Back to my point. Where do we draw the line when rooting out conflicts of 
interest:
a. Should city officials that own dogs not be allowed to vote on the 
upcoming dog park issue?
b.  Should officials that drive cars not be allowed to vote on road repair 
issues?
c. Should water users not be allowed to vote on issues pertaining to the 
aquifer?
d. Should downtown businesses not be allowed input on Friendship Square?
e. Mein Gott! What about parents? How can they possibly be trusted to make 
rational decisions regarding our schools?

         I also must take issue with your logic on one item:
>    "Doug Wilson reported that Paul Kimmell, in his role as County 
> Commissioner,
>is open to oversight from the elders on certain issues."
>
>    Please don't lead us to believe that you are totally ignorant by insisting
>that "input" is what is meant by the above passage from the minutes.

If you believe that Doug Wilson is guilty of : "thievery, gross and 
arrogant lying, plagiarism, disregard for human rights, obstruction of 
justice, etc." then why do you believe his minutes would be an accurate 
reflection of the "oversight" or "input" Kimmel is willing to give the 
church elders?

If Wilson is a liar, isn't it just as easy to believe that Wilson would 
seek to puff himself up by making it seem that he has Kimmel in his pocket?
Sincerely,
Darrell-Long time reader, first time writer.

>    ----- Original Message -----
>    From: Art Deco aka W. Fox
>    To: Vision 2020
>    Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 3:41 PM
>    Subject: [Vision2020] Conflict of Interest
>
>
>    Jon Kimberling wrote of Paul Kimmell getting oversight from Christ Church
>Elders:
>
>    If you substitute the word "input" for the word "oversight", I believe we
>come much closer to what may have transpired.
>
>    Hardly, Jon.
>
>    Oversight: ... 2. Watchful care or management; supervision. (American
>Heritage Dictionary)
>
>    Original cite by Captain Kirker from the Christ Church minutes:
>
>    "Doug Wilson reported that Paul Kimmell, in his role as County 
> Commissioner,
>is open to oversight from the elders on certain issues."
>
>    Please don't lead us to believe that you are totally ignorant by insisting
>that "input" is what is meant by the above passage from the minutes.
>
>    However, I am delighted to hear your and Tom Hudson's fawning, almost
>lusting description of Paul Kimmell. It reminds me of a description by many
>devouts of a man/wife team who mined hundreds of thousands of dollars from 
>north
>Idaho Christians by selling them worthless stock in an nonexistent 
>Canadian gold
>mine through their churches.
>
>    The term "confidence man" or more correctly "confidence person", since 
> women
>can be just as proficient at flimflamery as men, does not contain the term
>"confidence" by accident.
>
>    Those who are able to defraud us do so in part by gaining our intense,
>passionate, blind confidence.
>
>    If old adages have probable application then the following is likely to be
>more apt to the present situation:
>
>    "Birds of a feather flock together."
>
>    I am speaking of course of Kimmell's close association, if not infatuation
>or obsession with The self-appointed Agent of God, Christ Church Cult Master
>Douglas Wilson. There is ample evidence in the record of Wilson's thievery,
>gross and arrogant lying, plagiarism, disregard for human rights, 
>obstruction of
>justice, etc. to see the color of Wilson's feathers. Now, apply the adage to
>Kimmell.
>
>    Jon, if you choose to continue to express non-flattering blindness in this
>matter, please consider very seriously buying from me stock in an 
>exceptionally
>promising gold mine in the country of Bolzana. The stock is only $10,000 per
>share and is guaranteed in time to return your investment over 100,000 times.
>Maybe you have a few friends that would be interested too.
>
>    Wayne
>
>    Art Deco (Wayne Fox)
>    deco at moscow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040806/a701ec55/attachment.htm