The commissioners did not respond to yesterday's email inviting 4PA to present at a future work session. Here is today's question (all 3 commissioners can be reached by emailing the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov):
Dear Commissioners,
When county commissioners tell residents to “ask the NGOs” how taxpayer money is being spent, but those same NGOs don’t provide clear answers — and aren’t subject to public records laws — what exactly is the proper path for the public to get real information? If the county is the one writing the checks, why aren’t you using that leverage to require straightforward reporting, measurable results, and timely responses before approving or renewing millions in funding? At what point does the responsibility for transparency fall back on the commissioners who control the contracts?
"When an NGO CEO can flip a commissioner’s question back at him" -- in an employee/employer relationship, that sort of attitude and answer would result in immediate disciplinary action, if not termination. Ms. Sisk treated commissioner Johnson as her employee -- and he allowed it. Is it any wonder why the tail is wagging the dog in Clallam County?
She might as well said this is what the globalist water buffalo lodge wants and if you want a slap on the back next time you go there for votes or anything else, you better follow the doctrine.
Hiding their stuff is the norm now. They realize there are 10-15 people with 10 levels of flubber and magic bean detection.
Its how they survive the 21 different policy positions.
The NGO says dis dat and de udder ting. For instance. The PSP/NODC/SERN SAYS We don't want growth in rural areas and we want to transfer all growth to the UGA.
Then it becomes Emery's job and monkey's consortium's to make that happen. They can't just say no more growth in rural area's because that is a constitutional challenge they would lose. So The split the hair and say RV use is allowed if its temporary RV use. They have to finagle the codes to make it an environmental application to permanent RV use to make it worse than temporary RV use. Of course that is flubber and magic bean policy. RV use is RV use. The Environment won't know the difference if the self contained unit is emptied if its there permanently. But, the goal of diverting growth to UGA is accomplished. That's how its been for 14 years now. The NGO decides the policy and the consortium has to contort to it like a game of twister with a right foot on blue and a left foot on yellow. Or a left foot on blue and a right foot on yellow, regarding the same issue in many cases. That's why they have 21 or more different policy positions. It is also why they hide documents and background screens.
The question asked in your letter: “If a resident of North View uses drugs or alcohol, will they be permitted to continue residing there? If so, under what conditions?”
An acknowledgment “You also provided an example in which someone using meth might be encouraged to reduce consumption rather than cease entirely”
There are no conditions that can be sited for knowingly allowing drug use. It is against Wa State Laws. Supportive Housing cannot rewrite State Laws to fit a program that would be against the law. Wendy is not above the law. There are penalties for breaking the laws for unlawful use of a building which would allow drug use. There can be NO drug paraphernalia in the building regardless if is given to the tenants by Harm Reduction.
Unlawful use of building for drug purposes—Liability of owner or manager—Penalty.
(1) It is unlawful for any person who has under his or her management or control any building, room, space, or enclosure, EITHER AS AN OWNER, LESSEE, AGENT, employee, or mortgagee,TO KNOWINGLY RENT, LEASE, OR MAKE AVAILABLE FOR USE, WITH OR WITHOUT COMPENSATION, THE BUILDING, ROOM, SPACE, OR ENCLOSURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURING, DELIVERING, SELLING, STORING, OR GIVING AWAY ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE under chapter 69.50 RCW, legend drug under chapter 69.41 RCW, or imitation controlled substance under chapter 69.52 RCW.
(2) It shall be a defense for an owner, manager, or other person in control pursuant to subsection (1) of this section to, in good faith, NOTIFY A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF SUSPECTED DRUG ACTIVITY pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, OR TO PROCESS AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION FOR DRUG-RELATED ACTIVITY AGAINST THE TENANT OR OCCUPANT.
(3) A violation of this section is a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
RCW 69.50.102 DRUG PARAPHERNALIA – DEFINITION.
(11) [(k)] Hypodermic syringes, needles, and other objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in parenterally injecting controlled substances into the human body;
RCW 69.41.040 PRESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS-PENALTY
(1) A prescription, in order to be effective in legalizing the possession of legend drugs, must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by one authorized to prescribe the use of such legend drugs.
Wow, Jennifer. You answered a direct question and backed it with research. You'd never make it in county government or in the NGO industry, but you're hired as a CC Watchdog correspondent. Thanks!
Thanks Jeff, IMO all of Clallam County taxpayers "own" the Supportive Housing. As owners, we are legally obliged to report any drug use. There is no wiggle room under "tolerated drug use" which is what is being shoved down our throats.
