Five Candidates for Community Development Director
Clallam County is the only county in America where the position of Community Development Director is elected rather than appointed. There will be five candidates in the August 17th primary.
The candidates are:
John Miller —Incumbent;
Tim Woolett — county planner from 1997 to 2004;
Sean Ryan — co-owner of America's Finest Fire and Restoration Co.;
Alan Barnard —real estate broker; and
Sheila Roark Miller — DCD Code Compliance Officer.
The candidates are:
John Miller —Incumbent;
Tim Woolett — county planner from 1997 to 2004;
Sean Ryan — co-owner of America's Finest Fire and Restoration Co.;
Alan Barnard —real estate broker; and
Sheila Roark Miller — DCD Code Compliance Officer.
posted by Tom Harper at 10:06 PM
55 Comments:
First of all: How backwards are we that we are the ONLY county in the entire country to have this as an elected position??? Long-term, that absolutely needs to change.
Second: John Miller has shown himself to be a remarkably weak leader, and "hands off" manager. That's hands off because he is lazy and afraid - not because he has assmebled such a crack staff at the county.
Thank goodness we will have some choices in this election. If any of the candidates will swear to agitate for returning this to being an appointed position if elected, they will get my vote. We have to stop being backwards, people.
As for why it is harmful to have this as an elected position...
First of all, we all know that in many cases the most qualified candidate for a position isn't necessarily the one who can or will win an election. There have been plenty of talented, intelligent, experienced candidates who have lost to someone who was simply a better campaigner. So the current system doesn't help select for quality.
Also, once elected, the job is theirs for four years - essentially no matter what. It's VERY difficult to have someone removed from elected office. It's MUCH easier to replace someone who is appointed. And someone who is not up to the job can do a LOT of damage in four years. So the current system doesn't allow for much of a leash, or for punishing incompetence.
And that's why this needs to be an appointed position. (Which would also put us in line with the rest of the country, and not make us look so odd and backwards.)
Why don't we just give it to ExcelTech?
This county IS backwards.
Community Development is a laugh. What community?
Community Developmen Director?
"Community" ?
WHAT "community" exactly?
The City of Port Angeles?
The 98362 zip code area?
The entirity of Clallam county?
Developing WHAT exactly?
Is there a "Department of Community
Development" with full time paid staff?
An assistant "Community Development" Director?
Excuse my ignorance.
Thanks.
The entire concept is so overwhelmingly nebulous as to be
Clallam County is the only county in America where the position of Community Development Director is elected rather than appointed.
I wasn't aware of that. Would there be a cost benefit if it wasn't an elected position?
I'd suggest appointing David Fox.
"...and not make us look so odd and backwards."
I found this part of your statement really hilarious Watcher. You do realize you're talking about Port Angeles, don't you? I know, I know. At least we're not Quilcene, but still ...
Folks, there is no such thing as economical development here, just shut the gates so others can't move here and learn how to get by in a beautiful area without over populating it. Share with each other and you'll have all you need.
BBC...Well, there wouldn't have to be an election of any sort if it was changed. But, there'd have to be money spent on a search, interviews, etc.
However, my concern is the cost of having unqualified people doing this job for four years at a shot. When you look at the salary and benefits involved, and the costs of having someone in the job doing nothing...I'd say there would be cost savings to having it be appointed. (And it could only help our county to be in line with the entire rest of the country. That way we might actually draw in applicants for the job with - gasp! - real experience and/or skills in this area.)
Now hold on a minute there Watcher. Who is going to do the appointing for this position?
Oh yeah, your Liberal friends on the city council. Sherri Kidd and Max Mania, they'll do the appointing, won't they? You bet they will and you bet they'll put some fellow lib-commie in!
Watcher, you spout off an awful lot and the Constitution says you can so that's that. But you aren't fooling anyone with your talk and you sure as hell ain't taking away We The PEOPLE's sacred right to cast a ballot!!!! No sir!
And speaking of aggitating, just wait till next November when We The PEOPLE agitate some of you libs off the City Council!!!
Well said, We The People! This is a typical Lib attitude from this "Watcher." The Libs know better than you. No need for silly elections. We'll appoint the "right" people. Anything to curtail your rights and promote their socialist agenda.
