<html>
<body>
Melynda,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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:<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Message: 2<br>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:59:01 -0700<br>
From: "Melynda Huskey" <mghuskey@msn.com><br>
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] re: conflict of interest<br>
To: vision2020@moscow.com<br>
Message-ID: <BAY11-F308lxy4DlYWy000025ad@hotmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed<br><br>
Darrell raises some points that I'm sure others are wondering about, too.
<br>
He writes:<br>
<br>
>1. I find it disturbing that a man is being
raked through the mud <br>
>simply because he is a member of a church that has a pastor with some
odd <br>
>views . . . Paul is being castigated for being a member of Christ
Church <br>
>and, undeniably, making one bad decision in not removing himself from
a <br>
>Commissioner vote. Does knowing Paul Kimmell attends Christ Church
allow us <br>
>to accurately infer everything else about him?<br><br>
One difficulty about this medium--Vision 2020 in particular and email in
<br>
general--is that it invites polarization, and each pole is defined by the
<br>
most extreme or "spirited" position taken. Although I, for
one, have grave <br>
concerns about the possible conflicts of interest, I don't have them
because <br>
of Paul Kimmell's membership in a particular church. I'm looking at
<br>
patterns of behavior:</blockquote><br>
Again, I agree with your approach. And applaud you for taking
it. I wish everyone did!<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Paul Kimmell is described in church
meeting minutes--to which he had access <br>
and to which he could have asked for revisions--as willing to accept
<br>
oversight by the church's elders on some issues
(unspecified).</blockquote><br>
To this I will repeat an earlier point-How do we know that Wilson
accurately reflects the conversation in his minutes?<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Paul served as a land agent for the
church.<br><br>
In his capacity as President for the Chamber, he made staff hiring
decisions <br>
which systematically favored members of his own
church.</blockquote><br>
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...<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Church email was used to promote
his election.</blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>He did not recuse himself from a
vote on the tax exempt status of businesses <br>
related to his church. At the hearing on that status, inaccurate <br>
information was presented to justify the request.</blockquote><br>
Certainly a mistake he made. I'll bet he's regretting it
now!<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Those behaviors would cause me
concern no matter what church Paul attended. </blockquote><br>
I'm glad to hear it, and I agree. Let me ask the board to search
their souls and consider this:<br>
Would this issue loom so large if Paul attended First United Methodist
Church?<br>
For some of us it might. But I strongly suspect that for those
polarized against Christ Church it would not.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>It's quite true that he was found
not guilty of a violation of the conflict <br>
of interest statutes for his vote on the tax exemption. He's absolutely
<br>
innocent of breaking the law in this matter. But for me, at any rate,
there <br>
are ethical questions beyond the legal dimension. </blockquote><br>
Agreed. But, does that mean we should allow the kind of personal
attacks that have been happening?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Has Paul served Latah <br>
County well while blending these roles? </blockquote><br>
Certainly a matter for discussion. Strikes me that we will know the
general consensus at the next election.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>On what issues, exactly, might
<br>
Christ Church elders have been given oversight on Paul's decisions or
<br>
positions, and what were the consequences of that
oversight?</blockquote><br>
And, just as important, what does oversight mean?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> Has Paul <br>
served the Chamber and Moscow businesses evenhandedly? Was he aware that
<br>
the information presented to the Board of Equalization was
inaccurate?<br><br>
I'll probably never know the answers to those questions. But they remain
<br>
important questions for me.</blockquote><br>
As they should. Reasoned civic discussion is an important part of
democracy. Notice I said reasoned. If only everyone could
stick to that!<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I also recognize that it's very
hard to ask these questions without being <br>
perceived as mean or maybe driven by a vendetta.</blockquote><br>
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...<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> Ours is a small town, where
<br>
we see each other all the time, in all kinds of places. Unlike Seattle,
<br>
say, or Columbus, Ohio, when I say something critical of a governmental
<br>
official, I do so knowing that I'm likely to see him tomorrow in Rosauers
or <br>
McCoy's or the Needle Nook or the Red Door. That makes it just a little
<br>
harder to speak up.</blockquote><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Constant readers know I've never
made any secret of my distaste for <br>
Kimmell's pastor and his views--just as Doug Wilson has been pretty open
<br>
about his disdain for me and mine. </blockquote><br>
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?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>But there is a middle ground
possible, <br>
where serious questions are not necessarily personal attacks, and where
<br>
public officials can be held to high standards without personal animosity
on <br>
either side.</blockquote><br>
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.<br>
Darrell (Your friendly <i>cheap, old, naive, basketball playing gearhead
supremacist with a fondness for sheep and potatoes.</i>)<br><br>
PS-See Wayne? Reasonable discussion. A debate without raising
voices! That wasn't so hard.</body>
</html>