My free speech to Jim Stoffer is, you took an oath to the tribe on public access television. Its the same oath posted on two websites for two Non-Government Organization that were formed to effectuate an international and tribal policy and signed a charter agreeing to "build and serve" an international sphere of government that decided despite having an agency the BIA take care of them and a treaty, that local tribes needed a "compensation mechanism: for "reparations for colonization," in order to heal the broken relationship as cited in these oaths you cite.
Jim Stoffer. You should be disqualified from public office because your oath gives you a conflict of interest. You are moonlighting for the NODC and SERN. You are part of the United Nations boots on the ground here, that has embedded itself within Clallam County government, to achieve new treaty conditions and terms and violates the United States Constitution. You have cohorts all over Clallam County. I want you all out.
Hansi Hals, Lori DeLorm, Latrisha Suggs, Wendy Clark Geltzin, Kate Dexter, Navarra Carr, Lindsey Schromen Warin, Brendan Meyer are directly connected to the same oath and should be disqualified from government.
Mark Ozais, Randy Johnson and Mike French, fund and operate in the NODC and SERN through the EDC, DMRT and NOPLE.
They all have worked together to get American tax dollars to fund and operate a scheme to enrich the world economy and the local tribes. They started in 2009 and have systematically switched American sovereignty over to an International and tribal one, and lined the pockets of a tribe under treaty through the terms of a re-negotiated one ..negotiated illegally and funded illegally.
Taking these oaths on public access television is more than just virtue signaling. Its admitting to a crime.
I will continue to stump the issue. I was already fighting the evil and corrupt Washington State one party machinery. I will fight them with everything I have and everything I don't have. There are no art concerts, no dinners, no events except political ones to drag this issue over our leaders until the cows come home.
Seems there is no depth to the depravity that’s brewing amongst these miscreants that are warming the chairs of our local government. Trading morality for a little money is a shameful & pathetic endeavor. One would think that once a spotlight is shone on their lack of integrity, they’d acquiesce & try to do right by the public whom they took an oath to serve & who also pay their salaries. Can any of them even be considered human beings at this point? It disgusts me to admit that in reality I’m actually of the same species as these malignant tumors who call themselves “public servants”. I’m talking PHYSICALLY ILL.
If you're going to be an elected official or throw your hat in the ring for public comment you had ought to be tough enough to take the public's opinions on what you say. If you can't handle it then you don't belong in the ring. Sit down and shut up.
1. Only Congress can regulate or make deals with tribes. They are violating Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution...and have been doing so regularly at NODC and SERN.
McClanahan v. State Tax Comm’n of Ariz., 411 U.S. 164, 172 n.7 (1973) (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; art. II, § 2, cl. 2; Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 219 (1959); Perrin v. United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1914). Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives the President the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . . . For more on the treaty-making power, see ArtII.S2.C2.1.1 Overview of President’s Treaty-Making Power.
2. They weaponized the Charter review Committee. Doing what Democrats do best, they used the Charter Review Commission AGAINST Jeff Tozzer. There was no OPMA issue with A one member quorum. The chain email ISSUE was a fabrication and stretch to give a format to a prepared public lynching of Jeff Tozzer. Just like with the arts ,Mr. Doherty and the Eberlie's, the UW, ETC the local D's prefer to break the 3 minute rule to hammer home their points while they show their watches when I am talking.
The Nooksack tribe did another grade study that targets 2 and 3 percent grade. They don't have good science for salmon spawning survival over 3 percent. The 3 inches of fine silt is required to provide optimum spawning. 4percent grade or above prevents the 3 inches from accumulating and the spawning percentages decrease dramatically from 5 percent grade and up. We are spending 87 million dollars to provide access to suicidal spawning rates...akin to the Mount Saint Helens trout survival rate. The County should have challenged that science but they let the Union Nazgul's have the permits....to install culverts for grades as high as 20 percent or more. Just drive by the Chicken Coop road culvert. It goes straight up the foothills and leads to a mountain. They just hope nobody listens and keeps track.
Only a small percentage of salmon eggs, typically around 1%, survive to adulthood.
The spawning female must be able to move gravels to excavate a depression in the bed to create the redd.
Fish need not move all rocks present (some larger particles
can remain unmoved as a lag deposit), but most of the
particles present must be movable or the redd cannot be
excavated.
Human impacts may also affect spawning habitat.
