<HTML><BODY STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>Captain Kirker writes:</DIV> <DIV><BR>>But Kimmell’s conflict of interest runs much deeper than any pecuniary <BR>>benefits. It involves direct supervision from the Kirk. The Christ Church <BR>>minutes state, “Doug Wilson reported that Paul Kimmell, in his role as <BR>>County Commissioner, is open to oversight from the elders on certain <BR>>issues” In dougspeak, “open to oversight” means that the Wolfman asserts <BR>>immediate control over Commissioner Kimmell “on certain issues” (plural). <BR></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wait, wait, wait . . . let's tease the nit out of the beehive hairdo. According to Christ Church meeting minutes, Paul Kimmell, in his role as County Commissioner, is open to the oversight of Doug Wilson and the Christ Church elders on certain issues? As one of Paul's constituents (and not a fellow church member), I have to ask, what issues? And what oversight? When "certain issues" come before the Latah County Commissioners, is Paul expected to take them to the Christ Church elders and say, "Gee, boys, what do I do?" How exactly does this work? What flags a certain political/county issue as requiring the unelected Doug Wilson's oversight? What form does that oversight take? General philosophical guidance? Words to the wise? Voting instructions? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I'd like to hear from Paul on this -- clearly, and in a public forum. At the very least, it might save me the seven bucks it would cost to go see the remake of "The Manchurian Candidate."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML><br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href='http://explorer.msn.com'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p>