<html>
<body>
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 type=cite class=cite 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 type=cite class=cite 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></body>
</html>