Trapping of gravel in reservoirs and release of clear water
downstream may cause the winnowing of smaller, mobile
grains from beds below dams, leaving only progressively
coarser particles. This process, termed armoring, may result
in gravels becoming too coarse for use by spawning salmon,
as documented on the Sacramento, Shasta, and Klamath
rivers in California (Parfitt and Buer 1980; Buer et al. 1981).
Thats it. Dam bad too much coarse gravel. Dungeness close the irrigation ditches pour on the coarse gravel...use a back hoe to dredge if you have to but let the course gravel raise the level of the river so we can buy out or condemn.
That study says fine silt suffocates suffocation of embryos (McNeil and Ahnell 1964; Cooper 1965; Koski 1966; Chevalier et al. 1984).
That means the three inches of silt has to have enough fine gravels mixed in to keep them from suffocating. Salmon hotel logs and fine wood silt actually suffocate salmon. Fine gravel and fine wood to not provide optimum spawning. Its a mix of wood, sediment and small to medium pea gravel.
The BOCC wants to shut (certain) people up; the Quileute "would prefer to host the meeting" (must keep that pesky public from interfering); Patrice Johnston bullies people by throwing around the fact she's an "actual retired attorney"; and Stoffer has concerns about "potential violations of the OPMA". Reading this article makes me wonder if they met before hand to discuss changing the bylaws, violating the laws they say must be upheld.
The very thoughtful crossed my mind and neon lights blinked YES! I Well coordinated to the point I have to question their protocol for breaching any commission by-laws.
Well poor Ms. Johnston whom I had a chance to speak with after the so called town hall meeting Wednesday night. The first thing she asked me, “Are you an attorney?” Did she do that to try and intimidate me or is that what all attorneys do before speaking to anyone? Ron Richards hasn’t, Bob Bilow hasn’t, Virginia Shogren hasn’t, they are all attorneys but for some reason Ms. Johnston did, hum you decide because I already have. I found there is no conversation with her because her mind is made up, you are made to feel you are beneath her & so you’ll have to agree to disagree. A nothing burger & I hope she quotes me again. Sound familiar?
Anyway I encourage writing an email to the Charter Review Commission as I did prior to this blog about all of our 1st Amendment Rights protections. In my email I asked the Board to specify what wrong doing Mr. Tozzer is accused of exactly and look forward to receiving an answer soon. Isn’t it all about transparency? What is Stoffer, Fisch & Johnston so afraid of? The information is public record ask yourself why are these Commissioners trying to suppress our freedom to speak openly and get answers to our questions at a Town Hall? Very strange indeed.
the court room is an entirely different beast -- and it's a play to win, not to be fair or to find truth. Lawyers are taught to think in a very narrow way. They are to be pitied because of this tunnel vision.
With a packed house at a town hall there does not appear to be much of a chilling effect after the terrible thing Jeff allegedly had done... Its clear. Democrats can't take opposition in whatever form it is presented. They will retaliate against you for your views. Its their way. Log roll or get bowled over like a 1 pin.
They were unprepared to hold 'Town Hall', as evidenced by the comment "we were expecting five". They use the excuse of violating the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) and it could take a long time. Now how many of the more than 60 attendees are likely to attend another 'Town Hall'.
Oh joy... so we have an ex judge from Colorado on the board. Pretty much sums up what is hapening in Sequim. Communist / Socialist minded indiviuals from all over the country seem to show up here. Almost like its a plan? And as for judges, word smithing their personel veiws into law. Kinda like the judges going after Trump?
I had to read The Chilling Effect three times. Each time I picked up on a detail I missed previously. There is so much covered (an uncovered) in this substack. I think I need to read it a few more times. I'm curious if Chairwoman Fisch gave a plausible reason for concluding the meeting an hour early?
I have now reread The Chilling Effect 4 times. My take was that the meeting was a FILIBUSTER taking up valuable time for more important issues to be addressed. It was cut short for the same obvious reason
Any elected official or anyone who takes a public stance should expect some form of public retaliation, or "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen" Officials who cannot stand up or back up proposals or any decision that affects our county, is the same as applying to be a lifeguard but not knowing how to swim. You can't be afraid of the water.
I am sorry that this meeting was not as productive as it should have been. Expect the same Filibuster at every meeting.
I am a free speech proponent. The public must never be intimidated to voice its opinion. And all voices are to be heard. Too many elected people in CC crave power to control the public as minions, rather than lead the county to build a prosperous, safe, and informed community. Curious: Why did Jim Stoffer "resign" his position?