So the entire rest of the country is WRONG on this issue, and we in Clallam County are the only true and free place? All because we have ONE position that's elected instead of appointed?
Uh, okay.
Oh, and by the way: This is a COUNTY position being discussed, so the City Council wouldn't be doing the appointing. Not that I mean to imply that you don't have your facts straight...
Oh, and by the way again: No City Council positions are up for election this November. But you knew that - right?
"Also, once elected, the job is theirs for four years - essentially no matter what. It's VERY difficult to have someone removed from elected office."
Yes, but you could say that about anybody... from Community Development Director to Treasurer to Senator to President of the United States. Where would we draw a line at?
That's one thing that really got me during the Madsen Hissyfit period. The city manager was appointed, not elected. He seemed to have more power than the elected mayor. He then threw a tantrum and took a bunch of taxpayer money. The voters didn't have any say in the matter whatsoever, and because we have a weak mayor system, it seemed like we didn't have much say in what went on in our own town. I was, to put it mildly, a little disgusted.
Appointments sound great and all, but I'd be worried about a lack of accountability. I agree utter incompetents get elected all the time, but I there's so much cronyism and stupidity out there I have doubts appointed officials would all be competent. I agree plenty of damage could be done in four years, but I'd be worried that an appointed official wouldn't actually leave, either through weakness on the council's part or because it would just cost too much. And, again, you could say that about any position.
So are you dropping by the fountain to cheer Jackson on? He'll do a good job, he's really good at that shit when he doesn't get too far out there.
I didn't stop today cuz I wuz dragging the boat behind me, looks like he has a cozy little center set up though.
I know that I pitch shit on him at times but he's a good man.
PA Nerd...Once again, you're talking about CITY problems. The job in question here is a COUNTY position. Not that there aren't problems with both, but, technically, they are very different indeed.
Here's a question for you, Watcher. The question I am posing to you is one of personal ethics and a broad moral code. While I am framing in a hypothetical sense, it could be real and I'd appreciate your comments on it.
Say, for instance, there's a person on the City Council of a small, struggling post-industrial town (not unlike Port Angeles) who ran on a platform of reform and personal integrity. This person narrowly defeated an opponent who was, fairly or unfairly, portrayed as an odious Cruella DeVille tarred with cronyism and a backward vision for this little, sad town.
Now, there's a little community blog, not sponsored or necessarily approved of by various civic institutions, which is viewed as either a menace or a vital forum of free speech for the community.
Further, this seemingly honest, reform-minded City Council person begins writing a series of posts under an alias on that unofficial community blog filled with snarky comments on fellow City Council members past and present, not to mention various heads of various civic departments as well as revealing the inner workings of City Hall.
Now my question to you is this: Isn't this rather unethical of this City Council person, especially one who has based their campaign on honesty and integrity?
Again, I must add that I am framing a hypothetical question and that any coincidence between people, places and things in my question and reality is just that - a coincidence.
I'll be interested in your responce, Watcher.
EC
I'm watching this (but not THE watcher) and you seem very much on the verge of trying to OUT the Watcher. However, I don't care who s/he is. I like to read the thoughts, the ideas, and get information that I might, or might not agree with. I enjoy the Watcher, as well as other posters (annon and named) and don't care who they are, or what they do.
Why are you so intent on calling someone out? What is YOUR agenda, here?
I'd like to know what the penalty is for "vaguely insulting" a City Council person. Or, for that matter, good old fashioned insulting a City Council person. Boss Mania is incredibly thin-skinned.
"I'll be interested in your responce, Watcher."
You misspelled "response."
Thanks!
No, no - those are fakes!!! I am the ORIGINAL Watcher!
No, I'M the REAL Watcher!
Or maybe the point is...On an anonymous blog, an anonymous place to exchange ideas and information, we are ALL "The Watcher."
More snark from the Watcher, which we've come to expect, yet no response to my question.
A review of the Watcher's postings reveals a series of uniquely strong opinions on various heads of civic departments and City Council members. Glen Cutler and Jeff Lincoln, to name a few, have been routinely raked over the coals. City Councilman Pat Downie has been refered to as "weak and unreliable" and City Councilman Don Perry has been refered to as "going along to get along" and cast as a pawn of former City Council members Larry Williams and Karen Rogers. Brooke Nelson gets passing mention as part of the old guard, real estate clique. Cherie Kidd and Mayor Dan di Guilio are the good guys on the council.
