[Vision2020] re: conflict of interest
Art Deco aka W. Fox
deco at moscow.com
Fri Aug 6 10:34:20 PDT 2004
Darrell,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
In answer to your first question. Yes, I have met Kimmell -- twice or three
times in the last month or two. However, he was most likely unaware of who I
was. One encounter is something that he would probably wish had not occurred if
he knew the observations I had made. Sometimes it is easier to succeed in
certain situations without revealing your identity. Most people who are
acquainted with Kimmell seem to agree that he is affable, and in certain areas,
capable. Agreement seems to end at that point.
Your other points:
1. You are correct. Paul Kimmell is being attacked in part because he
belongs to, works for the financial enhancement of, and apparently believes in
the doctrines of the Christ Church Cult. These doctrines include sexism,
homophobia, thinly disguised racism, anti-secularism, covenantal dishonesty,
etc., etc.
For reasons which should be obvious, many people find these doctrines abhorrent.
If Paul Kimmell does not believe in these doctrines then he should publicly
repudiate them, stop helping to raise funds to perpetuate and to propagate them,
and if he really is a Christian and not a pretender like some in the cult, find
a much more Christ-like church.
Further I strongly believe that such views as above do not lead to good public
policy. Therefore, I do not support, in fact I spiritedly oppose, people
holding such anti-democratic views. I unabashedly work to expose and to help
remove people from public office and other positions who make or influence
public policy who espouse such views.
You insinuate that I am intolerant of religious views. You are correct in part.
My belief in tolerance toward religious, political, and social beliefs and dogma
is (simply and incompletely stated) as follows:
A. Everyone should be allowed to hold, express, and to support and/or argue
for their views no matter how intelligent, perceptive, foolish, or repugnant
such views are.
B. Religious, political, and social views have real, far-reaching behavioral
consequences. Depending on different individual's perspectives, some of these
actual behavioral consequences are either wonderful, OK, bad, or horrific.
C. Since religious, political, and social beliefs have behavioral
consequences, it is important to many (though obviously not to all) to
determine:
a. What does a given belief mean?
b. How can you tell if a given belief is true?
c. Is the given belief, in fact, true?
d. Are the conclusions supported by the belief logical and/or probable?
The answers to these questions demand the use of critical analysis, learning,
interaction, and vigorous discussion. Trying to find the answers to these
questions and acting on the answers to these questions also generates spirit,
debate, amity, and enmity as you have in part observed.
I do not agree with Kimmell's worldview or that of the cult of which he is a
member. I find such views to be abusive, crippling, anti-democratic, and based
on manipulation, gullibility, and superstition/ignorance. I do not believe
these views lead to a healthy, open society which encourages people to achieve
to their most and best, when desired. Hence my opposition to Kimmell and others
who hold such views.
2. There are several accusations of conflict of interest against Kimmell.
First, you are correct that some conflicts are ludicrous to even consider.
However, the failure of Kimmell to recuse himself last year from the decision of
the cult's application for property tax exemptions is a clear case of an
unconscionable conflict:
A. Kimmell is a member of the cult.
B. Kimmell has a natural personal interest in the wellbeing and financial
wellbeing of the cult.
C. Kimmell has a natural personal interest in the growth of the cult and the
propagation of its beliefs.
D. The maintenance, growth, and propagation of the cult's beliefs require
financial health and the accumulation of cash and other assets.
E. Kimmell is a paid consultant to the cult in matters including the
accumulation and management of the cult's wealth and assets.
F. Therefore, Kimmell has a personal, financial interest in any decision
before the commission (or chamber) that impacts the cult's wealth and/or assets.
G. Therefore, Kimmell has a conflict of interest in such decisions. Whether,
this conflict meets statutory conditions is still an open question as far as I
am concerned. In my unwashed view, the conflict is not only subject to
statutory conditions but also to ethical ones. With regard to the latter,
Kimmell clearly acted in an arrogantly improper manner.
Another interesting conflict for Kimmell occurs between his role as a chamber
executive and a member of/consultant for the cult.
For example, Kimmell has hired at least 4 kirker-culties as chamber employees.
A previous post pointed out that probability of such an occurrence happening
fairly and in accordance with employment laws is about 1 in 6,250,000 at the
highest. These actions by Kimmell are not only are arrogant, illegal, not
respectful of human rights, but could expose the chamber to expensive,
nonproductive lawsuits and other legal action as well as cause the loss of
public/community respect.
However, that is only part of the problem. Think about this: Kimmell and his
cultie underlings effectively control the flow and the timing of the flow of
important, sensitive, possibly wealth-producing information to chamber members
and others. Do you not see what problems this might pose and how this might
cause a conflict between Kimmell's chamber duties and his cult motives and
oversight? Do you not see the relationship between the answers to the last
question and why he so arrogantly hired fellow culties?
3. You mention that I should be skeptical of the quote:
"Doug Wilson reported that Paul Kimmell, in his role as County Commissioner, is
open to oversight from the elders on certain issues."
Your reason is that I am skeptical, if not outright disbelieving of anything
Doug Wilson says. Your assumption is partly true. Because there have been
cases in the cult's minutes where intentionally false statements have been made,
mainly to exculpate Douglas Wilson from some of his many dishonest endeavors, I
tend to doubt most things in the minutes.
However, I am and remain less skeptical of the cite above because there has been
no public repudiation of it by Paul Kimmell! I do not know about you but if I
were I a public official and someone wrongly suggested that I took oversight
from any religious, political, or social organization, I would deny it with
great vigor.
Accepting such oversight is a gross breach of public trust and is not unlike
accepting bribes or playing favorites for around-about other favors or
compensation. As a former public official (in another county) and watch-dog
citizen, I've seen such things happen; I have successfully sued over two of
them; and I, and I hope, you also abhor such practices.
Hence, if no clear, unequivocal repudiation of
"Doug Wilson reported that Paul Kimmell, in his role as County Commissioner, is
open to oversight from the elders on certain issues."
comes from Kimmell including an explanation of why he has not privately and
publicly challenged the contents of the long standing minutes and if he does, an
explanation why of he has waited so long, I will continue to believe that the
entry from the minutes is probably more correct than not. (Exercise: If
Kimmell did not challenge the above entry when it occurred, what is the most
reasonable conclusion to draw about Kimmell's relationship with Doug Wilson/The
Cult and his relationship with the truth?)
As an aside, there is little doubt that some of my remarks have been and will
continue to be uncivil (as some people enjoy pointing out). My writings are
also sometimes ultra-graphic and disrespectful. Doug Wilson, his relations, and
his minions at NSA self-style themselves as world-class experts in rhetoric.
For an amusing interlude, you might ask them about their theory of my rhetoric.
Darrell, thank you again for your thoughtful response and questions.
Wayne
Art Deco (Wayne Fox)
deco at moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Darrell Keim
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 1:08 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] re: conflict of interest
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040806/01c017f4/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list