It was "health issues", but he nearly got censured by the school board. I think he shared private information about a personnel issue when he shouldn't have (that's from memory, but I'm not sure.) There was a meeting to censure him, I heard he didn't show up (said he was sick), and he resigned shortly after.
Without true transparency and fairness to all sides, our local government is a sham. The Tribe and people in power will most always win. And apparently this is their plan. We need to vote these people out of office. ASAP!
The so-called Town Hall CRC meeting of Mar 28 was very telling. They don't want a true Q&A where they could and would be challenged. It felt worse than a badly run PTA meeting. We need true transparency, real Q&A format public meetings held at non-sovereign locations. Without this basic interaction there's little hope for real change.. As for the attorney in the crowd we don't need her to "school" the rest of us, being an attorney doesn't elevate you to a superior role or intellect. Turn on the news if you want to hear from "attorneys" in activist roles. Beyond disappointing that we have the same occurring here in our county. The opposition to free speech and transparency is going to intensify as the NGOs loose their sources of funds. It's always about money and power. Keep writing, Jeff, hundreds are reading your newsletters. We must not stay silent.
I don’t think this is what Commissioner Kathy Walde had in mind. She suggested several times to the Commissioners to have Towne Halls not remote 3 minute public speaking……and I thank her for well intentions.
RE: "Sovereign Power"--source Merriam-Webster(dot com). "Sovereign has everything to do with power. It often describes a person who has supreme power or authority, such as a king or queen. God is described as "sovereign" in a number of Bible translations. In addition to describing ones who have power, the word sovereign also often describes power: to have sovereign power is to have absolute power—that is, power that cannot be checked by anyone or anything. Nations and states are also sometimes described as "sovereign." This means that they have power over themselves; their government is under their own control, rather than under the control of an outside authority."
Washington State's OPMA does not apply to a sovereign tribe. MRSC says clearly that the OPMA does not apply to meetings of sovereign tribal governments because they are considered distinct entities separate from state government. (So, yes, I am appalled that the tribes have so much influence, so many meetings, and take action shielded from the OPMA.) Our elected officials cannot serve two purposes -- they are OUR elected, and sworn oath to uphold OUR constitution. Taking a subsequent oath to a sovereign nation is conflicting. This is a concerning issue, especially locally.
The OPMA, also known as "sunshine laws" were passed in 1971 (RCW 42.30) as part of a nationwide effort to make government affairs more open and transparent. I worked to get those laws put in place -- when I was in high school. In the years since there has been a lot of lip-service, as well as erosion of both the intent and the actual reality of open public meetings. Right now, there are many flaws in the reporting, the posting of minutes, and other "oops" issues -- there are meetings deemed "not subject to OPMA" but without any oversight, or ethical considerations. I keep hearing all these excuses (from some of our government reps) as to why they don't need to follow the rules.
So, I completely understand Jeff's side of the argument.
The ONLY way that OPMA functions (well) is if there is oversight, which is why there were always codes of conduct, and ethics rules -- usually determined by an independent board. In the last 15-20 years I have watched while these ethics rules, and their consequences be disabled by government. All of the consequences have been removed. The state does not enforce OPMA of local/county elected, unless it is a specific "whistleblower" complaint (from a public employee).
This is the core issue. NOT IF one person's feeling were dinged up, which is all I'm reading here.
I have been beaten and battered more than most (ran for public offices, and I'm out-spoken). I have been quoted, misquoted, and had things attributed to me that I never said.
It's fine. That's what happens. I'm a big girl.
When you speak to a public body, and recorded, your written correspondence is public knowledge -- you have no assumption of "privacy". And, people feel free to weigh in -- even if it's just with a personal attack. Whatever. This has always been the case.
Likewise, if you have an 'off channel' conversation with a person on a board, but that person does not represent the board/is not a spokesperson for that board, it's just two people talking/exchanging emails.
We all KNOW that Jeff has a journalistic edge, and when you speak to a journalist -- there is no assumption of privacy. "The Press" has always been this way. We've gone from RED and Yellow journalism (if it bleeds it leads/sensationalism) , to the new BLUE journalism (progressive left waging war against any opposition). I'll take all the colors of the Fourth Estate. (the profession of journalism), and take them all in -- no matter the context.
In this case -- the contents of "the response letter" (in context, or taken out of context) is not confidential, and there is no duty of confidence agreed or implied. I believe that Jeff presented the information, well. (Yes, he could have made it clearer that it was edited for brevity.) And, I was able to understand the two sides of the debate.
That is a service that I appreciate.