But the Watcher has made a curious and glaring omissiion: never once has The Watcher posted an opinion on City Councilman Max Mania. Not once. Not ever. So many strong opions on so many civic leaders and department heads and not one single opinion on Max Mania.
So who is The Watcher? Someone who began posting shortly after the City Council elections. Someone with an intimate connection to and knowledge of the inner workings of the City Council and various city departments. Someone who clearly doesn't like former members of the City Council, especially Larry, Karen and Edna.
The Watcher is not some clerk in the Records Office nor some guy at the DMV, but someone with a deep connection to the city and how the city runs. Someone whose colleagues might take umbrage at being refered to as "weak and unreliable" and "going along to get along."
Three guesses who the Watcher is!
My guess is that The Watcher is Tom Callis from the PDN. He fits the description, and has deep knowledge of City issues from his years of covering them.
In other news...SOMEONE is sure worried about the identities of people here. But, as a previous poster asked, WHY?
Isn't this supposed to be an ANONYMOUS forum, Tom? I'm just saying!
Why are you so evasive, Watcher? Why can't you answer this poster's question? How is it you know so much about city goverment? What is it you've got to hide?
I love it. Anonymous posters who can't even be bothered to come up with a fake name asking why another anonymous poster doesn't reveal who they are.
People: The Watcher could be Max Mania. The Watcher could be Karen Rogers. The Watcher could be Larry Williams. The Watcher could be Betsy Wharton. The Watcher could be Andrew May. The Watcher could be Glenn Cutler. The Watcher could be Paul Gottlieb. The Watcher could be Tom Callis. The Watcher could be Tom Harper. The Watcher could be ALL of the people listed above - or NONE of them. Until Tom starts asking posters for their ID when they come in, we'll all just have to live with the mystery.
This is an ANONYMOUS blog. It's a place to express opinions. Anyone who takes anything here too seriously is missing the point. I personally take everything here with a grain of salt. Most of what gets posted here is just people goofing around and rambling on. Which means that The Watcher might also be...David Fox.
Ethical Challenger : I’m usually not one to point out spelling errors, but your tag should read Ethically Challenged … you’re phony “detective” work and stupid accusations mark you as just another dishonest Klallam Kounty republican with a little too much time on your hands. Anybody within a 50 mile radius of PA knows that “DEAR EDNA” is a self serving hag with a bad haircut. Or that Don Perry is a wimp. Or that Larry Williams is the same creepy prick he was in High School…
Port Angeles is one place you do not want to move to. If someone has good standing in the community they can get away with murder..because they are nice people. How could a community support a doctor who murders babies? The baby's parents must have deeply hated you people. Nice guys can kill! Even if you don't think he murdered the baby you should have supported the parents who weren't even allowed to be present because of a decision the "doctor" made. It is not his place to keep things from the parents. Your dumb town should be ashamed of themselves for putting their personal friendships ahead of the evidence. He suffocated that baby and you let him get away with it because you know him..his intentions have nothing to do with the fact that the parents lost a child that was alive when it was with the doctor. If it was your baby would you still have supported him? Of course not, but since its not your baby its not murder its compassion.
Anonymous 12:18 PM
You need to check the schedule - I dont think this is stupid unfounded accusation day.... of course, you may have gotten an internal memo from "Ethically Challenged" ...what a bunch of dopes.
Watcher, Watcher, Watcher. Or should I say "Max, Max, Max"?
First of all your cry of "Isn't this an anonymous blog?" is an admission of guilt, Max. And saying "don't take anything seriously because it's an anonymous blog" sounds like you're setting up your legal defense. Why not just say "The Devil made me do it"?
You haven't refuted any of the points in my case that you, Max Mania are posting insider information and trash talk under an assumed name.
"The Watcher" could not be any of those people you mentioned (other than yourself, Max Mania and I will briefly re-state why:
"The Watcher" began posting shortly after the results of the Petersen-Mania election where finalized.
"The Watcher" knows a great deal about the inner workings of city government and various city departments, far and away more than any mere clerk or ex-city official would know. Indeed, "The Watcher" seems to have sat in on executive sessions of City Council and meetings with various city department heads that were not open to the public.