If your a diabetic they will lock up the Twinkies. If your an addict you're helpless and weak and in need of bureaucratic assistance....at 5 grand a week to play hide and seek in an NGO.
Diabetes (type 2 especially) is treated as a medical condition requiring personal responsibility and strict behavioral change (diet, exercise, meds). Lapses (eating junk food) are seen as poor self-control, and people are urged to "just stop" harmful habits. Society rarely excuses ongoing poor management as "inevitable" or "a disease they can't help."
Addiction (substance use disorder) is also a chronic brain disease (per medical consensus), but stigma frames it as a moral failing or character weakness ("they're just weak and can keep doing their thing"). This leads to blame, punishment, and less compassion compared to diabetes or heart disease.
Research shows this stigma is widespread: Many people don't view substance use disorder (SUD) as a chronic illness like diabetes—over 75% in some surveys see it as a personal choice or moral issue, which reduces support for treatment and increases blame.
The inconsistency stems from moralization of addiction: It's tied to "bad choices," pleasure-seeking, or deviance, unlike diabetes (seen as more "biological" or accidental). This makes addiction more stigmatized, leading to harsher judgments.
Harm Reduction and the "Halo Effect" Critique
Harm reduction (e.g., needle exchanges, supervised consumption sites, naloxone distribution, safer supply, or even moderated use programs) prioritizes reducing immediate harms (overdose, disease transmission, death) over immediate abstinence. It meets people where they are, without requiring them to "stop" first.
Critics (including some moral/religious perspectives and those who see it as enabling) argue it creates a halo effect in these ways:
It can put a positive "glow" on continued use by framing it as "safer" or "responsible," potentially downplaying long-term risks or the need for full recovery.
It might reduce moral stigma around use (e.g., "if society provides clean needles or tested drugs, it must not be that bad"), leading to less pressure for change and more normalization of the behavior—similar to how the "functional addict" halo lets people hide in plain sight.
Some view it as permissive or "enabling weakness," contrasting with the strict "just stop" expectation for diabetics. Critics say this sends a mixed message: "Addicts are too weak to quit, so we'll help them use 'better'"—which can feel like lowering standards or excusing moral failing.
The commissioners did not respond to yesterday's email inviting 4PA to present at a future work session. Here is today's question (all 3 commissioners can be reached by emailing the Clerk of the Board at loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov):
Dear Commissioners,
When county commissioners tell residents to “ask the NGOs” how taxpayer money is being spent, but those same NGOs don’t provide clear answers — and aren’t subject to public records laws — what exactly is the proper path for the public to get real information? If the county is the one writing the checks, why aren’t you using that leverage to require straightforward reporting, measurable results, and timely responses before approving or renewing millions in funding? At what point does the responsibility for transparency fall back on the commissioners who control the contracts?
"When an NGO CEO can flip a commissioner’s question back at him" -- in an employee/employer relationship, that sort of attitude and answer would result in immediate disciplinary action, if not termination. Ms. Sisk treated commissioner Johnson as her employee -- and he allowed it. Is it any wonder why the tail is wagging the dog in Clallam County?
She might as well said this is what the globalist water buffalo lodge wants and if you want a slap on the back next time you go there for votes or anything else, you better follow the doctrine.
Hiding their stuff is the norm now. They realize there are 10-15 people with 10 levels of flubber and magic bean detection.
Its how they survive the 21 different policy positions.
The NGO says dis dat and de udder ting. For instance. The PSP/NODC/SERN SAYS We don't want growth in rural areas and we want to transfer all growth to the UGA.
Then it becomes Emery's job and monkey's consortium's to make that happen. They can't just say no more growth in rural area's because that is a constitutional challenge they would lose. So The split the hair and say RV use is allowed if its temporary RV use. They have to finagle the codes to make it an environmental application to permanent RV use to make it worse than temporary RV use. Of course that is flubber and magic bean policy. RV use is RV use. The Environment won't know the difference if the self contained unit is emptied if its there permanently. But, the goal of diverting growth to UGA is accomplished. That's how its been for 14 years now. The NGO decides the policy and the consortium has to contort to it like a game of twister with a right foot on blue and a left foot on yellow. Or a left foot on blue and a right foot on yellow, regarding the same issue in many cases. That's why they have 21 or more different policy positions. It is also why they hide documents and background screens.
The question asked in your letter: “If a resident of North View uses drugs or alcohol, will they be permitted to continue residing there? If so, under what conditions?”