It was clear to me that he WAS representing himself, and his views. It was clear that he was not representing the Charter Review. He did not defame anyone. It was informational, and done well. The comments are fairly common. The public voices opinions, and always has, that can be off-topic,
leaning towards ad hominem -- personal attacks. It's the nature of a public, largely uneducated to the decorum of debate. (Can't be blamed -- look at the examples such as the nonsense "major news media". Schools don't teach debate anymore.). Attacks on attorneys are because of how they are perceived that 'winning at all costs' is more important than discussion, debate. What I saw was the airing of different viewpoints.
Feeling shouldn't be an issue here. Knee jerk reactions should be avoided. That's all I'm seeing. Shame on the Charter Review for wasting time on petty nonsense. Lets be adults.
I see NO REASON that this should become "an issue" for the Charter Review. Ethics rules, certainly -- all government agencies should abide by the spirit and intent of the sunshine laws -- and not just with lip service. But, right now Clallam County, and Port Angeles (I don't know about Sequim and Forks) have no repercussions, or any OVERSIGHT -- to ensure that government is transparent. Port Angeles dissolved their excellent ethics oversight somewhere around 2019. The Charter Review should mandate that it is a requirement for all public government agencies have a clear ethics policy, a defined way for a citizen to lodge a complaint, AND, an independent board that can be convened to review and decide on actions against, if warranted.
To do anything else is JUST NOISE.
What we have forgotten is that there are ALWAYS two sides to all discussions. To thwart the publication of various viewpoints --- is the antithesis of where we should be heading as a group/city/county/state/federal government.
I, for one, encourage these columns, blogs, podcasts, and other new ways of creating a "penny press" -- and return to the open discussions of the 1860's-1930s when people were better informed, and less reactive, more accepting of divergent viewpoints.
It's incredibly disappointing to me that something like the CRC, which is designed to give power back to the people, is instead being hijacked to give power to "certain" people. And clearly Fisch has her eyes set on higher positions, so I'm sure she will carry these attributes (censorship, limiting public comment) with her. She'll fit right in...
I guess most commissioners don't want to hear my comments at Charter Review Commission meetings unless the Great Oz hands me a law degree first. These legal eagles believe their law degrees give them the right to intimidate me by lauding their superior intellect over me. It'll take more than that to shut me up. If the only thing I can offer is to take three minutes of their life, it'll be worth three mimutes of mine.
This is why good people no longer run for public office. It just takes a couple of retired or wannabe attorneys to gang up on the parent or grandparent who is volunteering to try to do good for their community. The idea is to make us throw up our hands and decide it’s not worth the increase in blood pressure to be involved.
Can we do anything to fight this? If meetings are adjourned an hour early, is there even a point in attending?
Why people don't run for office is because of the draconian state financial oversight/reporting (with lack of clear definitions, buggy website, and conflicting information), and the reality that most public elected bodies have been neutered to become rubber stamps for what the "professional" consultants and hired staff want to do.
The entire "cancel culture" needs to be ignored and neutralized. How? By ignoring them. The "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" mantra has been lost.
We can speak louder, and more often -- get the "feelings" out of it. Speak with conviction, facts, figures, and examples. We have the world at our fingertips -- start doing your homework.
Attrition warfare is a military strategy consisting of belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel, materiel and morale. The word attrition comes from the Latin rootatterere, meaning "to rub against", similar to the "grinding down" of the opponent's forces in attrition warfare.
My free speech to Jim Stoffer is, you took an oath to the tribe on public access television. Its the same oath posted on two websites for two Non-Government Organization that were formed to effectuate an international and tribal policy and signed a charter agreeing to "build and serve" an international sphere of government that decided despite having an agency the BIA take care of them and a treaty, that local tribes needed a "compensation mechanism: for "reparations for colonization," in order to heal the broken relationship as cited in these oaths you cite.
Jim Stoffer. You should be disqualified from public office because your oath gives you a conflict of interest. You are moonlighting for the NODC and SERN. You are part of the United Nations boots on the ground here, that has embedded itself within Clallam County government, to achieve new treaty conditions and terms and violates the United States Constitution. You have cohorts all over Clallam County. I want you all out.
Hansi Hals, Lori DeLorm, Latrisha Suggs, Wendy Clark Geltzin, Kate Dexter, Navarra Carr, Lindsey Schromen Warin, Brendan Meyer are directly connected to the same oath and should be disqualified from government.
Mark Ozais, Randy Johnson and Mike French, fund and operate in the NODC and SERN through the EDC, DMRT and NOPLE.