"The Watcher's" postings on the appointment of Brad Collins to City Council show he had an insiders view of the process.
"The Watcher" has strong opinions of people of the City Council yet never once mentioned Max Mania. Why? Indeed, the opinions of "The Watcher" and the opinions of Max Mania are entirely the same. there's no daylight between the two of them.
"The Watcher" is clearly someone on the City Council. There's no way anyone else can possess the facts and understanding of how city government works, I mean the inner workings, the executive sessions and private meetings, unless "The Watcher" were a current member of the City Council.
Given that the opinions and prjudices of "The Watcher" and those of Max mania are exact to the Nth degree, and all the other evidence, there is one person and only one person "The Watcher" can be: Max Mania.
And so I will pose my as yet unanswered question again: is it proper for a member of the City Council to post insider information and to trash talk fellow Council members and city department managers under an assumed name?
The Watcher/Max Mania simply cannot answer this question. At least not here. Perhaps someone ought to as you in a more official capacity, get your answer down on record.
Dear Ethical Challenger ,
Considering nobody knows who you are, (And in your gutless republican way you’re sure not telling) don’t you think all this Mania/Watcher crap is just a little bit hypocritical? I mean identify yourself before you demand someone else does , you chickenshit.
So, is the Ethical Challenger Dick Pilling? All the earmarks are there...his posts are kinda creepy (just like dick) stupid and illogical (just like dick) dishonest and hypocritical (just like dick) not to be confused with MR Fox (who just likes dick)
"...is it proper for a member of the City Council to post insider information and to trash talk fellow Council members and city department managers under an assumed name?"
Oh, probably not. But it sure is fun! :)
I could go into all the reasons I KNOW that "Ethical Challenger" is _______ _______. But really, who cares? As someone else pointed out, anonymous postings demanding that someone else drop their anonymity smack of rich hypocrisy.
Which sort of robs "Ethical Challenger" of any ethical right to challenge anyone.
And so I will pose my as yet unanswered question again: is it proper for a member of the City Council to post insider information and to trash talk fellow Council members and city department managers under an assumed name?
I'm trying to play nice by asking you here, at the scene of your crimes, Max. You, and your uppity wife, seem to feel free to run your mouths whenever and wherever you want. Now you've strangely reluctant to talk, other than to accuse me of hypocrisy. Will it take a lawyer to get your tongue wagging again?
Don't say I didn't warn you.
Taking a wild guess - 'ethical challenger' is Karen Rogers.
Poor Ethical Challenger...Nobody but you even gives a shit.
All right! One anonymous poster is going to sue another anonymous poster! Can't wait for the judge to read that one. "Who's 'The Watcher'? Who's 'Ethical Challenger'? Are either of these here? What do you mean I have to visit the 'Port Angeles Online' blog for deliberations? Seriously, Mr. Prosecuting Attorney, is this some sort of a joke?"
"Are you sure you don't want to see my knife?"
"For the last time, I don't want to see your damn knife!"
Let me start by saying that I am not "The Watcher." I enjoy everybody's comments, occasionally make one of my own, and appreciate this blog as a free forum where we can all express our ideas.
First: Please, whoever "Ethical Challenger" is, lay off. It is none of your (or my) business who any poster is. That's the whole point of having a free blog. We're all able to vent a little, gripe a little, or whatever, without feeling as though we're under the gun for doing so.
Second: "Ethical Challenger," you crossed the line big time by referring to someone's "uppity wife." How dare you say such a thing, and expect to have any credibility left with anyone else? What an absolute jerk you are.
That said, I hope everyone continues to comment, and doesn't take the arrogance and uncalled-for threats of "Ethical Challenger" to heart. H/She is obviously someone who hasn't learned that you can't sue someone for saying you're ugly -- in a manner of speaking. :)
Ethical Challenger, thank you for the great detective work!
Your question goes unanswered, but I'll answer it: yes, it is unethical for someone on the council to be posting trash talk and inside information. That's why the "Watcher/Max" can't answer it and neither can his goons who immeidately filled the board with trash.
It'll be interesting to see if "Max/Watcher" dares to post any more garbage and gossip.
Hypocrisy?
Well, you'd know a whole lot about that Max!
Notice how the Mania Goon Squad never denies that Max and The Watcher are one and the same? They scream and they yell, they attempt to deflect, but no one ever says "Max is not the Watcher."