An acknowledgment “You also provided an example in which someone using meth might be encouraged to reduce consumption rather than cease entirely”
There are no conditions that can be sited for knowingly allowing drug use. It is against Wa State Laws. Supportive Housing cannot rewrite State Laws to fit a program that would be against the law. Wendy is not above the law. There are penalties for breaking the laws for unlawful use of a building which would allow drug use. There can be NO drug paraphernalia in the building regardless if is given to the tenants by Harm Reduction.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.53.010
RCW 69.53.010
Unlawful use of building for drug purposes—Liability of owner or manager—Penalty.
(1) It is unlawful for any person who has under his or her management or control any building, room, space, or enclosure, EITHER AS AN OWNER, LESSEE, AGENT, employee, or mortgagee,TO KNOWINGLY RENT, LEASE, OR MAKE AVAILABLE FOR USE, WITH OR WITHOUT COMPENSATION, THE BUILDING, ROOM, SPACE, OR ENCLOSURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURING, DELIVERING, SELLING, STORING, OR GIVING AWAY ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE under chapter 69.50 RCW, legend drug under chapter 69.41 RCW, or imitation controlled substance under chapter 69.52 RCW.
(2) It shall be a defense for an owner, manager, or other person in control pursuant to subsection (1) of this section to, in good faith, NOTIFY A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF SUSPECTED DRUG ACTIVITY pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, OR TO PROCESS AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION FOR DRUG-RELATED ACTIVITY AGAINST THE TENANT OR OCCUPANT.
(3) A violation of this section is a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
RCW 69.50.102 DRUG PARAPHERNALIA – DEFINITION.
(11) [(k)] Hypodermic syringes, needles, and other objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in parenterally injecting controlled substances into the human body;
RCW 69.41.040 PRESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS-PENALTY
(1) A prescription, in order to be effective in legalizing the possession of legend drugs, must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by one authorized to prescribe the use of such legend drugs.
Wow, Jennifer. You answered a direct question and backed it with research. You'd never make it in county government or in the NGO industry, but you're hired as a CC Watchdog correspondent. Thanks!
Thanks Jeff, IMO all of Clallam County taxpayers "own" the Supportive Housing. As owners, we are legally obliged to report any drug use. There is no wiggle room under "tolerated drug use" which is what is being shoved down our throats.
If your a diabetic they will lock up the Twinkies. If your an addict you're helpless and weak and in need of bureaucratic assistance....at 5 grand a week to play hide and seek in an NGO.
They have given addicts a "halo effect."
The Double Standard: Diabetes vs. Addiction
Diabetes (type 2 especially) is treated as a medical condition requiring personal responsibility and strict behavioral change (diet, exercise, meds). Lapses (eating junk food) are seen as poor self-control, and people are urged to "just stop" harmful habits. Society rarely excuses ongoing poor management as "inevitable" or "a disease they can't help."
Addiction (substance use disorder) is also a chronic brain disease (per medical consensus), but stigma frames it as a moral failing or character weakness ("they're just weak and can keep doing their thing"). This leads to blame, punishment, and less compassion compared to diabetes or heart disease.
Research shows this stigma is widespread: Many people don't view substance use disorder (SUD) as a chronic illness like diabetes—over 75% in some surveys see it as a personal choice or moral issue, which reduces support for treatment and increases blame.
The inconsistency stems from moralization of addiction: It's tied to "bad choices," pleasure-seeking, or deviance, unlike diabetes (seen as more "biological" or accidental). This makes addiction more stigmatized, leading to harsher judgments.
Harm Reduction and the "Halo Effect" Critique
Harm reduction (e.g., needle exchanges, supervised consumption sites, naloxone distribution, safer supply, or even moderated use programs) prioritizes reducing immediate harms (overdose, disease transmission, death) over immediate abstinence. It meets people where they are, without requiring them to "stop" first.
Critics (including some moral/religious perspectives and those who see it as enabling) argue it creates a halo effect in these ways:
It can put a positive "glow" on continued use by framing it as "safer" or "responsible," potentially downplaying long-term risks or the need for full recovery.
It might reduce moral stigma around use (e.g., "if society provides clean needles or tested drugs, it must not be that bad"), leading to less pressure for change and more normalization of the behavior—similar to how the "functional addict" halo lets people hide in plain sight.
Some view it as permissive or "enabling weakness," contrasting with the strict "just stop" expectation for diabetics. Critics say this sends a mixed message: "Addicts are too weak to quit, so we'll help them use 'better'"—which can feel like lowering standards or excusing moral failing.