They all have worked together to get American tax dollars to fund and operate a scheme to enrich the world economy and the local tribes. They started in 2009 and have systematically switched American sovereignty over to an International and tribal one, and lined the pockets of a tribe under treaty through the terms of a re-negotiated one ..negotiated illegally and funded illegally.
Taking these oaths on public access television is more than just virtue signaling. Its admitting to a crime.
Judge-shop and sue them, like they do to us all the time. I'll chip in.
I will continue to stump the issue. I was already fighting the evil and corrupt Washington State one party machinery. I will fight them with everything I have and everything I don't have. There are no art concerts, no dinners, no events except political ones to drag this issue over our leaders until the cows come home.
Go-Go-Gadget DOGE.
Oh Mighty Isis didn't work. I grabbed the wrong spoon for Ultra Man...
Seems there is no depth to the depravity that’s brewing amongst these miscreants that are warming the chairs of our local government. Trading morality for a little money is a shameful & pathetic endeavor. One would think that once a spotlight is shone on their lack of integrity, they’d acquiesce & try to do right by the public whom they took an oath to serve & who also pay their salaries. Can any of them even be considered human beings at this point? It disgusts me to admit that in reality I’m actually of the same species as these malignant tumors who call themselves “public servants”. I’m talking PHYSICALLY ILL.
Ooh, ooh, is it time for tar, feathers, and pitchforks yet? :-)
If you're going to be an elected official or throw your hat in the ring for public comment you had ought to be tough enough to take the public's opinions on what you say. If you can't handle it then you don't belong in the ring. Sit down and shut up.
1. Only Congress can regulate or make deals with tribes. They are violating Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution...and have been doing so regularly at NODC and SERN.
McClanahan v. State Tax Comm’n of Ariz., 411 U.S. 164, 172 n.7 (1973) (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3; art. II, § 2, cl. 2; Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 219 (1959); Perrin v. United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1914). Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives the President the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . . . For more on the treaty-making power, see ArtII.S2.C2.1.1 Overview of President’s Treaty-Making Power.
2. They weaponized the Charter review Committee. Doing what Democrats do best, they used the Charter Review Commission AGAINST Jeff Tozzer. There was no OPMA issue with A one member quorum. The chain email ISSUE was a fabrication and stretch to give a format to a prepared public lynching of Jeff Tozzer. Just like with the arts ,Mr. Doherty and the Eberlie's, the UW, ETC the local D's prefer to break the 3 minute rule to hammer home their points while they show their watches when I am talking.
The ICLEI Charter is a new treaty negotiated illegally without Congress or the BIA they violated Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Big brother, do you have link to the science used on Jimmycomelately creek?
https://jamestowntribe.org/natural-resources/reports-plans/jimmycomelately-creek-estuary-restoration/
Its in this group of links
The Nooksack tribe did another grade study that targets 2 and 3 percent grade. They don't have good science for salmon spawning survival over 3 percent. The 3 inches of fine silt is required to provide optimum spawning. 4percent grade or above prevents the 3 inches from accumulating and the spawning percentages decrease dramatically from 5 percent grade and up. We are spending 87 million dollars to provide access to suicidal spawning rates...akin to the Mount Saint Helens trout survival rate. The County should have challenged that science but they let the Union Nazgul's have the permits....to install culverts for grades as high as 20 percent or more. Just drive by the Chicken Coop road culvert. It goes straight up the foothills and leads to a mountain. They just hope nobody listens and keeps track.
Maybe I read it wrong.
Nooksack is the contrast to Jimmycomelately. Now I remember. The Nooksack gets more rain and has a better foothill spawning rate..Allegedly.
file:///C:/Users/worth/Downloads/culvert-bmps-english.pdf
file:///C:/Users/worth/Downloads/NooksackChinookSpawningIncubation.pdf
This study is contrary to the Jimmycomelately.
The science says whatever it needs to say depending on where they have the project.
Only a small percentage of salmon eggs, typically around 1%, survive to adulthood.
The spawning female must be able to move gravels to excavate a depression in the bed to create the redd.
Fish need not move all rocks present (some larger particles
can remain unmoved as a lag deposit), but most of the
particles present must be movable or the redd cannot be
excavated.
Human impacts may also affect spawning habitat.