The best Max/Watcher can come up with is "don't take anything you read on an anonymous board seriously" which is a total admission of guilt.
Max, you're unemployed but you're going need a lawyer. David Fox works pro bono. You might want to give him a call!!!
To the ethical challenger and ethical challenger's goon squad (assuming they're all the same person) -- check out today's PDN letter section. A letter there is saying good things about Max.
You might have to send in a letter of your own, stating your disagreement. Oh, wait, if you get a letter published there, you have to come out of your hiding place and use your real name.
Forget it.
ETHICAL CHALLENGER seems to base her whole argument on one thing: "The Watcher has strong opinions of people of the City Council yet never once mentioned Max Mania..."
Please check a post by THE WATCHER on Nov. 5th: "Max Mania was a total unknown..." And another post on Nov. 14th: "We need to hold Larry Little, Max Mania and Pat Downie's feet to the fire..."
And so on. There are other mentions as well. So much for ETHICAL CHALLENGERS detective work.
I've got it! The Watcher has never ever once mentioned David R. Fox in any of his comments.
AND:
Notice, you've never seen The Watcher and David R. Fox together in the same place. Aha!
All right, David R. Fox, you're busted! Knock off these mean comments at this forum or Ethical Challenger is gonna sue your ass off.
Shut up everyone! If there was actually something actionable in any of Max Mania's (supposed) actions we'd be reading about it on the front page of the PDN. All we're seeing here is tiny minds coliding with huge egos. Move on to some real issues.
Anonymous 7:40PM:
AND we all know David R. Fox is taking off for Spokane. He says he's "running for office" but we all know he's running for cover!
But there's no escaping my wrath!!! Or my lawyers!!! I'll follow you all the way to Oz if I have to!!! UNLEASH THE FLYING MONKEYS!!!!!!!!
It's petty, bullshit sniping like this that's held Port Angeles back in the past. And it's petty, bullshit sniping like this that will hold Port Angeles back in the future.
Actually, I DID mention David Fox. But only because he shared his magic beans with me.
Jealousy is a terrible burden to bear, "Ethical Challenger." Obviously yours is making you act out in a fairly pathetic way.
From all the "evidence" presented, I would guess that "Ethical Challenger" is either a certain former member of the city council who is currently being investigated by the state auditor's office...or a certain employee of a certain local newspaper who has had some very public lapses of judgement...or the leader of a local political party who has tried to fix local elections. None of the likely candidates have much to offer in the way of ethics, which makes their chosen name not so appropriate.
is it proper for a member of the City Council to post insider information and to trash talk fellow Council members and city department managers under an assumed name?
I don't know... Is it proper to throw every contract imaginable to Exceltech and then take a job with them? (Whore)
I've been out of town and come back to all of this..! Kripes! I know it's late in the game but there's such an obvious suspect for "The Watcher" that I can't believe she hasn't been mentioned. She's the person Larry Williams warned us about in a letter to the editor: Norma Turner. She's knowledgable, connected and super-snoopy. So is SHirley Nixon for that matter. "The Watcher" name fits them too.
Someone who has been raked over the coals by the Watcher?
Someone tied to the (losing) slate of realtor-approved candidates last fall, and Edna in particular, and thus with a reason to hate Max Mania?
Someone used to getting her way by bullying?
Someone who is known to threaten people, cities and blogs with lawsuits?
Someone both comfortable and familiar with the politics of backstabbing and personal destruction?
Someone who has shown time and time again that her own moral compass spins wildly?
Someone who has the nerve to call herself "Ethical Challenger" without any sense of irony?
Golly, who COULD that someone be???
Someone who knows that Max Mania hasn't done anything illegal or immoral, but isn't letting that stop her from trying to bring down someone that THE PEOPLE of Port Angeles chose to represent them.
This certain greedy someone has always been best at representing her own personal interests.
Finally, even if there are members of the city council reading and/or posting here, I say GOOD! It's an improvement from the bad old days when a certain someone was on the council and everything was done in secret.
Edna and her Flying Monkey Squadron, Larry and his Losers, Karen and her Kooks, Dick and his Dimwits. It's all laughable.
watcher...too bad they don't all start bands!
Post a Comment
<< Home