<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Darrell,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Thank you for your thoughtful
response.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Your other points:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4><STRONG>1.</STRONG> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Further I strongly believe that such views
as above do not lead to good public policy. Therefore, I do not support,
in fact I<EM> spiritedly</EM> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>You insinuate that I am intolerant of
religious views. You are correct in part.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>My belief in tolerance toward
religious, political, and social beliefs and dogma is (simply and
incompletely stated) as follows:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>C. Since religious,
political, and social beliefs have behavioral consequences, it is important to
many (though obviously not to all) to determine:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4> a.
What does a given belief mean?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4> b. How
can you tell if a given belief is true?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4> c. Is
the given belief, in fact, true?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>
d. Are the conclusions supported by the belief
logical and/or probable?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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 <EM>spirit</EM>, debate, amity,
and enmity as you have in part observed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4><STRONG>2.</STRONG> There
are several accusations of conflict of interest against
Kimmell.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT><FONT face="Verdana Ref"
size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>A. Kimmell is a member of
the cult.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>B. Kimmell has a natural
personal interest in the wellbeing and financial wellbeing of the
cult.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>C. Kimmell has a natural
personal interest in the growth of the cult and the propagation of its
beliefs.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>D. The maintenance,
growth, and propagation of the cult's beliefs require financial health and
the accumulation of cash and other assets.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>E. Kimmell is a paid
consultant to the cult in matters including the accumulation and management of
the cult's wealth and assets.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Another interesting conflict for Kimmell
occurs between his role as a chamber executive and a member of/consultant
for the cult.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4><STRONG>3. </STRONG>You
mention that I should be skeptical of the quote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4><FONT size=3>"Doug Wilson reported that
Paul Kimmell, in his role as County Commissioner, is open to oversight from the
elders on certain issues."</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4>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.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4>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.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4>Hence, if no clear, unequivocal
repudiation of</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>"Doug Wilson reported that Paul Kimmell, in his role as County
Commissioner, is open to oversight from the elders on certain issues."<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4>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?)</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4>Darrell, thank you again for your
thoughtful response and questions.</FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT
face="Verdana Ref"><FONT size=4>
<DIV><BR>Wayne</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Art Deco (Wayne Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><BR></FONT></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=keim@moscow.com href="mailto:keim@moscow.com">Darrell Keim</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, August 06, 2004 1:08
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] re: conflict of
interest</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Wayne,<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Your
spirited comments regarding Paul Kimmell are, well, <I>spirited</I>.
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Frankly I
disagree with your opinion of the man.
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>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.
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Have you
ever met Paul? On what do you base your opinions of
him?<BR><BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB><B>I
would like to raise a few points that trouble
me:<BR></B>1.<B><X-TAB> </X-TAB></B>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.
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Does
membership in a church mean a person becomes a mindless zombie that agrees
with every stance the church pastor takes?
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Really?
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>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!
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>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?
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>If people
knew only a few things about you what might they infer?
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Paul is
bald. Does that mean he is an, ahem, "gifted" man?
<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>I'm six
foot five. <I>Do you think I'm a good basketball player? </I>One of my cars is
a 1976 Monte Carlo. <I>Does that make me a gearhead?</I> I've had that car
since 1984. <I>Does that mean I'm cheap? Old?</I> I was raised in Montana.
<I>Does that mean my parents raised sheep for a living and were members of the
militia?</I> I now live in Idaho. <I>Do I grow potatoes? Am I a white
supremacist?
<BR></I><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Given
these five facts, <I>do you now have incontrovertible evidence that I'm a
cheap, old, basketball playing gearhead supremacist with a fondness for sheep
and potatoes?
<BR></I><X-TAB> </X-TAB>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.<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Allow
me to peel away my layers of sarcasm and just be blunt: Generalizing off of a
small pool of facts doesn't
work.<BR><BR>2.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>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.<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>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.<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB><BR>3.