Trapping of gravel in reservoirs and release of clear water
downstream may cause the winnowing of smaller, mobile
grains from beds below dams, leaving only progressively
coarser particles. This process, termed armoring, may result
in gravels becoming too coarse for use by spawning salmon,
as documented on the Sacramento, Shasta, and Klamath
rivers in California (Parfitt and Buer 1980; Buer et al. 1981).
Thats it. Dam bad too much coarse gravel. Dungeness close the irrigation ditches pour on the coarse gravel...use a back hoe to dredge if you have to but let the course gravel raise the level of the river so we can buy out or condemn.
https://www.krisweb.com/krisrussian/krisdb/html/krisweb/biblio/gen_afs_kondolf_2000_99.pdf
That study says fine silt suffocates suffocation of embryos (McNeil and Ahnell 1964; Cooper 1965; Koski 1966; Chevalier et al. 1984).
That means the three inches of silt has to have enough fine gravels mixed in to keep them from suffocating. Salmon hotel logs and fine wood silt actually suffocate salmon. Fine gravel and fine wood to not provide optimum spawning. Its a mix of wood, sediment and small to medium pea gravel.
The BOCC wants to shut (certain) people up; the Quileute "would prefer to host the meeting" (must keep that pesky public from interfering); Patrice Johnston bullies people by throwing around the fact she's an "actual retired attorney"; and Stoffer has concerns about "potential violations of the OPMA". Reading this article makes me wonder if they met before hand to discuss changing the bylaws, violating the laws they say must be upheld.
Sure looked like a set up to me.
The very thoughtful crossed my mind and neon lights blinked YES! I Well coordinated to the point I have to question their protocol for breaching any commission by-laws.
Well poor Ms. Johnston whom I had a chance to speak with after the so called town hall meeting Wednesday night. The first thing she asked me, “Are you an attorney?” Did she do that to try and intimidate me or is that what all attorneys do before speaking to anyone? Ron Richards hasn’t, Bob Bilow hasn’t, Virginia Shogren hasn’t, they are all attorneys but for some reason Ms. Johnston did, hum you decide because I already have. I found there is no conversation with her because her mind is made up, you are made to feel you are beneath her & so you’ll have to agree to disagree. A nothing burger & I hope she quotes me again. Sound familiar?
Anyway I encourage writing an email to the Charter Review Commission as I did prior to this blog about all of our 1st Amendment Rights protections. In my email I asked the Board to specify what wrong doing Mr. Tozzer is accused of exactly and look forward to receiving an answer soon. Isn’t it all about transparency? What is Stoffer, Fisch & Johnston so afraid of? The information is public record ask yourself why are these Commissioners trying to suppress our freedom to speak openly and get answers to our questions at a Town Hall? Very strange indeed.
I sent an email to CRC yesterday also.
Lawyers use intimidation or threats all the time. That's a tactic they use to win an argument or a case.
the court room is an entirely different beast -- and it's a play to win, not to be fair or to find truth. Lawyers are taught to think in a very narrow way. They are to be pitied because of this tunnel vision.
With a packed house at a town hall there does not appear to be much of a chilling effect after the terrible thing Jeff allegedly had done... Its clear. Democrats can't take opposition in whatever form it is presented. They will retaliate against you for your views. Its their way. Log roll or get bowled over like a 1 pin.
That is why Fisch shockingly concluded the meeting an hour early. Too many unhappy constituents.
They were unprepared to hold 'Town Hall', as evidenced by the comment "we were expecting five". They use the excuse of violating the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) and it could take a long time. Now how many of the more than 60 attendees are likely to attend another 'Town Hall'.
Wondered myself was that possibly the plan water talkers and water interviews without any outside disruptions.
"Tuesday, April 1, 5-7 pm at the Fairview Grange, 161 Lake Farm Road, Port Angeles"
I'm looking forward to attending. Thank you for the information.
You're welcome!
Careful Jeff, you could be quoted on that comment at the next meeting ; )
Oh joy... so we have an ex judge from Colorado on the board. Pretty much sums up what is hapening in Sequim. Communist / Socialist minded indiviuals from all over the country seem to show up here. Almost like its a plan? And as for judges, word smithing their personel veiws into law. Kinda like the judges going after Trump?
I had to read The Chilling Effect three times. Each time I picked up on a detail I missed previously. There is so much covered (an uncovered) in this substack. I think I need to read it a few more times. I'm curious if Chairwoman Fisch gave a plausible reason for concluding the meeting an hour early?
I didn't hear one.
