[Vision2020] Re: conflict of interest

Fri Aug 6 11:41:27 PDT 2004

My thanks to Darrell Keim, Jon Kimberling, Tom Hudson and Melynda Huskey for all making the same point: we can have and we should welcome a thoughtful discussion of issues, and even of the actions of individuals, in a way that strengthens not weakens our community.
That was, of course, the fundamental goal that inspired the founding of Vision2020 more than 10 years ago.
Periodically this non-moderated discussion strays from that goal, and the example and the reminder is needed.
BL

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Darrell Keim 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 11:18 AM
  Subject: [Vision2020] Re: conflict of interest

  Melynda,
          Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my somewhat sarcastic broadsiding of Wayne.  I am aware of the issues you so ably summarized.  I also agree they are points of concern.  I do not deny the possibility of their being issues.  What caused me to write was exactly the polarization you mention below.  I saw a polarized note from Wayne, making many ad hominem attacks against Kimmell and those that don't think he is the devil incarnate.  The points you raised were not being reasonably discussed.  Rather, many people were simply name calling.  I'm all for reasoned discussion.  The unreasoned discussion that was going on stirred me to write.  I have a few more comments below:

    Message: 2
    Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:59:01 -0700
    From: "Melynda Huskey" <mghuskey at msn.com>
    Subject: RE: [Vision2020] re: conflict of interest
    To: vision2020 at moscow.com
    Message-ID: <BAY11-F308lxy4DlYWy000025ad at hotmail.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

    Darrell raises some points that I'm sure others are wondering about, too. 
    He writes:

    >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 . . . 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?

    One difficulty about this medium--Vision 2020 in particular and email in 
    general--is that it invites polarization, and each pole is defined by the 
    most extreme or "spirited" position taken. Although I, for one, have grave 
    concerns about the possible conflicts of interest, I don't have them because 
    of Paul Kimmell's membership in a particular church. I'm looking at 
    patterns of behavior:

  Again, I agree with your approach.  And applaud you for taking it.  I wish everyone did!

    Paul Kimmell is described in church meeting minutes--to which he had access 
    and to which he could have asked for revisions--as willing to accept 
    oversight by the church's elders on some issues (unspecified).

  To this I will repeat an earlier point-How do we know that Wilson accurately reflects the conversation in his minutes?

    Paul served as a land agent for the church.

    In his capacity as President for the Chamber, he made staff hiring decisions 
    which systematically favored members of his own church.

  True.  Is this a problem with Kimmell?  Or, is this a problem with the hiring processes of the Chamber, and the board of directors Paul is governed by?  He doesn't operate in a vacuum over there...

    Church email was used to promote his election.

  Undeniably a wrong thing to do.  Did Paul instigate or condone it?  Did Wilson?  Has anyone here ever made a political email from their state owned email?  Has anyone here used the internet for personal use while at work?  All are equally wrong.

    He did not recuse himself from a vote on the tax exempt status of businesses 
    related to his church. At the hearing on that status, inaccurate 
    information was presented to justify the request.

  Certainly a mistake he made.  I'll bet he's regretting it now!

    Those behaviors would cause me concern no matter what church Paul attended. 

  I'm glad to hear it, and I agree.  Let me ask the board to search their souls and consider this:
  Would this issue loom so large if Paul attended First United Methodist Church?
  For some of us it might.  But I strongly suspect that for those polarized against Christ Church it would not.

    It's quite true that he was found not guilty of a violation of the conflict 
    of interest statutes for his vote on the tax exemption. He's absolutely 
    innocent of breaking the law in this matter. But for me, at any rate, there 
    are ethical questions beyond the legal dimension. 

  Agreed.  But, does that mean we should allow the kind of personal attacks that have been happening?

    Has Paul served Latah 
    County well while blending these roles? 

  Certainly a matter for discussion.  Strikes me that we will know the general consensus at the next election.

    On what issues, exactly, might 
    Christ Church elders have been given oversight on Paul's decisions or 
    positions, and what were the consequences of that oversight?

  And, just as important, what does oversight mean?

      Has Paul 
    served the Chamber and Moscow businesses evenhandedly? Was he aware that 
    the information presented to the Board of Equalization was inaccurate?

    I'll probably never know the answers to those questions. But they remain 
    important questions for me.

  As they should.  Reasoned civic discussion is an important part of democracy.  Notice I said reasoned.  If only everyone could stick to that!

    I also recognize that it's very hard to ask these questions without being 
    perceived as mean or maybe driven by a vendetta.

  Actually, I disagree with you here. I don't perceive honest questions as being a sign of a vendetta.  Personal attacks, on the other hand...

     Ours is a small town, where 
    we see each other all the time, in all kinds of places. Unlike Seattle, 
    say, or Columbus, Ohio, when I say something critical of a governmental 
    official, I do so knowing that I'm likely to see him tomorrow in Rosauers or 
    McCoy's or the Needle Nook or the Red Door. That makes it just a little 
    harder to speak up.

  Again, agreed.  And it makes it more important to keep the discourse civil.  It also makes it a little harder for elected officials to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Moscow is a tiny town, really.  All our business leaders are in the same proverbial bed, and it ain't a king sized mattress!  For a local business person to succeed they, almost by definition, are going to find themselves in instances that could be perceived wrongly.  Sometimes, especially when you know someone, trust in their judgement and ability must come into play.

    Constant readers know I've never made any secret of my distaste for 
    Kimmell's pastor and his views--just as Doug Wilson has been pretty open 
    about his disdain for me and mine. 

  And, I certainly don't blame you for your views regarding Wilson.  But, must the eye of v2020's suspicion also automatically go to all members of Christ Church?

    But there is a middle ground possible, 
    where serious questions are not necessarily personal attacks, and where 
    public officials can be held to high standards without personal animosity on 
    either side.

  We may not agree on all things regarding Kimmell, but I applaud you on your ability to make good, reasonable, logical discussion points.  Thank you for allowing me to make a few of my own.
  Darrell (Your friendly cheap, old, naive, basketball playing gearhead supremacist with a fondness for sheep and potatoes.)

  PS-See Wayne?  Reasonable discussion.  A debate without raising voices!  That wasn't so hard. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   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/20040806/1c9e327a/attachment-0001.htm