<X-TAB> </X-TAB>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.<BR>Incidentally, for those that are counting you can now add one
more thing you know about me: naive. <BR>That must mean I'm <I>a cheap, old,
naive, basketball playing gearhead supremacist with a fondness for sheep and
potatoes.</I> Right?<BR>Back to my point. Where do we draw the line when
rooting out conflicts of interest:<BR>a. Should city officials that own dogs
not be allowed to vote on the upcoming dog park issue? <BR>b. Should
officials that drive cars not be allowed to vote on road repair issues?<BR>c.
Should water users not be allowed to vote on issues pertaining to the
aquifer?<BR>d. Should downtown businesses not be allowed input on Friendship
Square?<BR>e. Mein Gott! What about parents? How can they possibly be trusted
to make rational decisions regarding our
schools?<BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB><BR><X-TAB> </X-TAB>I
also must take issue with your logic on one item:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"> "Doug Wilson
reported that Paul Kimmell, in his role as County Commissioner,<BR>is open
to oversight from the elders on certain issues."<BR><BR> Please
don't lead us to believe that you are totally ignorant by insisting<BR>that
"input" is what is meant by the above passage from the
minutes.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>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? <BR><BR>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?<BR>Sincerely,<BR>Darrell-Long time reader, first
time writer.<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite"> ----- Original
Message ----- <BR> From: Art Deco aka W. Fox<BR> To:
Vision 2020<BR> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 3:41
PM<BR> Subject: [Vision2020] Conflict of
Interest<BR><BR><BR> Jon Kimberling wrote of Paul Kimmell
getting oversight from Christ Church<BR>Elders:<BR><BR> If you
substitute the word "input" for the word "oversight", I believe we<BR>come
much closer to what may have transpired.<BR><BR> Hardly,
Jon.<BR><BR> Oversight: ... 2. Watchful care or management;
supervision. (American<BR>Heritage Dictionary)<BR><BR> Original
cite by Captain Kirker from the Christ Church minutes:<BR><BR>
"Doug Wilson reported that Paul Kimmell, in his role as County
Commissioner,<BR>is open to oversight from the elders on certain
issues."<BR><BR> Please don't lead us to believe that you are
totally ignorant by insisting<BR>that "input" is what is meant by the above
passage from the minutes.<BR><BR> However, I am delighted to
hear your and Tom Hudson's fawning, almost<BR>lusting description of Paul
Kimmell. It reminds me of a description by many<BR>devouts of a man/wife
team who mined hundreds of thousands of dollars from north<BR>Idaho
Christians by selling them worthless stock in an nonexistent Canadian
gold<BR>mine through their churches.<BR><BR> The term
"confidence man" or more correctly "confidence person", since women<BR>can
be just as proficient at flimflamery as men, does not contain the
term<BR>"confidence" by accident.<BR><BR> Those who are able to
defraud us do so in part by gaining our intense,<BR>passionate, blind
confidence.<BR><BR> If old adages have probable application then
the following is likely to be<BR>more apt to the present
situation:<BR><BR> "Birds of a feather flock
together."<BR><BR> I am speaking of course of Kimmell's close
association, if not infatuation<BR>or obsession with The self-appointed
Agent of God, Christ Church Cult Master<BR>Douglas Wilson. There is ample
evidence in the record of Wilson's thievery,<BR>gross and arrogant lying,
plagiarism, disregard for human rights, obstruction of<BR>justice, etc. to
see the color of Wilson's feathers. Now, apply the adage
to<BR>Kimmell.<BR><BR> Jon, if you choose to continue to express
non-flattering blindness in this<BR>matter, please consider very seriously
buying from me stock in an exceptionally<BR>promising gold mine in the
country of Bolzana. The stock is only $10,000 per<BR>share and is guaranteed
in time to return your investment over 100,000 times.<BR>Maybe you have a
few friends that would be interested too.<BR><BR>
Wayne<BR><BR> Art Deco (Wayne Fox)<BR>
deco@moscow.com</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>