None
I have now reread The Chilling Effect 4 times. My take was that the meeting was a FILIBUSTER taking up valuable time for more important issues to be addressed. It was cut short for the same obvious reason
Any elected official or anyone who takes a public stance should expect some form of public retaliation, or "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen" Officials who cannot stand up or back up proposals or any decision that affects our county, is the same as applying to be a lifeguard but not knowing how to swim. You can't be afraid of the water.
I am sorry that this meeting was not as productive as it should have been. Expect the same Filibuster at every meeting.
I am a free speech proponent. The public must never be intimidated to voice its opinion. And all voices are to be heard. Too many elected people in CC crave power to control the public as minions, rather than lead the county to build a prosperous, safe, and informed community. Curious: Why did Jim Stoffer "resign" his position?
It was "health issues", but he nearly got censured by the school board. I think he shared private information about a personnel issue when he shouldn't have (that's from memory, but I'm not sure.) There was a meeting to censure him, I heard he didn't show up (said he was sick), and he resigned shortly after.
Without true transparency and fairness to all sides, our local government is a sham. The Tribe and people in power will most always win. And apparently this is their plan. We need to vote these people out of office. ASAP!
The so-called Town Hall CRC meeting of Mar 28 was very telling. They don't want a true Q&A where they could and would be challenged. It felt worse than a badly run PTA meeting. We need true transparency, real Q&A format public meetings held at non-sovereign locations. Without this basic interaction there's little hope for real change.. As for the attorney in the crowd we don't need her to "school" the rest of us, being an attorney doesn't elevate you to a superior role or intellect. Turn on the news if you want to hear from "attorneys" in activist roles. Beyond disappointing that we have the same occurring here in our county. The opposition to free speech and transparency is going to intensify as the NGOs loose their sources of funds. It's always about money and power. Keep writing, Jeff, hundreds are reading your newsletters. We must not stay silent.
I don’t think this is what Commissioner Kathy Walde had in mind. She suggested several times to the Commissioners to have Towne Halls not remote 3 minute public speaking……and I thank her for well intentions.
RE: "Sovereign Power"--source Merriam-Webster(dot com). "Sovereign has everything to do with power. It often describes a person who has supreme power or authority, such as a king or queen. God is described as "sovereign" in a number of Bible translations. In addition to describing ones who have power, the word sovereign also often describes power: to have sovereign power is to have absolute power—that is, power that cannot be checked by anyone or anything. Nations and states are also sometimes described as "sovereign." This means that they have power over themselves; their government is under their own control, rather than under the control of an outside authority."
Washington State's OPMA does not apply to a sovereign tribe. MRSC says clearly that the OPMA does not apply to meetings of sovereign tribal governments because they are considered distinct entities separate from state government. (So, yes, I am appalled that the tribes have so much influence, so many meetings, and take action shielded from the OPMA.) Our elected officials cannot serve two purposes -- they are OUR elected, and sworn oath to uphold OUR constitution. Taking a subsequent oath to a sovereign nation is conflicting. This is a concerning issue, especially locally.
The OPMA, also known as "sunshine laws" were passed in 1971 (RCW 42.30) as part of a nationwide effort to make government affairs more open and transparent. I worked to get those laws put in place -- when I was in high school. In the years since there has been a lot of lip-service, as well as erosion of both the intent and the actual reality of open public meetings. Right now, there are many flaws in the reporting, the posting of minutes, and other "oops" issues -- there are meetings deemed "not subject to OPMA" but without any oversight, or ethical considerations. I keep hearing all these excuses (from some of our government reps) as to why they don't need to follow the rules.
So, I completely understand Jeff's side of the argument.
The ONLY way that OPMA functions (well) is if there is oversight, which is why there were always codes of conduct, and ethics rules -- usually determined by an independent board. In the last 15-20 years I have watched while these ethics rules, and their consequences be disabled by government. All of the consequences have been removed. The state does not enforce OPMA of local/county elected, unless it is a specific "whistleblower" complaint (from a public employee).
This is the core issue. NOT IF one person's feeling were dinged up, which is all I'm reading here.
I have been beaten and battered more than most (ran for public offices, and I'm out-spoken). I have been quoted, misquoted, and had things attributed to me that I never said.
It's fine. That's what happens. I'm a big girl.
When you speak to a public body, and recorded, your written correspondence is public knowledge -- you have no assumption of "privacy". And, people feel free to weigh in -- even if it's just with a personal attack. Whatever. This has always been the case.
Likewise, if you have an 'off channel' conversation with a person on a board, but that person does not represent the board/is not a spokesperson for that board, it's just two people talking/exchanging emails.
We all KNOW that Jeff has a journalistic edge, and when you speak to a journalist -- there is no assumption of privacy. "The Press" has always been this way. We've gone from RED and Yellow journalism (if it bleeds it leads/sensationalism) , to the new BLUE journalism (progressive left waging war against any opposition). I'll take all the colors of the Fourth Estate. (the profession of journalism), and take them all in -- no matter the context.
In this case -- the contents of "the response letter" (in context, or taken out of context) is not confidential, and there is no duty of confidence agreed or implied. I believe that Jeff presented the information, well. (Yes, he could have made it clearer that it was edited for brevity.) And, I was able to understand the two sides of the debate.
That is a service that I appreciate.
It was clear to me that he WAS representing himself, and his views. It was clear that he was not representing the Charter Review. He did not defame anyone. It was informational, and done well. The comments are fairly common. The public voices opinions, and always has, that can be off-topic,
leaning towards ad hominem -- personal attacks. It's the nature of a public, largely uneducated to the decorum of debate. (Can't be blamed -- look at the examples such as the nonsense "major news media". Schools don't teach debate anymore.). Attacks on attorneys are because of how they are perceived that 'winning at all costs' is more important than discussion, debate. What I saw was the airing of different viewpoints.
Feeling shouldn't be an issue here. Knee jerk reactions should be avoided. That's all I'm seeing. Shame on the Charter Review for wasting time on petty nonsense. Lets be adults.
I see NO REASON that this should become "an issue" for the Charter Review. Ethics rules, certainly -- all government agencies should abide by the spirit and intent of the sunshine laws -- and not just with lip service. But, right now Clallam County, and Port Angeles (I don't know about Sequim and Forks) have no repercussions, or any OVERSIGHT -- to ensure that government is transparent. Port Angeles dissolved their excellent ethics oversight somewhere around 2019. The Charter Review should mandate that it is a requirement for all public government agencies have a clear ethics policy, a defined way for a citizen to lodge a complaint, AND, an independent board that can be convened to review and decide on actions against, if warranted.
To do anything else is JUST NOISE.
What we have forgotten is that there are ALWAYS two sides to all discussions. To thwart the publication of various viewpoints --- is the antithesis of where we should be heading as a group/city/county/state/federal government.
I, for one, encourage these columns, blogs, podcasts, and other new ways of creating a "penny press" -- and return to the open discussions of the 1860's-1930s when people were better informed, and less reactive, more accepting of divergent viewpoints.
Mimi Smith, I thorough enjoyed your response. Very educational and well thought out. Keep teaching us.
Please pass this on to the CRC. I am sure they read this substack, but sure would like it to be on record. Maybe wake them up.
I am. I may break it into smaller "bites".
Give em something to chew on.
It's incredibly disappointing to me that something like the CRC, which is designed to give power back to the people, is instead being hijacked to give power to "certain" people. And clearly Fisch has her eyes set on higher positions, so I'm sure she will carry these attributes (censorship, limiting public comment) with her. She'll fit right in...
I guess most commissioners don't want to hear my comments at Charter Review Commission meetings unless the Great Oz hands me a law degree first. These legal eagles believe their law degrees give them the right to intimidate me by lauding their superior intellect over me. It'll take more than that to shut me up. If the only thing I can offer is to take three minutes of their life, it'll be worth three mimutes of mine.
Don’t you just love Pro-pers, when you represent your self in court? Even a “good” judge will give allowance.
This is why good people no longer run for public office. It just takes a couple of retired or wannabe attorneys to gang up on the parent or grandparent who is volunteering to try to do good for their community. The idea is to make us throw up our hands and decide it’s not worth the increase in blood pressure to be involved.
Can we do anything to fight this? If meetings are adjourned an hour early, is there even a point in attending?
Why people don't run for office is because of the draconian state financial oversight/reporting (with lack of clear definitions, buggy website, and conflicting information), and the reality that most public elected bodies have been neutered to become rubber stamps for what the "professional" consultants and hired staff want to do.
The entire "cancel culture" needs to be ignored and neutralized. How? By ignoring them. The "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" mantra has been lost.
We can speak louder, and more often -- get the "feelings" out of it. Speak with conviction, facts, figures, and examples. We have the world at our fingertips -- start doing your homework.
Attrition warfare is a military strategy consisting of belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel, materiel and morale. The word attrition comes from the Latin rootatterere, meaning "to rub against", similar to the "grinding down" of the opponent's forces in attrition warfare.